Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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

Assistance for a newcomer

Hi everybody! I wrote my first article a few weeks ago and submitted it. It was speed deleted and I was invited to visit the teahouse. I believe the speed deletion was more or less a standard procedure, maybe also because of the clumsy way I approached (sorry!). But I’m willing to learn! Regarding the article (again in my sandbox): it is about Global Rockstar, a start-up based in Vienna, Austria (where I live), active since a couple of years. It is active worldwide. I am indeed an acquaintance of one of the founder, but I have no connections to the company. I wrote and researched the article myself, including the references. Based on what I've found on Wiki about other start-ups, I believe it is not to soon to feature this one. Some references from national and international media are very strong (IMHO), others seem to be the result of press releases. I used both, unsure what to keep and what to discard. Could someone assist me with the next steps? Thank you! Monimel (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest with HUDCO

Hi This is Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited,( HUDCO) New Delhi, India, www.hudco.org. We are a purely Govt of India Enterprise under Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. Govt of India through HUDCO regulates/ finance loan for the development of Housing and Urban Infrastructure in India. We work mainly for social justice and empowerment. Recently we updated wiki with our new informative brochure indicating HUDCO PROGRAMMES, HUDCO’S CONTRIBUTION IN HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HUDCO’s PERFORMANCE – 2013-14, NEW INITIATIVES BY HUDCO AND HUDCO’s ROLE IN MAJOR INITIATIVES OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. However complete updation was reverted on 20th June at 05:39 by Rosiestep ( Teahouse host), with indication that there is a conflict of Interest. I am feeling helpless and need guidance “how to upload the latest information at wiki” and what was the conflict of Interest with whom? Kindly help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudco (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Hudco, and welcome to the Teahouse. The conflict of interest is that you are editing an article about your own organisation: this is always discouraged, as it is likely to be difficult for you to maintain the neutral point of view that Wikipedia articles require. Please see conflict of interest for more about this. If there are changes which you think would improve the article about your organisation, you are encouraged to post on the article's talk page, suggesting what you would like changed, and giving references to reliable published sources, independent of your organisation which support the information. Adding a brochure published by you is very unlikely to be appropriate to an encyclopaedia article about you.

One more point: please note that all Wikipedia accounts are required to be personal, for reasons of attribution. Multiple people may not share an account, and roles connected with organisations may not have accounts; furthermore, accounts may not have names which even suggest that they represent organisations. Each of you who is using that account should immediately create a separate personal account. See WP:NOSHARE for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for article feedback

I would like to expand an article I wrote about activist Michael Petrelis (carrying a "needs sections" banner since May). I have been drafting the expanded article in a user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malcom_Gregory_Scott/sandbox_Petrelis_sections. Is this article ready to move to main space? Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How to provide accuracy to my Bio as a public figure

How do I provide accurate information to my Bio without violating the terms of use in Wikipedia and avoid COI's? Additionally how may I correct inaccurate information in my Bio especially as it relates to marital status updating? Thank you. 1igriot (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 1igriot, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answers are summarised at WP:AUTOPROB: resist the temptation to edit the article, and instead make your suggestions on the article's talk page; and provide reliable published references for any information you want added. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, thank you for understanding that COI can be a problem, and for trying to avoid it.
The basic advice is set out at WP:COIADVICE - fundamentally, most changes should be suggested on the article talk page, and include Independant, Reliable, Sources to back them up.
This is not "what you know", nor what has been published on your (or your agent's or publisher's) website, nor press releases, nor blogs or other unreliable material.
As some talk pages are visited infrequently, you may wish to add the text {{request edit}} by your suggested change, which will include it on a list of such edits, so it should be dealt with quicker. - Arjayay (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox

I submitted a paragraph and it was rejected. I closely followed another person's profile but it was not accepted. Alphonso Jones, II 22:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphonso Jones, II (talk • contribs)

This shows the wisdom of never following anyone else! Aim high, find references about yourself Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL may do the trick, but be prepared, like all who write autobiographies here, to discover that you do not pass our notability threshold. I don't, and i don't care!

Once you find references, wrote the article around them, not around yourself. It's hard to do. As it stands User:Alphonso Jones, II/sandbox is not ready. It takes work, like being a dancer. Fiddle Faddle 23:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alphonso Jones, II, welcome to the Teahouse. You submitted a completely unsourced and unformatted page at User:Alphonso Jones, II/sandbox. Maybe you intended to submit User:Alphonso Jones, II instead. I have added code which displays the references.[1] You can submit the page by adding {{subst:submit}} at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Should I remove edits on the talk page when corrections to the main page have been made?

I recently made an edit on a talk page and the proper corrections were made in the main article. I am just wondering whether I should delete what I put on the talk page as it is now unnecessary. (Sorry I am new) Thank you Trigzter (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Trigzter, and welcome to the Teahouse. In response to your question, if people have responded to your talk page comments, it would be best not to remove them as they are needed for context. If no one responded, then you are free to remove them. Though I would recommend striking them instead. {{strikethrough|Text that is to be struck}} = Text that is to be struck. Tutelary (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You could also use {{Done}} to signify completion as in  Done or {{not done}} with a reason. It displays as  Not done. There are so many ways. But removal is almost always inappropriate. If they are other people's comments it is always inappropriate. Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What about archiving?--Karinpower (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi There,

I am a new editor and have been trying to get an article published for quite a while. Most recently it was declined from an editor with reliable sources as the reason. Of 9 sources, I have three that are respected news sources (including the Huffington Post. I have an endorsement from WalMartOne and some other online coverage. I don't know what to do, but I would like to get this published. What is notable if this is not? (I also have another source to add, but hesitate to since these don't seemt o be adequate.) Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GCFLearnFree.org Please help me? LauraMcAliley (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Laura and welcome to The Teahouse. The topic appears to me to qualify as notable, but the article could certainly use some expansion, with sources at least as good as the ones you used.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you have scrolled down in the article and sen the additional guidance left? When we review we try to leave a comment to expand on the boilerplate template left by the review script, or I do. And I see I reviewed it. It is probably notable, yes, but the references need work. If there is insufficient guidance give me a shout on my talk page if you like, or ask more here, in this thread. Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation preferences: {{sfn|name|year|etc.}} versus <ref>{{harvnb|name|year|etc.}}</ref>

Recently I've come to prefer the {{sfn}} type because you don't have to use the <ref> tags. Is there any advantage in using harvnb? Jodosma (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

OS Infobox

Is it OK to move the start up screen to the end of the infobox rather than being under the logo? In my case I feel it looks better. RobRobpater (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Robpater. If you're proposing to change a template, you should certainly discuss it at the template's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Rob! There is an ongoing discussion on the template's talk page that you are welcome to comment on! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How i write about me.

Send me guideline about my problem.Ala ud din Jutt 17:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alauddinjutt (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC+9)

Hello Ala ud din Jutt, and welcome to the Teahouse. The guideline about writing about yourself is autobiography, which strongly advises you not to do so. You may write a bit about yourself as a Wikipedia editor on your user page User:Alauddinjutt, but it should not be anything which looks like an encyclopaedia article: see user pages for information about that. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing the tone of the article

Hi, this is my first time writing an article and I am really struggling with my writing tone, as it is coming across as an advertisement. Can someone maybe go over article and show me how to fix it or offer any any advice or counsel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brefin123/sandbox

Thanks soooo much

Brefin123 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Brefin123 and welcome to the Teahouse. :) Examples of problematic wording in the article are marked in bold:

From the "Company History" section:

"Quintessentially Events is a multi-award-winning event management company delivering exceptional events around the world for leading luxury and lifestyle brands as well as discerning, affluent individuals.

Established by leading event producers, Anabel Fielding and Caroline Hurley [3], Quintessentially Events has been behind some of the most creative, exclusive, high end events and brand experiences of the past 11 years. Quintessentially Events spectrum of expertise covers high profile, luxury brand and bespoke corporate events, private parties, fundraisers and weddings [4].

