Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 102

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105

I am new here thanks to Hajatvrc, Jtmorgan and HostBot!! 8)

I am new here thanks to Hajatvrc, Jtmorgan and HostBot. Thank you all for inviting me here to the Teahouse. All of the Wikipedia editors I have met have been wonderful and very helpful in helping me through my new Wikipedia journey and for making my Wikipedia experience so enjoyable.

Right now I only need to ask two questions...

When I make an edit is there somewhere where I can find a log of all of my edits? I thought there was but I may have lost track of its location. I edited the Video Server page and couldn't find a log of it. It doesn't appear on my Talk Page.

Also, and I'm sorry to bother you about this, but I'm being harassed by a user named Robert McClenon who keeps sending me messages and Talk Page comments to sell a movie actress or a movie or something to me. I wrote Mlpearc and Slakr for assistance and they have been very helpful but this user still sends me Talk Page comments. I don't really know what to do about harassment here but to ask you. Again, I am really so sorry to bother you about this. Other than that, my Wikipedia experience has been delightful and fulfilling and I'm looking forward to spending more time helping to enhance the Wikipedia experience for everyone. Thank you. 8) VALID REALITY (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The answer to your first question is yes, and it is here → Special:Contributions/VALID REALITY. The answer to your second question is the first thing to do is ignore it. Secondly, you can warn them and if they persist you can report them. I hope you find this helpful, and if you need more assistance I would be happy to help! Technical 13 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I see no evidence of anybody selling anything on your talk page. You appear to have a meaning for the word "sell" which I am having difficulty understanding. What exactly is happening that you object tyo? --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, I noticed you attempting to communicate with a bot, and generally automated processes don't acknowledge or respond to attempts to communicate with them. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage

Can we make it such that for now WikiVoyage is disabled by default when one enables Template:Sister links? I have noticed that many non-Voyage-related pages have the "WikiVoyage" parameter. E.g. [1] It would be very tedious to disable every single one. Is there a reason for not disabling it by default? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bonkers. It used to be hidden by default but there was a discussion at Template talk:Sister project links#Wikivoyage hidden by default that resulted in the change to display it by default. If you wanted to argue that they got it wrong, you could open up a new discussion at that talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this image free use?

I'm trying to find a free image of the late U.S. Ambassador John M. Steeves. I found this one, which is part of a joint exhibition by meridian and the U.S. State Department, but the copyright status is not clear to me. Any help would be appreciated! Keihatsu talk 22:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keihatsu! From the description, it looks like the photo is from the embassy of Afghanistan. While most images created by the US government go into the public domain, Afghanistan doesn't have a law like that as far as I know. What you could do is refer to the Commons page on copyright rules of Afghanistan and try to determine the copyright status of the image (I'm not an expert on copyrights but judging from the description on that page, I'd say this image is still not in the public domain). If you want to try, you'd probably get a better answer at the Commons Help Desk; they are the people who work with images after all. Alternatively, you could try to find an image of him that is the work of the US government. Since he was an ambassador, I guess they'd have one somewhere :) Chamal T•C 01:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing the copyright status of this image at this time. Works of the U.S. government are usually in the public domain, and given the turmoil in Afghanistan in recent decades, it is plausible that the image may have originated with the U.S. government. But unless we can verify that, we can't assume it. It may be possible to use a lower resolution version under the fair use doctrine if no free image can be found. See WP:F for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
According to the description, the image appears to be from 1963 when Afghanistan was more or less peaceful, and it also says Courtesy of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Washington, D.C.. Whether that refers to the text or the image is unclear. Doesn't really clear it up much though. Chamal T•C 04:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Afghanistan had no copyright law at all in 1963; anything originating there was in the public domain at the time. You'd have to check their first-ever copyright law (links available here) to see if it protects works that were published before the law was enacted. This all assumes that the work originated in Afghanistan; something created in another country is subject to that country's laws. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Since he was an ambassador, there should be usable photos in the National Archives. I tried to do a quick search, but their system is down for maintenanance atm. Revent (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There should be a 'biography' headshot from the State Department, and a White House photo of him shaking the President's hand when he was appointed. Revent (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Talking to self. LOL. (take meds) :) Ok. King Mohammad Zahir Shah visited the US on September 5, 1963, and I found a Time Life photo of the visit with him, Kennedy, and Steeves standing together. Searching for photos of the visit at the the JFK library gives photos number JFKWHP-1963-09-05-B, C, E, JFKWHP-1963-09-06-B, and D. These were all official events, with the Shah and president present, and Steeves should be in most if not all of those photos. They're not links yet, but I'd imagine if you asked nicely and told them what it was for, they would bump them up in their backlog. :) Revent (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
(more meds lol) Those photos might also be good additions to the article on the king, actually. Revent (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Table Help

In this table Feluda#Feluda_series, I want to add a colspan="4" "Characters" above the cols "Topshe", "Jatayu","Sighy Jyatha", "Villain".
Here is a rough sketch of what I am asking for.
You can edit in the article or in this backup copy or suggest the code here!--Tito Dutta (contact) 05:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I posted an edit to the article. My76Strat (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Tito, what is "Sighy Jyatha"?--Pratyya (Hello!) 11:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It must be a misspelling of the "Sidhu Jyatha" column at Feluda#Feluda series. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing Sandbox, Seems Locked

