Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

File:WP teahouse logo.png by Heatherawalls CC BY-SA 3.0

Experienced and want
to help at the Teahouse?
Become a host...

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just press the button below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click [edit] to the right of his or her question and start the conversation.

Ask a question

death

I was clinicaly dead at age 6 months. Drowned in a bathtube-revived by my grandfather-by the slap method-and here I am today.66.159.117.20 (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dissappearing help question

I was at the Help Desk already about creating a article. When I go to My Talk, it says that I have a reply to my post, but when I go to the Help Desk, my post was gone! And I really want to see the replies being that I haven't sorted out the whole 'navigation of Wikipedia' yet... Thanks! SweetandSadistic (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Sweet, and welcome to The Teahouse. Don't worry, your post isn't gone. The Help Desk has a habit of getting backlogged with questions, so topics quickly get archived so as to limit the number of topics on a page at a one time. You can find your question in the archive here. In the future, you can search for the topic or your username to find your posts on the help desk main page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

Where can i find a list of stubs that i can start work on?

canobasebalk Canobasebalk (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Canobasebalk! It depends on what you're interested in. For example, if you want to work on fantasy stubs, you would go to Category:Fantasy stubs. I'm glad to see you have an interest in expanding Wikipedia. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Canobasebalk, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of places to start Category:Stub categories contains a list of the 11039(!) various stub categories - pick a subject that interests you and go from there. Alternatively you can find a similar list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. NtheP (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you User:Brambleberry of RiverClan and User:Nthep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canobasebalk (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Template question

I noticed that in some templates there are {{#: }} things (e.g. {{#if: {{{1|}}}| 1 |}}). I know there are more than "#if", for example there's also "#switch", "#ifexist" etc." Can someone explain all of the {{#: }}s to me and what they do? thanks Koopatrev (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Koopatrev. They are called parser functions. You can read about them at Help:Magic words#Parser functions with more details at the first two links there. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Created article but can't view progress

Hello,

I submitted a new article a week ago via my SandBox, and at the time, it said I was number "793" in line. How do I check the current progress of the article?

Thanks! Matt Mattpbuzz (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mattpbuzz. Welcome to the Teahouse. If you click the "My sandbox" link at top of pages then you go into edit mode for your sandbox. To see how the sandbox looks, click either the "User page" tab at top to see User:Mattpbuzz/sandbox, or click the "Show preview" button below the edit box if you have made changes and not saved them yet. As you can see, the submission was unfortunately declined because it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or Wikipedia:Notability (web) for conditions you should try to satisfy. I don't know whether reliable independent sources have written enough about PollBuzzer to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Most companies and websites do not satisfy them. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Examples and standards

I tried to publish a article about the history of my high school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Ho%C3%ABrskool_Voortrekker

It is now rejected for the 3rd time. The first two rejections was a result of lack of reference and the third for it being too much like an advertisement. Why don't the editors highlight the statement(s) sentences that results in the rejection so that it can be referenced rewritten or deleted. To make sure that my article meet a certain standard I randomly looked up school in Australia,United Kingdom, South Africa and the USA. All the school have the same basic outline, history, alumni, location colour and songs. In my subjective opinion the articles are plus minus of the same standard. How do you get published, is it a question of resubmitting until you get lucky wit a editor? Pduplessis1 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pduplessis1! There are some difficulties about the AfC process, but at a glance the place that needs adjusting is the section on Nobby's Bar. I have raised a query on whether this is enough reason to prevent the article going live, on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC).

Thank you, this is helpful. Nobby Bar is not in existence anymore and I make the changes accordingly

New place

How to create a wikepedia page for a new place? Sushilp66 (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sushilp66! Welcome to Wikipedia! Creating new articles is covered at the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Your first article. The short-short version is:

1. Make sure the article doesn't already exist under another name
2. Gather reliable sources you can use for the information you intend to use in creating the article. (don't skip this step. It is by far the most important part of creating an article)
3. Create the article using the information you gathered, being sure to cite the sources where you found the information.

That's it! Wikipedia articles don't need to be perfect as soon as they are created, but they do need to be about subjects where there is enough good reliable information that can be verified in reliable sources. Good luck, and if you need more help, please feel free to ask. --Jayron32 12:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm writing a new article...

I'm trying translating an article in my sandbox, but it may take a few hours. I'm afraid that somebody may translate the same article as they don't know I'm doing so. What should I do to avoid this?Professorjohnas (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Professor, welcome to The Teahouse. I think one way to let others know you are translating the page is to leave a note on the article's talk page. If it's an article that gets a lot of attention, it will be seen. If not, well, you probably don't have to worry about someone else translating the article. What article are you translating, and is it from another-language Wikipedia? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, don't call me Professor. It's just a stupid name:) Indeed I'm a Chinese Wikipedian and I'm translating an article from English to Chinese. As it's easier to seek help, I ask the question here instead of doing so on the Chinese Wikipedia. The article is Culture of Singapore, in Chinese zh:新加坡文化. Professorjohnas (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nearly forget to thank for you help XDD=) Professorjohnas (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Anytime! I should also note that whenever you post your translation to the English Wikipedia, you might also want to make sure you note that you post this this template with appropriate info on the talk page on the English Wikipedia version. This will establish what version of the article on the Chinese Wikipedia you used to do your English translation. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I'm translating from English to Chinese. But thank for you reminder as I have to do so on the Chinese Wikipedia. Professorjohnas (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Youtube Videos and Wikileaks ...

Questions regarding verifiability: What's the Wikipedia policy regarding Youtube Videos? Same question regarding blogs, does a blog written by the subject of a Wikipedia biography have any weight? Dgharmon (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Youtube videos and blogs are only useful as "primary sources", which means they can only be used as sources for what they directly say, not for sources meant to establish that what they say is "true". Sources which analyze statements for their veracity (as opposed to merely making them) are called "secondary sources" and are what are preferred for the bulk of information at Wikipedia. To put it in practical terms, a primary source like a blog can only be used to verify what the blog says. If I write a blog that says "The moon is made of green cheese", then you could use the blog as a source for saying that "Jayron32's blog states that the moon is made of green cheese", however you could NOT use as a source for the statement "The moon is made of green cheese". The former merely reports the fact of what the blog states, without analyzing it for veracity. The second statement would require a secondary source, such as a well respected journal, text book, magazine, or other similar source. Thus, a paper published in the journal Nature which stated that the moon was made of green cheese would be sufficient source, but not my blog. In summation, blogs and the like and other primary sources should only be used to report exactly what they say, but cannot be used to draw conclusions about what it means, or even if it is true or not. You need better sources for that. That's why many blogs have limited utility, because they mostly don't have any reputation for fact checking and editorial control. Does that make sense? There's more reading at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Jayron32 02:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Wikileaks? It wasn't asked in the question but...I am a bit curious and never really thought about it. I guess because it's a primarily source you can't, but I do think there are some ways around with government sources? Or..maybe not? :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, it can be used to basically source quotes, but not to source the meaning of those quotes. That is, if some document is reproduced at Wikileaks, you can only use the document to verify what the document says, but not to analyze what it means, and even that is tough, because to say that any particular document released on Wikileaks is significant or "proves" something, you'd need a secondary source (like a newspaper or magazine or something) which says that it means that. Otherwise, there's not much to do with it, since analyzing a primary source (like a government memorandum) would be original research, which is not what we do at Wikipedia. We wait for others to analyze primary sources and report what they find, then we aggregate and report those findingins in our own words. That's basically what Wikipedia does: find stuff other people have already figured out and re-report it here. If no one figured something out before Wikipedia did, Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to report it, including the importance and meaning of government memoranda leaked through Wikileaks. --Jayron32 03:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That was a quick response, one more thing, I've noticed defunct URLs in the references sections of some articles, is there a tool to automate finding them Dgharmon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we aim to please! Regarding dead links, the page Wikipedia:Link rot should be able to answer your questions. Toodles.--Jayron32 04:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing for first time

Hello, I am a Graduate Assistant (working on my MLIS) well our library is wanting to put together a pizzapedia night :) a night of pizza and editing wikipedia. Before i could have sworn i saw a category where there articles that needed to be edited, and I thought that would be a good way to start the whole editing or finding citations process. Anyone have helpful hints on how to get this done? Or will i just need to have everyone register with an account and do their own thing?

