Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 35 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 45

How will I request an article for creation?

Hi there, It's a long time since I've been here. How can I request an article for creation?Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat 05:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You go to Wikipedia:Article Wizard OMGuyZ (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That was rather curt, and not right. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Mir Almaat 1 S1, and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe you go to WP:Requested articles to request articles for creation. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How do we close discussions concerning article cleanup?

Hello teahouse, thanks for the invitation to visit you here for advice. I have got off to a bad start I am afraid. I have come across an article which I believe seriously contravenes content guidelines. I offered a few examples on the article talk page after being challenged to do so. Other contributors there have defended the article content against some of my concerns, but not mentioned or attempted to defend it against others. The discussion isn't very productive as the other contributors seem to resent any contribution at all from me. Today I tried to improve the compliance of the article with one of the points I had made (one which hasn't been challenged or contradicted) but one of the other contributors reverted my edits and placed a warning on my talk page, claiming I was being disruptive. The reason given was that the dead discussion wasn't closed.

My question is this: when or how does asuch a discussion become closed, and what do we do about articles which contravene guidelines is no-one else agrees, or even if no-one else disagrees? Eff Won (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eff Won! Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please tell me which article you are referring to? I'd like to have a look. Usually, if everyone disagrees you should not take action. Such a discussion will close at consensus. Someone needs to summarise and ask for !votes. It's not a good idea to remove or alter content prior to that if everyone disagrees. It could be that you misinterpereted the guidelines or something similar. I'd like to take a look and then I can see what can be done. As you are quite a new user, major changes will not be looked upon due to the worries you may not know policies and guidelines well.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Adam, thanks for offering to help me get to grips with this. It now appears, from a comment that just arrived on my talk page, that they may be a law unto themselves at the article in question. It is 2012 Formula One season, and the discussion is on it's talk page under the section headed "Serious level of non-compliance with key Wikipedia guidelines". I did read some of the guidelines that were suggested to me shortly after I first started using Wikipedia quite thoroughly, and cannot see any ambiguity there, but I suppose I could be barking up the wrong tree. Thanks for any further advice you might have. Best, Eff Won (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
After taking a look, I have a couple of suggestions so here you are:
  • I cannot see any violation of MOS:BOLD
  • You can solve the MOS:LINK issue, by removing the link and writing See also: (put link here) immediately after the sections. Make sure it's in italics.
  • Colour is allowed in results tables to show winners, losers etc.
  • MOS:FLAG isn't a strict guideline, so don't worry about that
  • And as for WP:LENGTH, the table and colours in it bulk out the article quite a lot and there are many things to add to it. There are images etc. and probably plenty of formatting, all of which add to the size of the article.

I hope this addresses your issues, let me know if you have more.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  21:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can you explain again what you mean about the links. There are many instances where links to the same article are made umpteen times throughout the article (22 for Sebastian Vettel, for example). There are duplicated links in almost every section. It doesn't seem practical to add half a dozen, or more, "see alsos" to each and every section. Or do I misunderstand?
MOS:BOLD says don't use bold for emphasis, yet every entry in the second column of the first table is emboldened. Is that okay do you think? Eff Won (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I wasn't quite clear. All you do in the section is : Main article: (insert link from the section title). Just the one that was in the title and then remove it from the title. You can remove some duplicates, but certainly keep one per section. The bold is fine.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  21:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay - the ones on the section titles you mean. Thanks. Do you think it's okay though to duplicate all the other links in each and every section? Don't forget that by the end of the season there will be at least 20 of the short "Race summaries" sub-sections and each will then have their own links to each of the top drivers, to each of the top car makes and to each of the top engine suppliers, at least! That means that the "Race summaries" section could easily have 10-20 links to each of the Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Button, Webber, Räikkönen, McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault articles by the end of November. Eff Won (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that shouldn't be a problem.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  22:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome again, Eff Won. I offer a different explanation and perspective. Many articles in Wikipedia are part of a WikiProject. The 2012 Formula One season article is part of WikiProject Formula one. Within articles about Formula One racing, members of that WikiProject are, as you put it, "a law unto themselves." Years ago, editors discussed the format for recording Formula One racing seasons and settled on a format and style. Some elements were settled on and incorporated into a lot of articles before the current Manual of Style even existed. Those interested in Formula One racing look at the articles for any season and see the same format and style, making it easy to find and compare information. To keep the articles consistent, any significant change to the 2012 article would cause ripple changes to dozens of other pages to maintain consistency. Such changes could confuse and disrupt readers who have expectations when they look at Formula One articles. Set in their ways? Yes. Are your edits and changes really significant improvements to the encyclopedia?
I'm a bird geek. For hundreds of years, ornithologists and birders followed conventions in naming birds with common and scientific names in the English language. Members of WikiProject Birds got so tired of other editors changing the names of our articles by removing capital letters that we edited some Wikipolicy and the Manual of Style. Watch for "See also the special rules on capitalization in bird naming." sprinkled here and there. Do the names of articles about birds comply with the naming policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? They do after reaching a consensus and closing the discussion and adding the special rules. Even with those rules in place for bird article names, I have undone a couple of article moves caused by well-intentioned newcomers who missed the fact that there are specific rules for specific topics that violate the general rules. Make sense?
I recommend you take a break from the Formula One project pages. Since you are interested in cleaning up in Wikipedia, there is a Cleanup Taskforce that could really use your help. Oh, and please take the template I added to your talk page in the manner intended (lighten things up) and not as an insult. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 04:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay, so they, in effect, ARE a law unto themselves. Perhaps this "newbie trap" needs to be better documented, and an appropriate warning disributed to new starters, along with the links to the already numerous policies, guidelines, etc. that are already given. Something like "Take what is written in these with a pinch of salt" needs to be added to the top of each, and the list of exempt articles provided. I feel now that by attemping, in a modest way, to do the right thing by the guidelines, that all I have done is to make a right arse of myself! I have certainly alienated myself from those working in that particular clique. The least that should have happened is that the extralegal status of articles under that project should have been explained to me as my first edit was unceremoniously dumped. Eff Won (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
What Doctree is saying is that WikiProject Formula One has its own, slightly altered Manual of Style. It is not a law, nor it is a clique, it is a series community agreements made over time by a wide variety of editors to suit the Formula One articles and make them better for their readers.
The top of every Manual of Style article clearly states that all guidelines have exceptions, and that common sense must come into play. A list of exempt articles could never exist because any article can be exempt if the edits are better for Wikipedia. The only "newbie trap" is that you, as a newbie, chose to argue against those who tried to warn you and explain things to you, and laid claims of a grand conspiracy of wrongdoing when their answers did not match your interpretations. Certainly, your very first edits (adding links to a calendar) were quite repeatedly explained to you as a choice made by consensus. Consensus will always be able to overrule the Manual of Style. The359 (Talk) 08:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Despite repeated requests though, evidence of that consensus was never shown, and that, rightly or wrongly, led me to the conclusion that it was all bluff. Eff Won (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