Hi I submitted an article in the Sandbox, which I want to edit and add sources, but it won't let me. Any thoughts? Thanks! -SidneyElsid27 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sid, welcome to the Teahouse, your sandbox User:Elsid27/sandbox isn't locked and is fully editable. There's a big red error message at the moment because you have inserted <ref> </ref> tags but have inserted any reference information between them. It doesn't stop you editing the page though. NtheP (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks NtoP, so how do I edit out the big error message? - SidneyElsid27 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
You put some text in between the <ref> </ref> tags and add a {{reflist}} template to the bottom of the page. NtheP (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How to use sandbox

Hi, I recently submitted my first article, using sandbox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Teachers_Association

I submitted it, and I assumed it was accepted because it had it's own page/url. I went back into my sandbox

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

and started working on another article. However, the changes I made in my sandbox somehow also edited the original article, even though the two are different pages (right?). I undid the most recent edit on the original article, but I want to continue working in sandbox without screwing up my existing work.

How do I use Sandbox without editing my past work?Eirefrance (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Eirefrance, should be ok now. When your article on the ATA was submitted it was moved from your sandbox but a link called a redirect remained. So every subsequent time you clicked on what you thought was your sandbox you were actually editing the article on the ATA. I'm removed the redirect now so your sandbox page is just your sandbox page.
You can always check if a redirect has been followed, under the page name if in small type is says "(Redirected from Page name you had entered)" then you've followed a redirect through to a new page. NtheP (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
May I stick my head in here & inquire how on Earth something like that happens? ScarletRibbons (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Fairly easily. Sandbox is moved as submission to WP:AFC which creates the redirect. Submission at AFC is promoted to mainspace, creates double redirect, bot comes along and 'fixes' double redirect leaving sandbox as a redirect to the mainspace article. NtheP (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

What types of info boxes are there?

Sent from my iPad Altaïr Skywalker 47 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Altair Skywalker 47! The answer is that there are near-infinite types of infoboxes. You can find all of them at Category:Infobox templates, and you can narrow it down to what you're looking for from there. Of course, that may take a while, so you can always go trial and error and search for "Template:Infobox -" and see what comes up. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Altaïr Skywalker 47 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There can also be 'permutations'. TEMPLATE:Infobox NRHP, for example, which is for places on the National Register of Historic Places, gives (convoluted) directions for how to embed it inside other boxes.. Revent (talk)

Foreign-language song titles

In the specific case of article Jay Park, the article has scattered Korean translations and Revised Romanization of song titles. The song titles themselves are well-established in English, so it does not really make them foreign-language per se, but more the fact that the song has both an English title and a Korean title. I think that including the Korean text and the Revised Romanization after an English song title clutters the text and does not make for easy reading. Is there a better way to include this information, perhaps as a note? Or does it even need to be included? Just unknown (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

From a quick skim of that article, I noticed several places in the text where the 'hangul' for the titles was repeated at multiple mentions, as well. You're totally right, it trashes the flow of the text. IMO, the appropriate thing to do would be to move them all into a set of footnotes (not references), marked at the first mention in the copy. That'll unbreak the text itself, and group the information, without losing 'content'. It'll also make it easier to make them uniform, and get rid of the duplicates.
The real fix, though, would be to change the discography and into a table, present the information there, and add all the missing metadata. Then footnote the mentions of the english title to the entry there.
Revent (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at MOS:KO (I had to dig for it). Revent (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and advice :) Just unknown (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Convincing a non-expert of the value of an expert article

This discussion seems to have run its course. Technical 13 (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Extended content, see discussion User talk:FoCuSandLeArN#Pygmy pipehorse - WT:WikiProject Articles_for creation#Pygmy pipehorse - WT:Articles for creation/Pygmy pipehorses

Hi everyone, I thought this would be a nice one to share - an example of how the system completely fails when established Wikipedians try to critically block an article they totally don't understand. I am close to modifying this and sending it to CreationWiki instead!!!

Article: pygmy pipehorses; rejected because: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Acentronura instead." [my response: no it's not, that's like saying an article on reptiles should be rejected because there is already one on crocodiles!!!]

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean by "this article already exists on Wikipedia". Acentronura is only one of four genera of "pygmy pipehorses", so updating the information on the "Acentronura" page will not work.(...) Tesk0002 (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for getting back to me. Wouldn't they fall under Hippocampinae then? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


No, that's a higher level category. It works as follows: Acentronura: One of five genera of pygmy pipehorse ; Pygmy pipehorses: Genera Acentronura, Amphelikturus, Idiotropiscis, Kyonemichthys and the extinct Hippotropiscis; Hippocampinae: The above five pygmy pipehorse genera, plus the seahorses


But what's lower than subfamily and higher than genus? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Good point - but remember that taxonomic levels above the species (which can be fairly clearly defined on the basis of the ability to interbreed or not) are entirely arbitrary anthropogenic concepts, what is considered a distinct genus in one group can be a different subfamily in another. (...) Personally, I would establish an entirely new subfamily for the pygmy pipehorses, but that is just an artefact of the human tendency of putting everything into a distinct drawer, while in this case, one genus in my made-up drawer is more closely related to a genus in a different drawer than it is to some of the genera in its own drawer.