Quintessentially Events has a family of specialist teams in nine global territories at present; London Cote, D’Azure, Geneva, Milan, Baku, Dubai, New Delhi, Hong Kong and Singapore. These offices are supported by Quintessentially Lifestyle’s [5] 68 dedicated offices in every major city around the world. As part of Quintessentially, the world’s No. 1 lifestyle group Quintessentially Events is able to leverage extraordinary access and support from a wide base of international partnerships, products and services."

--AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see why it's being rejected, as it's stuffed full of promotional phrases and unsourced claims like that it's "delivering exceptional events around the world for leading luxury and lifestyle brands as well as discerning, affluent individuals" , "Established by leading event producers" , "Quintessentially Events has been behind some of the most creative, exclusive, high end events and brand experiences of the past 11 years" , "spectrum of expertise" , "family of specialist teams" , "68 dedicated offices in every major city around the world", "the world’s No. 1 lifestyle group." That all reads like a promotional brochure for the company is not even within a million miles of the impartial tone that we expect our articles to have. The article should be based on third party sources, not those affiliated with the company. If you are unable to find those about what is claimed to be "the world's no.1 lifestyle group" then it may be that it isn't notable enough for an article. Personally, I've searched and don't see enough to warrant an article which can go any further than the larger organisation (which already has a Wikipedia article) Quintessentially Group. Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your help, what I am trying to do is highlight the different branches that fall under the larger organisation that is the Quintessentially Group. Brefin123 (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Brefin123, you might also find Manual of Style/Words to watch a useful guide for cleaning up the promotional language. Even more important, though, is finding those independent sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to accept that not every division of a company is sufficiently notable to have its own article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Amaryllis. How do the reliable sources independent of the company "highlight the different branches". If they do so, then you can use their words. If they don't then the different branches should not have separate articles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

But if that results in a bunch of short articles about the divisions, that's probably not the best outcome, as opposed to expanding the main article with additional, non-spammy, referenced material about its divisions.--ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

non-profit with many pages referenced that need correction or clarification - can we do this ourselves?

Hello, I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor. I work on the staff of a large not-for-profit professional engineering association that has many Wikipedia page references. Some have been created by our members, some by contractors working for SME organizations that are part of the association, some by others. We'd like to correct, enhance and "harmonize" many of the pages referring to our organization - so they have consistent formatting and content for different entity types e.g. committees, publications, etc. Is it OK with Wikipedia policy if we do that? We (the central support organization) are the team that has the "correct" information - members are sometimes behind in this information. But, we're worried about contravening Wikipedaa editorial and contribution policies. Any advice or counsel? Dgoessling (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dgoessling. Thanks for asking. My advice is to read conflict of interest, to understand why you are discouraged from editing any of these articles. You are welcome to make suggestions on the talk pages of the articles, but your view of how best to present the articles may not entirely coincide with Wikipedia's needs (for example, if there are reliable sources which are critical of your organisation or some of its members). Since you are concerned with a number of articles, you may find it useful to post at a WikiProject such as WikiProject Engineering, and see if there is somebody uninvolved who would like to work with you to improve the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that, as explained here, Wikipedia policies make no distinction between for-profit and non-profit companies.
I am also a little concerned by your use of the phrase '"correct" information', reliable sources are what determine the information to be included, not you. As stated here "Content that is added must be published by a reliable source. This means a third-party source - for most content, your website [and your press releases] do not count as a source." - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for the quick response. A lot of the information that we wish to post is only (quickly) available within our our organization. That's what I meant by correct. For example we publish many technical journals, and sometimes the publication schedule or the editor or other information about that publication will change and we'd like to post it. I think this is useful information for the community, but I've noticed that existing pages regarding some of our journals have not been updated in a timely manner, or at all since they were first added. Similarly, we also give out numerous awards and medals to the engineering community. There are Wikipedia pages for some of these, but not all, and the lists of recipients on the pages that are here haven't been maintained. That's the kind of updates that we want to make. Also, we have no problem with others adding info critical of the organization: that's how changes ripple through the organization. I hope this helps. Dgoessling (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dgoessling! You are correct that the lists of recipients of the various IEEE awards named after people from the organisations that "sponsor" the awards have not been well maintained. The best solution would be to merge the various awards articles into the article on the IEEE (or perhaps some sub-article dealing with that organisation's awards). This would have the advantage that there would be no need to maintain huge and ever-growing lists of award recipients. (Unless of course, a specific award received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and my article got rejected everytime i make a submission?

I am new to wikipedia and my article got rejected every time i make a submission. I am not able to understand the reason for rejection. If it is to provide a document for the creation or authentication, i can provide the registration documents signed by the lawful authorities on my website as they are the documents which need not to be provided in public. Will it help me if i provide the documents on my website.

Regards Ashish150887Ashish150887 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Asish, and thank you for asking about this. I can see at User:Ashish150887/sandbox that two editors have rejected your draft. They have both given the same reason (and it is one that I agree with) but obviously you are not understanding what they are saying. What they have put is clear to me but I am used to the Wikipedia-ish way of speaking. Have a look at Cloudian, Inc. which is also a recent article about a software business. At the bottom you will see a list of "references" to newspapers and journals writing about this firm. Your article must have someting like this although a few references will be enough. You don't need as many as Cloudian has. These references must have been written by people not connected with Nalashaa. Have a look again at the reason for rejection and see about following up on the links provided there. You do not need to supply any legal documents. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ashish150887. Wikipedia does not have articles on everything that exists. It does not have an article on me, or my house, or a company that I am a director of; nor should it, because nobody has already thought it appropriate to write an article about me and my affairs in a reliable published source such as a major newspaper. That is the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia: if more than one person has written a substantial article about Nalashaa Solutions (not just a listing, or mentioning it in passing) and had it published in a reliable place such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher, then Wikipedia can take note of the company - but the Wikipedia article needs to reference these articles. If these sources do not yet exist, then Wikipedia will not have an article on it, and you are wasting your time trying to write one. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox works has disappeared - can it be retrieved?

Good morning Teahouse,

I was working on an article using Sandbox and my work has since disappeared. Am I able to retrieve it somewhere?

AmyCKing (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, easy.

This can be hard if the histories are long, but fortunately you're new here and so we can see your edit history very easily. Special:Contributions/AmyCKing shows your edits. I think you'll be wanting [2] [3]

The sandbox at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing/sandbox is a shared area really intended for simple, disposable training exercises. If you're after somewhere to draft the beginnings of an article, then I'd instead suggest using either a bit of your userspace like User:AmyCKing/Noosphere or else the WP:DRAFT namespace at Draft:Noosphere. Take a look at WP:Articles for Creation too. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

a reference was rejected, see below

At March on Washington: The anger, the fear, the love and the hope By John D. Due, Jr., Special to CNN updated 6:48 PM EDT, Sun September 1, 2013

This is a bonafide reference that can be found on google, but it was refused. Yaelony (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yaelony. The reference you tried to add to Zev Aelony was neither "rejected" nor "refused". Instead, you made syntax errors in the wikicode for adding the reference. I have corrected your syntax errors, although you should add the URL to the CNN piece, so that interested readers can go there if they wish. Please be aware that the syntax of the coding of a reference is unforgiving. Everything must be "just so", and named references can be especially tricky. Please refer to Referencing for beginners for a detailed explanation.

On another matter, the article needs copyediting to remove the breezy tone, and I recommend a careful reading of WP:NPOV in that regard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

submitting an article

how to I submit an article for inclusion in Wikipedia? Tjdurkee (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tjdurkee to Teahouse! You could try Articles for Creation, it's a great way to start an article with helpful reviewers assisting you when your ready to submit you draft. ///EuroCarGT 02:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Navigation Pane during editing ?

CCan Can Can I change my Preferences so that the Navigation Pane does not show when I am editing a article ? FDLeyda 14:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@FDLeyda: Hey FDLeyda. I have a clarification request: can you describe what you mean by the "Navigation Pane"? Thanks.