ASIN references

I've been plugging away at an article in my sandbox, on an article about a small press publisher I know a bit about. Half of their publications don't have ISBN numbers, but ASIN numbers. With eBooks so prominent, and Amazon such a giant, do you think Wikipedia will add an ASIN option to the book citation template? SinMacD (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi SinMacD. This capability already exists. Please see Template:Cite book#Identifiers. In short, just add the parameter |asin=. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel a bit silly now. lol. I think a little more coffee and I can tackle that, making the references I've added much more consistent. Thank you! SinMacD (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Google and other search engines to find new articles

How long does it take for an article to go into general circulation within Wikipedia? Next, approx. length of time per cycle before one can find a wiki piece by googling?? If we thank those who have helped us along the way in the teahouse talk, will they see them? or we need to go to their own talk page to offer thanks "in person"? As always, many thanks.CHHistory (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, CHHistory. I do see that you are writing an article at Articles for Creation. This is a special process for newer editors (but some experienced editors use it as well), to develop their articles over time in a much safer environment than the actual mainspace encyclopedia. It is basically a chance to have your article "reviewed" by one or more experienced editors before the article is created to reduce the occurrence of stressful deletions. Any confirmed editor (which you are) can create their articles directly in the main encyclopedia, but it is recommended that your first article be written at Articles for Creation.
In the case of Luo Xian Xiang, I see that the article is more of a list of facts than an encyclopedia entry. This is not a bad start, as Articles for Creation is the perfect place to develop your encyclopedic style. When you are reading highly regarded articles, such as Featured Articles, you will notice that these are not just lists of facts, but provide commentary from a wide variety of reliable sources. I think you would benefit greatly by reading Wikipedia:Your first article, which is an excellent primer on the encyclopedic paradigm.
As far as search engines go, these websites (especially Google) do not reveal their algorithms or processes of inclusion. So we have no way of knowing exactly how Wikipedia articles end up there, or how long a particular article will take to show up. From experience, it will depend on the subject and how prevalent other sources on that subject are. There is no real answer for this, but it could take anywhere from a couple days to many weeks. hajatvrc @ 18:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and Teahouse hosts are adept at finding posts by guests no matter where they are. I saw you create your userpage offering your thanks just minutes after you did (if that could be any weirder). So in short, yes, we will see it if you post at the Teahouse talk. hajatvrc @ 18:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi CHHistory, my experience is that once an article is live, Google indexes it within a few minutes at most. Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Many thanks for all the time and support you all have given, without which I will not be able to move forward. Hope to "pass it on" as I become more knowledgeale in the workings of this NGO. Further, to "Hajatvrc" - have taken your suggestion and will join the group that work on historical matters, though at the moment, I still need to narrow the field. Cheers.

How to insert photo into an article?