...having said that - it is nonetheless very clear what a pygmy pipehorse is because their morphology can be readily defined: like seahorses, they have a prehensile tail and a brood pouch that has evolved into a sealed sac. The only difference is: they do not swim upright. It's a bit like "Reptilia" - everybody knows what it is, but it doesn't actually exist because "Aves" (birds) clusters right within it. Tesk0002 (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

...I just had a look, there really is a page on Wikipedia called "Reptiles", which suffers from the exact same problem as "pygmy pipehorses" - non-monophyly (replace reptiles with pygmy pipehorses and birds with seahorses, and you have the perfect analogy). I quote: "Although they have scutes on their feet and lay eggs [a prehensile tail and a brood pouch that has evolved into a sealed sac], birds [seahorses] have historically been excluded from the reptiles [pygmy pipehorses], in part because they are warm-blooded [have an upright posture]. They therefore do not appear on the list above. However, as some reptiles [pygmy pipehorses] are more closely related to birds [seahorses] than they are to other reptiles [pygmy pipehorses]  — crocodiles [pygmy pipehorses of the genus Idiotropiscis] are more closely related to birds [seahorses] than they are to lizards [pygmy pipehorses of the genera Acentronura, Amphelikturus and Kyonemichthys]  — cladistic writers who prefer a more unified (monophyletic) grouping usually also include the birds [seahorses), which include over 10,000 species.[3][4][5] (See Sauropsida.) [See Hippocampinae]"

...in other words: if you want to continue blocking the pygmy pipehorse page, you should at least be logically consistent and delete the entire reptile page - perhaps some of it is salvageable and could be moved across to the Sauropsida page. The cladists will be grateful. Everyone else will be outraged. Tesk0002 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Comment: As User:FoCuSandLeArN mentioned, you should consider improving the article Acentronura — which is about the same topic — instead of submitting this one. Maybe this article is better than the one that already is in the mainspace but there's still no point in getting an article created about a topic on which an article already exists. Cheers, smtchahal(talk) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Tesk0002 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) (...) I would also suggest you to improve the article Acentronura if you are knowledgeable about the topic and are willing to contribute to the article. Thanks, smtchahal(talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


[No way, why the heck should I? There's nothing wrong with that article, whoever wrote it knows plenty about Acentronua. I've written something quite different here, you know, higher level taxonomy...]


Note that doing so, however, won't affect what happens to this article but of course, your help would be greatly appreciated. smtchahal(talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


[Thank you kind Sir, I am most grateful for not being forced to improve something that I know zilch about!! But don't worry about it, this was my last attempt at trying to share my expert knowledge via this medium. Now if somebody could explain to me how to fix up the seahorse page on CreationWiki, it's got a leafy seadragon on it (not disguised as a leaf but as a coral, of all things....)] Tesk0002 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering this is an AfC article, and it is being discussed separately in two different locations, this smells badly of canvassing and I would advise anyone interested in responding to this request do so on User talk:FoCuSandLeArN#Pygmy pipehorse. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion of this article is that it might be better served on species:Home than here on en.wikipedia. I encourage you to build it out there, and then if it meets en.wikipedia's notability standards, it can always be copied over. Technical 13 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm afraid you're misunderstanding. It's not specifically that /coverage/ of the actual species are not important. The issue, honestly, is the poor state of the genus article. I did some basic work on it, but it needs more, including a copyedit. Some of the information is poorly arranged. I also created redirect links from the species names to the genus article.

A major concern on WP is the creation of new articles that are subtopics of existing ones that need work. This can actually reduce the quality of coverage by 'diffusing' information too much.

