Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 66

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

→

Recent Changes Patrol

I am highly confused. I came from wikiHow, and so far today i've checked everything about wikipedia. I saw the link on the left about "RC patrol," and I want to know how to patrol recent changes. I love to RC on wikiHow, so I thought I could try it here. How do I do it though?

Keydew (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)KeydewKeydew (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Keydew, welcome to the Teahouse. The page you need to read is Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. It also includes links to a number of tools to help in patrolling pages. Some of these need additional rights which you might not qualify for yet but don't let that put you off. NtheP (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Using drop-down images

I'm interested in adding several photos for a National Register district in Charleston, South Carolina. To keep from cluttering the entry for the district, I was thinking I'd try using the drop-down option and include an drop-down gallery for each of the streets. I read about this on the drop-down information page, but I can't seem to get it to work. I moved my cursor of the sample just to copy and paste it into my sandbox page to test it, so I know I'm not making some typo somewhere. But, on my sandbox, instead of having a triangular image and being able to click anywhere on the box to execute the drop-down, mine includes a "[Show]" message superimposed on the box. When I click on that (and I have to click on that and nowhere else in the text box to get it to execute), the resulting drop-down sample works fine. It's just that the look of the original drop-down text box looks really bad with "[Show]" displayed and having to click on it instead of just the text box in general. Any thoughts on what could be going wrong?ProfReader (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

ProfReader, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think you are doing anything wrong, just that the template doesn't support the functionality you are looking for. I'm not sure why the text at {{dropimage}} mentions a drop down arrow because from inspection of the code it's not an option that is supported. I'm wondering if you have been looking at the same template at Wikibooks (b:Template:Dropimage) which does exhibit the behaviour you're after. Moving away slightly from the how and looking at the why, there is already National Register of Historic Places listings in Charleston, South Carolina - are you sure that what you want to do isn't just duplicating this article? If it isn't then you could include the images as thumbnails in a similar table. NtheP (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure about the difference between Wikibooks and anything else, so maybe that is it. (The superabundance of wiki- names for various things is one of the things that drives me bananas about trying to get more involved in this.) It seems unfortunate that that same option doesn't exist for a regular Wikipedia entry; it would really be nice. As to the content itself, Charleston itself is blessed with many historic buildings that are individually on the National Register, and each one of them has its own article. But, there is a separate National Register DISTRICT known as Hampton Park Terrace. The district itself is the thing which is listed on the National Register for its consistent, intact collection of early 20th century houses. The individual houses (about 250) are not themselves listed. So, my thinking is this: On the one hand, every single historic house that contributes to the district does not need its own page. On the other hand, just having two or three images of a district that is important precisely because of its broad collection of houses seems inadequate too. I was thinking of inserting a series of six or eight drop down galleries, one for each of the main streets in the district. Then, by clicking on one, a gallery showing 12-15 contributing houses on that street would pop up. I thought that would avoid a mega-gallery of 200+ images that would totally eclipse the somewhat short article on the district itself. The "Show" tag is not too terrible, but I just wish there were a way to exercise a little more control over the appearance of the drop-down boxes to make them seem a bit more professional than the standard template produces.ProfReader (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that having an expandable table is the best way to go since the gallery would not be anything other than photos of houses with perhaps addresses. I guess that would work as a two-column table, but that would mean a lot of wasted space as I envision that layout working. What I really liked was the idea of having an expandable gallery with rows of photos set out in a standard gallery sized grid (four across and maybe four or five deep). Each one could then have a neatly placed text under it with the address. I think that would be a nice layout look. Thanks for any thoughts on all of this.ProfReader (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If you put all those images onto one page it will become rather large and may lead to people having problems loading the page (long load time). If all the properties have images and these are available on Wikimedia Commons then if they are all in the same category on Commons you can just link to the category and people who want to see the images can. NtheP (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ProfReader! Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you aware that there is a Wikiproject whose sole interest is NRHP sites? You will find them here--Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. You may want to go to the talk page there and discuss what you want to do. Although I am a member of that project, I am not real active in it. I am just not sure how they are handling historic districts. The folks over there are pretty friendly (you might consider joining their efforts). I do agree with NtheP's comment about page size, though. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a voyeur on the National Register project, but I have posted a question there too. The early responses seem to suggest that using a table is the way to go. But, my problem with doing that is that in my circumstance, there is no real justification for more than three columns max. Probably just two. Most of the examples offered have six or seven columns. The result is fine on those since there is enough content to produce a nice, even looking table. But, those are not exactly comparable because the ones that have been offered up are composed of individual entries with at least some meaningful content for each entry - like names of the houses ("the Walters Mansion") or extra contnt ("Gothic Revival house with additions in 1920"). With just two columns (a simple street address in one and a photo in the other), there is going to be a HUGE amount of white space, and I think the end result will look really bad. It seems like tables are really better used for organizing and displaying lots of information, whereas I really just need a simple way of organizing photos.ProfReader (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, here is an example of an entry with a nine-column chart of individual properties. It looks nice because there is actual content in those nine columns. By the time you get down to five columns, like this, you can see what I'm trying to avoid. Here is another one with seven, and I just think it already starts looking a little bad. In my case, even if I forced five columns, most of them would be empty cells or just a word of phrase.ProfReader (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I revive an old thread?