I have completed an article and have uploaded a photo in the wiki commons - how do I insert this photo into the article? In fact, do I need to upload the photo into the wiki common? If not, how do I delete that? Currently, I have placed the linked to the photo in the beginning of the article. There must be a way where the photo will show up together with the article. Help!! Much obliged and Many, many thanks. Mucho Gracis!! Merci! - :) CHHistory (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Add the code


into the edit window.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi CHHistory! Gildrien is pretty right on with their suggestion. Also, if you look on the menu when you are editing (the "edit menu" I guess, next to the "bold" "italics" pencil, chain, icons) you'll see a "photo" icon which looks like a clipart image of a picture. Just click on that, and you can add the file name, a caption, the justification (left/center/right) and so forth. Just click it once you find the area in the article you want to place it, and follow through with it. Be sure to preview, of course, and then save. Let us know if it works out for you :) SarahStierch (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Success declared, thanks to Gilderien and to Sarah for taking the time to explain. Just hope that you'all will see this note, as unlike email, there is no reply icon ... One more question: How to add caption under the photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talkcontribs) 17:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A building uploaded for Wiki Loves Monuments!
Hey there! I'm going to do a little demonstration :) One of the best tricks I know when learning (and I am still learning, trust me) Wikipedia editing is to copy and paste others markup and use it for my own ;) So here is an example of adding a caption to an image. Let me know if that helps! (You put the caption after the justification (right/left). SarahStierch (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I upload pictures from this source?

The source in question is the ARGOLIKOS ARCHIVAL LIBRARY HISTORY AND CULTURE, a nonprofit foundation in Aegina, Greece. It has some excellent images of the Greek phoenix (early modern greek currency) which I would like to use on the wikipedia article of the same name. The photos are found here

Terms of use

These say that copying any of their works in part or in full for personal or educational use, so long as it is not for a commercial purpose is allowed. They also require attribution.

So my question is, is it OK to add these pictures to wikipedia? Thank you Blex areton (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blex, welcome to editing Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions (section)! Unfortunately Wikipedia requires images to be licensed in a way that also permits commercial use. So these images cannot be used under their current license. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with Demiurge in the main, some of these images look like they may be in the public domain, and so the license the website states its images are under may be irrelevant for some of them (they can't license anything that they don't own). Unfortunately, from what I've read the issue of copyright and public domain in Greece, and specifically in the area of postage stamps, is murky. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Greece. While in Greece, generally, images enter the public domain "70 years after the death of the creator, or 70 years after the date of publication for anonymous and pseudonymous works" there's an exception to this where "the State, represented by the Minister of Culture," exercises certain rights as to the image, and it goes on to state that "Official state, government and judicial texts" are an exception and further that "It is not clear if pictures of postage stamps (pre 1970), revenue stamps and currency (coins only) are covered by this clause." The whole section is not very clear, and unfortunately, we always assume full copyright unless something is clearly public domain. You might try tapping the expertise at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as to any specific image.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. The site also says that any image may be used for commercial purposes or loaded onto another site with the permission of the Library. Otherwise, since I own one of the coins in question, would an image produced by myself of that coin and placed in the public domain be OK? Blex areton (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Blex :) Welcome to Wikipedia! Yup, if you decide to upload the images yourself that you took, that's totally cool! You can even use the fairly easy Upload Wizard at our sister site, Wikimedia Commons, to do it. Then, you can use the images in any Wikipedia article related to the subject in any Wikipedia language (we have over 240!). Thanks so much for considering taking those photos and sharing them with the world! SarahStierch (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what Sarah says it true but only if the coin is itself in the public domain. This area can be slippery. It is true of many things that if you take the photo, you then own the photo and can release it under a free license or into the public domain, but it's not true if the photograph is of something that is itself copyrighted--a coin, a painting, etc. Instead this may be a derivative work if not a slavish copy but is non-free because the owner of the coin/painting's copyright remains.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
To make things even clearer Face-smile.svg since no free image of a non-free work can be created, such images tend to fall within Wikipedia's very strict non-free exceptions, to be used only to illustrate the item they are an image of. These rules are based on the US "fair use" laws, and of course you might need to consider whether the laws of other countries need to be taken into account. Also Commons will not accept any non-free image. Rich Farmbrough, 04:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

How to make changes to an edit and how to cite a reference?