The best way to improve the coverage of both species is to work on the genus article, as a general description, with sections detailing and sourcing the uniqueness of both varieties. Then, when the section about 'your' pipefish gets long enough, it can be split into a separate article, which will immediately be 'good', and your work will actually help both articles, and will help ensure that there are enough sources about the specific species to write a 'long enough' article. Remember, an encyclopedia article isn't supposed to be as intricate or specifically detailed as a journal article. Revent (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, my previous comment was with the respond widget, so I didn't get an edit conflict and thus missed the previous comment when replying.
That's also why my indentation broke. :) Revent (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've been asked to comment on this issue. I'm not sure what's going on, or where to comment since there are discussions in several places. I gather someone wants, or wanted to write an article on Idiotropiscis lumnitzeri. That's straight forward and there should be no problem with that. The artice should be titled "Sydney's pygmy pipehorse" in alignment with Fishbase. There is a suggestion above that it is better for the writer to write about the genera, not the species. That seems quite wrong to me, and I hope the Teahouse is not offering that advice on other articles to do with marine life. Editors should write at any taxonomic level they choose, so long as they have suitable material for that level. If an editor has sufficient quality material on a species, they should definitely write the article for that species, even if an article for the genera doesn't exist. However I can't find the article. Is it in a draft form in a sandbox, or has the writer withdrawn it? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've withdrawn it. After reading the above comments, which are all completely nonsensical and have nothing to do with the article (which is neither about a species nor about a genus) I have decided to give up before I lose my marbles. I will try to buy a second ticket for this lottery in a couple of months, perhaps an editor who has at least a basic understanding of taxonomy will then get to read it and provide some competent, critical feedback. The first pygmy pipehorse was described in 1853 and there's still no Wikipedia article dealing with this group, so a couple of months isn't that long. 175.38.232.232 (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A little less pomposity might help as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Will it? I've had the impression that most of those who have commented haven't actually read the article before deciding what to do with it. I wouldn't call that particularly humble either... 175.38.232.232 (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well put it back in a sandbox so it can be examined again. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it appears you wrote an article about the pygmy pipehorses, a posssibly nonmonolhyletic group of genera, the non-seahorses in a family. You argued that this is commonly done on Wikipedia, and you are correct, organism articles are written that focus on non-taxa. You got responses that appear to indicate your article was either not read or was read by editors with such limited knowledge of the topic as to make discussion difficult. Very frustrating. The article is still missing and would be a good read and fine DYK. -198.228.216.155 (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at Acentronura, I actually worked on it a bit, including, mostly adding links. It now has reference to WikiSpecies, and the appropriate navigation bar. I also added redirects from the names of the actual species to the genera name, and took a quick look at the other closely related articles and tweaked them.
The goal isn't for WP to have an article about everything notable. The goal is that WP have encyclopedic coverage. I'm not saying that you can't write a good article about the species...I'm sure you can. But it would be better for now for the article about the genus to actually have a complete and well-written general description (it doesn't) and then subsections about the two species. The species name can then be redirected to those specific sections of the article. Once you have expanded the section on your fish to where it unbalances the genus article, then it can be converted into a new, independent article.
I suspect you are misunderstanding what people are saying, and I'm not saying it's your fault.
Revent (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed the comments about the 'hidden' article you wrote, but I'm not going to hunt it down. I suspect, however, that portions of that text that generally describe the genus could be incorporated easily into the main text there, and most of your copy used as a 'precreated' subsection. I'm sure that many of the features of the species that you wrote about are common to both, and it's a better 'classification of knowledge' for WP to be written that way. Revent (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no Revent. I don't doubt you are acting with the best of motives, but please stop telling new users they must write higher level taxa articles (like genera) before they can write lower level taxa articles (like species). That is nonsense, and would be very damaging to the development of biological articles. To repeat: Editors should write at any taxonomic level they choose, so long as they have suitable material for that level. If an editor has sufficient quality material on a species, they should definitely write the article for that species, even if an article for the genera doesn't exist. It's not your place to decide how biology articles are developed on Wikipedia. Teahouse participants should not be imposing their personal ideas if they lead to unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on article development. If you still think you have the right to make your impositions, then I invite you to take the matter to the various project boards concerned with biology articles, and see what they think of your restrictions. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear on this, I do not share Revent's notions. I've created hundreds (yes, hundreds) of species articles, and have a fair understanding of issues involved in doing so. My main concern with accepting this user's article had nothing to do with not understanding taxonomy, but rather the complete opposite. I was afraid that given the current state of articles about species of that same family, this particular article would've been confusing to readers. All that was needed was some clarification in those same articles on the part of said user before moving the article to mainspace. The user resorted to rather nasty accusations, and decided to take some time off, which in my opinion seems fitting, as it's unproductive to have users rampaging with such unjustified negative comments. Mea culpa, I was slow to perform those changes myself, and thus this theatre evolved. I hope the user rethinks his stance and decides to make valuable contributions in the future without petty dramas, as it is important to understand that we're all trying to improve the encyclopaedic species content within Wikipedia. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is New Factual Historical Topic "Digital Computer Association" OK?

I am a past member of the now defunct Digital Computer Association 1952 - 1993 that was active in the Los Angeles area and involved many of the participants in early West Coast computing research and application. It is possibly the first such organization in the U.S. but I have no data to support this. It was at the center of computer education, discussion, collaboration and camaraderie that existed in the local computer culture of that time.

Is this topic appropriate for Wikipedia?76.166.178.94 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Based on a quick look for reliable sources covering the group, I believe that it is is notable, and that an article is appropriate. Here is a fairly lengthy article from Computer World. There are lots of other sources available, and I believe that an article about a computer industry trade group that started in 1952 would be an excellent contribution to the encyclopedia.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Need a consulting Mentor...

