Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, 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.

ns12

ns4

stigmata song draft

someone please review my created article stigmata? thanks.Camcamhamham (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Camcamhamham! Articles for Creation is pretty backlogged right now, so it may take some time to get to a review of your article. To be fair to people who have been waiting, the AfC reviewers usually start with the oldest drafts and work their way forward. Just be patient and edit other topics until they get to you. One thing I can tell you, though, is that the title you want for your article already exists, Try "Stigmata (Ab-Soul song)". Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Logo Images

I have updated a logo that represents VxWorks and completed the form but got a message that there was a problem. Mt attempts have been deleted. I am not sure how I am suppose to tag this image to make it acceptable.Robpater (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Robpater, it appears that it was deleted because it's the same as "File:VxWorks symbol by Wind River Systems.png". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

best way to find articles that need edits, that also match my interests

My interests are as follows: US politics, economics, fantasy and science fiction, sustainable development, social media, biology, and internet culture. What's the best way to quickly find articles in my interest area that need my help? I want to edit other people's articles for awhile before writing my own article.

NerdGirl1988 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi NerdGirl1988 and welcome back to the Teahouse. I don't think that anyone could accuse you of having too narrow a set of interests! You might like to join some of the WP:Wikiprojects associated with these topics - a couple to start you off - Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction, WP:Wikiproject Politics. There is a complete list here. You should find plenty of like-minded people at the projects you choose and plenty of scope for your talents. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Linking words internally to wikipedia

If my article uses words that relate to articles already published in wikipedia, should I make those links in my article or will they be made by someone else? Also, if I refer to an institution, such as a university, should I provide the external link to that university? Sustainable Happiness 15:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanGDMurray (talk • contribs)

Hi Ian - Yes important words should be linked to their Wikipedia articles, but avoid overlinking - do not link common words, or major geographical features, and only link the first use - The main guidance is at Manual of Style/Linking.
We do not include External links in the bodytext of articles, and most, if not all, universities will have their own WP article, making this unnecessary. Look at a similar article, preferably one on the list in Good articles for the level of linking required. Arjayay (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Tool to order citations numerically

Hi! I was wondering if there was a tool to order the citations at the end of a sentence from: "I like pancakes.[32][15][9]" to "I like pancakes.[9][15][32] Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

re-instating deleted articles

Hello,

Some weeks ago a created two articles on footballers - sadly, these were deleted as they hadnt made a "Professional League Appearance"

With one of them likely to do so this season, can artilces be re-instated or will I / Someone have to do another..

ProudSalopian (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ProudSalopian. Once the player has appeared, and been written about, you can write an article about them, but probably not just on the expectation that they will appear. See WP:NSPORT for the appropriate criteria. When you think that they have achieved the required notability, if you want to start from your deleted copy, you can ask the admin who deleted the article to userfy it for you. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

External links

I've been cleaning up inline links and moved a couple to the External links section. Is there a convention for linking the main content with the external link? (It can't be a reference because it's material written by the subject and wouldn't be regarded as independent). MF SarahHorner (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah and welcome back to the Teahouse. There is nothing to stop you using this as a reference to provide information, as long as there are other references that establish the notabiity of the topic. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Philg88. I might have to quote you on that in my next discussion with a reviewer ;) MF SarahHorner (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:) It's important to realize that topic notability is the key. Once that has been established via suitable referencing, the job of the information in the article is to remain on topic in support of that premise. References are required to establish de facto notabiity, but beyond that, unless claims are made that require citation (Most academics agree ... etc), information from any source that does does not breach Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be used. The website of a car manufacturer for example, can be used as a reference for a particular model, because that is probably the most comprehensive source of information. On the other hand, establishing that the model itself is notable requires third-party sources. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing Infobox OS

When I add a line to this box in an existing article it does not show up in the read mode. How do I edit the template. I also noticed that some existing lines in the box are visible in edit mode but not read?Robpater (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robpater - it's always good to give as many details as you can. For example, providing the line of code you're having trouble with is useful. You can also link to the edit itself, which is obtainable from the page's history.