I believe that this is the fourth time I've asked these questions referring to my attempts to correct errors in your entry on "Nevado del Tolima". The previous three times have been via your "Help" feature. My first problem is to find the result of my first editing attempt (rejected for lack of reference(s)). The second is that, once found, I can see no way of re-editing it. The third is that no-one has told me whether the reference I've told them about is suitable. The editors that have responded have done so in computerspeak with just a touch of academic superiority. I have tried to understand all the stuff I been told to read but it's not been helpful. The editor that has tried the hardest to help is Ariconte but I've found no way of communicating with him/her. Ariconte's talk page seems not to have a way of asking questions. In short, I have three questions. First, where do I find my previous (rejected) edit)? Secondly,how do I make changes to this and cite a reference? Thirdly, how can I find out if this reference is acceptable? (It comes from a website called Any help (in plain English) would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Steve InghamInghams3 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve and welcome to the teahouse. At the top of any talk page you will find a tab called "new section". Click this to start a conversation.--Charles (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Steve. One point at a time:
  1. To find your edit, go to the Nevado del Tolima article. In the upper right, look for "View history." Click on that "View history" tab and look for your username. On the left side of the white space, you will see (cur | prev). Click on "prev" and when you scroll down, you will see your edit. You can highlight and copy the text and save it to a text editor like Notepad (if you use a Microsoft Windows operating system). It is often good to edit off-line until you are satisfied with your work, saving your draft often so you don't lose it if there is a power surge or your PC decides to reboot for some reason.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean by "this' in your second question. To edit, i.e., change, text, click the edit tab. To add a reference, the video that Ariconte left on your talk page shows the easiest way. If you have a problem, come back and ask and I will help with specific questions.
  3. I checked the entry in It is definitely not a reliable source. That web site contains first person accounts by contributors with no editorial checks or peer review. A couple of minutes on Google show that the article is demonstrably inaccurate. For example, the article states that the first successful ascent of Nevado del Tolima was in 1928 while the first team actually reached the summit in December 1926. A reliable source at includes images of magazine articles about that climb with photographs. Copies of those magazines can still be retrieved from archives. Another example, states the second party to reach the peak did so in in 1942. An official biography of Rev. Emilio Jesus Ramirez, SJ states that he reached the summit in 1941 with a group of his students. I hope someone takes on the task of writing an article about Ramirez; scanning through his bio showed that his is definitely notable and downright fascinating.
I hope this answered your questions. Editing and referencing will quickly get easier as you get a bit of experience. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inghams3 (talkcontribs) 06:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Many thanks to you and Ariconte for answering my questions. It seems that I'm flogging a dead horse without a reliable reference. You're right; Padre Ramirez was quite a guy. I met him twice: once in 1966 to ask him the best way to get to the mountain and again in 1967 to give him a set of photos (which I no longer have) of the new crater. He was amazed to see it. Steve Ingham Inghams3 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Having read the "El Grafico" article, I see that at the bottom of page 714 (first column) is a detailed description of the summit. NO CRATER! Is it worthwhile translating this or extracting it and have you guys do the translation? Steve Ingham Inghams3 (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to insert a reference in my latest edit of this entry and it's still extant. However, it looks strange and no-one has taken me to task for this. Without being masochistic, I would like to find what my next step is or would it be better just to leave things as they are? Thanks, Steve Ingham Inghams3 (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a group here specializing in publisher articles?

I've just spent a day or two working on this article, and suddenly realized there may be a community or group here that specializes in these type of articles. I know that could mean a standard for format and referencing. I want to be sure that when I've finished gathering information, I'm not just throwing an inconsistent article into their midst. I also don't want to put further work into the existing draft, if I'm doing it wrong. SinMacD (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello SinMacD. Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mind if I ask what kind of publishing? There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, which deals specifically with books, but there are also related projects for magazines, journals, etc. etc. You can find links from there to related Wikiprojects, so it is possible you can find the specific project that can help you. Does that help any? --Jayron32 04:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, SinMac. Welcome back. The closest thing I could find was Wikiproject Literature or Wikiproject Science Fiction. There is a directory of Wikiprojects at WP:PROJDIR, but I sure didn't see one for publishing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
So far it's mostly a list of publications from a new small press/independent press. They've put over 35 books/novellas in uder six months, with more announced to follow, so I thought I'd start something now, save it to my personal files until I see more media coverage, and update as they expand. That way, when media coverage justifies an article, it's all ready to place a request for creation. I have another small press in mind as well, with more media coverage, if less production. If there's a standard of formatting in place for articles on publishers, I want to be sure to follow it as I build the basic article. I did check the WP:PROJDIR, but didn't see anything specific to publishing companies. A check for similar Wikipedia articles netted some small press articles, but didn't see any that listed publications. Of course, if this company keeps going at the rate they are, I may have to scale it back to detail only those publications that achieve high standings, awards, or some sort of media coverage, in the future.SinMacD (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I must say, that is a pruident plan of attack with regards to creating the article. I must commend you for being thoughtful of how Wikipedia works; most users don't grasp the intricacies of Wikipedia's article standards, and get pissed when we delete their stuff right away. I could possibly recommend combing through Category:Book publishing companies, but there are thousands of articles there, and most seem to be of the sort of low quality you specifically want to avoid making the article you are working on, so I am not sure that you'll find a good model. Let me look around a bit, and see if I can't find a few decent articles you can use as standards. --Jayron32 05:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
If anyone wants to view the draft-work, it's in my sandbox for the time being Once I have it in some sort of working order, I'll copy/paste it out to a Word file and work on something else. I'm treating this as my learning piece, before I try to do anything else. I already made the mistake of enthusiastically leaping in without enough research. I won't do that again. ;)SinMacD (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate any, and all guidance. There's a lot to absorb, but I'll do my best.SinMacD (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Doing some digging, there are not a lot of featured or good level works on publishing companies, but I did find Ace Books, which is a Featured-level article on one publishing company. At least that will give you one example of what the Wikipedia community considers its best work on a publishing company. It is probably way more detailed and in depth than you can get right now, but then again, it's a much bigger company that the one you are working on. At least that will give you some sense of proper writing style, formatting, and layout. --Jayron32 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron32. :D I'll add it to my favourites, and review it in the morning! SinMacD (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How to remove "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/"