P.S. on an unrelated matter, I suggest going to your preferences and taking the checkmark out of "Treat the above as wiki markup." This should fix your signature, which right now does not link to any one of your user page, talk page or contributions, which is technically required. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The panel of options that are on the left side of the screen. I would like to have them not show so that I would have more room on the page during editing. OK. I unchecked the box. FDLeyda FDLeyda (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I know of no way to do that, sorry. Someone else might, or might be able to confirm whether it's possible. In the meantime, if you don't already know, you can expand the edit box's size at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@FDLeyda: If you use wikEd, it has a full-screen feature that will show nothing at all but the edit window. Might be worth checking out if this feature is a high-priority for you. WikEd does not work on Internet Explorer, has a bit of a learning curve and is a little slow. Please see the project page and user manual: User:Cacycle/wikEd help, for more information. You can enable wikEd from your Preferences menu; it is listed under Gadgets, and then the Editing subsection. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your suggestions. I will look into them. FDLeyda (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How to edit the wrongly mentioned title of an article?

Aalooksth (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had mentioned article name. Are you talking about St. Xavier's College, Kathmandu which you have copy-pasted here in draft? Abhi (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I mention another user?

I'm reverting an article to a previous revision due to vandalism and in the edit summary box I would like to mention the ip address of the suspected vandal and the username of the person whose revision I'm reverting to as links to their user/contribution pages. How do I do this since using the standard [ [ bracket ] ] format does not work with usernames? Musicmaster7 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Musicmaster7. There are a number of techniques, which I will illustrate with my own user name.

The wikicode {{U|Cullen328}} produces: Cullen328, and sends the user (me) a notification.

The wikicode [[User:Cullen328]] produces User:Cullen328, which is a link to my user page.

The wikicode [[User talk:Cullen328]] produces User talk:Cullen328, which is a link to my talk page.

There are other techniques to "ping" but that's how I do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Many Thanks!!!Musicmaster7 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Musicmaster7:, there are several ways of reverting of which the easiest is the undo feature, found in the history of the article. Usually if you are reverting a single edit, the edit summary will automatically generate the username of the person you are reverting. Green Giant (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Musicmaster7: Please note that "pings" and other username mentions do not trigger the notification system when used in edit summaries since these become part of the article history and it would create a horrible tangle.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally edited without logging in now I would like to remove my ip address.

I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I made a suggestion for an edit. I would like my information removed if possible. 72.193.222.245 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems you did it again. You can find an administrator actively editing right now at WP:AN or WP:ANI, and ask for assistance on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You can also place {{admin help}} with an explanatory note on your talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding on to Cullen's answer, you may also shoot an email to Wikipedia's Oversight team, which can be done through your account at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. This is particularly useful if you want to attract as little attention as possible. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Does

Does Wikipedia lies? Macman(252) (My edits!!!!!) 02:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Macman252! Wikipedia is not a sentient being so it is incapable of lying, per se. --Jayron32 03:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Macman252. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it certainly contains some lies. It also contains some honest errors and misinterpretations. However, many thousands of volunteer editors work to improve articles, to bring them more closely into compliance with our policies, which includes verifiability. I believe in general that most Wikipedia articles are reasonably accurate, but there are exceptions. Do not automatically believe everything you read here. Instead, consider a Wikipedia article an introduction to a topic, and use the references, the further reading, and the external links to learn more and verify what the article says for yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you add boxes?

I often see pages that put info inside of boxes. For example, most pages will have a box with contents of the article inside. Pour some wisdom on me! EMachine03 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome EMachine03. You are probably talking about Wikipedia:Infoboxes. Check the link, and if you still have questions, come on back.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EMachine03. Another type of box commonly seen in articles is a Table of contents. Whenever any article has four or more section headers, the wiki software will generate the table of contents automatically. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks guys! I'll post more questions soon. EMachine03 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, EMachine03. I found that the easiest way to get a feel for how Inforboxes work is to find a page which has a good one, then use the Edit tab to see how it was done. Then of course, remember to Cancel the edit page! --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

see contributions according to change status and time?

My watchlist page shows changes to watched articles in newest-first order, with a green bullet at the start of the line if they've been changed since my last visit. That's great, and I check it regularly.

I also watch my recent contributions, depending on how much time I have for doing so. But there, the only way to see if a page has been changed since my contribution is that the most recent one says Current. Since I often edit the text of a whole article or long section(s) of it, saving after each section or set of changes, there are many more listings on the page than editing sessions, and so I skim down the page. Unlike the watchlist's green bullet, the "Current" label can be anywhere in the width of the main text, so it's easy to miss. As a result, I fairly often hit a page title that I don't remember seeing in today's look at the list and that isn't labeled "Current", and so I have to scroll back up the page, and often previous pages, to check its most recent appearance for "Current".

Is there a way to show contributions that would indicate whether an edit is or is not the most recent edit to the page? I realize I could add all my contributions to my watchlist, but that would make it much too cumbersome to be of any use. Thnidu (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thindu, at the top of your contributions page are a number of filter options. One of them is Only show edits that are latest revisions you can filter by this and it will only show your contributions that are the most recent edit to an article. Nthep (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nthep, thanks, but you've answered the wrong question. I'm looking for, as I said, a way to see if a page has been changed since my contribution. The filter you mention is the opposite, showing only pages that have not been changed since my edit. (BTW, my user-ID is Thnidu, not *Thindu (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo. Your question was Is there a way to show contributions that would indicate whether an edit is or is not the most recent edit to the page?. Finding if your contribution is the most recent is easy. If you want to know the converse then it's probably possible by changing you CSS. I don't have enough knowledge of CSS to give you a solution but if you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) someone who watches that page can probably come up with a solution for you. Nthep (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Two rejections now - helpful but conflicting advice; where do I go from here?

I'm trying to get an article published about a new business process that I have seen in use to great effect. This is my submission, but clearly I'm just not up to Wiki approval. Just not sure where to go next! Can you help, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Opportunity_Lifecycle_Management Bertiewolf Bertiewolf (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bertiewolf. I think that the reviewers have given you excellent advice. Start by identifying the reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the specific topic of "Opportunity lifecycle management", and format those references properly. Eliminate all blogs, dictionary definitions, promotional sources and other low quality sources. Then, rewrite the draft in plain English, eliminating all business jargon and marketing speak. The article should simply summarize what those high quality sources say, and nothing more. Format the article properly. Take a look at several of our designated Good articles to get an idea of what your article should look like. In all honesty, I don't know whether or not "Opportunity lifecycle management" is a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article, as it sounds like hollow jargon to me. So it is up to you to demonstrate that the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Self Interview

I am planning on meeting Randor Guy, a reputed film historian in my city. I am planning on conducting an interview with him in the hopes of clarifying some original research. If the interview with him is recorded on camera, can that be used as a reliable source? 07:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kailash29792. Your project presents a number of problems, related to what you called original research in your own words. How would anyone know whether or not the interview was selectively edited? How do we know that the questions asked are the most appropriate and relevant under the circumstances? Most fundamentally, how do we know that the person in the video is actually Randor Guy instead of an imposter? We know these things when an interview is published by a reliable source, with professional editorial control, and a reputation for checking facts and correcting errors. We have no such assurances when a random video pops up on the internet. So, my suggestion is to arrange to have your interview published by a reliable source. Then, it can be cited here on Wikipedia. If no reliable source considers your interview worth publishing, then why should we consider it worth citing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on these points, and thank you for clarifying my doubts. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability in only one language.

Hi, I recently came across an article, TSV Großbardorf to be specific. I noticed all the references were in german, and I can't find and sources in english. I think I read somewhere in wikipedia that it isn't notable in the english wikipedia but may be notable in another language. I couldn't find it again so I asked here to clarify if it is true. Thanks! TheQ Tester (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi TheQ Tester. In regards to sourcing and notability, sources do not have to be English to establish notability, as mentioned at WP:GNG.