GASchustermanGA (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shusterman. Yes there are a number of such categories.

Category:Articles with unsourced statements and Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit are two that may be if interest. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC).

Hey SchustermanGA. I have many a "beerpedia" nites myself, though it isn't really anyone here except me and the Yuengling family. As far as your second question, Wikipedia has a basic "one person to an account" policy, so each person who wishes to use an account to edit needs to have their own personal account. However, you don't actually need an account, just a computer, though having an account does have its benefits. --Jayron32 01:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference problem

I was updating Stuart Broad Summer 2012 when I was using a reference which went wrong causing his personnel life getting put in the same section, can someone help? JohnWoodPack (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)JohnWoodPack

Hi JohnWoodPack and welcome to the teahouse. I appreciate that you are helping Wikipedia. So the way to seperate the Personal Life section is to remove 1 equal sign (=) from the two sides of the section, so "===Personal life===" will become "==Personal life==" Again, thanks for contributing to an article. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding context

Hello! Looking to add some context for my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Praescient_Analytics

any guidence on how to do this? The company's website would not be a reliable secondary source, I think. Please let me know some alternative ways I can expand on the subject for the lay person.

Thanks! ScottPraescient (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

More information would be good, and better evidence of WP:Notability, but I am not clear what context is required. I have left a qiuery on the article's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC).

Creating an Article

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and was wondering how a company can go about creating an article on the site (similar to Pepsi or Facebook). Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

Jon 67.164.176.121 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Currently, only registered editors can create articles. You can go to the signup page to register. Or you can stay unregistered, which is fine. The only way IP addresses can create articles are through the articles for creation process. An experienced editor will review your submission and will move the article or decline to. You can read Wikipedia:Your first article for more information on creating your first submission. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 17:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jon, in response to "how a company can go about creating an article" there are quite a few issues around creating an article about yourself or your own company. Some of the key points are mentioned here. There is a lot of other information about editing with what we call a "conflict of interest" (COI) so please read up a little before you begin. Good luck! heather walls (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

how to cite when there are not references

My mother and aunt were session back up singers - there are really no online, book or journal citings. They kept records and there is a singer's union that will have it on file, but back up singers are not widely published. My page documenting their career was rejected because of lack of citings...any tips?Mollygilbert35 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Apart from sourcing, they must be notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) are the relevant notability standards in this case). For instance, did they perform on any famous records/albums? benzband (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Molly, the thing about Wikipedia articles is that all of the information needs to be verifiable, and that there needs to be enough verifiable information to write an article about. The existance of most people is verifiable, for example, you can prove that I exist, and prove where I was born, what jobs I held, etc. However, there isn't much published information about my life beyond my vital statistics. Because there is very little verifiable information about me, I am not considered notable enough for an article. At Wikipedia, notability is determined by the amount of credible, published information about a person's life. So, if your mother and her sister have lots of writing about them already published, they may be notable enough for an article. If, however, all we have is union records and a few notes on album liner notes and things like that, but no one has written anything in-depth about their lives or careers, then they are probably not notable enough for an article. That isn't a slight against them, they may have been very good singers. However, we want to make sure that if we publish an article about a person, that it is accurate and we can trust what is written. If there isn't anything interesting or detailed about the lives and careers of these singers, then anything you write cannot be verified. That's the threshold for writing an article at Wikipedia. Good luck. I hope I answered any concerns you may have. If there is anything else I or anyone else can help you with, feel free to ask. --Jayron32 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My article reads like an advertisement, can someone help me neutralize it please?

I'm trying to create an article that describes a certain body of cancer research, the development of a technology called "NanomAbs". There is an article already on the technology from which this one has branched, a page called "Antibody Drug Conjugates". The page I submitted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/NanomAbs, definitely does sound like an advertisement as much as I tried for it not to. And I'm having a lot of trouble changing that. My best idea now is to incorporate even more references but I already cite 10 published scientific journal articles so I don't want to drown it. Please advise. Thanks.

Eli Mlaver (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say to just paraphrase to make it not seem like an advertisement. For example, "NanomAbs are a key feature of the pipeline of IMMUNE Pharmaceuticals, but other companies are developing ligand-conjugated lipidic or polymeric nanoparticles for cancer therapy including Merrimack and BIND" can become "NanomAbs have been made by IMMUNE Pharmaceuticals." The last part of the sentence seemed unessesary, and for another article. I hope you get what I mean. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic style?

Hi!

This is my article İ am trying to publish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Caligola_(group)

First the sources were not accepted as it is about a group well known in central Europe and mz links are in german, and there are no secondary sources yet; now this is sorted out İ think but İ still have a problem with my style which is seen as too much of an essay. As İ am no native speaker İ don't know anymore what to change. İt would be nice if someone offered a little bit of help :-) And another thing - İ would like to change the name of the article from "Caligola (group)" to "Caligola (music project)" for this is the better description and the artists call themselves by this name. Thank you very much for your help! Andrea Schweinberger (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrea, I moved the article to the requested name. Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

thanks a lot! maybe someone can tell me what exactly is wrong about my style?Andrea Schweinberger (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Uploading an image (specifically a company logo)

Thanks to Sarah Steirch for answering my initial question, but her answer has thrown up another one...

I have now sought and gained permission to upload a company logo alongside my description of a manufacturer (JK Lasers). Apparently it is available to download on their website - so is therefore freely available.

It is to appear in the same format as on this manufacturer's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofin-Sinar. Could someone tell me how I should go about uploading this image and linking it to the appropriate page. I am pretty new to Wikipedia and am finding the process somewhat baffling! Louise online (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louise! Although company logos are copyrighted/trademarked/etc, you can upload a it as fair use for use in an article. First, make sure it's not to high resolution. You can upload the image at the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Start the upload form, then follow the steps:

• Step 1: Choose your file: select the file from your computer
• Step 2: Describe your file: choose a descriptive name for the file (e.g. JK Lasers logo) without forgetting the file extension; then enter a description of the file in the box below.
• Step 3: choose "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" then follow the instructions:
  • Type the name of the article (JK Lasers, presumably) without the [[ ]] brackets or anything
  • Choose "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc."
  • Fill in all the fields (enter the url where you downloaded the image as "source"; check the box labeled "This image will be shown as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question."; etc.)
• And finally, upload!

Cheers, benzband (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this photo acceptable for use (rights)?

Greetings

I've been working on my first contribution, a bio of the security specialist Alec Muffett. The photo that I would like to use was taken by someone called Doc Searls, and is published under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). It is acceptable to use this photo as part of a Wikipedia submission?