Hello! I edit periodically and need someone I can ask for advice (originally I was mentored by ArielGold). My current question is: when an article is woefully incomplete, is it legitimate to add material from a wiki article in another language and cite that as the reference? Cheers! Shir-El too 18:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

PS Tried to use the live chat page but couldn't find any text window at the bottom of the screen. Sorry TheDruid, couldn't answer you! Shir-El too 18:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Shir-El and welcome to The Teahouse. Read Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate for details on the correct way to do this. You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The template {{Translated page}} should go on the article's talk page. Attibution in the edit summary is also necessary, and you can find this explained in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing the part of History of Howrah

I added some information about a very rare book written by Chunder Nath Banerjei, a native converted christian in the year 1872.I'm a researcher and discovered the book and the memorial plaque of sri Banerjei inside the prayer Hall of St. Thomas' Church. No one before me could trace out this plaque in the history of Howrah.As such I wanted to put that information in the edit part. My intention was not to promote my own book. I had just given the reference and mentioned my name as you've mentioned names of Bipradas Piplai and others. As my book is written in bengali I had given the reference with the name of the publisher and ISBN no.I had no intention to advertise my own book. So it is not clear to me how can I edit the page with this information which is an essential part of he History of Howrah. Pl send your advice and help me learning about the edit processSukanta60 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sukanta60 and welcome to the Teahouse. What you seem to be proposing is a source to which you are the author of. You feel this may be a noteworthy addition to an article with some pertinent information on the figure. First, thank you very much for your interest in contributing in a transparent manner. I suggest first, reviewing a few of our guidelines and policies to give you a good overview of how to best proceed. First is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Be bold, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The best way to proceed from there is to seek advice from a mentor who will have expertise in the area. I suggest one of the projects for general assistance from the community, but the best individual to ask about would be User:Sitush. As someone who is the author of the information I would also suggest the following essay to read through as well; Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

editing a content in the sandbox

Hi iam a pretty new user , just wanted to edit the content in the sandbox. regards Tam1305 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tam1305. There are two sandboxes you can edit - for the general test sandbox follow this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and get stuck in. This sandbox gets cleared out fairly regularly - if you'd like somewhere that you can retain your work, you also have a personal sandbox at this link (there's also a link at the top right of every page) which doesn't get emptied - you can edit this one in exactly the same way. Let us know if you need any more help. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Article seems like an opinion piece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_wheat

I was reading this and it seemed to be composed in blogging style of writing. The author seems to be inserting their own conclusions and opions about public policy. I am new at this and I would like a reality check. Thanks. 71.108.132.110 (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello 71.108, and thanks for stopping by. Yes, that article is a bit of a mess. The subject is, of course, a perfectly legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article, but what is written there is not an encyclopedia article. It's an essay. If you feel like tackling the clean-up of that article yourself, you are more than invited to do so; Wikipedia only gets better because people who care fix things. Since you care, you're in the best position to do the fixing. If you don't have the resources to fix the article up, you can flag it for attention of others by adding a "cleanup tag" to the article top. I'd recommend {{Essay-like}}, but there is a whole list of them at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Does that help answer your question? --Jayron32 05:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I thought it didn't look right. I don't know where to begin. Let me look at the cleanup message list and figure out how to tag it. When a clean up tag is posted is it only visible to those who come across the article, or does it pop up up in a *cleanup* database? Thanks again.71.108.132.110 (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. After reading for 20 minutes I can't figure out how to insert *essay*. Could you point me to the step by step method including where in the article it goes? Thanks again.71.108.132.110 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, edit the article and at the top just add this text - {{Essay-like|date=May 2013}} - then save. NtheP (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, again. Yes, "tagging" an article adds it to a list, just not a database. When you put any cleanup template (the formal name that we usually call a cleanup tag) to an article, that article is listed in a category. For example, when you add {{Essay-like}} at the top of an article, that article is added to Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing. Click on some of these blue links to see the pages that describe them and how to use them.
Wikipedia may seem less organized than a plate of spaghetti as you start out but if you stick around and keep learning, there's logic and method to the interconnected parts that make up Wikipedia. I hope you'll sign up for an account and continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 10:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. I will look at it and try to see what I can do.71.108.133.103 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Instant deletion of article

A Christian conservative is knocking out my article on Jonathan Hammond, solar architect. Perhaps because it mentions global warming. How can I appeal this? No button shows up to contest deletion on my computer screen. I have found the wiki guidelines very confusing...HELP. Is there a place I could post the draft for help from more experienced and less biased Wiki folks?


Jonathan Hammond, Solar Architect b. 1944 is a prize winning architect specializing in passive solar design and sustainable building materials.