As for notability guidelines across the various language Wikipedias, those differ. Other language Wikipedia's may be more harsh on their notability guidelines, or more easy-going; something having an article on one version of Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that it meets the notability guidelines for the others. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the other way around, on the English WP we don't care what language the sources are, the notability rules don't take language into account at all. If the article is based on in depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources the subject is notable, regardless of the sources being in German, Japanese, Ibo or Gujarati. The English WP's purpose is to collect the world's notable knowlege and write about it in English, not to collect only the knowlege already written in English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

License

I have loaded picture of Kohat File:Tehsil gate.jpg, the picture is of 1919, I copied it from https://www.flickr.com/photos/59036290@N07/5989995439/ I also discussed it with Cullin.Cullim assured me that it would be safe to upload that old pictures. but now I got a message that this picture is marked for deletion, I am not very expert they want information about the source. same is with other picture File:ktraiway.jpg which is 114 years old. What shoud I do plz help. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 05:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Aftabbanoori. I told you that it was OK to upload photos published before 1923, but you did not tag the photos appropriately as being published before 1923. So, go to Wikimedia Commons, and add the appropriate tags verifying publication before 1923. Just click on the links and add the appropriate tags. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I will try to add tags but I am not sure if I can do this to me it is little bit complicated, but I will try If I can. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 06:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Aftab Banoori. I've gone ahead and added the tags for you. To add license tags, edit the "Licensing" section (in the source it will show up as =={{int:license-header}}==) and add a copyright tag. Copyright tags acceptable for Commons can be found at commons:COM:CT. The tag for the two old images you uploaded is {{PD-1923}} (works published before 1923, public domain in the United States). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I am very grateful to you Anon126 and Cullen328.

I did't understand your message fully, but when I went to the image page to add the tag, the way you said, I was pleased very much, you have already added the tags. It is wonderful when people like you and Cullen are here. Best wishes to both of you. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

subject notability: cultural differences problems and rare theorical background

Hallo,my draf:Anton_Milenin has been rejected because the "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". This is my first page in English Wikipedia, and I am writing on a Russian director living and working mainly in Italy. All the sources I have found directly linked to him are in Italian, but quite relevant in Italian theatre publications, and I would like to be sure that the rejection is not related to lack of relevant sources because of a language/cultural problem (that is: for an Italian theatre professional, someone cited by XXX is an interesting artist, but for an English professional the name XXX can mean very little...). The page on Italian Wikipedia didn't meet any problems, but maybe there are different parameters. If this is the problem, how can I solve it? Main question is about how can I point the notability of the subject. In fact, he is one of the few theatre directors using a technique called "structural analysis of text" originated by successors of Stanislavskij at the MXAT and GITIS (two main schools in Moskow directly related to Stanislavskij work) ... This is the reason of notability for this person in the theatre field, but I had no idea on how I could write it. All the theorical books about this technique are in Russian and there are no traces in wikipedia about it, except the Hermeneutic page wich I included in the "categories", and that is in fact quite general. I also cited the Italian articles in which the technique is explained, or those written by actors telling their experiences through this technique. How would you suggest to make this reason of notability explicit? Shall I go in the technical details, explaining what this technique is? Or shall I write a Wikipedia Article about it so that I can link the person page to the technique page? Or is it enough if I add this peculiarity in his biography, as I wrote it to you? Thanks! Silandcoreng (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Silandcoreng. Let me say first of all that it is acceptable to use Italian and Russian language sources, as long as the sources are reliable and give significant coverage to the topic, namely Anton Milenin. When I look at your article about someone active the last ten years or so, I see several sources published in the late 1990s. How could they give significant coverage to this person? I read one source and found it didn't even mention him. The text mentions a review of his work in La Repubblica, but I don't see that review cited. Far better to cite five solid sources than 20 mediocre sources. So start by trimming your sources back to the high quality sources that devote significant coverage to Anton Milenin, and limit the draft to summarizing what those sources say about him. And nothing more. Not a shred more. The article can be expanded later. This is a biography, not an article about an acting technique. Your task now is to establish without a doubt that this specific person is notable, by the standards of English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My article rejected for 3rd time for inadequate sourcing

It's unclear what's inadequate from the rejection message. The first two times it was rejected on the grounds that I was using YouTube for sourcing. As I tried to explain, I was not. There is a difference between links used for sourcing and links used for illustrative purposes. I made it a point to only use YouTube links to SHOW examples of what I was referring to in my text, not as evidence for the veracity of my text.

It seems to me, assuming that the latest rejection is for the same reason, that wikpedia editors are not making this distinction, perhaps because that's how the rules have been set up. I can understand why that might be in a mass writing exercise like wikipedia but if the YouTube links provide images of what I'm referring to or describing in the text, then it seems to me that that is good for the article, not a deficit.

I'm actually an experienced editor and author in the print venue so I'm not coming to this untutored. I understand that wikipedia has special requirements but I don't have a lot of time to be playing around with this stuff. I'd like to put the article on Yun Mu Kwan karate up because there is little to be found on wiki about this long lost style of Korean karate, and not a lot of detail, frankly, on-line.

The style is one of the original five Korean "kwans" which formed the basis for modern taekwondo but it faded early on when it's founder went missing in the Korean War and was reconstituted later by other practitioners under a different name: Jidokwan (for which there is already a wiki article). This later style traces its origins to Yun Mu Kwan and itself disappeared as a distinct style when taekwondo was established as a uniform Korean system in the mid 1950's. So there's reason to give a full historical account.

However, I am growing increasingly frustrated with the resistance to clearing the article. After all, once it's up there, others will be editing it in any case. So what's the problem? If you think there's insufficient documentation for what I've explained about Yun Mu Kwan in the article, you have only to google the Web and you'll find extensive mention of it. But, because it went extinct, rather like the dodo, there's no one around to give it a full history anymore.

I have been trying to do that by piecing together the mentions of it I have come across on the Web as well as what I know about it first hand which is reasonably solid (since I trained in the style for five years -- the old system left many remnants -- and knew many of its mid-twentieth century adherents). I just don't know what else wiki editors want from me than that.

S. W. Mirsky 22:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC+9)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Swmirsky. It is difficult or impossible to verify the copyright status of most YouTube videos. Wikipedia is much stricter about copyright than YouTube and many other websites. We do not link to any exterior site that is not verifiably copyright compliant. That's policy. So, your first step is to delete any and all links to suspect sites such as YouTube, unless you can show the reviewer solid evidence that the copyright status is legitimate.

Most blogs are not considered reliable sources unless they are by professional journalists under editorial control, or by academic experts. We are looking for high quality reliable sources, so please remove the blogs. Sources need not be available online, by the way. It is OK to fully cite reliable paper books and journals, in Korean as well as English.

Many of your paragraphs make sweeping assertions about various things without any references at all. How do you know these things, and how can a reader verify them? If you know based on your personal experience studying for five years, then we call your summary of your experience Original research which Wikipedia does not publish. So please remove everything from the draft which is based on your personal knowledge.

Your article should summarize only what high quality reliable sources say about the topic, and nothing more. Strip everything else away, and polish what is left. Then, you will have an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To add to what Cullen328 said, if you end up with no content or almost no content after following the steps above, then it's likely that your topic isn't notable. If that happens, then you can maybe merge or redirect the article to a broader, more notable topic. There are also alternative outlets for these things, such as a personal website (there are many free web-hosting services) or perhaps a specialized wiki on Wikia. --Jakob (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

tournament logo copyright or not?