Anyway, I'm assuming you're referring to this edit, where you tried to add a "supported host" parameter. That's not a proper parameter for the infobox; you can see a list of accepted parameters at Template:Infobox OS. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edited article without explanation

Someone reverted my edited article without explanation. What should I do? I have been updating VxWorks to refect the latest version and I added a VxWorks icon which caused speedy deletion message. I thought I corrcted the issue, and I am not sure if it is related. I would have thought removal of the image not reverting the article would be the action. How do I followup to find out why this happened. The user's name is The Banner - no information on the VxWorks talk page??? Robpater (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robpater and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits to VxWorks were reverted by TheBanner as "promo / unsourced". It would be best to discuss the reasons behind this on the article's talk page.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Rob, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Banner did give an explanation for their reversion to VxWorks. Their explanation was Revert promo / unsourced edits. To expand on that, everything that you add to an article on Wikipedia either has to be incontestable general public knowledge, or it has to have citations to independent reliable sources. THis is part of what we call the BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS process. Now it's your turn to discuss the changes on the article's talk page and reach a consensus about what parts of the content should be re-added. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Philip. I have explained the changes on the talk page and have got all information from Wind River's page so the information is accurate - but the reverter has not communicated there - just did it? I have re-installed the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robpater (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC+9)

Thanks Tech13. I did add sources for the changes (ie for features at the same level as the ones that was there before) - all the material is available to the public. How should I find out what more should be done?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robpater (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC+9)

Hello, Robpater. Looking at the diffs, it seems to me that you added a mixture of things, some fine and some not, and The Banner simply reverted them all. The immediate thing that leaps out at me is "VRTX had quality issues, was 4KB, small in size, lacked critical features, and was generally not up to par as a full-blown RTOS. Wind River acquired rights to distribute VRTX and significantly enhanced it by adding, among other things". This is full of evaluative language, which does not belong any where in a Wikipedia article unless it is directly taken from a referenced, reliable, independent source. Since that all comes from an interview with Jerry Fiddler, it is not independent, and should not appear. I also observe that you have introduced '®' symbols: these are not used in Wikipedia articles (see MOS:TM).

I suggest you make small uncontroversial changes in separate edits, and discuss any major or possibly contentious changes on the talk page, to get consensus before making the change. --ColinFine (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. That's what I am doing now. Note that the issue you highlighted was already in the article and I removed it. The revert put it back in. I'm making headway (2 sections) but it is frustrating as the material I have added is accurate while some of what is there is obsolete. Banner felt the tone was not neutral and there were too many references to the Wind River info page. My problem is rel 7 is new and there is not a lot of 3rd party references. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My mistake ... I did not edit that sentence out in my last version that got revertedRobpater (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I add an infobox from sandbox into the article I'm drafting?

How do I add the infobox I created in my sandbox to the article I'm drafting? (I can't seem to figure out how to add an infobox to the article,let alone how to import the one I created in my sandbox.) Thanks!Blitzenrupff (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Blitzenrupff: Hey Blitzenrupff. Just copy all of the code from your sandbox (except "{{User sandbox}}" and "<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->" of course), go to the draft article, paste it at the top, then click save. Yep, that simple. I suspect the issue you were having is that templates are often transcluded or substituted from where they reside to a new location, but what you have in your sandbox is not a template you created but an existing template that you filled out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It worked! Thanks, Fughettaboutit. Much appreciated!Blitzenrupff (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How to set up properly citing templates at custom wikipedia

Dear wikipedists, I can't wrap my head around the possibility of setting up citing templates at my own wiki in a manner similar to the regular wikipedia. What I want to do is to just type in text <ref>{{cite doi | 10.doi}} </ref> and than in the references section </references> resulting in a nice formated citation used throughout the wikipedia. Which templates should I create and what should I fill them in with? I'm quite lost.94.113.101.41 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a few very tech savvy people who can answer this question much better than I – maybe they'll drop by – but in the meantime, since your question seems to be languishing, here's a partial answer to the best of my ability. Many templates cite other templates so you have to import every template that is involved. You also have to enable all of the extensions that the templates run on. In order to set up and use the <ref> elements and <references />, you must enable mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php. To use cite doi as is, it looks like you will have to import also {{Fullurl}} (and any templates it uses); {{Doi}} (and any templates it uses); and so on and I see a whole bunch of other templates and modules transcluded on that page when I go here and scroll down to a list, and I don't know if you need to import those and everythinng they use in turn and so on in some sort of deeper and deeper nesting, Matryoshka doll nightmare. Hope this helps a little bit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. There is a mediaWiki help forum at mw:Project:Support desk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I find a volunteer to have a wiki page edited, updated, and written better? Thanks

How does one go about having a wiki page improved i.e. adding a photo, improve the writing and information as well as update? It's a bout a race car driver. Thanks!190.238.199.210 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome (back?) to the Teahouse 190.238.199.210! You can't necessarily get someone to "volunteer" to have a wiki page edited, but you can get someone from the Guild of Copy Editors to improve your articles' writing, like you said. Maybe some more experienced Wikipedians know if there are "volunteers" on Wikipedia. Cheers! WooHoo! • Talk to BrandonWu! 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, you can do it yourself if you have the time, suitable reference material, and the inclination. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that all sorts of people can contribute to it. Click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page you want to change, then "Show preview" once you're done to be sure it worked like you intended before Saving your changes. Registering as a user is optional, but recommended. Need help? Click on the "Help" link at left, or of course you can ask here... --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I resize an image?