What is the accepted way to extract an old thread from archives and make it active again? I don't want to just link to it, because I suspect hardly anyone actually goes back and reads the whole thread, which is needed, so that the context of the new discussion points are clear. Thanks, Postpostmod (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You could copy the entire thread and then paste it into a collapsed box. Maybe in a form like this (replace the image markup with the entire thread):

Text of previous thread for review

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

create a page?

just want to know how can we create a new page and from where we can upload photos in an article or to dat page? Anidemun (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anidemun. Regarding article creation:

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article.

Regarding images:

If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.

Finally, since I noted in or question your use of the word "we", please be aware that accounts cannot be shared. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Where can I make a suggestion to improve Wikipedia?

That's pretty much it. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Donya! Well, it depends on what kind of suggestion you have. If it's a policy suggestion, this would be a good place. If it's a product development thing, such as a feature, you probably want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. If it's regarding a feature that you'd like to see, I'd recommend contacting Oliver Keyes. What do you want to suggest? Go Phightins! 05:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are about the tabs at the upper right of just about every Wikipedia page. You have 'Article' and then 'Talk'. The talk page is for discussion about the article, but limited to it's improvement. I, like many others, edit and contribute to articles that I have a particular interest in and can find the talk pages a bit confined. I find it can be quite annoying getting chastised when one or two sentences in a discussion may run off topic. My suggestion would be to add a separately tabbed discussion forum for articles that allows a broader, more open conversation about the article's topic without being stifled about the relevance to improving that article. I don't want to compromise the nature of what Wikipedia is or does. I'd simply like to see a more open talking space related to articles separate from the improvement talk page. I also think it could attract more casual readers into the article's conversation. Doyna Yar (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting idea. I'm not sure that would be terribly popular because Wikipedia is not a forum, but if you wanted to propose that, I think this would be the place to do it. Good luck. Happy New Year. Go Phightins! 15:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Allow discussion about the topic of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to customize my user page?

I've seen other user's pages and they are very decorative and creative. Can you give me any tutorials or basic formatting so I can get started? Thanks. As you can see, my user page is very basic. JHUbal27 (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi JHUbal27. I think your best bet is to check out Wikipedia:User Page Design Center. If you see something there you want to use but have trouble adding it, you can always come back here and tell us the specifics. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

Hello, and welcome! Another editor ~~will probably~~did provide an "official link" to somewhere that explains how to create wonderful user pages. What most people do is: when you find something you like, you -uhm- "borrow" the code. Just be sure you write a friendly note on their talk page explaining how much you enjoyed their great page! - Don't worry, they probably "borrowed" it from somebody else. ;) ~E:''74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

how do I copy and inset an image from the national eye institute

This page [1] has a nice image of an eye in cross section. As I recall, government pages are copyright free. How do I copy and insert this picture on the 'Cataract' page and add a text box underneath ? Aspheric (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aspheric, and welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, you're incorrect about government pages being copyright-free. Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works explains the situation; generally works created by U.S. government employees and explicitly as part of their jobs are usually free of copyright, and there are all sorts of exceptions, far too many to assume that "if it's on a .gov site it is public domain". Some images on government websites may be themselves under copyright, if created by someone outside of the government and used by permission or under license, for example. Be very careful when copying images from any website. Furthermore, there's a very similar image already at Wikipedia, in the article titled eye, which means we don't really have to copy anyone else's. Does that help answer your question? --Jayron32 01:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I don't think the image at 'Eye' is as pretty or as clear. Pictures from the NEI page are used in the page on glaucoma. I could use the eye picture on the glaucoma page. How do I blow it up to full size ? Aspheric (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've managed to blow it up but how do I move it to the left ? I'm trying to replace the small red picture that was there before Aspheric (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're trying to place an image in an article, the following syntax is helpful:

[[File:FILENAME.XXX|thumb|location|100x100px|caption]]

These are the bits of the syntax:

File:FILENAME.XXX = the name of the image

thumb = identifies the image as a "thumbnail". This is actually important, as images identified as thumbnails may be resized and have a caption; images without the "thumb" parameter are always displayed as full resolution, with no border and no caption.

location = replace this word with either "right" "left" or "center"

100x100px = the first number is the image width, the second is the image height, that the image will display in pixels. You usually want to leave this parameter out, as the "thumb" parameter generally chooses a good size for the reader anyways, but fiddling with this will resize the image if you want to "force" a certain size.

caption = replace this word with the text you want to display.

Wikipedia:Extended image syntax and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial contain lots more details for you, if you want the full details on how to play with images at Wikipedia. Does that help? --Jayron32 03:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's excellent ! Many thanks Aspheric (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Resubmission

How do you resubmit an article after editing

PenmarrPenmarr (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penmarr and welcome to the Teahouse! I think you remove the original template at the top of the article and add {{subst:afc submit}}I'm not totally sure though. You'll have to check with a more experienced editor, but I did the best I can. JHUbal27 (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Pennmar, assuming you're referencing WP:AFC, then the advice given should be correct. Go Phightins! 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit- Delete the original template and add {{subst:submit}} Just found that out here. JHUbal27 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Another little point of advice - don't remove any decline templates! It's required that any decline templates stay on the article until it's accpeted. Not my rule, as I personally hate it, but it's the rule nonetheless. :) gwickwire^talk_edits 04:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability, how to justify a page on a relatively unknown individual.

I recently submitted a biographical article about a living road race car designer, Stephen Beattie. He is a secretive individual and is not prone to self promotion. Consequently little has been written about him. His vehicle designs are well known in Australasia and though dating from the 60's/70' are plentiful and competed successfully today.

He deserves a place in automotive history and I would like to create a posting before his death.

Any advice as to how I might justify his inclusion?

Thanks. Newm06 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If little has been written about him, the chances are that he doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. See WP:BIO. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

... and you were given relevant advice in the responses at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Beattie. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To expand a bit on David's (correct) answer: the issue here is that notability isn't just a measure of who's important enough to get a Wikipedia article. It's also a means of making sure that we have enough sources to write a meaningful article. You see, all of the information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. If information can't be supported by a reliable source, then it can't go into an article, because we have no way of verifying that it's true. The problem is that Wikipedia has no way of knowing who is posting what material to the articles, so we can't just take people's word for it. The only benchmark of reliability that we have is verifiability in reliable sources. So, even if a person would normally be considered important enough for a Wikipedia article, we can't write one if there aren't any reliable sources to work from. Wikipedia, as with all encyclopedias, doesn't strive to publish new knowledge; it strives to aggregate existing knowledge instead. It sounds like you're trying to do a good thing, but unfortunately, Wikipedia just isn't the place for it.

Does that make sense? I'm sorry if that's disappointing, but there's not much to be done about it. Our information is only as good as the reliable sources that back it up, and without them, we just can't say anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be useful to check to see if there are reliable sources of information, such as newspaper articles, etc. that might establish notability. You can also use Wikipedia's 'Search' to see if any other articles mention him, which would be helpful in that the article (if created) would not be an "orphan".

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

~Eric F:[modified: changed to "Stephen Charles Beattie" 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)]74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

See also Beattie (automobile) ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

new articles and sandbox

I read all the help on starting a new article, including editing it in my user sandbox. When I had tested it, I submitted it for creation. When I check the list of article pending creation, I see my sandbox on the list rather than the name of the article. Did I make a mistake submitting it? Should I resubmit it, or leave it as sandbox for now? Thank you, Bayuk Bayuk (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. It's fine that it's in your sandbox for now. When it gets accepted it'll be renamed correctly. Thanks! gwickwire^talk_edits 15:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

I'm just curious if you know why there is a big no-no against listing a persons nationality as British as opposed to their constituent countries. We don't list American actors as being "so and so" is a Texan actor; so why are British actors listed as "so and so" is a English/Northern Irish/Scottish/Welsh actor. When as a matter of fact, the nationality is legally British and they are a British citizen.