Jonathan Hammond played a pivotal role in the emergence of passive solar architecture in California. Twenty five years before the formation of the LEED guidelines for Green Building Mr. Hammond helped develop the first climatically adapted building code (Davis, CA). This encouraged passive solar design for heating and cooling, and his firm helped guide the training sessions with builders.<1> These guidelines, which included shading and orientation, were very successful and much more flexible and powerful than the replacement state code (Title 24) and remain better than both state and federal building codes. This received an award from President Carter, presented in person by Rosalyn Carter. DaveB1Ecotech (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The article Jonathan hammond solar architect was deleted by User:Nyttend with the rationale of G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion on May 4, 2013. It was subsequently nominated for deletion 2 hours after it was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. The article is currently deleted (but there is no log for the second nomination implying it was revdel as well). I suggest you try writing your article using the Article Creation Wizard where it will be reviewed before going into article space greatly reducing the chances of it being deleted before you can complete your work on it. Technical 13 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm the deleting administrator. It has only been deleted once — I found that someone had tagged it under section A7, but it definitely made clear claims of importance for him; A7 deletion would have been quite inappropriate. However, as you see from DaveB1Ecotech's style of writing here, the article was written in a manner that glorified him throughout — for example, "Mr Hammond illustrates very clearly the problem of being a pioneer too far in front of society. His innovative work, 25 years ahead of the professional advances of LEED remains little known or studied". The whole article was saying that he was a wonderful person and promoting his ideas, rather than describing them neutrally; that's sufficient for speedy deletion as promotional. Please read our articles about innovators like Edison or Einstein (or even some lesser-known people, like Johan Vaaler, who invented a kind of paper clip) to see how such biographies should be written. You're welcome to write a new article, but you need to do it in a neutral and dispassionate manner. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
And DaveB1Ecotech, please do not jump to the conclusion that because somebody has done something that you don't like, they must be biased. One of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Catch22, your reply is a statement of "Faith". < Assume the Position, Faith Approaching!! < Give the Genuine Concern of this Solar Arch-Person a Genuine Response, i.e. < If President Jimmy Carter gave his blessing you would be VERY WISE, as a senior to me, to respect your seniors also. Thanks. ~ Good luck with Hammond. ((if there this is a section/topic editor, that would help your clear up the grammar problems of editors "Cold Dishing Him", as someone did described him as, "Not Recognize in His Time. )) There is a religious slant damaging Wikipedia. /^\< Example: Aramaic according to Hebrew Universities is recorded as far back as 1,300BCE. Yet this is not being included in Wikipedia. http://cal.huc.edu/ Yet how many arctles dismissing the Aramaic & Arabic languages as secondary in importance to others? Jesus, Moses(Exodus of Egypt) & Abraham(Gen 19) all spoke Aramaic, and the later Two come from the time of Volcano in Minoan Crete 1,600BCE, how do you think the stories of Abraham & Moshe survived until Liturgical Aramaic(Biblical Hebrew) was invented? 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

티아라

Dear editors:

Is it okay for this page 티아라 which redirects to an English page to be in the English Wikipedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, and welcome back. Yes, that is her Korean name so it is a reasonable redirect. Using the name of a foreign subject in their native language as a redirect is commonly done. For example, 싸이 redirects to Psy and 章子怡 redirects to Zhang Ziyi. Chamal T•C 02:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is perfectly fine as long as the redirect includes the {{R from alternative language}} template. There are many other redirect just like it; see Category:Redirects from alternative languages. — |J~Pæst|  02:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, just checking... —Anne Delong (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Did I understand correctly? Is the Korean Spelling redirecting to English wiki? <checking, yep it is!> ~ Shouldn't Korean lead to the Korean Page? ~ Please, be careful in the Spelling of Korean. The Language has changed the official English Letter spelling multiple times. Korean for Korean. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello 4WhatMakesSense. No, the way it is now is correct. The Korean spelling should redirect to the local English wiki page. If there is a more detailed page on the Korean wiki, I suggest tagging the local English wiki page with a link to go there from here and also tagging the page with {{Expand language}} pointing to the page on the Korean wiki so that someone can compare and add content to improve both articles. Technical 13 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Racist poster

I remember seeing sometime ago, a racist poster image of an African American "camouflaging" in the dark, with a warning along the lines of "keep your doors locked" at the bottom of the poster. I searched the Net with all possible keywords, but to no avail. Where is this file???? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bonkers! You might try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk where you are more likely to get an answer. --Jayron32 15:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Help me possible rewording

Hello hosts! In addition to being a host here, I've also been responding to {{Help me}} requests. Shameless self promo: I've even created a userbox ({{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Help me responder}}) that informs you how many people are using the template get get assistance. Anyways, I was on the talk page today to request a new similar template be created ({{Admin help-inappropriate}}) when I noticed a couple of edit requests that had been sitting there for a couple months (there was no template to notify anyone). I decided to add my opinions and post the appropriate {{Edit protected}} template to see if the little bugs could be fixed. The requests where denied at this time, although the denying admin had missed my actual request. I asked him about it on his talk page, and he suggested, "What may be an idea is bringing the entire template up for discussion at the Teahouse, or some other venue designed around helping editors, and see if there is a more elegant rewording for the whole thing." So, here I am and my question for the hosts today is: Should the {{Help me}} template be reworded to be less wordy and to fix a typographical error? I thank you all for your time in advanced and look forward to your replies. Technical 13 (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on the 'wordiness', but the massive run-on sentence is horrible, and the 'category this places' phrasing is useless to a newbie. "Using this template on a page places it into a special category for attention, and notifies users...." That way it doesn't 'assume knowledge'. Revent (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
My edit request was to remove the extra words, not add anything.
Changing the rest of it was Thumperward's idea. I'm just presenting it. Technical 13 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

i would like to know how to edit an existing article to link a word within it to a sub heading in the same article, to make article easier to navigateSirDigit (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. [[#link word to heading|this link]] will give this link. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it spam?

I deleted it once finding no relation with the article, they have reposted with some weird explanation. I think this is not a legitimate post, can someone check Talk:Paoli_Dam#Erdos.E2.80.93Bacon_number? --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty legit to me. Assume it's a good faith question: Erdos-Bacon numbers are a notable concept, and given her career and qulifications she probably does have one (although it may well be too high to be worth noting). Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm new in Wikipedia. I have a question.