I succeeded in uploading an image and inserting it into the draft article. But I only want it to be a thumbnail. Is there a nifty piece of code which can alter the size?

MF SarahHorner (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MF SarahHorner and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use code like this [[File:YOURFILENAME.XXX|thumb|250px|right|Type your caption here]]. You can change right to left depending which side of the page you want the image. Hope this helps!  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@MF SarahHorner: (e/c) Hey Sarah just place in the image code "|NUMBER px", e.g.,

[[File:Val Hennessy, journalist, portrait by Phyllis Dupuy.jpg|thumb|300 px|Val Hennessy, journalist, portrait by Phyllis Dupuy]]

You can just copy and paste that and then play with the number of px, but please note the following fixes: I took out "framed", I took out the stray "]" next to "thumbnail", and changed that to just "thumb", and I removed the URL from the description. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philg88 andFuhghettaboutit - thank you for your response - yes, I discovered that I had to take out the framed option to get the 'thumb' to work. How good to know it was as simple as that. I do try and find the answer elsewhere before I ask a Teahouse question, but it's great knowing there's a place to ask. MF SarahHorner (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's what the Teahouse is here for. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why was my article called self-promotional & subsequently deleted?

Hi teahouse - thanks ahead. I submitted an article about fundraising for a little girl with SanFillipo Syndrome. It is a rare genetic disease & her parents took to GoFundMe to raise money for the clinical trials needed (in essence it is an orphan drug). They recently broke the crowd funding record on GoFundMe (by using a video that went viral) & have also been on many local, national & international news outlets (The Today Show (NBC), 60 Minutes Australia) to name a few. Can someone help me out? This article has absolutely nothing to do with me and can be restructured to talk about breaking a fundraising record, if I wasn't clear enough about that in the original article. Oddly, not only was it rejected, it was marked for speedy deletion? Thank you. -HopeHopesypert (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hopesypert, what was the title of the article you created? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hopesypert. Although every draft article is judged individually, I think that most experienced editors are likely to be skeptical of an article about a fundraising campaign to raise money for medical research to benefit one sick child. Please read the policy page What Wikipedia is not with attention to sections 2.3 and 2.5. Instead, you might want to consider improving the article about Sanfilippo syndrome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

can i make a wiki page for someone not famous?

Wassim mallouli (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC) hi, i just want to know if i can make a wikipedia page for someone not famous or someone that if you google him you can't find him. suggestion: wikipedia for everyone! it must need time but i think it's a good idea (it's only a suggestion)Wassim mallouli (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wassim mallouli and welcome to the Teahouse! Creating an article for someone not famous/notable would be going against Wikipedia's notability policy which says that you must have multiple significant, independent, and reliable sources to pass the notability requirement. Especially biographies of living people. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

To expand a little bit on the previous answer, notable as we use that term on Wikipedia is not the same as "famous", as that term is commonly used elsewhere. Many notable people are not at all famous. For example, all state and provincial legislators, and all Olympic athletes are considered notable. But most people wouldn't call the members of the Iowa state legislature in 1874 or members of the 1928 Norwegian Olympic team "famous". Feel free to write biographies of such people. Sources are out there, with sufficient digging. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328 for adding to my answer, that's what I meant to say. I shouldn't have used the two terms interchangeably. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

how do I delete an image I uploaded?