I feel that it may be something related to over political-correctness, but I'd like to know from someone experienced why we're forced to deny someone their true nationality for the sake of pleasing a minority of people (separatists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Son of the Isles (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question moved from bottom of page. NtheP (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Son of the Isles. There's currently no established consensus on this rather thorny issue; the rule of thumb seems to be that we follow the terminology most heavily used in the sources. You may find Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom an interesting read; it's an essay, not a policy, but it does sum up the current state of the UK nationality question on Wikipedia fairly well. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying but defeated.

Hey guys, while i thought wiki would be a place that would be less complex it seems it has me defeated and i honestly just feel like giving up. Dont understand the constant declines etc and worse it just seems like pulling teeth, and when i compare to other articles im at a loss bc i see articles with basic references which have been approved. In this case is less more? Just feel like closing my account and giving into this defeat.. SIGH :( AngelaUAE (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey AngelaUAE, welcome to the Teahouse. I can understand the feelings of despondency. Drop me a line on my talk page and we can see if we can have a look at these articles, the reasons why they are getting deleted and see if we can get them fixed. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My first Wikipedia article is 'C' Class. How can I improve this rating?

My first wikipedia article, about a new certification for software developers, has recently been published here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Accredited_Engineer. The article has been rated as 'C' class, but I would like to improve this rating. Can anyone suggest some tips for doing this? Dabroo (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dabroo, and welcome to the Teahouse. C-class is actually pretty impressive for your first ever article, good work! If you have a look at this template table you'll see the criteria for the various grades of article; your next step would be B-class. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response Yunshui. I appreciate your feedback. I was looking for more specific information on which of the 6 'B' Class criteria my article failed. It looks to me like the article meets all of those criteria, but perhaps I am mistaken. I would appreciate an independent view on this. Thanks again. Dabroo (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dabroo, I've just compared it against the six criteria and to me it doesn't pass B-class on B2 (reasonable coverage of the topic) and B6 (appropriately understandable) and B1 (referencing).

B2/B6 - can be covered together, there is little to explain or link the article to what the various components of the cetification are. You need to link to suitable articles on terms like software optimization etc or provide brief explanation of what they are. It's also inconsistent; the article concludes it's lead paragraph with "The AAE program consists of a number of certifications" then the next section says "Only one certification, ARM Accredited Engineer (AAE), is currently available" The lead might need amending to say what the certification will eventually consist of.

B1 - The sections on what's planned are completely unreferenced and need references but the biggest failing on this is that although you have several independent, reliable references to the launch of the scheme, which is great; what there isn't is any independent reliable referencews about whether the certification is actually notable. For example, inside the IT world is anyone taking any notice of it? Without that type of context to set this scheme against it could be viewed as just another company hype of it's products by marketing "certified practioner" status for them.

As Yunshui says what you've achieved so far is good going but it needs that "what's the rest of the world think about it?" bit adding. And if that information isn't available don't worry that the article never gets past C-class, if the sources aren't there to support a higher grading on Wikiepdia, then that's where it has to stay. NtheP (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I see. In that case, I'd suggest that it suffers from insufficient reliable sources (the current sources are derived almost entirely from ARM webpages or press releases, which means they're not sufficiently independent of the subject) and could be expanded to provide more coverage (there's only a passing mention of Prometric, the company that actually runs the scheme; nothing on the programme's origins or development; nothing about the intended purpose of the qualification or its acceptance within the industry; and much of the article is in list form - the syllabus section, for example, could be expanded to explain what the subject areas mentioned actually involve). It might also be a bit too technical for the lay reader in places. You can request that the article be reassessed at the appropriate WikiProject, in this case WikiProject Engineering would probably be the best bet. Hopefully that's a bit more helpful to you. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your responses Yunshi and NtheP. I think I get it now! Dabroo (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

AFCH problems

I want to install "Yet another Articles for creation helper script" for reviewing AFC submissions. The instructions at the instructions page states that to install the AFCH we should go to the gadgets section of Preferences and tick the relevant box then clear the browser cache. I did all that was stated in the instructions page but still I cannot see the AFCH gadget. Why is it so? Forgot to put name 09:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Forgot to put name! The tab for that tool (which will be labeled "review") only shows up when you are on an AfC page. Hope that helps! Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Which review tab are you speaking about? I cannot see any review tab even when I am on AFC page! Please help me. Thanks in advance Forgot to put name 10:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In the toolbar near the top of the page; The same place you find "history", "talk", etc. If it isn't there when you are on an AfC article waiting to be reviewed, perhaps you should doublecheck that your checking of the box at preferences was saved. If that doesn't get it, I am out of ideas. Hopefully another host will know more. Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I got it. Thank you very much. Forgot to put name 10:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

For me it's under a dropdown arrow. That may or may not help :) gwickwire^talk_edits 15:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How to change the remove <space> from title?