I started the article in the "creation" mode, and now wishes to remove that line from the title,because this article is done. Try editing it out several times without success -- any ideas? Thanks Unable to find this article with Google -- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luo Xian Xiang Did I do something wrong? BTW, is there another mode or page where I could start another article? or creation is still the best choice? CHHistory (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi CHHistory, welcome back. I actually have some concerns about the article, and it most likely won't be able to be approved from the Articles for Creation process until they're rectified (someone else will bring it up, I bet). I hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts about it, I just want to make sure you have the best article possible before it is available for the public to see on Wikipedia (and find on Google). First, it's written in chronological order, like a list. Wikipedia articles generally should be written in paragraphs, like, for example, Judy Chicago. So, you'll probably want to create a few paragraphs, not a list, and I'd also advise that you don't start each sentence with "In 1980, blahblahblah" since that's not generally how scholarly or encyclopedic content is written. It's great that you have references listed at the bottom, however, my other concern is that there aren't any inline citations. That's a super important part of Wikipedia articles - it allows readers to go straight to the source that the information is about and discover where it's from (and fact check, too!). So, if you can add inline citations, that would be fabulous. Then, we can take another look at it and hopefully move it to the Wikipedia main space (and then you can find it via Google, too, which usually just takes a few hours). Also, the best place to start a new article is your sandbox! You can find that here. Hope this helps - I only want to see your contributions be the best they can - thank you so much for contributing to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, thanks for the feedback. I totally agree with your accessment and that is normally NOT how I write. For this particular article, this is a translation from Chinese and I want to stay close to the sources. If I rewrite the article, using Judy Chicago as an example, it will no longer be a direct translation. Will that be OK? If yes, I certainly will rewrite the article without worrying about matching up "word for word". the sources as listed = one in English from DK and the others are in Chinese from China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talkcontribs) 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey there! Oh yes, absolutely, you can write it however you wish as long as it sticks to the sources. Also, don't forget to sign your posts (talk page, questions, etc) with four tildes: ~~~~ Looking forward to seeing the article evolve! SarahStierch (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. I did a quick google :-) and found more articles (in Chinese) about the role he played in WWII in China. Again, thanks for you input and this has evolved into a bigger project that I first thought. Hope you will continue to advice...CHHistory (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's sort of the fun about Wikipedia and research - but, I'm a researcher off wiki so it's something I love immensely ;) But soon you'll be finished and you'll have a bigger better article and Wikipedia will be better off because of it! We're always here to help! Thanks for being bold and asking questions! SarahStierch (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please Review Resubmission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sridhar Lagadapati

I have resubmitted with changes made according to Txcrossbow's review first and later SarahStierch's pointers twice - its been sometime was trying to get Sarah's attention but havent got it yet.. :( and am hoping somebody would review my resubmission and help me get this article accepted..

Thank you so much! Meetzia

Meetzia (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meetzia, you will need to re-submit your article to Articles for Creation, by following the "When you are ready to resubmit, click here" instructions. But looking at your article, I would say there are still problems. There is little in your sources written about Lagadapati, in fact most news articles talk about his films or his company. There seems to be no sources at all for the personal information, such as date of birth, family details etc. As such, your article will probably be declined again because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's golden rule for notability. Can you find any other news or book sources that talk about him? Sionk (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How can one add diacritics?

1) The page on Tian Tian, the giant panda, needs to have diacritics added to the name, Tian Tian. Specifically, there needs to be a short horizontal line over the 'a' both times to show that the word is pronounced with first tone. How does one add diacritics to letters? 2) I am not yet an editor, and I'm not sure if I have the time to learn how to be one. Is there no easy place to post the above need and have someone who is an editor and who knows how to do this make the change? NC Daoist (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NC. First, I disagree that the name needs to be changed. Wikipedia's naming convention specifies that English is preferred. On diacritics, the policy says, "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." All of the references cited in the Tian Tian article show the name exactly as it is used in Wikipedia.
Adding letters with diacritics is easy and requires no special skill. Below the edit window and the "Save page / Preview / Changes" buttons is another button that most likely says "Insert." Click on that button for a drop-down menu and choose "Latin." You will see every variety of mark that is in common use. Just click on the letter or symbol that you want to use and it is added to the end of the text in your edit window. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 00:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, NC Daoist and Welcome to Teahouse. Firstly, you ARE an editor on Wikipedia. You became one of us when you posted your question here. That is all it takes! Regarding your question on diacritics, we have a rather confusing guideline on that. In short, it says whenever possible, use English, and as you know, English doesn't use diacritics. If English sources, when speaking of Tian Tian, don't use diacritics, then we don't on Wikipedia either. And since the place where Tian Tian lives, the National Zoo, writes about him without diacritics, then we should too. Hope this helps, and thank you for letting me make my first official reply at Teahouse to you! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The Manual of Style/China-related articles recommends using Template:Zh to embed the Chinese characters, their pronunciation, and (optionally) their meaning in English in the lede (the first sentence of the article). I will add the Zh template around the Chinese characters, and leave it up to you to add the pronunciation as a homework exercise ;-) If you click on the Tai Shan link in the Tian Tian article then you can see an example of how it is done. This is not the only way to do it; you will notice that the Pearl Buck article uses this template together with Template:Linktext to allow readers to look up the individual characters of her Chinese name in Wiktionary.
  • Ideally any foreign language characters embedded in English Wikipedia should be embedded inside any of the several foreign language templates including Template:Lang, so that the semantic markup of the web page is correct. Many countries have strict laws about web accessibility. Wikipedia also has web accessibility guidelines, but not many editors seem to have heard of them yet. I believe that the Zh and other foreign language templates include the semantic markup functions of Template:Lang, but I haven't confirmed this yet. LittleBen (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How to put inline references in my article?