Always when i put images with celebrities, this images are deleted by Wikipedia, what it's supposed to choose, this are not my images! What code, it's supposed to use? Thank you very much. Consiliul (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a look at some of your edits, it seems to me like you are not using the exact same name of the File page when you try to insert the picture on an article page. All elements of the name, capital letters, punctuation, etc must be exactly the same. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Consiliul, and thanks for stopping by! Just a quick (unsolicited) bit of advice unrelated to your initial question: When you fill in the "edit summary" box, please leave a real, descriptive summary of what you have done. For example, if you are adding an image to an article, write "adding an image to the article". Don't just mash the "a" or "g" key 20 times just to fill in the blank. Many people at Wikipedia would find that rude; even ruder than leaving no summary at all. The edit summaries are important so other people can understand what you are doing, so do take them seriously and try to leave something short but descriptive of what you are trying to do every time. --Jayron32 18:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you Upload a photo?

How do you upload a photo?, I do the upload form and then what.Lydd-on-sea (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lydd-on-Sea. It is preferred that you upload photos to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used for other language wikis. Follow the upload link there and you will be taken through the process. If you are still having problems do ask here again.--Charles (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! In the left hand side of your screen under the wikipedia icon, there are a few sections. In the toolbox section , Click upload file and after that, I feel you would get your way.Zince34' 08:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello!!...Please, try this Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard Good Luck!  Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What wheat no advertising for auto mine, but others yes.

I cant we ptu an ad for my auto sotre, but page for mcdonalds yes? wht makes the difference wheat between a page wiki an ""ad" gets deletd and banned? wil not make auto pg but want to know why?KyoungAuto (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kyoung. That is because people outside of Wikipedia have written long, comprehensive books about the history of McDonalds, and other people have read those books and used that information in those books to write about McDonalds here at Wikipedia. What books have been written about your auto store? It should also be noted that the encyclopedia article about McDonalds is not an advertisement. It is an article about McDonalds, not an advertisement written by them to drum up business, rather it is written by people with no connection to McDonalds who are writing about it. I hope that all makes sense. --Jayron32 05:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Kyoung, and welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, it wouldn't have to be books. If your store has received significant coverage in newspapers or magazines it might be notable enough for an article. But chances are your store hasn't reacched that status yet.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can You Leave Private Remarks

Can leave private remarks on an user talk page? If so, how? SmerkInYourEyes (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SmerkInYourEyes, and welcome to the Teahouse! If by "private" you mean as in a message that no-one else can see, then no, you'll need to use an instant messaging service (AIM, Y!M , Pidgin), a social networking site (Google plus, Facebook, MySpace), or you'll have to send an email. If the user has email enabled, there should be a link available when you are on their user or user talk page in the "Toolbox" section of the sidebar that will allow you to send them an email. I hope this information answers your question and happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This answers my question perfectly. This is an example of a well answered question. SmerkInYourEyes (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that you won't see the email link in the Toolbox unless both you and the other user have email enabled in your preferences. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Pictures

I have a couple of pictures I took when she was in my caountry, and I was wodering which liscence I have to add to them to upload 'em to WP?? Thanks.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's your choice. If you don't mind not be attributed, you can release them into the public domain. Otherwise, you should probably stick with the default CC-BY-SA license. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks  Miss Bono (zootalk) 20:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tired of breaking rules...

I am constantly being accused of breaking the rules either directly or indirectly in the Copernican Principle page. Most of the times it is because of my lack of experience and knowledge that I unknowingly break a rule or broke a rule. Where can I find all the rules in Wikipedia? If I have broken a rule, can I be given a second chance to learn from my mistakes and never break the rule again? Or am I branded for life as a rule breaker who is religiously, politically, and psychologically motivated and possibly banned from ever participating in the Copernican Principle page again? I have been accused of nearly everything under the sun in the Copernican Principle Page. Every time I learn a new rule and fix the error of my ways, there is another rule, that I did not know, which gets broken. Diamondadnrs (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It always happens at first. I am gonna post something on your talk page that might help. If you need some advice after that, just let me know. Happy editing.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Diamondadnrs - yes it can be overwhelming, but must remember that the rules are principles not civil code or exacting law. See Wikipedia:8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia - if you start out by following these 8 simple rules, the rest should come naturally.Moxy (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Diamondadnrs and welcome to the Teahouse! I've added the most complete welcome template that includes links to "most" of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia just in case you really do want to read them all! Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way. Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 20:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Diamondadnrs. Remember a couple things. The only stupid question is the one you don't ask, and, you cannot break Wikipedia. Anything you do can be undone, as I am sure you have found out! We have a guiding thought here in Wikiland. Be Bold! Might I suggest that you try editing on pages that are a little more concrete than an astronomical principle for a while, until you get the hang of things? Add some edits to your high school's, or your hometown's, page. In addition, you appear to be in what we call an edit dispute here, on a page that has a few dedicated editors. It might help if you ask for a third opinion there. Hope that helps, but please came back here with any questions you have! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the template and the 8 simple rules. I will try to follow your advice. Diamondadnrs (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A page I created was deleted and I don't know why.