Melodien (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Melodien and welcome to the Teahouse! (CC BY-SA 2.0) are acceptable submissions to Wikimedia Commons. Basically, you can distribute and remix the image in question, but you have to attribute the work to the original author or licensor and release it under the same license if you do remix it. You can read more about Creative Commons licenses over at Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags and Commons:Licensing, for a more general view on licensing on Wikimedia Commons. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 01:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Luke. I've have uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, filled in all the copyright details, and added the picture to my article. Could I ask you to have a look, and tell me if what I have done is correct? If so, I would like to publish the article.

Melodien (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked over the file, and everything looks great. Good work! -- Luke (Talk) 02:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Here goes my first attempt at publishing an article. Melodien (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Cross searching

How would I go about finding articles that match two categories? For example, I'm interested in finding articles that are categorized as orphans and also in the American artist category. Thanks! Mfbjr (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mfbjr. There is an on-wiki technique for doing this, but unfortunately it doesn't work well with maintenance categories (since they are included via templates). The alternative is to use a tool, such as WP:AWB, or a custom script. I will have a quick look and see if I can help you. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

OK I had to restructure the category a little, but I should have a list for you sometime later today. Rich Farmbrough, 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

The usual technique for finding intersections of categories is described at Help:Category#Searching_for_articles_in_categories. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

Changing the Wikipedia logo in the top left hand corner to something else on our talk pages

Hi all, I would like to know how to change the Wikipedia logo on my user page and talk page to things such as a national flag etc. An example of what I am asking is the talk page of the user 'HJ Mitchell'. Please kindly note that this is not a personal attack. Thanks for your assistance(whoever you are)! :) Arctic Kangaroo (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse. I clicked the "Edit" tab at top of User:HJ Mitchell and saw this code:

<div style="position: fixed; top: 18px; left: 0; transparency: 1; z-index: 100;">[[File:Flag of England.svg|160px]]</div>

You can copy the code but replace the file name. If your chosen image has another width to height ratio than File:Flag of England.svg then another width than 160px may look better. The code works when you hit the "Show preview" button so it's easy to experiment. The image is placed on top of the existing logo. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My talk page also has the same sort of coding, you can have a look at that if you like and adapt it. Make sure to put it at the top of the edit box, or it will get archived! Rcsprinter (babble) @ 19:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your assistance, once again! :D Arctic Kangaroo (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What do I do to report a user who has been repeatedly distorting sourced content?

I don't know if this is the right place to ask but I've been trying to deal with a user on the Heinrich Heine article who keeps removing content without any convincing explanation and distorting the stuff he leaves behind so it misrepresents the source. It annoys me that I've spent a lot of time doing research to fix the page and ensure it is reliably sourced and someone comes along and does this. I can't do anthing further because of 3RR. Any sysops or noticeboards I should contact? Cheers. Paul Marston (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Paul, glad you stopped by The Teahouse. Dealing with the problem of an editor reverting your changes can be tough, but you have some options. You could first try the talk page and bring up your concern there. That way, you, the editor, and other interested editors can all weigh in there. If you have some healthy participation, you can establish consensus and come to a fair decision. Another way is to get a third opinion, where you can directly request an opinion from another editor. If there are more than two people involved in the conflict, you'll want to address the problem at Dispute Resolution. I hope the problem is resolved soon! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul Marston (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply for sandbox submission

After preparing my first article in my sandbox, I clicked on the following command:

"If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here."

It is not clear to me what happens next. Can I expect notification of a reply to appear fairly soon when I log on to my user page? Oldhegelian (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Oldhegelian, welcome to The Teahouse. I checked out your sandbox, and it doesn't look like your article has been submitted yet. When you click that link ("if you are writing an article..."), it takes you to an edit page with some stuff you'll need save to your page. It won't erase your article though, it'll just tack on a section to the bottom that indicates that your article has been submitted into a to-be-checked list. So, you'll need to do that first before it gets checked. I've been told that the Articles for Creation page is pretty backed up, so you might need to wait a week before you hear back. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I did the same and the box has been added at the bottom but it also throws a warning and I don't know what the warnings means

the warning text is "Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move)." The Stub is in my sandbox can you explain this warning further to me? thanks Fox2k11 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fox2k11, hi and thanks for stopping by. All the message is saying is that at some point your draft article needs to be moved from it's current location in your sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jessica Nicole Ghawi. I've made this move for you so now the draft is sat in the queue of articles awaiting review. You can carry on working on it at any time you want. NtheP (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your help I appreciate it Fox2k11 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why you moved it to the talk section and not in the "project page"? Fox2k11 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Estimated time to Enter Wiki/What Happens if Deleted

Hi, I was wondering, having sent my first article from my user page to the rest of the site, how long the average time is to enter the guide -It says a few days, but i wasn't sure whether this is normally 48hrs, 72hrs etc - i could only find an alphabetical list of all entries waiting to be tagged delete/don't - so i can't see where my entry is in the order In a related sub question, if it is deleted will it revert back to my user page, it would seem very unlikely, but i wouldn't want to lose it all

Apologies for a mixed in list of questions - entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Haileybury_Model_United_Nations Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bear. Welcome to The Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The place your article went when you submitted it is called Articles for Creation, or AfC for short. If it is declined, you will get a review and a notice and it will stay in AfC so you can address the problems the review noted and resubmit it when you are done. AfC is very backlogged right now and it could be as long as a week or more til they get to your article. Sorry. No-one wants to wait around for news, be it good or bad. I did note one problem as I read through it, though, and maybe you could address that while you wait for the formal review. Your article lacks secondary sources. All of the citations are from either the organization or organizations connected to it. What you need are things like newspaper articles that speak of your Mock United Nations to establish what Wikipedia calls notability. Please use the time til they review it to find and add some secondary sources. BTW, I prettyed up your external link section. Open the article in edit mode to see how that is done. It is surprisingly simple. Happy editing. We are glad you are here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My thanks, I shall try and add some more sources, my thanks for helping with the external sources - I'd noticed that they had changed layout but was surprised that someone had altered them, cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i added some more sources (as well as some internal links and other things). I can understand your comment about the primary source but the other sources (at the time of me asking the question) were from the UN websites. While they are related in that they pertain to UN matters (how could they not) surely the UN must count as both secondary (as being separate from my school) and reliable - being the UN? Please could you look at the changed sources and see what they are like? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes

HI guys, do you know how to get userboxes on a user page, thanks. NCrompersCrompo 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncbwfc (talk • contribs)

Hello Ncbwfc, you can find detailed instructions at the page Wikipedia:Userboxes. Basically, you just need to use the template for the userbox you want. Templates look like {{TEMPLATE}} with the word TEMPLATE replaced by the specific template. For example, the code {{User:Dipankan001/Parrot lover}} produces this:

This user is a parrot lover; they think they are the best birds.

.

Does that help answer your question? --Jayron32 18:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayron i suggest you replace {{clr}} with a simple <br />, because it's bashing the layout. Cheers ~ benzband (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, though it would have been faster had you done it instead of waiting for me to. --Jayron32 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Crompers. Welcome to the Teahouse. To add a userbox to your page, just right-click on your username at the top of every page and open it in a new tab or window and click 'Edit' like you did to start your page. Right-click TEMPLATE:WP:UBS and open another tab or window to see all the userboxes.

Please start with Languages. Since you are from London, I'm guessing that you are a native speaker of English. Edit your userpage to add {{Babel|en}} near the top of the page and then click the Preview button. You should see a userbox on your page. Go ahead and save it after you put an edit summary, something like "Added userbox". Babel userboxes include a transclusion that automagically adds your username to a list of native speakers of English. Do you also speak German pretty well? Edit the babel userbox to {{Babel|en|de-2}} and go through the same drill; preview, add edit summary and save. Browse through the other userboxes and add those that you like. Many include transclusions, especially userboxes for WikiProjects; when you add the userbox for a project, you are likely to be listed as a member of the project.