Want to edit Delhi Wave Riders and make it Delhi Waveriders. Will the changes be reflected in the URL also? If not then how it can be doneTheexpositor (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Theexpositor! Welcome to Teahouse. There is actually no way to change an article's name. The way to get it under a different name is to move it to the name you want for it. If this move would be controversial, A discussion should be held on the article's talk page prior to the move. But as there are very few people following this article, I think you would be fine just moving it. I will go ahead and do it for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How can I translate an article in another language?

How can I translate an article in another language?Ubm138 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! What I usually do is simply copy the URL into Google Translate. If you want to use it, you should probably paraphrase, since the phrasing is often awkward. ~Eric : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC) ~ P.s.: beware of copyrights! ~ My apologies if I misread your question. Translating -to- another language is another problem. Perhaps another editor has a better idea, but I might try the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ubm138, do you mean translating a foreign language Wikipedia article to an article in the English Wikipedia? See Wikipedia:Translation for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Table inset

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Railways_hopper_wagons#1974_J_series_.28gravity_discharge.29

How do I set this table so that it appears next to the text like a picture, rather than below it?

Anothersignalman (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Anothersignalman, the trick here is to make the table "float". In the opening definition line of the table you need to include style= float: right" (or left as the case may be). This will allow the text to flow around the table rather than the table take up all the lines covered by its length.

The code for the table in this example is

{| style="float: right;" border="1"
| Col 1, row 1
| rowspan="2" | Col 2, row 1 (and 2)
| Col 3, row 1
|-
| Col 1, row 2
| Col 3, row 2
|}

Insert this between two paragrpahs of text and you get

This is the paragraph that precedes the table. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Then there is the table floating on the right. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Col 1, row 1	Col 2, row 1 (and 2)	Col 3, row 1
Col 1, row 2	Col 2, row 1 (and 2)	Col 3, row 2

And this is the paragraph following the table that flows around it. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

There are fuller examples and more help on table formatting to be found at Help:Tables. NtheP (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation question

Applied Technology is a stub article and Applied technology (lower-case 't') redirects to Applied Science. Is the correct solution to make "Applied Technology" and "Applied technology" both point to a disambiguation page and rename "Applied Technology" to "Applied Technology (company)"? Or would it be better to make both spellings point to the company web page with a pointer there to "Applied science"? (I'm more interested in learning the process involved in making these kind of decisions rather than this particular answer.) Thanks much, Garamond Lethe 05:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Garamond! In checking this out, it certainly appears to me that the Applied Technology article isn't notable and I will be nominating it for AfD. Applied technology I think is redirecting to the proper place. That leaves us with someone actually creating an article for Applied technology. In researching Applied Technology (the company) I came across several articles that could be used as references for that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather Gordian solution. I have no knowledge of or interest in the company, so I will (with some difficulty) resist your invitation to jump in and salvage the article. I just ran across it while doing gnomish chores and was surprised that capitalization differences could result in separate articles. Thanks for taking a look—I appreciate it! Garamond Lethe 06:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Anothersignalman (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference error

I have added a ref but keep getting error messages. Can you check for me to see what I am doing wrong? It's on the Old Boma page

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

98.204.26.105 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for posting on the wrong question

98.204.26.105 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 98! Welcome to teahouse! I can't see where you have edited the above article. Did you edit with a username there? In any case, I don't think we have enough information to properly answer your question at this time. Can you possibly identify which edit(s) you are talking about?Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

About Lies Marcus Antonius Felix (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How does wikipedia guess if someone doesn't tell lies? Marcus Antonius Felix (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marcus. It hard to make out from your question what you're getting at. Can you be more specific in your concern, maybe give us an example of what you mean? My best guess is that you're questioning how we know whether content added to articles isn't just made up and incorrect. A check on false addition of content to articles is our verifiability requirements. When content is added it should cited to reliable sources which corroborate the information added. In practice not everything that is verifiable (able to be checked against sources) is verified by a source actually cited for the content, but the requirement works out to a great degree.