The non-profit I work for has soccer tournament logo's created once a year, we pay a Dad to create them but do not copyright them? How do I put them up correctly on the page? jenbreckJenbreck (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jenbreck. Copyright is not something you do: it's something that is. Those pictures are copyright unless the owner has explicitly placed them in the public domain (relinquished all rights in them). The copyright owner is probably either the Dad who created them, or your club (which I'm guessing is Utah Youth Soccer Association), depending on their agreement and your local laws. To use the logo in Wikipedia, the copyright owner must explicitly release it under a licence at least as liberal as CC-BY-SA: see donating copyright materials for how to do this. Some logos are used under the non-free content criteria, but I do not believe that the logo of a subsidiary event to the subject of an article would meet those criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We are a non-profit promoting Indian languages and Art & Sciences

in reference to Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vedic_Vidyalay We are struggling with Notability issue and third party sources.

As we are non profit and small organization we have coverage from community news papers and news channels only, isn't that enough? Bhupendra भूपेन्द्र: (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bhupendra भूपेन्द्र:. I don't think that "community" news coverage will be enough to establish notability of a small organization. Please read our notability guideline on organizations for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake here. Someone else's signature didn't display correctly in another Teahouse question and the person was given the advice NOT to check the box saying to treat the above as Wiki markup. After doing that the person's signature displayed correctly. But mine is checked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I show I have been granted permission to use photographs that aren't mine?

I remember reading about a procedure that needs to be done to prove the status of a photograph's copyright. I can't remember where I saw it to get back and read the details. Could you please help me with this? Thank You. Also, am I signing properly by just putting four tildes at the end of a talk page or do I need something else with it? Jet 18:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. You must communicate the permission to Wikipedia as explained at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jet. Your signature should include a link to your user page and one to your talk page. You can change how it looks by going to Special:Preferences and changing the box that says "Signature", and then checking the box that says to treat the above as Wiki markup before you scroll down and save changes.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jet1950: - Are you thinking of Commons:OTRS. The copyright holder will need to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the format at Commons:Email template. Please bear in mind that the OTRS volunteers are usually backlogged so it may take a little while. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If the photos are on a website, Jet1950, then the copyright holder can place a statement underneath each photo saying that it is freely licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (most commonly) or another acceptable Creative Commons license. Then, the photos can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons immediately. Just be sure the copyright holder reads, understands and agrees to the terms of the license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Creation of an Actress-related article

Chernobyl86 (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)I'm Chernobyl86 and I am wondering about if Wikipedia could create an article about the actress Stephanie Leigh Schlund, the actress who portrayed Cashmere in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire?Chernobyl86 (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Chernobyl86 and welcome to the Teahouse. If Ms. Schlund has been written about extensively in reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles, film reviews, etc., then you could make an article yourself. Try reading this page: Wikipedia:Your first article. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

She is listed in the article List of The Hunger Games cast members, but not in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. This suggests to me that it is a relatively minor role, and unless she has other more significant credits it might be difficult to justify having an article spefically for her. So your first task, should you choose to accept it, is to check the list of requirements at WP:NACTOR to confirm whether she is "Notable" (in the special Wikipedia sense of the word). In particular, can you justify how she meets the criterion to have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (my emphases) --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time.

KateMcKinnonTucson (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page

I created a page for a politician, S.J. Jung, that was recently deleted due to alleged promotion. I went through my article and spent hours trying to making it objective and really thought it was. However, the page is again not there. Once it is deleted is it not possible to re-do? I would really love for my article to be up and I would like to now exactly what is wrong with it.

Thanks in advance for your help.SJ4Senate (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@SJ4Senate: Normally, if you ask the deleting administrator, they will place a copy in your own userspace. When that happens you can work on it to your heartls content and ask reviewers from WP:AFC to tell you what is wrong with it. If that is what you want to happen, after you have asked the deleting admin and they have handed you the userspace copy, ask me on my own talk page for help and I will do my best to help you. If the politician is genuinely notable then we want an article on them here. If, however, you are using the article as their political platform then the article will be deleted again. I perceive form your username that this may be the case, and that you are promoting S J Jung. Fiddle Faddle 15:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@SJ4Senate: Just to expand on Faddle's comment about your user name. User names which appear to be promotional are in breach of our user name policy. Your user name appears to be promoting support of a political candidate and is therefore not permitted.--ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello SJ4Senate. As an unelected candidate, Jung fails our notability guideline for politicians. The proper time to write an article is if and when he wins the state legislature election. Since it seems you have a conflict of interest, please use the Articles for Creation process after any such victory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

How to have "stub" and "needs inline citations" tags removed from a page that has been improved

Hi! I have been working to improve the page on English guitarist Oliver Thompson. I am wondering if I have added enough material to have the two notes on the page removed, or if what is required is that another person besides myself work on the page. I haven't noticed anyone else doing so, but I'm a fan, and I'd like to see the page look nice.

Oliver Thompson

Can anyone recommend how I might improve the content that I have already added, or is it appropriate to ask for someone else to add something, or to ask Wiki to remove the "This needs to be better" tags?

Thanks! I'm pretty wet behind the Wiki-ears. KateMcKinnonTucson (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kate, and welcome to the Teahouse. The general answer to your question is that when you think that you have fixed a problem, you are welcome to remove the tags from the top. However, I'm afraid that despite your work, you have not fixed the problem with referencing. The fact is, that not one of the six references in Oliver Thompson is acceptable. Four of them are to Wikipedia articles: Wikipedia is inherently unreliable (because anybody may edit it); so while it is very much encouraged to link to other articles, they may never be used as references. The final two are just to listings: they may or may not be reliable (I haven't checked), but they do not say anything substantial about Thompson. What you need is reliable published references, independent of the subject which have written at length about him: reviews or articles in major newspapers, or in websites with a reputation for fact-checking. Without several of these, not only will the article not be satisfactory, but it is likely to be deleted, because those are required to establish that the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). One minor point - when you do find some better references, they should be formatted with bibliographic information, and should not appear in parenthesis in the text: see Referencing for beginners for more information. Sorry. --80.177.170.180 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will work to correct what you suggest immediately.

KateMcKinnonTucson (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

May I ask what you think of the references now? It's my understanding that parentheticals are OK and I actually prefer them, if so.

I am not sure if the quote I included from one of the interviews with Ferry is appropriate, and if so, I should inset it, in italics, as I would if I were writing an article.

Thank you again for your time.

KateMcKinnonTucson (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen references in parentheses like that. It's probably better just to remove those and leave the reference information. But you will still not be finished. We need a title and preferably other information such as a publisher, or the name of the magazine or newspaper if there is one. If you use just a URL, it is possible that at some future date a person looking for the information will not be able to simply click on the link and it will be gone. Adding as much information as possible helps us deal with that possibility.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I see I missed one of your other questions. There MUST be a reference immediately after the quote. In my opinion, the quote from Ferry is too long. Include what is really essential. Definitely don't quote the person asking the question. Just reword that part in your own words, saying something like "Asked his opinion on ... , Ferry said," followed by some sort of formatting for the response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I went back through my recent contributions and found an article with a formatted quote. If you click on "edit" you can see how to use this particular formatting. There are others.

Nile Rodgers ... is a really brilliant rhythm guitarist. I must also mention Neil Hubbard, Waddy Wachtel, Phil Manzanera, John Porter, David Gilmour, Mark Knopfler and Johnny Marr – the list goes on – all of whom have played wonderful things on my records.

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

References

--ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. And I shouldn't have left just a URL up there, even though it was random and had nothing to do with the quote. I should always show a properly formatted reference.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Help to remove watermark

I request some user to remove watermarks from images on Shaina NC as I have nominated it for GA and I can't remove watermarks from mobile. Abhi (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You can ask at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop for assistance with this. Make sure the copyright is appropriate for Wikipedia; watermarks often suggest that it's not. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yunshui. I have placed request there. Abhi (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. If you read the upload description at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shaina_NC_Family_2.jpg it has some rather specific conditions accepted under OTRS at Commons. Fiddle Faddle 15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

??? I have uploaded around 1000 images on Commons with watermarks. Sometime I cropped to remove watermark, sometime someone removed watermarks on images they liked and many are still with watermarks. For the first time I am requesting watermark removal because I have nominated article for GA. Abhi (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Quibik did it. Thanks everybody. Abhi (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Tim (Fiddle Faddle) was replying to my suggestion that the watermark might indicate a copyright issue - I put that in as a generalism, but the Bollywood Hungama images used in the article do seem to have the correct (albeit very specialised) permissions, so nothing to worry about there. Yunshui ^雲_水 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rejected article

The article I was working on is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farm_%26_Home_Supply

First it was rejected as "advertising" so I removed the suspected elements. Then it was rejected as not meeting "notability" guidelines.