Hi there. I uploaded 3 logos to a page I was editing before I got the right size/shape. I now want to delete the logos I'm *not* using and keep just the *current* logo. Does anyone know how to do that? I got this message in my email so it looks like they'll be deleted anyway if I do nothing? Orphaned non-free image File:FSI Logo vertical RGB.jpg[edit] ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:FSI Logo vertical RGB.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)********* Ksg15 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ksg15 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your image is tagged because you need to use it in an article or it will be automatically deleted. You can't request deletion of old versions (assuming the latest has not been deleted), they are kept in perpetuity, which I think is kind of odd but that's the way it is. I recommend that you add the image to an article as soon as possible, then remove the tag.  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Switch redirects

How are redirects edited? I see a category that has a page within it but the extra page is not needed. The page title should match the category title or they should be switched. How can I make this change?Efbeechwood (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Which page/category are you referring to? This will help us give a better answer. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For example: when you search aluminum composite panels, it redirects to sandwich panel. This is inaccurate. It should be the other way around. There are many kinds of sandwich panels (insulated composite panels, fire core panels, etc.) but an ACP is an ACP. Efbeechwood (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Efbeechwood: You can edit the pages by using a URL like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:REDIR&redirect=no Just replace the "WP:REDIR" with whatever the page name is you're trying to edit; in your case it would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminium_composite_panels&redirect=no . dsprc ^[talk] 18:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, (if you want to avoid having to edit the url) when you search for the name of a redirect you will get the target page, with a "(redirected from whatsis)" hatnote. "Whatis" is a link to the redirect page, and then you can edit it normally from there. Revent (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Vague advice on 'promotional' articles

Hi,

My first few Wikipedia pages have all been met with the same response, that they are too 'promotional' - I have gone back through each of them and attempted to remove anything that might be considered promotional in tone or content and been met with the same response again. I wondered if anyone could offer more specific advice on what I need to do differently.

By way of reference, the drafts in question are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IGaming_Business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bluff_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jackpots_Review

Thanks. Alessandro Diamanti (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Alessandro. It all boils down to presenting the article in a neutral tone. Have you had a look at these guidelines?. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Alessandro Diamanti. I will comment on the first. It is not encyclopedic to call a magazine "award winning" in the first sentence, espcially when the award in question is a routine and non-notable industry award. Statements like "the sector's most widely-circulated print publication with a readership of more than 10,000 people in more than 40 different countries" raises the question, "who says so?" and must be cited to an independent source. Phrases like "key decision-makers" and "Its audience is comprised primarily of C-level executives and decision makers" are examples of promotional language that don't belong in an encyclopedia article.. We need to see references to significant coverage of the publication in independent, reliable sources, which are not yet in the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thanks for the reply. I would contest the description of the award in question as 'routine and non-notable', but I accept that it could be moved lower down than the first line. With regards to the readership, do you know if there is an equivalent of something like ABC circulation figures for trade press? If so, I'll look there. Finally, I'll remove those 'promotional' phrases before I submit it again, as per your suggestion. Thanks.

Alessandro Diamanti (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Article rejection

Hi Teahouse - I am a Qmee user and noticed they don't have a Wiki page. I wrote one out and I don't want it to read like an ad at all - I think it would just be useful for people who are thinking of using it for the first time, but it was rejected for being too promotional! Do you have any advice on how to change this? Anything I've received so far has just been very vague! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Qmee&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks Yelaness (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Yelaness, welcome to the TeaHouse. You seem to have had a previous contribution about Qmee deleted for being too promotional, but Draft:Qmee has not been deleted, it has merely been declined for not providing sufficient references to independent reliable sources that talk about Qmee in detail. You can learn more about those requirements by clicking the links in the decline reason on the draft page itself.

To comment briefly on the references you do have so far on that page; Qmee's FAQ is obviously not independent (it's what the organisation says about itself); the lovemoney.com link appears to be user-generated content so it is not a reliable source; the karasdealsandsteals link appears to be a dead link; the nibletz.com link might perhaps qualify as an independent reliable source although it is a very weak one as it's merely some brief commentary on Qmee based on a quick chat with a Qmee member of staff at a tech show. So overall the reviewer is correct there is not yet enough there to prove the notability of the product or organisation. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I deal with an editor with serious political vendettas?

An editor, Mcgeddon, has been removing posts vindictively. I have looked at his talk page, and others have also noticed that he seems to bear grudges against people he deems unworthy, and to remove their posts frequently. After a discussion about how I added my name to my alumni list, he removed the link.

Then, when I disagreed, he removed the whole thing

After I disagreed again, and reposted it in a form that was more in coordination with his ideals, he removed not only my posting, but several others on the same page.

He has been retaliating against me on my university's webpage, that of Kennesaw State University, by removing parts of it in response to my complaints against him.

I noticed that he seemed to be taking out vendettas against people when I pointed out that he had been in the same issue with an artist from South Africa, in a discussion from his talk page.

He acknowledged that he had done so, and his reason was that the article was about a white person from South Africa.

He is obviously better at using Wikipedia to control the information that people receive but is not being an ethical editor. To whom can I go about this serious concern.