There are lots of unsourced articles and they are often flagged as being unsourced. The less an article is sourced, the less we trust its veracity. On the other end, in order to gain recognition as a good article or a great article, citations are required, among other matters, and the process of getting articles up to snuff results in scrutiny from peers. An article that is full of lies would not pass cursory review. Also, people who know something about a topic (and those interested in a certain topic will often visit topics they know) will immediately see things are incorrect from their own knowledge of the topic and once they bring problems to light, scrutiny over deliberate lies would result in more examination of a user's entire set of edits.

There's other factors. Yes, there could be evil geniuses out there whose mission is to fool everyone with bad content, but most people aren't like that. A person who sits down and engages in a scholarly practice of writing well developed content, spending hour upon hour finding and citing sources supposedly backing their edits, will most often be exactly what they appear to be, and not an evil genius whose mission is to waste their time in such a a subtle, time consuming, easily discovered way for little nefarious benefit. It's no a perfect system but it does work out so that, at least as to well developed, highly sourced articles, Wikipedia has a pretty good track record of getting it right.

Greetings Marcus Antonius Felix "Procurator of Iudaea Province"n
I concur with 'Fuhghettaboutit's comments, especially the bit about Evil Geniuses.

This is just my personal observations and point of view(POV) (Is that allowed here in the Teahouse?

) , but after editing for several years, 'patrolling' recent changes, newly created pages and even new user account names, one actually gets a 'feeling' or almost 'senses' when something funny is going on. Hoaxes do happen though. I found a possible one when I noticed a new account named after a certain "glamour model and pop singer." Following it up, several interconnected accounts with userspace copies of articles with deliberately incorrect information were found. About 6 accounts were blocked as sockpuppets.

We also have bots that identify and automatically revert blatant vandalism, for example the common "XYZ is gay!" type edit coming from an anonymous IP editor is likely to be reverted automatically, or at least 'flagged' as "possible BLP issue or vandalism" in the edit history, and a human editor is likely to see that and fix it almost immediately. Large changes to any, but particularly controversial, pages by new accounts without any edit summaries tend to get closely scrutinised. Nonsensical user-names, or those containing 'profanity' often mean the user is up to no good. Example: Suckmypen15123 (talk · contribs) only one edit, pure vandalism, but blocked as a violation of username policy. Another one I came across look 'funny' as it was unusually long and not in English. When translated it turned out to be making a rather rude comment about a particular editor!

See also Wikipedia biography controversy, List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, and hoax which details how and what we do to prevent hoax articles. - 220 of ^Borg 06:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is The Sun Star and a book reliable sources?

Im writing this article and it has been declined twice already. I used reliable sources like a book on moulding and casting (author: Nick Brooks), and a local newspaper in the Philippines (The Sun Star) but it still got rejected. Please help...

lifecastingph 13:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeiarobin (talk • contribs)

Hello Aeiarobin. welcome to the tea house. Neither of the two references given relate to the company. One of them is about breastfeeding. There is a long list of external links which fail our policy on external links. I do not see any indication that this company is notable for Wikipedia. --Charles (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. Wikipedia has some very strict guidelines related to Notability of content, especially companies. While we allow companies to have their articles on Wikipedia, they must be backed up by atleast one reliable, independant secondary source. Which means atleast one source that you add must be someone who can be trusted, like a local newspaper, or a journal; and that they MUST be speaking directly about the company [Not mention it as a sidenote in another article]. For example, this link would be a good secondary source for Coca Cola, but not for "The Atlanta Beard & Moustache Competition". Also note that a secondary source means it cannot be something created by the company itself - So the facebook page does not count; but an article in a newspaper does count.

Hope this helps, and happy editing at Wikipedia!

Cheers and Happy holidays!!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the answers. They're very helpful :)

lifecastingph 13:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeiarobin (talk • contribs)

Translating parameters to another language

Hi. I'm having difficulty searching for steps on how to edit English parameters to another language. For instance, I'm editing the 'United Kingdom' article for the Tagalog Wikipedia: http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

In editing the Country Infobox, I'm using English parameters on edit, and it will be translated automatically to Tagalog on save. How should I edit the terms that were automatically translated?