There are lots of ways to organize your userboxes on your userpage. I'll let you read about it if you decide to use a bunch of them. Did you see an unusual userbox on another editor's userpage that you like? Just click the 'Edit' button on that user's page and do a copy-and-paste of the code to your userpage. There are lots of other ways to fix up your userpage. I suggest working through Pluma's page of FUN STUFF. Hope all this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 18:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

About creating New article

Good evening friends, I have a question, yesterday I create a article about the company nucleus software but they deleted the page by saying that it is for advertising purpose that is wrong, so what i have to do now?? Anshulmahoba (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry to hear about your article. A good place to start working on your article, again, is in your sandbox. You can find it here (it's a red link, you have to create the page, and you use that space over and over again throughout your course as a Wikipedian). The sandbox is often the best place to draft new articles. Then, when you are confident you are ready to share it on Wikipedia you click a submit button on the top of the page (on a template you'll see stating it's your infobox) and then experienced editors will review your article, let you know if there are any problems, and what you need to change those problems before it becomes a "real" Wikipedia page. I hope this helps! Good luck, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! (Also, I always encourage people to also improve other articles on Wikipedia - we need that desperately!). SarahStierch (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

making a wikipage for rheola can someone else check it out

hi, have been making a wikipedia entrie for the town/district of rheola. can someone/people check it over and tell me what i needs doing to it to bright i up to wikipedia standard. i fully admit that i a) already have knowledge of rheola so am probably putting info that is not referencable b)am a newbie and find wikipedia editing/creating/its help very dificult to learn. thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Broadwayduke/sandbox Broadwayduke (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Broadwayduke. I've looked over your page and made some edits. It's in good shape and is ready to be posted, in my opinion! However, I think the section on the Easter Monday Charity Carnival needs to be verified and have some coverage, even if only local coverage. I should also note that because you are writing an article about a locality, there's no need to worry about it getting deleted or anything like that. There is considerable consensus that legally-recognized, populated areas are considered notable and only require verification of their existence for inclusion. But I think it's great you want to (and have) put in substantial material into this article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

how may I delete my unused username?

Hi I created a new username then decided I didn't like it, so created another. How may I tidy up by deleting the unused username?

87.74.72.101 (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! Quick note - remember to always log in when you're editing. But, on to your question... While usernames cannot be deleted, your best bet is to simply redirect your old username's user page and talk page to your new one, and then only edit from your new account. That way, others will still know that that username was originally yours, and your old edits will be properly attributed, but no one will mistake that for you, if you know what I mean. Thanks for dropping by! Theopolisme _{:) 07:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)}

Thanks, Theo

I can certainly do that, but the whole process seems to give rise to several other considerations.
Apologies for TL response, please read!

Firstly, in case you wondered, may I explain that I haven't logged in again because it would be self-outing !

The unused user-name (though polite) was the product of frustration at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin which sedately renders a new page each time one fails to guess at a name which is still available.

I suppose there may be a considerable build-up of such orphan names, making the puzzle of guessing a novel one even more frustrating as time goes on.

There is possibly a better way, by listing already-bagged names similar to one's guess, but one does not discover how to do that until later. I tried at the time, I really did, but even now I've again lost the page showing how to do it.

The excuse for not permitting deletion does not seem truly to pertain for such a name that is never used.
Second to this, I was a little concerned that I would attract the approbation of some admin for having multiple personalities (I am capable of holding more than one view on a subject, even before breakfast).

Where would I go to suggest improvements to the registration process? Apart from the passing vexation of name-selection, there might be scope for letting people know what they're about to let themselves in for, before they've embarked! (Mark-up, for one thing, unless & until the wysiwyg team gets going to implementation; also an understanding of WP civics.)

Trawling around, might it not be better to nominate the alter-ego for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion  ?

Or does he (the Dr. Jekyll side) have to do something even more heinous before being considered?

Then again, the whole circus was engendered by my having had my password hacked on an earlier identity, from which I am still locked out. Without indulging paranoia, it's hard to tell if that was just coincidence, or because of edits in a contentious area. Perhaps I should address that first, though again I'm not sure how to proceed.

87.74.72.101 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're talking about, but User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion is a joke page. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How should I concretely understand that the article on Bacigalupo needs better formatting?

Hi, everybody. I'm thankful to Sara for suggesting that I visit the Teahouse in order to get help. I certainly accept the criticism of reviewers. With regard to the article on Bacigalupo,I'm not sure what I should change. I know I enjoy an informal tone - but I think I changed it to formal, as appropriate for a Wikipedia entry.Is it formal enough now? Concise enough? I broke up long paragraphs, adding suitable headings. Is that part of the expected formatting? I showed that the filmmaker Bacigalupo is notable. He is a noted experimental filmmaker. (The Turin film festival fairly recently had a retrospective of his work, and the Turin museum of modern art (the GAM) had a simultaneous exhibition showing documents related to his work. Major museums have copies of his films, and the new york filmmakers' coop distributes them or some of them. Jonas Mekas liked one of Bacigalupo's films a lot...) I also showed that his work as an Ezra Pound scholar is highly esteemed by other scholars. Has this problem been handled adequately? I omitted almost all online references, depending on serious printed sources. I think, however, that websites of important museums are serious sources, and so are city government websites naming the recipients of a prize awarded by the city. I backed up the websites of museums etc. with printed Italian newspaper articles that also appeared online (the way n.y.times articles also appear online). The printed sources form the bulk of sources. Are they adequate? Which are not, I ask myself. I simply mention all of this because I feel a bit helpless. What did I overlook? In what way did I depart from the paradigm that I should have respected? What would be necessary to have a properly formatted text? A small hint, tied to a concrete example (of where & how I 'erred') would be appreciated. Sorry, I make too many words, I know. Are my articles also way too long? O yes, I hope I'm not asking for too much help. I checked and read many Wikipedia pages on "how to write" an article. Learning, and glad to learn. Thank you for reading this. I shall appreciate whatever help you may give. JoanX.Chen (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joan. I made a bunch of formatting fixes. Notably I started on the external links - this shows I hope how an external link is formatted [<url> <label>]. There are many other minor formatting issues, for example we avoid "smart quotes" and bolding, and there were some capitalization issues. I have fixed what I can see, and in my opinion they should not be a barrier to the article going live. It may be useful to review WP:ITALIC which covers the use of italic text, which is something likely to be relevant to your writing. Rich Farmbrough, 03:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

How to know what the parent categories are for any given page

Hi

This question is not directly related to editing Wikipaedia - but i could find no other place to pose a wiki question.

I am in the process of creating an extensive enclycopaedic database for my young kids. I plan on making many small flash cards - all categorized logically.

To get the ball rolling, i need to want to mimic the organizational structure of an encyclopaedia. Since I'm a fan of WikiPaedia, i want to use it's content structure. (though i won't obviously cover the entire content :-) - just a general portion).

I plan on using this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Overviews) as a guide for planning my categories. From this, i gather that the general format is

Portal -> Category -> Article e.g. Portal[Geography] -> Category[Cities] -> Article[New York]

My question: When i browse to any given article, how can i tell what the "parent" category/sub-category is?

e.g. For the "Carpentry" article for instance; how do i tie "Carpentery" to the parent "portal" classification ?