Carl Spencer Krendel (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See this discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [1] - Wikipedia isn't a platform for personal promotion in political campaigns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been corrected by 1. a vandal, and 2. a user who calls himself "a grump. Now I know never to read wikipedia.
Thanks. Carl Spencer Krendel (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carl Spencer Krendel. I am sorry to hear that you are having problems with another editor. In a heated discussion when emotions are running high, it's easy for an editor to get frustrated and post something contrary to Wikipedia policy; Something that they may later come to regret. That is why in such cases, many editors choose to go take their dogs for a walk as a way of taking a step back and letting things cool down. You may think you're totally justified in referring to this other editor as having a "serious political vendetta", "vindictive", "a vandal" or "not being an ethical editor", but those are considered to be personal attacks and are not the best way to try and make your case. In fact, they could actually be used against you and lead to a block or other sanction being applied to you. There are various ways to try and resolve disputes with other editors as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but a key thing to remember is to always try and comment on content and not on the other editor. If you feel that this other editor is acting contrary to Wikipolicy, then you have to make your case using Wikipolicy. In general, if you're having a disagreement with another editor over content, you should try discussing it on the article's talk page first so that other editors can comment. If you can back up your assertion using Wikipolicy, then a consensus will likely be reached supporting your position. If, however, your dispute is more about another editor's behavior, then you should try in good faith to resolve the matter via their talk page. If their behavior continues, then you can try WP:RFCC or WP:ANI, but be advised that reporting someone means that your actions will also come under scrutiny and may lead to other editors recommending that action be taken against you. Good luck with whichever path you choose to follow. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Building articles from stubs

I'm interested in building up a short list of articles about creatives and writers that I'd like to create/contribute to. I've read that there's a list of stubs that might have potential as fully developed articles. Where can I find this? And is there any reason why this might not be a good approach? MF SarahHorner (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Culture#Writers you will find an index of the categories of articles about writers which have been classified as stubs. This allows you to select an area in which you are most interested; so, if you click on one of these categories - like Category:American novelist, 1920s birth stubs you will finds a list of the 68 articles in that particular sub-category. Hope that helps you help the project - Arjayay (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you Arjayay. I've also been searching for the 'etiquette' on contributing verifiable links. Is it okay just to add or is there a protocol for notifying the original author of changes?

MF SarahHorner (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No-one OWNS any article on Wikipedia - you do not need to inform anyone if you alter any article, you are encouraged to be BOLD. If, however, any of your amendments are reverted, you should follow the BRD cycle, leave the article as it was after the revert (do not reinstate your additions} and discuss it on the article's talk page. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. BRD it is, Arjayay. MF SarahHorner (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Rejection!

I wanted to write an article about Proplend who is a peer to peer lending as Proplend's competitors all have articles on Wikipedia (Wellesley & Co, Assetz, Zopa, Rate Setter, Funding Circle, LendInvest) - but I keep getting rejected! 86.164.252.239 (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is, has the company received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? A Google search shows only 2,830 matches - none of which appear significant, so, currently, Proplend does not appear to be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.
Google hits are not a good measure of notability, but my totally fictional user name gets 6,240 matches, whilst my real-life company gets 176,000 matches and I don't think that deserves a Wikipedia article. As for trying to draw comparisons with other companies, this is not an acceptable argument on Wikipedia - please see WP:Other stuff exists. - Arjayay (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also the case that you were editing under usernames (Proplend and Proplend Limited) that are against policy and have been blocked by an Admin because of it. You are more than welcome to create a new account, appeal your block on your talk page, or request a name change and work your article through the peer reviewed draft process for feedback and critique. Regards, dsprc ^[talk] 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