But there are many pages on Wikipedia that are simple, informational posts that matter to a non-mainstream audience, and thus will not have been featured on CNN, etc. A couple examples of companies similar to the one I'm interested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_King and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blain's_Farm_and_Fleet.

Thanks. Mbadqcy (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mbadqcy: Thank you for coming here. Your question is reasonable. The answer is, I fear, that your references are, none of them, suitable. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. The references are not about the business (some are about the owners), or not independent. None have significant coverage. None is in WP:RS as far as I can tell. Provided you can find other references this is not a problem. If you can't then you have fallen at the biggest hurdle, and cannot proceed.

If the business is truly WP:N it will be featured in something you can quote that meets our exacting standards. Your article is not, in my view, an advert.

The section on other similar business has no place in the article unless those business have articles. That might be construed by an uncharitable reviewer as advertising.

Your comment about other articles would be a great argument if Wikipedia did not have a stance that no one article sets a precedent for any other article. If it did then we would gradually lower the standards by dint of precedent and would descend to Idiocracy.

I will place relevant reviewer comments on your draft for your use. Fiddle Faddle 15:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Problem

I still have not resolve the infobox issue I have for VxWorks. A line item "working state = Current" shows in edit mode but not in read mode...? ThanksRobpater (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It shows in read mode for me - note that it doesn't appear in the same place in the "live" version of the infobox as in the editable version; it's about the second or third visible field. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you still can't see it, you may need to bypass your cache - Arjayay (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I can see it nowRobpater (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I've modified that page as there was no reason to have two of the same infobox there. So, I condensed them into one infobox. Also note, that infobox is under discussion for a possible merge with {{Infobox OS version}} which may change the parameters a little in the future. I found the stacking of the logo and the screenshot hard to visualize so, I modified the template being used to put the screenshot at the bottom of the display. I think this change is a great improvement and would be happy to discuss it on the template's talk page if anyone doesn't agree. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I remove dead references?

I don't know how to remove references that lead to deleted websites. Thank you.

DrainPub (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Link rot. In short, if they support a statement, try to find another source for that information. Failing that mark it with the text {{deadlink}}, which appears as , but do not delete it, as archives like the Wayback machine can probably find it. If, however, it is just an External link, in the External links section, these can be deleted. Arjayay (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What does a CSD log do?

Hello! What does a CSD log do? I have created one for myself, but I actually don't know what is it. How can I operate it and is it automated? By the way, I already have Twinkle on.I thought that CSD log was a request for CSDs. XP. Anyway, after you reply, PLEASE either ping me or mention me or leave me a teahouse talkback. Thanks! Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an automated list of articles that you have nominated for speedy deletion. You don't have to do anything with it as Twinkle will automatically update it. Valenciano (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So it doesn't count files and categories? Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 07:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Questions around a draft article about an organization

Hello TeaHouse !

I've written a draft for an article (currently in my sandbox) about an organization. I have been extra-careful so far, only adding information & activities I could find elsewhere than on the organization website. Now, I'd really like the opinion of fellow editors on 2 matters:

1/ Is what I have written so far in agreement with wikipedia policies ? (Comments on the text itself are also welcome... I am no native speaker so I would appreciate to be informed if my text does not make any sense :o)

2/ How much could I use the organization website ? It is really tempting to use it as they have lots of publication about their activities... But I am afraid to fall into advertisement then and to have that kind of box on the top of my article, once it will be published.

Thanks a lot for your help ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, your English sounds fine to me and the strongest clue that you're not a native speaker is that your sentences are grammatical! The draft looks good to me as it stands but you are right to be cautious. I have found articles on UN (and EU, etc.) organisations can get sent to WP:AFD for notability reasons because the references are either "passing mentions" or are from non-independent sources (such as the UN itself or UNESCO). Newspapers aren't interested in the UN (unless there is overspending, etc.). So, as a tactic, why not try and include something like this, even if it needs to be forced in a bit? The source is independent and the coverage is sufficiently extended. So, try looking for books and academic journal articles that have been written by outside observers. You can include UNEVOC website material when it is purely factual and non-controversial (as you have already). However, purely as another tactic, why not leave this out until the article has survived a couple of weeks as a full article? It will be right after it has become a full article that people will be looking at it to see whether it meets the WP:Notability guidelines. If there are too many UNEVOC internal references, casual readers may concentrate on these and not realise there are external references as well. Best wishes and good luck. WP ought to be having these sorts of articles and our coverage is presently not strong. Thincat (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comment and your tips, Thincat. You have well summed up the difficulties of those organizations regarding wiki-notability. I had not seen this book you've linked... it will be of a great help to fill the gaps. That should suffice to go through the review :-) Thanks again ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File edit summary

How do you write an edit summary in a file page? Thanks. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 04:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Edit summary#File upload summary have what you need?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My article was rejected for bad sourcing, yet I see many accepted articles with no sourcing at all

Hi all,

My article was rejected for bad sourcing, and while I can certainly see how it could be improved in that regard, I am a bit flummoxed as to how some articles get in with no sourcing at all, or sourcing that doesn't even pass the smell test. There will actually be notes that say "if this is not proprerly sourced or notated, it will be removed."

Shouldn't those articles never be accepted in the first place? Or is my editor being particularly harsh? Given that his specialty is not medicine and my article is on a prominent surgeon, should I be asking for a different editor to give a second opinion?

Curious, not (yet) furious.

Francois.96.56.50.162 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Francis and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't see any sign of a draft article you've created anywhere. Did you use a different user account or log in on a different computer? This makes it very hard to judge your contribution, which I'd be happy to take a look at. Thanks for staying curious rather than furious!  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Francis. This is a volunteer project and we have over 4.5 million articles. Some go through Articles for Creation review (which is fairly new), and others have just been plunked into the encyclopedia without any review. Many editors, myself included, spend a lot of time improving poor quality articles, and deleting hopeless articles. We delete thousands every day. Many more remain, which will be deleted when we get around to it.

Pointing out that some older poor quality articles exist on this encyclopedia, while true, is not a good argument for creating brand new poor quality articles. Instead, we either improve or delete the older articles, and create good quality new articles. That's how we build this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the below elsewhere today, as my Eddy Kenzo article was declined. Apparently, from what you say above one solution here would be for me to wait for the other person's article to (Lord willing and luck flowing) be deleted some day in the sky by and by, and then resubmit mine... However, I don't really care enough to continue wasting my time and energy for a topic I selected just because it came to hand at that time (and had not been written about before!) so I'm off until such time as something else strikes my fancy. "Heh! A couple weeks after I submitted this article to be reviewed, someone else posted an (as I see it and as indicated by the multiple problem notices placed on it later) apparently unreviewed and not as well prepared article. Mine was then declined when someone finally got around to looking at it on the basis of "one already exists." One of the things I really dislike about Wikipedia - but not wishing to devote my life to working up through the hierarchy, have no chance at all of changing - is how if you try to do things according to the rules you tend to get spat (change the second letter) on for various minor quibbles and not allowed to proceed until everything is absolutely perfect according to the arbitrary decisions and opinions of the insiders with power, as they choose among and interpret thousands of often contradictory rules and guidelines. Yet ninety percent of what is on the site was posted without review and is largely shlock (while the other ten percent is pretty good to excellent). Sure, someone then comes along and posts a "please improve" on much of the shlock, but so what? It's still there, is never addressed by the original author or the pious reviewer (who spends their time on their own interests and telling others what to do) and is often in such poor condition that improving it would be harder and take far more time than scrapping it and starting over - which as noted here cannot be done unless I wanted to simply cut out the other person's article and paste in my own, an idea that leaves a poor taste in my mouth and would probably incite even more trouble of other kinds. Ah well, I had my exercise in editing for the first time in some years. This not being my primary interest, but just something I like to put my bit into once in a while, I am not going to spend more hours trying to make this right. If anyone else wants to pull him/herself away from her/his own editing interests and marking things for corrections that will almost certainly never be made, please feel free to do the "improvement" work on the other article yourself using my material, or delete it, or whatever you feel like. Cheers and felicitations!" DanCooperPara (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello DanCooperPara. Your experience here is valid, and if that is true, then my experience is valid as well. I have been involved in saving, improving and expanding hundreds of articles here, and involved in deleting hundreds or perhaps thousands of lousy articles. You don't need to "wait" for anything. If you think an article doesn't belong, take action to get rid of it. I am a slow moving old man, so I am active at Articles for Deletion, which is a one week debate process. But we have speedy deletion for total garbage too. And so on. If it is really bad, act to delete it.