Jason_Phox Jason Phox (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Jason. Interesting question for an interesting project you are undertaking. Let me see if I can help you.

Articles on wikipedia are organized in a number of ways. One way is through simple category designations you can find at the bottom of most articles. For instance, under the page for New York City there are a number of categories including Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States, Category:Former capitals of the United States, and Category:Port settlements in the United_States. Another way they are categorized is through something called templates. You can see these at the bottom of the NYC page, too (e.g. this template for New York State). A third way is through parent portals as you mentioned above. These are often located at the bottom of the page as well-- the NYC page has them under the "See Also" section, and are also located at the bottom.

So, whatever designation you choose to organize your notecards with, I would check the the bottom of the page. Some articles don't have portals, unfortunately, so you might not be able to categorize everything this way. Taking carpentry for example, at the bottom the page, one of the categories it is under is Category:Woodworking. I hope this is helpful for your project-- best of luck! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason, you might be interested in the Category:Main topic classifications and working downward from there. Be aware that the category system (even looking solely at "content categories") has a number of anomalies: firstly it is not a tree, it has cross-linkages and loops, secondly members of a subcategory are not necessarily members of the parent category, although considerable effort has been expended to make this the case. The main reason for this latter anomaly is that content categories seem to be of two types - "is a" - for example "Stations on the London Underground" and "Relates to" for example Category:London Underground. Thus if Category:Paris is made a subcategory of Category:Cities in France (which it is currently) Adalard of Paris becomes an indirect member of Category:Cities in France, despite not being a city. Rich Farmbrough, 04:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

Préludes (Debussy) -- Merging all the small articles into 1, or 2 big articles.

Hi, I would like to improve the article on Debussy's Préludes, as I've found some sourced information.

However, now there's a "father" article with the listing of pieces and some general information, and then there are all the "child" articles for every piece (however, most are empty). Most of the child articles are redundant and say mostly the same (i.e. an identical lead section plus a sentence about the individual piece).

I would like to merge the contents into one or two big articles (maybe one for Bk.1 and another for Bk.2, or one for both). Then, it would be easier to improve the general content and reach the GA class.

However, that's going to require many redirects and major reestructuring, so I need to post somewhere my intentions so as nobody kills me X-D.

PS. I don't know if I should post that question here, but in many places you simply get no feedback.

Thanks!Fauban 11:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fauban, and welcome to the Teahouse! I love Debussy's Preludes, they're some of my favorite pieces to play. :) I do think that combining the information would make it easier to get the "father" article to GA/FA status, but eventually, sub-articles may be warranted. That's often what happens - you find too much information for the big article and have to expand elsewhere. So, it's probably a good start for you to work all of the information into the parent article and move on to the individual preludes later. Good luck - and I hope this helps! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidencing (further enquiries)

Hi There, I'm writing an article on a Film School in London, my first one, and (perhaps for the first time) realised that 'articles on the Film School' are not enough. In terms of evidencing they have to exist electronically (somewhere). Is that entirely correct? So that paper is not good enough? thanks in advance 86.144.10.33 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! The sources don't have to be online but they have to be verifiable - so, I have to be able to find those sources myself and read them if I want to in order to verify the facts about the film school. I hope that helps :) Feel free to come by and share your sources with us if you need some input! SarahStierch (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Particularly when citing offline sources, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. Sionk (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Load a picture

Hey,

This may be a strange question, but I have recently written an article on the Susquehanna Warrior Trail, and I am not sure how to load pictures onto it. How do you load pictures onto Wikipedia articles?

Thanks,

King jakob c (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jakob! You must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image. If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. You could also read Wikipedia's image use policy.

If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear (replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image). See our picture tutorial for more information. Hope this helps! benzband (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! King jakob c (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How to find status of new article

Seven days ago I submitted a new, non-controversial article, an author mini-biography with a listing of works. It has still not appeared. Is there any way of finding the status or what went wrong?Cloudrush (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cloudrush! Welcome to the Teahouse :) Are you talking about User:Cloudrush/sandbox? If so, you have to click the button in the "this is a user sandbox" box at the top of the page that states "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." HOWEVER, a lot of work still has to be done on it before it will be approved. I hate sending people to policies, but, there is a pretty lengthy explanation on how an author, like your subject, can be included in Wikipedia. Hendricks has to fit into one of the following:

1. She has to be super uber famous (i.e. Stephen King famous) or cited by peers and scholars who study her work.
2. She has to have created a new concept or genre and be well known for it
3. Her work has been made into a feature film (not a tiny little independent film that has had little to no attention, mind you!)
4. Her work has been reviewed by numerous media outlets (i.e. New York Times for example)
5. She's won major critical reception for her work

Now, does she fall into any of those? Now, the biggest concern I do have so far is that there are no citations for her article. Ok, there is one, but it is a non-reliable source - it's from a press release and those aren't considered reliable because they are written by the subject or an organization representing the subject and press releases can make up anything about the subject. Here are some examples of potential reliable sources that you can use [1][2][3], etc. My fear, is that without more sources like that, her article could be nominated for deletion or repeatedly declined at Articles for Creation, because she's not famous enough right now. So, if you can improve upon the content - and fully cite any personal information about her (it'll just be deleted without reliable sources) then you can submit the article for review. I hope this helps - and don't let it get you down, there are so many contemporary authors that need articles written about them! Also, we do have a WikiProject for folks who like to write about authors, you can find it here: WP:Writers SarahStierch (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you so much for your complete response. You make Wiki what it is!Cloudrush (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Publishing information box alongside an article

I have just published my first article about a laser manufacturer (JK Lasers). I have noticed that another laser manufacturer has a side bar with details such as turnover, key staff, its website and logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofin-Sinar). How do I add this to my article? Louise online (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louise! Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on your first article. When I was first figuring things out, I figured out the best thing I could do to add content to my Wikipedia articles - just copy and paste! :) So, go to the article that you shared, for Rofin-Sinar, and click the "Edit" button at the top of the page. Then, at the top of the edit box (where the wikitext is) you'll see this:

 {{Infobox company
 | name             = Rofin Sinar Technologies Inc.
 | logo             = [[Image:Rofin Logo.svg|200px]]
 | type             = [http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=RSTI&selected=RSTI Public - NASDAQ:RSTI]
 | [[ISIN]]         = US7750431022
 | foundation       = 1975
 | location      = [[Plymouth, Michigan]], [[United States]]
 | area_served      = Worldwide
 | key_people       = Günther Braun (CEO), Ingrid Mittelstädt (CFO)
 | industry         = Industrial Lasers
 | revenue        = {{Increase}} US$ 597,763 million (2011)
 | net_income        = {{Increase}} US$ 60 million (2011)
 | num_employees    = 2,108 (2011)
 | homepage         = [http://www.rofin.com rofin.com]
 |footnotes        =<ref name="form 10-k">{{cite web |url=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312511032930/d10k.htm |title=Form 10-K |author=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |authorlink=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |year=2011 |publisher=United States of America |location=Washington, D.C. |at=Part II, Item 6 |accessdate=April 24, 2012}}</ref>
}}

Copy and paste that into your own article, at the top of your article. Then, just replace the information and delete anything that doesn't belong. Feel free to let us know when you've given it a go and we can review it. Congratulations! What do you want to edit next? :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you could use <pre style="overflow:auto"> … </pre> instead to avoid bulging out the side of the page ;) benzband (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how to get a page updated when there's a potential conflict of interest

I'm a complete newbie at this and have been asked by the organisation I work for to update our wikiepedia entry as recent changes in legislation make the current content out-of-date. I've recreated the article in my sandbox and have asked two previous editors of the article for help but I've not had a response. Can I just go ahead and update the existing page? AngelaHamilton (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome AngelaHamilton to the teahouse. It is great that you are seeking advice at the outset and that you are trying to work with other involved editors. They may be away on holiday so maybe give it a bit longer. Otherwise I do not see why you should not make the changes if you declare your interest on the article talkpage. It will also help if you can find more third party sources for the content. I hope it goes well.--Charles (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for getting back so quickly. I'll take your advice and wait a bit and see if I get anything back from the other editors. I'll also try and find more third party sources for the content. Best wishes AngelaHamilton (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mars Lasar Wiki Page

Hi,

I am talking on behalf of Mars Lasar. He told me that he is trying to edit his Wikipedia page for a while and he doesn't quite understand why his edits were taken out.