Okay.. I have created an article and need to put in my inline references. I have downloaded and read Referencing for Beginners. However, I cannot seem to understand exactly what they want me to put in the piece to give credit to my references. Can someone help me by explaining this in English that I can understand? What exactly goes in the < > to make a reference link? Thank you in advance for any help. Taminole417 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Taminole417 and welcome. First you will need a {{reflist}} template where you want the references to be listed. They will be automatically numbered. Click the curly braket icon in the edit toolbar at the top of the edit window and you get a choice of citation templates for various types of source. These go at the end of the text to which they apply. If you are using the same source in multiple places you can name the citation and use a short version after the first occasion. It will look like <ref name=whatever/>. Looking at your sandbox article you currently have some stray ref closing tags which are causing a red cite error message to appear lower down the page. Otherwise it seems to be coming along nicely.--Charles (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Charles: Thank you for your reply and your confidence in my article. That is encouraging. I have used the template to create reference tags for all of my references in the piece, but I cannot get that red error meaage:

Cite error: {There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a

template or a tag; see the help page} to go away. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I have a references section near the bottom of my page, and like an old English teacher, which I am, I put them in the format that I teach my students to use. Now, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to get it recognized? I just cannot figure it out. Any help would be appreciated greatly. Charles (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem was having ref tags lower on the page than the reflist template. I have taken those out as they are not needed. Will take a look at the other errors.--Charles (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Images (for a start)

Would a copy of an image of a book cover be okay to use in an article? Sorry if this sounds really stupid, but I have NO idea of how to find out if said image would be ?licensed?...or a problem for copyright.

Let alone figuring out what I'm supposed to do to put the damned thing in the article. (Yeah, virtually computer illiterate newbie frustration with information overload showing here.) Sorry but I tried to follow the instructions in another images question, but what looked like 'clipart' to aging eyes said embedded now I'm even more confused. I found something that looked like pictures to me, and it says 'gallery'. Which actually might not be a bad idea because...

The article I'm writing is about a book that was originally issued in the UK, then subsequently issued in the US (8 years later) with, of course, a different cover. So, would I use both images? Just one? Which one?

Pocket Colonial (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Pocket Colonial! If you look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use, cover art is the first item mentioned under "Images". It is very common to see the cover art of a book on the page that discusses it, but the policy states that the cover art image may only be used "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". But bare in mind that you must provide a "fair use" rationale for the image, which would mean putting {{Non-free_book_cover}} on the file's page. I am not a total expert on this, so I welcome any other host to fill in the gaps. hajatvrc @ 21:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pocket Colonial. One requirement for non-free images is that of minimal use. In this case, it would only be appropriate to use one image of the cover unless there has been content written about the change in the cover (in both reliable sources and the article). Once you upload the image you can include it by typing [[File:Imagename.jpg]] (replace jpg with whatever the file type is. Outside of that, follow the instructions Hajatvrc gave you and feel free to ask for any clarification. Ryan Vesey 22:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The code for the image should have the |thumb option, e.g. [[File:Imagename.jpg|thumb]]. If you don't know how to actually upload the image, all the dialogue you need can be accessed by clicking "Upload" in the "Toolbox" section of the vertical bar to the left of this page. hajatvrc @ 22:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks guys! Pocket Colonial (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

help me check my page out and please tell me is it now qualified for a wiki term? thx Machsucq (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse, Machsucq. It does look as if it has been improved. I suggest that you click on the link on the page that says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here." and follow the instructions. Alas, AfC is currently a little backed up, so you may not get instant results.

Unreferenced quotations + creating an article

The article on Ambassador Courtney Blackman does not contain in-line references. I tried finding some additional sources, particularly to support a quotation that is attributed to Blackman about Barbados being "the most successful predominantly black country in the world," but I could find none. Is it appropriate to delete that line if I can't find a source, or should I try asking for one on the discussion page? I don't want to offend other editors by removing it.

My second question concerns article creation. I would like to create a page about psychiatric abuse in China. There is a similar article about Political abuse of psychiatry in Russia, and another on Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. I'm just wondering what the threshold is to determine if something merits its own article, or if I should start by writing about the topic within Human rights in China? Thank you. Numera astra (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The first thing to do is add a {{citation needed}} tag to the quote. It is not required, but it is good practice to follow that up with a comment on the talk page outlining how you have looked. Others may then look, and if it cannot be found in a reasonable period of time, it can be removed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Numera astra (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

With regard to starting a Political abuse of psychiatry in China, there is already a section Political_abuse_of_psychiatry#China, I suggest that you start adding content to that section and then start a discussion on the articles' talk page about spinning it out into it's own article once it gets too long. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Entry into a list of Canadian writers