Improving mediocre articles ought to be "no big deal", and in most cases, it isn't. Simply edit the article to make it better, one edit at a time. If you start an article and find that there is already a mediocre article about the same topic, then simply take the reasearch you have already done, and use it to improve the existing article. No need to delete the poor article. Transform it. The previous contributors don't own it, and you can start with the first sentence, and make it better. And go through every sentence and paragraph. Don't like the structure? Then restructure it. Be prepared, of course, to defend your edits. If you are working in a highly controversial areas like abortion or the Crimea or gun control or Chinese border disputes or Obama, you may get some push back. But there are literally millions of articles where your policy compliant efforts will be uncontroversial and deeply appreciated. Just do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi DanCooperPara and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to hear about your disappointing experience with article creation. The reviewer was quite correct in declining the submission as it was a duplicate topic. That said, the existing article is tagged for both referencing and notability issues. A quick look at your draft shows some good sources that might solve those problems. A lot of the work involved in Wikipedia is in improving on the work of others and I think that your contributions to the exisiting article would be a great improvement. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And please note that other stuff exists is not an acceptable argument at Wikipedia - Arjayay (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I said my piece, and was simply quoted back the Official Company Line as usual. Will repeating it make things get better and/or already be perfect? I guess we'll see, or rather you will. (If it's so incredibly quick and easy to fix all these things, why don't all y'all just do it at the time? *wink*) Have fun hanging with all the insider 'contributors' who putatively do not own anything, like the ultra-high-poster of minor geographic name changes who used his insider status and knowledge of all the locales and buttons of power on Wikipedia to blockade undisputed, factual information that had been reported in local and regional newspapers and references for years from being included in the Adrian Dix page some time back, only getting pushed aside in the end because the whole thing got into the news media, thereby giving both Dix (who fully admitted the info and would probably have far rather have it simply included) and Wikipedia itself black eyes. There are a lot of decent people I've run into on Wikipedia, and I have no reason to doubt you are among them, but sadly I have met far more of the other kind. I particularly loved the fellow in question's demand - backed up by other Wikipedia power holders - even after giving up on claiming that the factual information should not be included because it was "political" (as what would not be in an article about a politician, one might ask) that nothing be added until the entire article was re-written and expanded to his liking, but of course with none of the work being done by him. Me, I'm (once again) sick of trying to jump through hoops to meet other people's specifications and desires, especially when I would get further if I was the kind who just ignored them or went around them. At least this time I don't have to "disappear" since this name is not actually trackable back to me like my previous one. (And honestly, knowing me, I might end up coming back yet again at some point to twiddle grammar; fairly sure I won't be writing any more articles, though, not that THAT's anyone's loss!) DanCooperPara (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I need your opinions

On the Lauren Spierer article, I put the timeline of the night she disappeared in the article. I put the times established by surveillance footage in bold and the times established by witness statements in regular font. Several times, the times have all been bolded or unbolded by other editors thinking it was a mistake. I noted it above the timeline what the times in bold mean, but if wikipedia editors are missing it, I have to assume the regular reader is missing it too and assuming it is a typo. I'm wondering if I should use colors or some other type of distinction to make it clearer. Does anyone have any ideas? Bali88 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bali88. The Manual of style discourages the usage of bold type for emphasis. Please see MOS:BOLD for the details. Use of a colored font would also not comply with accepted style. If you feel the need to differentiate, try italic instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure if the "emphasis" rule is specifically referring to this type of situation. I'm assuming by emphasis they meant the type of situation that you would otherwise use Italics (example: You're angry at me??? I should be angry at you!"). A timeline is sort of an atypical usage, I doubt they're talking about emphasis in that way. If I would use italics...would italic numbers show up well? 5:10 vs. 5:10? It feels like it might be a lateral move:not enough distinction to really help the reader but just enough to look weird. I was considering doing a table with background colors in the boxes. People are unlikely to mistake that for a typo. I'm just wondering if that would be the right choice for a timeline. Bali88 (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bali88 First, I want to state my bias up front. One of my pet peeves is that people over use things like bold and italics. I think they should be used very sparingly. But with that in mind, after looking at the timeline I think that your use is one of those exceptions that prove the rule. I.e., I think it works as you did it and definitely adds to the presentation. As you said italics wouldn't work here and IMO there is lots of value in distinguishing between the two sources of info. However, I would definitely not start mucking around with colors, I think that would be overdoing it. I don't think you should infer that average readers are missing the emphasis either, it seemed clear to me. In similar cases like this, where there is a recurring type of change people make to an article that I have to keep undoing what I do is to document the decision on the Talk page. Say here is what I did and why. Then if someone disagrees they have a natural place to debate with you and in your edits when you revert you can make the revert comment refer to that Talk page section. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll keep it as is for now and address this further if the problem continues. Bali88 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I also think bold works well in this particular situation. If people keep on changing things without understanding what is intended then, as well as or instead of explaining on the talk page, you could put in WP:HIDDEN text beside each time to draw attention to what is going on. Obviously other editors may not think bold is suitable but at least they will realise that a distinction is being made. Thincat (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

new articles

Hello all. I wish to create new articles coving topics not present here however I am unaware of the minimal requirements that need to be met regarding content and sourcing. SanamBh (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SanamBh. Please start by reading Your first article and also A Primer for beginners. Feel free to ask specific questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:42 is good too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are all good pointers. However, I want to add that it sounds like you are a new editor and IMO it's better for new editors to work on editing existing articles first and then create new articles after you have some experience. For a few reasons, first I think that editing existing articles is something we need more of than new articles. There are so many articles out there that need work, better references, better flow, less POV, etc. Of course new articles are good as well but there aren't that many really important topics that don't already have an article. Second doing some editing will get you experience on all the things you need to know to create a new article but in a more digestible fashion than jumping in and creating a brand new article. Also, editing existing articles will get you familiar with what is already there and will make it less likely that you might try to create a new article on a topic already covered with a slightly different name. If you look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal and scroll down to "Help Out" there are subheading with lots of articles that need specific improvements. Also, once you do some editing User:SuggestBot is a great tool for finding articles to edit that match your interests. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is a published work with few notable resources appropriate for an article?

Hello, I have a question about creating an article about a series of books. These are not widely-known books. There are a considerable number of works which reference this book and give some information on it, but I don't think these sources are what would be considered "notable" by Wikipedia, i.e. they are not academic journals or popular news publications. It seems to me that a book would have to be rather popular for it to be written about in sources like this.

Does this mean that an article must be only about very popular books? Is it not appropriate to create a Wikipedia article about a published book which is not popular enough to have been written about academically? Even though there isn't much information from "notable" sources about a book like this, I would think it would at least be of interest to have a page which discusses the simple fact that the book exists, who wrote it, and the topics it covers without expounding much on the content.