Please let me know what guidelines he will need to follow for his page to be fixed.

Thank you!

Manny 98.248.8.34 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Manny! Thanks for stopping by. We actually frown upon people editing their own articles. Wikipedia has a pretty strict conflict of interest policy - it helps us maintain neutrality and avoid looking like a promotional website, for example. So, if Mars has some problems, it's best that he drops by the talk page of his article and just leave some comments there. That way, folks who watch that article can investigate his concerns and make improvements as needed. I hope that helps :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Article rejected because page is blank

Hi. I recently tried to post an article and after a waiting period learned that it was rejected because it was a blank page. I retrieved the page and found that it contained the article title plus so material that I assume was formatting language. I had originally created the article as an MS Word document, then copied and pasted it in. Someone more knowledgeable than I am about computers suggested that MS Word formatting may have caused a problem, and that I might succeed if I saved the article as a plain text file. Someone else said I would have to type the article in. Please advise.

Thanks,

Byron 24.23.187.173 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Byron! Welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your submission and saw that, yes, it was blank - sadly, I'm afraid I can't really help you too much without seeing the file in question. Copy-and-pasting an article might not be the best way to go, however - while it's fine to start the article by copy/pasting, it's recommended you then convert it to WikiCode, Wikipedia's own "special language." But if the problem is some sort of compatibility issue with your computer, I can't really help you there... your friend's guess is as good as mine. :) Sorry to not have been able to offer a more substancial answer. Theopolisme :) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 24! (As I look around for Jack Bauer. j/k) I realize I should probably address you as Byron, but I wanted to make that little joke to help hammer home a point. You should register and get a username! With a username comes your very own sandbox, which is a place you can work on articles until you feel they are ready to submit. If you had a sandbox, you would have seen the article was blank before you submitted it. Sandbox is also a great place to practice using wiki markup, so you can see what all of those obscure codes do. It is only a guess, but if you remove the line of code that you mentioned, ya think it might work? I hope so. I am betting that if you resave it in plain text, that too should work. Just a little note, though. When we write a letter or report or something like that, we usually indent 5 spaces to indicate a new paragraph. Well if you do that in wikimarkup, the program will try to put a box around your text. Just hit enter to insert a line for a paragraph break. Good luck. Come back if you need any more help! Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with MS Word documents is that the formatting can get really big, really fast -- the hidden code that creates the formatting is bloated. Wikipedia tries to create slim documents, so that people can easily read the articles, even on small things like non-smart phones. Also, the only way to read a Word document is to either 1) have Word, 2) convert the document to a different format, or 3) crack the document. Because Wikipedia tries to be open and available to everyone, the first isn't a good option, the second would require a lot of work by the server and the third option doesn't work because Microsoft might sue. So, Wikipedia uses special wiki formatting which is also a lot faster than MS Word once you get used to it. Also, looking at the name of the article you created, it seems like it's likely to be an article about a friend or about you. Just remember that Wikipedia articles about living people must be verifiable and about a notable person. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

confilcts among contributors

I am new to this. I have added some information to an article along with a supporting reference. Then someone deleted it. Now I have put it back. Is this how it works? How are such things resolved? Bmarlowe1 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Bmarlowe1! We actually have a behavioral standard on Wikipedia known as Bold, Revert, Discuss. Basically this means that if you believe something belongs in an article, you can Be Bold and add it. If another editor believes that the content does not belong, they may revert your edit. It is then necessary to discuss the change you want to make with the other editor, usually on the article's talk page. We also have a rule known as three-revert rule, which means that three reversions of the same edit without any consensus being determined constitutes an edit war and is prohibited. The other editor should have provided an edit summary with their edit to explain why they were reverting your edit, but they did not. I would post a message on the talk page of the article explaining what you want to add and then notifying the other editor on their own talk page that you have left a message for them at the article talk page. Thank you for asking this question, as many editors who do not understand the code of conduct just go right into an edit war and end up disrupting Wikipedia. hajatvrc @ 20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

Why is the fact that Paul Ryan (per The Economist) took home his dead son so that his other kids could play with him, not noted in the article. Is this another Paula Bush, Mike Dougles event for Wikipedia? 70.20.18.224 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi 70. This is not the kind of question we deal with here. We help with the nuts and bolts of editing. You need to raise this initially at the talk page of the article. If you are still not satisfiedthe next step could be a request for comment.--Charles (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Another thing you could do, if this is a factual question like I think it is, is ask at the Reference Desk. The Reference Desk is where volunteers research and answer questions like this - I find that it's pretty helpful. Feel free to ask here if you have any questions about using Wikipedia! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi 70! I agree with Charles above, an RfC is a great way to get input on controversial additions/deletions of article content. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How to make reference links "clickable"

I've been working on an article and I was using the same source several times so I condensed the source but now the actual link has disappeared and I can't make it "clickable". Any suggestions? MissJulie 79 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Miss Julie. If I am understanding your question, I think I fixed it. You were missing "url="

Did my edit accomplish what you wanted?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No the reference links at the bottom are still not clickable. Where do you add the "url="?MissJulie 79 (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You also need to physically make a link clickable. Either use a citation template inside the reference tag which will auto-link for you, or put things in brackets like you would to make a link anywhere else: [[this would normally be a link]] Banaticus (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I forgot to save my fixes. I tried again.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Miss Julie and welcome to the Teahouse! To create a link, go to an article's edit page and on the top you will see buttons like Bold or Italic. You will see a small chain-like button and when you put your mouse over it it will say Link. Click on it. A message will appear asking the URL of your link. Copy and paste the URL from the website and click "To an external webpage." Click Insert Link and you should see it on the page you added a link to. I hoped this helped and I understood your question. sophie (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Article no longer a stub

I've been working on the page for the Raymond Chandler novel The Little Sister following the novels template. I think the article is ready to be elevated to higher than stub status. I would also like some feedback as to how to improve it further. I've looked on various pages for help and the novels project but I'm still a bit confused about the right next step, thanks. Mdebellis (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The next step would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and request an assessment by following the guidelines. If, after a little while, there is no strikethrough, feel free to post a request for reassessment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Brambleberry ^{☾of RC☽} 20:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Mdebellis (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is my article ready for posting?

My article on the New Rochelle Walk of Fame has been in the sandbox for some time and I would like to know if it is ready for posting. If not what do I still need to do. Thanks, Rod Kennedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duwamps/sandbox

69.86.58.234 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Duwamps (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rodney, and welcome to the Teahouse! You've clearly put some effort into creating this article, which is a very good thing. However, you will need to put more effort into it to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards for a new article. Please have a look at this page about starting a new article. Specifically, I encourage you to work on a couple of things:

1) Keep your language in the article neutral and non-promotional. If the article reads like an ad, it is likely to get tagged and deleted.