I've just added my own name to a list of Canadian writers, as well as the works I have written. I know that you verify info such as this, but there is no where to direct you to all my web pages and blog sites etc. Should I be worrying about this, or ... how is this kind of entry handled? If you look under H my name is Caitlin Hicks so you could tell me if I've got it wrong... i.e. why blue type and why red type? (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All the other entries in List_of_Canadian_writers already have articles written about them. You'd need to have an article written about you before you get properly added to the list. To have an article written about you you need to meet the criteria for inclusion. I recommend starting at WP:Articles for Creation Stuartyeates (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I've had lots of articles written about me and my work, over the years. The best are excerpted on my various websites. Most are newspaper articles, reviewing my work when the work was published as a theatrical piece. How do I communicate to Wikipedia about these articles if they're in a newspaper in say, 1985, for instance? Katiegee6 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how much the Google News archives has in it. Even if it isn't, a link isn't directly required, so you can cite the source exactly as you would any other. The trick is that the article needs to be self evidently about a notable subject, as defined by Wikipedia:Notability. That is, once created, a person should be able to look at the article and find the evidence in the normal writing and references used in the article that it is self-evidently about a notable subject. Be aware that writing about yourself is a fiendishly difficult thing to do correctly. Some additional reading you may find useful are Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and especially Wikipedia:Autobiography which explains some of the pitfalls with writing about yourself at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Is their an article that explains how EMTs are affected by religion?

Hi, Im looking for a page that explains the complications that an EMT must deal with when a religious belief is involved. Does Wiki have that. I cant seem to find one. (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, 74, welcome to the Teahouse! I can't find one, either, and I don't find it surprising that such an article wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. You see, subjects must be notable to have articles on Wikipedia, which means they must have significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. We have an article on general medical ethics, but the effect of religion on EMTs seems like too narrow a topic to have much specific coverage in reliable sources. If you feel that there are enough reliable sources, though, you're welcome to try your hand at writing one! Just from the top of Google search, here's a short article on the subject; I haven't given it more than a cursory glance, though, so no guarantees about its reliability or accuracy. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How to get the content reviewed by Wiki

I have recently created a company profile. PLease let me know how to get the content reviewed by Wiki. Also need help in publishing the content.

Rgds A Singh Rana 1480 (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rana 1480, if you look to the top of your page you will see the instruction "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here". Clicking there will submit your article to be reviewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. There is a sizeable queue, so don't expect your article to be reviewed immediately. Best of luck! Sionk (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Everis article


I would really appreaciate if you could tell me what is wrong with this article that I've written: Everis

Thanks for your comments.

Octaviorojas (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for stopping in at the Teahouse. It looks like your article was rejected because it doesn't have enough reliable sources. I'm guessing the reviewer noticed that some of the sources you have listed are primary sources, like the company's Amazon page. They may have also had a problem verifying some of the sources; I noticed that one is in Spanish (which I can read, but not everyone can) and another requires a subscription to access, which you should note in the references; we have a template for that called {{subscription required}}. Try fixing those things, or explaining them more to the reviewer (their talk page would be a good place). Then they can tell you what the problems they found were more specifically. Many reviewers are even willing to help you fix the problems, if you ask them.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Australian Football most fundamental mix up.

How did wiki get this so wrong. Australian rules football is a colloquism. fact. The officilal name is Australian Football. fact. Why are you using a colloquism rater than the formal and a common name? There are no, repeat no ARFCs or ARF leagues in Australia. This term. ARF is far from being used in the majority. Where ARF has been used it has been (unfortunately) replaced by the term "AFL". The historically this code has been named and called "football". Today we call it "Australian Football" to distinguish it from other football codes. References to other codes use their formal name as you would expect an encyclopaedia to do. You've created a myriad of falsehoods, teams and leagues that don't exist. e.g. Women's ARF league or country's ARF national team. they don't exist!! use the correct Title where it exists is fundamental. FUNDAMENTAL.Australianfootballrules (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Australianfootballrules! Welcome to Wikipedia and The Teahouse. You may or may not be correct on this matter, but you are raising the issue in the wrong forum. The correct place to discuss this is at Talk:Australian rules football. When you do discuss it there, however, you may want to alter how you raise the issue. It is most important to remain emotionally detached in your writing when participating in a discussion. Being emotional, and writing in emotional terms, tends to repulse people from your argument and makes it harder to get your point across, even if you are in the right. I would recommend that when you do raise the issue, you do so in a way that reflects a rational (and not emotional) assessment of the issue, and come armed with reliable sources which can justify your point of view. Good luck and if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. --Jayron32 02:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My edit keeps disappearing

I have made a recent change to a page, but the edit keeps disappearing (tried three times). I have an account, but haven't received any kind of notice explaining WHY part of my submission is missing, and havent been able to figure out who or where to ask this question. Is it a problem with my source, or how i quoted material?Goldendelicious1 (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The explanation is in the edit summaries that reverted your edit - "rv - cited source fails as a WP:RS, self-published with unverifiable statements." (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Goldendelicious1. If you click the "history" tab at the top of the edited page you will find all the changes listed and there should be an edit summary for each saying what was done and why. If you think your edits were wrongly reverted you can start a conversation on the article's talk page (the "discussion" tab).--Charles (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for both your responses. I have a follow up question post above this one. Goldendelicious1 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki linking