I just made a new page and it was deleted for it being on a fictitious object so it could never have enough references or sources. It was tagged for speedy deletion. I checked the list of reasons for speedy deletions and didn't see anything that would make my article valid to be tagged for a speedy deletion. SmerkInYourEyes (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the link to that page??  Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Unfortunately there is no indication in your Contributions record that you ever worked on an article under this user account.You probably worked on it while you were not logged it. Please give us a link to the deleted page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Eyes! You did work on it when you were signed in, but since it was deleted, it does not show in your contributions. The deleting admin deleted it as a hoax, but it may be not a hoax, but an in-universe item from a book. Admin's do have some discretion to speedily delete things that will never be an article. Your best bet would be to add some content to the novel's page. And before you try another article, I would suggest you read WP:GNG. That stands for "General Notability Guideline", but that pile of words simply means that those are our rules for what can and can't have an article. Encyclopedias write about what others are writing about. So unless some other author in a newspaper, magazine, or book is writing about what MR. Berry, etal, created for his book, you just don't have enough to write an article on it. Hope that clears things up. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gtwfan52, it makes more sense now. SmerkInYourEyes (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Again

Hey! I am back. I saw a picture on Wikipedia that someone took of the Joshua Tree Special Edition Box Set, and i was wondering if I can take a shot to the Box Set Edition of No Line on the Horizon I have at home?? and under what liscense should I upload it.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Miss Bono. The best place to ask this exact question would be at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where you will get answers from people who specialize in dealing with questions about the copyright of pictures like this. Just a quick general note: the answer to "Is it OK if I upload (some copyrighted picture)?" is "It depends on exactly where and how you intend to use it." Wikipedia's criteria for using copyrighted works under a claim of "fair use" are located at WP:NFCC, and in general, you can only use a copyrighted work a) if no free alternative exists OR could be created and b) usually only in very specific places, such as the article about the subject itself. The packaging of audio recordings is thus ONLY allowed to be used in the specific article about the recording itself. However, you should not merely take my word on this, please do ask this question at the noticeboard I note above, and see what help people can give there. Does that help? --Jayron32 17:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How to post a reply?

I'm sorry, I can't seem to figure out how to reply to threads in this forum? Anyway, thanks for the answers to my question regarding inline references, it works fine now!Child7 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Child7! It's okay, it can be confusing! If you look next to the section title (for example, in this section: "How to post a reply?" you'll see the [edit] button. Just simply click that, and respond by typing your response and signing your name (~~~~). Then hit preview, make sure it looks good, and hit save. I hope that helps :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If you don't see the edit links for sections (which I think is actually the default), go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and turn on 'enable section editing'. Revent (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you!:)Child7 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

problem linking to new article

I created my first article last night. A page for the Rory Gallagher album Notes from San Francisco. I actually expected more of a review before the article went live but it went right up I'm guessing because there were enough references to it from the Discography(?)

But I'm having a problem linking to the new article. The original link that I first checked seems to work. That is a link on the Gallagher discography. That link is where I started to create the page -- using the redirection you get when you click on a Wiki link that has no page. But I noticed another link in the discography (in the intro text, the link that works is in one of the boxes below). I tried manually re-editing the link using the link tool provided as a UI GUI icon and it seemed to find the page but then when I republished the page the link still isn't active. It just occurs to me this may just be a natural part of what happens when a page goes live, the links don't get propogated through the whole database right away and perhaps I'm just impatient but anyway I wanted to check. Mdebellis (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this in the past. Sometimes just verbalizing (or typing) a problem can help you figure out the answer. As soon as I finished this I thought again and realized the problem. I didn't realize that the links are case sensitive but they seem to be. I had the "f" in From as a small letter in the link text and it needs to be capitalized. At least I think that was the problem and that its fixed now. Still would welcome feedback ;) Mdebellis (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You are correct, Mdebellis. Wikilinks are case sensitive. They must duplicate the article title exactly, unless you pipe to another title. I usually copy and paste the article title when I wikilink to be sure. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Inline References keep disappearing

Note:I just realized today to do my editing in the Sandbox, not by constantly saving the page...... My inline references keep vanishing. Sometimes when I preview, sometimes when I save. Help is appreciated. I tried to figure out if I needed to put reflist with double { on each side someplace in the inline reference for each citation, but that did not work either.

Thanks Child7 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Child7, welcome to the Teahouse. There doesn't appear to be anything unusual about the page but I wonder if, when you are editing your sandbox, you are editing sections? If so then when you preview those they won't show the inline citations as there is no {{reflist}} in that section. This is one of the annoyances about editing sections rather than the whole article. The way round it is to add a reflist to a section while you are editing and previewing it, then remove the reflist before you press save. You definitely do not need a reflist next to each reference. NtheP (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
When working on an existing article like Peggy Lipton, it is best to work on the article itself, although you can try test edits in a sandbox. A sandbox is a great place to develop a new article, adding enough references to show notability. Then "move" the sandbox page to article space. The entire editing history will be preserved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it worked!Child7 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_102&oldid=1143398229"