2) Do some research into finding reliable sources that discuss the New Rochelle Walk of Fame. You can use these as references in the new article. You will need to demonstrate why this entity is notable in order to keep it from being deleted.

If you have any questions, please post them here. We are happy to help. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest - How to proceed?

Hi All -

I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to get my bearings. I have a few questions regarding an article that I requested to have created - TransCard,LLC. I am currently an employee at this company, so I do not feel I am the best fit for creating the article due to the conflict of interest guidelines. I created the request under the Companies/Business section (this name may not be exactly correct - again, I am still learning). I want to make sure that I am on the right track. TransCard, LLC, is a company that is similar to Green Dot Corporation. I know of articles and sources, but again, I am a current employee. I would love to hear from someone experienced to let me know if I am heading in the right direction.

Thanks! - Lcarter82 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lcarter82, and welcome to Wikipedia! All editors are welcome here. I take it from your question that you asked for an article to be created. If that's the case, another helpful editor will review your submission and offer suggestions on its improvement. If you're concerned about your conflict of interest, I think that as long as you disclose it openly on your user page and use independant reliable sources for the article, there shouldn't be a problem. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and Happy Editing! -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Email notice every time page on watchlist is changed?

Hello Those Who Know Things

In my preferences I've checked "E-mail me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" but I'm not getting an email for each change. I've checked my spam box, the notices aren't going there.

So, how do I get notified every time there's a change?

thanks! Nonesuch75 19:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonesuch75 (talk • contribs)

Hello Nonesuch75. The emails can take a while to come through or so I find with Wikimedia Commons although I do not use the service here. Most of us keep our watchlist open in a separate window and refresh it fairly frequently.--Charles (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that has been turned off in Wikipedia. You can put gobs of pages on your watch list and if those were really popular pages, then the Wikimedia Foundation would be sending gobs of emails to you every day. To avoid server overload, that option has been turned off (I believe). Otherwise, you simply have to "watch" the pages for changes (that's why it's called a "watchlist"). If it's a really popular page, then someone will virtually always be watching it and if it's not a really popular page, then it won't get changed very often (usually). I hope this helps. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How to find the owner of a wiki page?

I want to report the owner of an article about a suspected typo. I updated the same in that article talk page but no response yet. So wondering if any other ways to notify the owner. Kirukp (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Kirukp and welcome to the Teahouse! There are no individual "owners" of the pages on Wikipedia, and in fact we encourage people to fix what typos they see in articles. If the article reads, for example, "Quene Elizabeth", feel free to fix it with the edit tab at the top of the screen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Crisco 1492, Thank you for the reply. Just saw someone responded to my talk. Checking on it. Kirukp (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you refer to Talk:Gangs of Wasseypur - Part 1#Suspect a typo! I don't know why you think July 25 is a typo. The statement has an inline reference to a source [4] which says July 25. The article link to the source didn't work but I fixed that by removing a slash.[5] Other sources I have found also say July 25. You are allowed to make corrections to articles but only if you have a verifiable reliable source and don't contradict an inline reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Kirukp (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidencing required for Article

Hi There

New to Wiki, based in London, and would very much like to extend a stub on a London Based Film school. I.e. I would like to construct an article on the film school. The question is, will the film school's website be a permissible source of information. Let's say 'as regards their curriculum'?

thanks in advance SamCardioNGO (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sam. Welcome to the teahouse. The website will be an acceptable source for what the school does, although excessive trivial detail should be avoided. You will however need to show "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" to establish the notability of the organisation.--Charles (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for the reply (apologies if this added comment is in the wrong place). re your reply - that's likely part 2 of my question. So what should I be looking for? Listings in text books on colleges in the UK, articles about the Film School in Photography and Film Magazines? SamCardioNGO (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes magazine and newspaper aticles, especially national papers, are ideal. I was helping someone with another college yesterday as it happens and all I could online apart from the college's website was a mention in a publication by Imperial College. That does at least verify that the place exists.--Charles (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sam, yes generally an organization's own site is considered a reliable source for these sorts of non-contentious information. Of course any claims such as "the only combined set design and property buying course in the UK" or even more "the best directing course", would need to be considered more carefully. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

High Rich, yes, most of the information is non contentious. Course structure, nuts and bolts. I guess where they put on their website Nic Roeg says 'xyz' one would not be able to use that quote unless the statement was made in an article outside the film school (e.g. interview through BBC etc)? thanks again SamCardioNGO (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

altering and deleting current wording

In making edits and adding to current articles, is it also possible to delete or change current wording, and if so, how is that done? Thank you! 67.83.54.25 (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi 67, welcome to the treehouse. Everything is editable, you just have to click on the "edit" tab either at the top of the page or at the section header. Here's a practice bit for you:

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog while the kookaburra sits in the old gum tree.

Try it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes 67, if you think you can improve the grammar or readability of the existing text you are very welcome to do so. You just need to keep it faithful to the sources cited for it and avoid synthesis where information from different sources is conflated to give a further meaning. There is a Guild of copy editors which specialises in that type of work if you are interested.--Charles (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Customizing Infoboxes

Hi there! I'm working on an article about the Guyanese artist and archaeologist, George Simon, here and I'm arguing with myself about infoboxes! Basically, I can't decide whether to use Infobox person or Infobox artist, as, in an ideal world I'd like to be able to include information about Simon's ethnicity and both his occupations (which is allowed by Infobox person but not Infobox artist) as well as information about the artistic movement of which he is the founder (which is allowed by Infobox artist but not Infobox person!). I've had this debate with previous articles as well, so I thought it was worth asking: is there a way of customizing infoboxes so that you can put in additional fields, or is it just a question of best-fit compromise? (I realise it's not exactly a big issue - all the info is in the body of the article - but I kinda like icing AND cake!!!) Thank you! Loriski (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Your desire to have just the right information is good, and I would like to help you solve your problem. Unfortunately, both infoboxes are highly protected, because a small change to them, whether accidental or deliberate, will cause problems across many articles. However, you can try and convince the editors that control the templates to add fields by bringing it up on the template's talk page. I'd suggest going to the Template:Infobox artist and request an ethnicity or race field on the talk page. Hope it goes well :) Karafs (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Karafs! I'll run with Infobox person for now, then, and make the suggestions you recommend at the Infobox artist talkpage and wait to see what happens! :) Loriski (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Submission declined due to a lack of 'reliable sources'... how to proceed?

Hi, I have created an article about a man who had incredible local importance to a small suburb of Southampton and who's lasting legacy has seen his small retail outlet turn into a large successful store. The man in question is now deceased, I have found one book relating to this man (which I have cited), plus quoted from a couple of newspaper articles that I have found (which are also cited).

The rest of the content I have found through talking to some of the longer serving members of staff within the store (who remember Mr Peter Green) and therefore I am unable to provide a 'reliable citation'.

I have compared my level of citation to that of another local retail store (Bradbeers) and feel that I am not offering any less than they already have - the question is, what do I need to do to proceed - I'm a little lost?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Adrian AdrianMG (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, there are a number of ways to proceed, and I will presently take a look at the article in question and see if I can help more specifically. Firstly, of course, by finding more and better sources - and if you can't there are people who may be able to help. Secondly by considering whether the best place for the information is in an article on the person, or in an article on the shop, or even an article on Retail development in Southampton.