How do I do a Wikilink to another language edition of Wikipedia? Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52! You simply type this: [[(language code of the other Wikipedia):Name of the article on the other Wikipedia in that language]] Let me know if you have more questions.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gtwfan52. You will also find a help page about interwiki links here.--Charles (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

want to add a section in a company page

Hey, I want to edit an Industry page, and want to add another section in it about their international tie-ups. How to add another section in the page ? Satyam.kapoor (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Satyam. Welcome to the teahouse. You make a section by putting == before and after the heading. For a sub-heading use three equal signs. First ensure that there are reliable sources independent of the company for what you want to add.--Charles (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's some further info at Help:Section. -- Trevj (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Struggling to display images

Hi all,

im having a bit of trouble with my private wiki (personal server) at the moment. im currently trying to get some images to display on one of my articles. i have edited the local settings.php which means i can successfully upload images, but when i try and display them using the [[file:blah.jpg]] code the image doesn't display, it just shows up with a broken link icon ><

it seems to me its a problem with authorization but i cant seem to find where, is it a server problem? or do i have to authorize the use of images somewhere? any help with this would be fantastic as im really stuck.

Nix (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nix! The Teahouse only supports editors seeking assistance on Wikipedia. If you're wiki is running on MediaWiki, you can visit the MediaWiki Help Pages for assistance. Thanks, good luck, and sorry we can't be of more help! SarahStierch (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

hi SarahStierch

thank you for letting me now, i'll go there now :)

Nixxy00 (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Article begun in sandbox in July and I'm still not able to begin uploading images. What gives?

I working to write an article covering 50 years of an artist's artwork, commissions, awards, etc. and I feel that beginning to upload images will help me organize my draft. I began the article in July, and I'm going through a name change now, but would like to begin uploading some of the earlier pics that correspond to what has already been written. My profile says I'm still not confirmed. Is this delay due to the name change request? Gilbertyoung (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Gilbert, welcome to the Teahouse! Have you actually tried to upload the pictures? The tricky thing about autoconfirmed is that, even if you've met the criteria of four days and 10 edits (which you obviously do), you technically don't receive the permission until you attempt an operation that requires it. So, if you haven't, try uploading the files, and you should be assigned autoconfirmed. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper 13:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello Gilbertyoung, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure why you're unable to upload images yet, but I would strongly advise you to spend time improving the prose of your article first, particularly identifying your sources. Subjects need evidence that they have had significant coverage in independent, reliable news or book sources to prove they are notable enough for an encyclopedia entry - see also Wikipedia's 'golden rule'. We'll also need to know what sources you used, to allow verification of the content. In addition, if you are Gilbert Young, the subject of the article, I should say we strongly advise people not to write articles about themselves, because it makes it difficult to write a neutral piece (another requirement of Wikipedia).
When and if your article gets accepted to Wikipedia's mainspace, I'm sure you'll have no problems adding images. All the best! Sionk (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all! Again, Gilbert is NOT writing the article, I am. My name is L. Winfrey Young and I am just now writing the draft. To rid myself of the "are you Gilbert Young" controversy, I submitted a name change to Dantzler and have not yet received the confirmation. I do have a stack of articles, awards, state resolutions, etc. spanning 50 years to use as reference, just haven't gotten to that stage yet. I'm still formatting my article in the sandbox. I did try to upload pics of the artist creating one of his monumental city murals from the 1970's and got the "you are not confirmed" message. Will try again. Gilbertyoung (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. If you are his wife you will still need to pay extra attention to writing a concise, well-sourced article, because other editors might consider you have a close connection to the subject. I would hate to think you spent months writing an elaborate life story, only for it to be delayed or refused. But, judging by the wonders of Google I can see he's mentioned in several books and news articles, so I look forward to seeing the end result! Sionk (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You should have become autoconfirmed when you made your tenth edit two hours before your first post here. Have you checked since then? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked earlier today and was able to upload a pic. The directions led me to believe I was creating a Gilbert Young file for all of the images I would upload for the article. The first pic of the artist working on a mural was uploaded and I named the file something to the effect of "this file will contain pics documenting the personal life and 50 years of the art and artistry blah, blah". I thought all other pics I uploaded would go into the one file. I loaded 16 more images, personal pics from the artist and some I'd taken myself and they disappeared. The only pic showing is the first one. Also, I was directed to wikicommons to load the pics. I'll try again tomorrow...this is difficult! need a drink now... Gilbertyoung (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You uploaded an oddly named image to commons:File:Art, artistry, and historic personal imagery documenting the life of Gilbert Young.jpg. Other images must be uploaded with other titles. In computing, "file" means a single stored entity like one image and not a collection of related images or documents. Now I think I understand why you get a not confirmed message. Your account is autoconfirmed here at the English Wikipedia but not yet at Commons. You can upload files to Commons as soon as your account is created but you can only upload a new version of an existing file if you are autoconfirmed. If you attempt to upload a new image with the same title "Art, artistry, and historic personal imagery documenting the life of Gilbert Young.jpg" then you are effectively attempting to replace the old image with the new one, and if you succeeded then it would be impossible to display the old image in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, confused "file" with "folder". I'll delete the first one and do-over. Gilbertyoung (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)