Geraldinho108 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Geraldinho108, and welcome! Templates are created and used locally at each Wikipedia, so you'd need to figure that out at the Tagalog Wikipedia; that is what their infobox templates look like and what the syntax is. You can't just copy a template from one Wikipedia to another and have it work. You might want to try to find their equivalent of the "Help Desk" and try asking there. --Jayron32 01:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

How can I fix unclosed ref tags and parse failures?

1) What is an "unclosed ref tag," and how can it (they?) be found in a rejected article? 2) I am unable to obtain parse failures for my rejected article using Opera, Firefox, or Chrome; there are 4 "Failure to parse (lexing error)" errors using Internet Explorer. I was informed, though, that "This is not browser dependent, but a server side error on the parsing." What is a "server side error" and where I can find information on fixing this particular kind of error?

The first two parsing errors when using IE are due to it not accepting a multiplication sign and they could be fixed by using a lower-case letter x instead. But two later IE parsing errors are due to something else that I can't determine. Would someone please help me with the two types of errors mentioned above regarding my rejected article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rodger%27s_Method HamiltonRoberts (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. A unclosed reference tag is when there is no "</ref>" at the end of the citation. A citation in Wikipedia is like HTML; the same tag to open and close, but the closing tag has a slash. Hope this is of help for you. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 22:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but something other than that was apparently caught by the reviewer. There are 14 references in my article, all of which start with an opening ref tag and end with a closing /ref tag. Since the number of opening tags are matched by closing tags, the objection raised by the reviewer necessarily has to be to some other problem than this. Can you (or anyone) see what the error is that the reviewer commented upon?50.65.38.132 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the unclosed reference. This was because as well as using <ref> </ref> you were also generating the references by using <references> </references> and it was one of these that was unclosed. If you use <ref> </ref> and spell your citation out between the tags the use of <reference> </reference> is unnecessary. Can't help you with the parsing errors as I've no real experience of using the <math> </math> markup. You might need to ask over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics for assistance with that part. NtheP (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to NtheP, too, for finding the source of one of the objections raised by the reviewer. I do appreciate the help both of you have so quickly offered. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You might also try asking at the math section of the reference desk. For what it's worth, probably little given my unfamiliarity with Math markup, by sheer brute force of looking at removals that take way the parsing error, the problem may be with "=\ _1\mbox{δ}_3"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also for this third suggestion. For anyone who might be interested in getting rid of some forms of "failure to parse (lexing error)" errors that I was only able to see when using the Internet Explorer browser (they did not occur on any of my computers when using Opera, Chrome, or Firefox), using the multiplication sign, and the Greek symbols for delta and sigma caused these (rarely encountered) problems. The solution was to replace the three (single-character) symbols with a blackslash and a spelled-out word (specifically, \times, \delta, and \sigma). These changes permitted IE to join the three other browsers in correctly rendering my article.

Thanks, again, to all three of you for the proffered assistance. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Immediate Help

Hi, I am new in Wiki. I am creating articles and putting photos to articles. Now I want know one thing, that is, whom should I ask any kind of emergency help while creating articles ? How much time will take normally the process of reviewing an article ? As am new in Wiki I need support to move.Mydreamsparrow (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mydreamsparrow! Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. We are glad you are here and encourage you to continue with your efforts. You do need to understand, tho, that everyone (that means everyone) here are volunteers. So, generally, expecting an immediate response for anything is somewhat unrealistic. We try here at teahouse to respond as promptly as we can, but it may not on an "emergency" basis. We say here in wikipedialand that there are no deadlines, so really your request isn't an emergency. If you don't get your answer now, just go have a cup of tea or walk the dog and hopefully you will have it when you return. If not, Wikipedia isn't going to go away. You can continue with your work once you get an answer. To answer the specific question you posed, AfC (Articles for Creation) is one of the busiest places on Wikipedia. It may take as long as two weeks to get your article reviewed. Now, just to give you a helping hand, if you have a specific article that is waiting for review, let us know here. Many of us are reviewers and we may be able to take a look at it for you. If you have any other specific questions, by all means bring them here and we will do our best to help you. Thanks for joining the corps of Wikipedia editors! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mydreamsparrow,