The second point you raise is about what we call "oral citation" and while there are a number of projects to push this forward, such citations are generally not sufficient for Wikipedia. Possibly if the material can be published in other media (for example, local newspaper columns), it may become citable. While this is an obstacle, "reliable sources" is a touchstone for Wikipedia for a number of reasons, that I expect are self evident. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply Rich, all suggestions are appreciated! The reason that I wrote the article about the man, rather than the business, is that without his input and ambition the business could never have survived in the first place - he was quite a visionary and a very famous and popular man in the local community. The problem that I have found is that there appears to have been very little printed about him and I considered that the 'advertorials' that I have found, would be inappropriate to cite from, as they may effectively represent marketing for the business? AdrianMG (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone who works at Articles for Creation quite a bit, I'd have to agree that your article needs more evidence that Green has been widely talked about. Your article largely relies on a few pages in one book. The Reading newspaper article is about the shop, not the person. If you find another source or two, try and edit out some of the chattiness from your article too. AfC usually accepts articles that stand a good chance of surviving in Wikipedia's main article space, but the length of your article, combined with the lack of sources, would set alarm bells ringing for me. I hope you don't get dispirited. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

i have created an article but it has been deleted, how i can creat ?

i have created an article of my poems which was reflecting live of village children. my all poems are dedicated to those village children amd to motivate them, tell me how can make my wiki page???

sushilk600 09:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil600 (talk • contribs)

• Hi Sushil, and welcome to Wikipedia. The poem you posted was not an article and has such been deleted from main space. If you wish, you can post the poem on your user page (here) where it is allowed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Title change

Hi, I really appreciate having this forum to ask questions as I have really been struggling to get answers on how to change article title. I have followed the instruction given to me by helpdesk and other people but now no one is responding to advise if the change is possible. Article 'Burton's Foods' should read 'Burton's Biscuit Company' as the company rebranded in 2011 as stated in the article itself. Please can you assist. thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC) In addition, how can we add a logo/photo to an article? Thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mrs. biskit. I have moved that for you. It is now under Burton's Biscuits. For the logo, etc, you want to add an infobox. Sorry, I cannot help you with that at the moment, but perhaps some nice soul with a little more time available could. Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Gtwfan52 was talking about Infoboxes. Also, don't forget, you need references for the things you say in an article. For instance, the product line -- where's that information from? Banaticus (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to all for your help. I will look into your suggestions. Thanks Mrs biskit (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52, I just noticed the article title should be Burton's Biscuit Company and not just Burton's Biscuits, as per the article content. Please can this amended again. Thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Five Pillars?

Why do they call the six policy articles, the five pillars? Did they used be five? Was one added at some point, and if so, which one and why? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Yaniv256! I assume, by "six policy articles" you mean the first six links listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. The Five Pillars are a summary of the most basic principles on Wikipedia. They themselves are not the polices, but summaries of all of them. There are more than six policies on Wikipedia, in fact there are scores of them listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. hajatvrc @ 04:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was really helpful. I was on wp:own and made the mistake of thinking that the infobox to the right is the five pillars. That little mistake would have been very embarrassing in any place other than the teahouse! Major positive feedback here! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Yaniv256, I just wanted to make an important point regarding Wikipedia rules and pillars and policies and all that. One of the main pillars is to ignore all rules which is not to say that it's OK to be a complete pain; but it is a reminder that Wikipedia does not exist to be a set of rules, but rather to be a source of information. Rules are important, and we should follow them, except when we shouldn't. --Jayron32 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Review too

Hi all! I have had two articles rejected a few times now and although I have tried to execute the feedback I've been given, more specific criticisms would be greatly appreciated (e.g. remove this sentence, reference needed here etc).

I don't want to clutter this discussion forum and turn it into a place just for article reviews, and I would love to practice some objective judgements without having the pressure of having to make editorial decisions without any proper experience, so if there is somewhere devoted to feedback or a place to find a mentor for this sort of guidance, please let me know? Thanks Jengawiki (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jengawiki, thank you for coming to the Teahouse! Sorry you are having a hard time getting your article accepted - it's a tough process sometimes but serves as point to keep Wikipedia healthy and happy with good notable content. :) First, there is a program for folks seeking one-on-one mentorship, called Adopt-a-user. So perhaps you'll be able to find some more indepth guidance there. Here is some feedback:

1. In the lead, remove the word "largest," without a citation from a major news media resource (or the like) this can't be stated. Just keep it stating that WD is a "UK provider of direct consumer warranties." All content on Wikipedia should be cited and neutral, and that statement is non-neutral and uncited! :)
2. In the infobox, remove the caption and just leave the image. Also, you don't need the advert (that's copyrighted and can't be on Wikipedia) so just keep the image of the book. I moved it down to the right side. I took the liberty of doing that for you, I hope you don't mind.
3. Here is the biggest issue: the majority of the sources are not reliable. In Wikipedia, we need reliable sources. These include newspapers, magazines, news programs, etc. The links you use are either press releases, the company or an organizations website, etc. These things are not reliable because they are made by Warranty Direct or organizations related to them. Basically, the entire article can be deleted and not accepted based on this merit alone. Content that is considered reliable are sources like this: [6][7][8], etc. And news outlets or resources (that aren't made by WD) that talk about the organizations history. Basically, if more content like this that actually discusses WD at great length do not exist, then perhaps the organization doesn't need an article right now.
4. Remove the external links in the "Warranty Direct Affilitated websites," section. That's too promotional. Just mention someplace in the article that WD has two affiliated websites and what the names are.
5. Here is a better example of an insurance company article Farmers Insurance Group, check out all of those reliable sources at the bottom! THat's awesome.

I hope this helps. SarahStierch (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You might also take a look at Where to get feedback on an article you've just created. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I sent a message before but I don't think it sent. Just wanted to say thank you both for your help and advice and I've tried to implement your feedback Sarah. Fingers crossed for attempt number 4! Jengawiki (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

First article, short, would like feedback

Hi to all the hosts at Teahouse!

I was referred here by friend-of-a-friend and veteran wiki user Voceditenore, in the hopes that I could get some much needed feedback from the experts, before my first article goes live later this week.

Some specific concerns:

• Is my language not objective enough, as I found no relevant negative information on the subject?
• Should I take the time to interlink every single artist name (it is a recording studio with a long list of known artists)?

Thanks for what you do here, and I hope to hear back soon! Warm regards, Ace6255 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: the article is at User:Ace6255/sandbox Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ace! Thanks for writing an article and coming to the Teahouse. For a quick start, I would remove words like "boasts", just keep it plain and simple to defend your neutrality. You also need to reference your information, two of the sources in your notes can be used for that (not Smash's own website, and not Youtube). That long list of sponsorships can probably be reduced to a select half a dozen. Maybe make a few changes and hosts can comment again? heather walls (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The verb "boasts" is inherently promotional, and should be avoided.

There is too much peacockery; and too much about "globally renown" musicians and the like who have been their customers, or companies which are their sponsors. I have sold books to Tony Danza, Tony Bennett, Charlton Heston and William Rehnquist: that doesn't give me any of their renown, because notability is not contagious.

Mere mentions in publications don't satisfy our standards of substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Heather and Mike, thank you kindly for your suggestions. I have taken them to heart, and made changes to the article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smash Studios. A new concern of mine is my trouble in submitting the article for review. I am receiving contradicting messages at the top and bottom of the page. I am sure you both see many situations like these, so any suggestions in how to simply submit the article for review would be very appreciated. Thanks again!Ace6255 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)