edit links to wikipedia in other languages

I noticed that the English Wiki article "Rosa Benozzi Balletti" is a stub, and there is a very good Italian Wiki article on the same person, "Silvia Balletti." I want to add a link (on the left sidebar) from the English page to the Italian page, and vice versa. I tried clicking on the "edit links" tool and filled in the 3-field dialogue box but the neither page was changed. I also tried to find help on this tool in the Wikipedia help pages and the Wikidata help pages and could not find anything relevant. (PS - you used to be able to do this very simply by editing the article page itself, but not anymore - why does it have to be so difficult now?) Thanks for help, Bmwilcox (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bmwilcox: I had a look; it was not working because the Italian language article was incorrectly associated with a Parisian cathedral on Wikidata - not a common problem to encounter so hopefully your next interlanguage link will be more straightforward. It should be corrected now, and you should see the Italian article link on the left bar. The change was made because as the number of Wikipedia language increased, listing each one on each page became inefficient (the total number of links increased at (N-1)^2, while with a centralized system (Wikidata) they increase at N). You can get the full details at Help:Interlanguage links and WP:Wikidata. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bmwilcox. I added that link for you. The Italian Wikipage is titled it:Silvia Balletti which might explain why you were having trouble. More information can be found at Interlanguage links. Since the English article is only a stub, information from the Italian page can probably be translated into English and used as long as it is properly credited using {{translated page}}. If you do not have either the time or the inclination to do the translation yourself, then you can request that it be translated by adding {{Expand Italian}} to the English article per. Hope that helps. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr, for fixing the underlying problem, making the changes for me, and providing the links to the help pages. Wish someone had thought to put them on the "Edit links" tool - I spent about 10 minutes trying to find them and couldn't because "Interlanguage" wasn't a word that occurred anywhere in the tool dialogue. Thanks, Marchjuly, for the info on translate requests - I've done as you suggest. I appreciate the instant, real-time help! Bmwilcox (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kargandarr. I am sorry but I have to disagree with your edits here. Mention of cover versions should be in Pretty Little Angel Eyes, not Curtis Lee. And we need references to reliable sources. For an example, take a look at a song article I wrote, They Call the Wind Maria. I listed many cover versions and every one is properly referenced. Did Curtis Lee write those songs, or was he just the first to have hits singing them? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what i wanted to know before i changed the actual page that the text came from. Thanks for the information.

Kargandarr (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at your page and I might have gotten the idea. I went and copied the coding for the "Pretty Little Angel Eyes" song page and made a few changes to that. Can I get an opinion on the new page text to see if that will be satisfactory.

Kargandarr (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's also sometimes possible to 'rescue' dead links from the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive.[2] You do that by adding the |archiveurl and |archivedate fields to the existing {{cite web}} template. Revent (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ca33ie. In addition to things that have already been suggested, you might find the information in "Wikipedia:Link rot" to be helpful, particularly the stuff in "Keeping dead links". A link doesn't necessary lose it's value to an article just because it's "dead". I suggest that you try discussing things on the article's talk page before deleting any cited sources (even dead links). That way you'll give others who may be watching the page the chance to comment. You may also want to ask about this on the article's respective Wikiproject page(s) for more feedback. You can find the Wikiproject(s) for a particular article by looking at it's talk page.- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Is my article on TurboVote objective enough?

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

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

Something To Do

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

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

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

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

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

I should have mentioned before: another way to find Wikiprojects is to look on the Talk page of an article which interests you, to see what projects (if any) it belongs to. For example, the National Library of China belongs to two: WikiProject Libraries and WikiProject China. I hope this helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Twitter?

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

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

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

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

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

Information professional - globalize and Refimprove

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

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

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

Re: Please clarify the scope of Redirect entries

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

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

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

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

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

Creation of article for Azoi

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

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

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

problem in finding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are also many articles about women that have already been through the assessment process and have been ranked as featured articles. As I understand it, any of these can be nominated to appear on the landing page as "Today's Featured Article". You can nominate an article to appear on the home page by going here and following the process. For a list of eligible women's biographies that you can consider nominating, check out these lists:[3][4][5][6][7]. Good luck! Keihatsu ^talk 02:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why was my project rejected?

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

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

Image file size reduction for userbox use

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

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

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

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

I found an image error, not sure how to fix

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

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

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

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

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

Categorization problems :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Rejected

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

Thanks for any help you can provide

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two other examples:

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

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

My contribution is rejected

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please help me embed a picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi again Alla Bozarth. Sometimes even the appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to raise concern among other editors. Stuff that you have firsthand knowledge of may indeed be true, but it still may be considered to be "original research" by others unless it is properly cited by reliable third-party sources. So, if you're going to edit articles that you have a direct connection to, then it's probably a good idea to explain this relationship on either your user page or the article's talk page to avoid any misunderstandings. Furthermore, in such cases it's probably best to discuss any edit that might be seen as controversial on the article's talk page first before editing the article. This gives other editors a chance to comment and a consensus to be reached. Being an expert on a particular subject matter does not mean you cannot edit on Wikipedia, it just means you have to be careful on how you proceed. You might find the information in both Wikipedia: Expert editors and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to be helpful. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How to see the saved draft in wiki ?

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

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

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

Over-writing logo images with new versions

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

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

how to order your comments properly?

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

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

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

Soundcloud as a source?

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

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

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

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

Article does not appear in search drop down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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