As a collection of knowledge, is Wikipedia reserved only for popular knowledge? 99.53.73.112 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. We have guidelines about the notability of books which you will find here. Hope that helps.--ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @Ukexpat:. Is there a list of criteria that admins use to determine whether a referenced published book is "notable" enough to be a valid reference? I ask because I have seen an article for a book, in a very similar situation to my own, which had numerous references of books which contained "sufficient critical commentary" yet were still dismissed and the whole article deleted. Do the people who decide whether to delete an article follow a set criteria or is it up to the whim of the person at the time whether or not references are "notable" enough?

I am talking about criteria #1 in the link you posted, which states non-trivial published works, including "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." This is not specific as it seems not all "other books" met this criterion. Sorry if there is already another page about this...I'm having trouble navigating wikipedia's help pages. 99.53.73.112 (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a page about reliable sources too. Also note that admins do not determine notability - they are just regular users who have a few extra tools to keep the place running smoothly. Questions of notability are a matter for consensus among the community, by discussion in an appropriate forum.--ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Ukexpat: for that link, it is somewhat helpful, although it does not discuss what should be considered a notable book or not. It does discuss in depth scholarly sources and news organizations, but the only criterion it really lists for published books is that they not be self-published. Does this imply that it is really just a "majority rules" determination of what should be considered a notable published book? 99.53.73.112 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we use the guidelines at WP:NBOOK but to determine whether those guidelines are met, we use reliable sources. If there is a dispute, the community decides whether the sources cited (a) are reliable and (b) demonstrate that the book meets the guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your help @Ukexpat:, though unfortunately I feel I've hit a wall of circular reasoning. WP:NBOOK lists as a criteria that an article about a book should have sources including "published books," and so we go to reliable sources to determine if the published book can be counted as a "reliable source," but the only criterion mentioned is that is should not be self-published. So we go back to WP:NBOOK for further criteria, but then again must reference reliable sources to determine reliability. By that point I'm dizzy! This seems to imply to me that "can't be self-published" is not the only criterion for determining whether a published book is a "reliable source," but rather it is left up to the community (i.e. the majority) to decide whether a book is "reliable" even if it is not self-published. This is enlightening, thank you! 99.53.73.112 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I must not be explaining it clearly: for a book to merit an article about it on Wikipedia, it must be notable. We have guidelines that we use to indicate what notable means. But it's not enough for the text of an article to indicate that it is notable; the text must be supported by reliable, third party, sources that show that the book meets the guidelines. The book itself cannot be used as a source to demonstrate its own notability. Guidelines and policies are open to interpretation, so any dispute as to whether the book is "notable", ie meets the guidelines, or whether the third party sources cited to support notability are in fact "reliable", as defined on Wikipedia, are resolved by discussion. --ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is determined by a number of factors, including the reputation of the publisher and the author, the credentials of the author regarding the specific topic, and the context. We expect much more rigor from a source on a medical topic than a pop culture topic. The most common way to establish the notability of a book is to cite published in-depth reviews of that book by professional book reviewers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me try a different slant on this. Evidence of publication is not evidence of notability or even significance, since anyone can publish a book.

To illustrate this, it's possible for someone to write and then "self-publish" a book - and thus the book is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards - but the book itself subsequently becomes notable by Wikipedia's standards because other, "reliable" sources write about it. So for example The Land of Lost Content (book) is notable but not reliable, just like Histories (Herodotus). Presumably there are some reliable sources that are not notable, too - which would be the opposite. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples of newspapers which were indisputably notable but utterly unreliable include Der Stürmer and Weekly World News. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And of course the Daily Fail, I mean Mail.--ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox vs. Sub page - which is better & why?

Hello,

I'm trying another article (this time for an association), but decided to start the article as I had done before, which was in my sandbox - is it ok to do this instead of creating a subpage? I marked in my sandbox and when it is time to submit the article for review, I will remove this userspace draft tag - Please advise if this is correct.

It seemed easier to create the content in the sandbox and then submit for review - does it not? what is the subpage's purpose anyway? I created a test/subpage but I still don't get it so it just sits there on my userspace, - is it ok to go to the sandbox (it is also a subpage of the user space) - I can then ask editors to take a look before i submit my article?

Also - I tried to find my old message about creating the sub page but it is gone (nine days ago) - is there a time limit to answer questions in the teahouse? Thanks in advanceAdBCWi14 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AdBCWi14. A sandbox page is just an easy to remember name for a type of user subpage. You can use your sandbox page for any type of experimentation or article development you wish, as long as the ultimate goal is improving the encyclopedia. Active editors often have many user subpages, because they are working on several projects simultaneously. To start a new user subpage, just type a slash (/) after your user page URL in the box at the top, add a nickname for the page after the slash, and hit enter. You will be asked if you want to start a new page with that name, and when you do so, an edit window appears. Just start editing. But if you only need one page, just use your sandbox.

Old Teahouse questions get archived. You can search the archives using the search function available on this page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Found it!— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

want to add two header rows to a two-column format

Hi,

I'm trying to set up a double column to show the name of an office-holder in one column, and the years of service in the second column. I've found out how to do that.

However, I would also like to have two header rows that span both columns, to have the name of the office in the top row, and some detail about the office in the second row.

Is this possible to do (without much knowledge of formatting)?

Here's what I would like it to look like: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat. I looked at the code for those columns, though, and there seems to be a lot of data built into them, so I can't just use them as a template.

Thanks!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. It sounds like you want the below which uses colspan="2". See more at Help:Table. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

HI, PrimeHunter. Thanks for the response. However, I'm not sure a table will work, because I want to list several officer-holders, like the example of the US Supreme Court justices. That article displays 3 or 4 columns side-by-side. Is it possible to have 3 or 4 tables side-by-side? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:You can put tables side by side by essentially putting those tables within another table. A simpler way to do this, though, is to use the col-templates, as the Supreme Court Justices example does. See the example usage for an idea of how it works. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I initially asked about using columns. But, I still don't know how to have a single cell at the top of a two-column display, the same as the Supreme Court justices example does. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the code I used above. If this is not the table layout you want then please explain the difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that example, but again, is there a way to have three or four separate tables lining up side-by-side, as in the case of the US Supreme Court justices, linked to above? It is possible to do it with columns. I don't want it to be a single table, because the years for different office-holders don't correspond. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is my sample table from above copied to three columns with code at the example usage link in SuperHamster's post. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

Dispute with another editor

I am a new editor to Wikipedia, and for the past week, I have been having an ongoing and possibly escalating dispute with another editor, who has been engaged in an edit-war with me over a minor edit to the Muslim conquests article and has been repeatedly attacking me with claims of my Wikipedia "falsifying" information and sources.

I admit that I was deeply surprised to receive such a message - of being reported to an administrator - as my first one on this site, and I have become not a little disillusioned. I do not wish to seek other solutions, but someone recommended me coming here for possible advice, and so here I am. I could not help but notice that this user has been engaged in very serious disagreements with various others as well over similar issues, such as the Talk:Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent most recently, and it honestly concerns me a little that his behaviour, both unnecessary and unusually aggressive, is allowed to continue, seemingly unnoticed or disregarded by most. Torontas (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer Certificate

Hi Everyone... I Know You Probably Don't Get Questions Like This Often.. But I Have Checked & Asked Everyone.. And It Still Isn't Working.. I Had To Do A Factory Reset On My Samsung Illusion.. Ever Since Then My Peer Certificate Does Not Work.. I Can't Sync Anything... Any Help Would Be Appreciated.. Thanks..— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueEyes1982 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC+9)

Hello, BlueEyes1982. You're welcome in the Teahouse, but your particular question is indeed of a kind we don't often get here, because the Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. But we have a Reference Desk where your question would be entirely appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)