We are building an encyclopedia, not operating on a patient, so there aren't many examples of emergencies. Did you have something specific in mind? You can always ask general questions here. For technical questions, there are a variety of better places, such as wp:MCQ for image copyright. You can leave a template {{Help me}}, followed by a question on your user talk page. Many editors watch for those, and will respond fairly quickly. I hope this helps, but if you identify what types of situation you had in mind, we might be able to give more specific answers.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mydreamsparrow. Wikipedia does operate some chatrooms in Internet Relay Chat (IRC) where someone may be able to help you quickly. There's information at Wikipedia:IRC. As with any chat rooms, their usefulness depends a lot on the friendly-to-troll ratio, but you should get the quickest response there of anywhere. --Jayron32 00:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and guiding.122.179.62.175 (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting

How do I change the formatting on cataract causes/associated conditions from all bullet points, to a sub headings then then a single line of diseases in that categoryAspheric (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently each bullet heading starts with an asterisk (*). Replace it with a level-four heading. For example, change

*[[Single-gene disorder]]s

to

====[[Single-gene disorder]]s====

Make sure to use four equal signs on each side. -- YPN YPN ✡ 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion - Linux distros

Hi, I have questions about articles for deletion, specifically with articles on obscure linux distributions.
I noticed a few articles on linux distros which seemed to lack a neutral point of view. How can one determine whether an article is merely lacking in neutrality to the extent which it can be improved, or is so much like a self-advertisement that it should be deleted?
Specifically with linux distributions, there is a high potential for those who create them to create pages on their distributions regardless of notability.
In particular, I noticed the page GendBuntu. Is this article salvageable or should it be nominated for deletion?
Didigodot (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Didigodot, in my experience NPOV issues and non-notability often go together. It often indicate that the text was taken from primary sources. However, if the problem is just a few promotional phrases, I would tend to remove/reword them. If the article lacks any evidence of significant, secondary coverage, I'd probably propose it for deletion at AfD. As you no doubt know, products require their own notability to deserve their own article. Sionk (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Help splitting articles

Hello!

I'm a casual author from german language Wikipedia. I found an article which I want to suggest for splitting. But things here work diffrent and don't know to go on. The problematic article is Chopper (electronics) and should have a split-up from the section chopper amplifier. This is a circuit which uses chopper technics, but is a topic of its own. Unluckily the chopper definition of differs from that of the german language, where the term Zerhacker on its own names a specific circuit.

Can some please suggest this article for splitting?

Best regards --Stündle (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stündle, welcome to the Teahouse. I tend to agree with your reasoning, and I've proposed a split accordingly - see Talk:Chopper (electronics) for the discussion. I've also tagged the page with {{Split section}}, which will list it Category:Articles to be split and hopefully attract more discussion. Thanks for raising the issue. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Stündle (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of profanity...

There is a (quite famous) book, Professor Unrat, and the article states that the title translates as “Professor Garbage” - I changed that from "literally means" - because it doesn't. What it literally means is actually a minor expletive. I was wondering if it might be okay in this instance to use an 'abbr' tooltip : “Professor Garbage” ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: that's the word used frequently in the English subtitled version of the German movie. ~E74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why use a tooltip? This seems like something that can be cited to a reliable source and Wikipedia really is uncensored. I would imagine it would properly be stated something like "translates into English literally as "Professor Rat shit", with an idiomatic meaning equivalent to “Professor Garbage”". If I was interested in this subject and came to Wikipedia to learn more, I would appreciate the literal translation being provided and not in a hidden, easily missed way. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll just "fuhghetta-boudit", since a proper explanation would need to reference an obscure quote: "'Unrat' dieses lächerliche Scheusal ... hat doch einige Ähnlichkeit mit mir" - which would be an unnecessary side-track. ~Just leave well-enough alone, ~Eric _the Read 74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of biographies of living persons guidelines

In editing the Peter Butterfield article, I notice that many of the statements about him have no verification or reference. For example, that he graduated with a music degree from McGill Univ. Do statements such as this have to be verified? If so, how? By contacting the university to get a message that the person did graduate? We all know that people, even famous living people, sometimes "pad" their resume in various ways. Then there's the statement that he attended another college, but did he graduate, and should he be listed on the page of graduates from that college? Thanks. Alibaba1000 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiya, Alibaba1000! Welcome to the Teahouse. Although biographies have to be sourced, not every single fact in them must be. However, if the veracity of any given piece of information is challenged, then it must be sourced. A person's CV or resume would never be a reliable source for anything. And contacting the university for verification of his graduation would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Most schools publish a listing of degrees they award somewhere. That would be your reliable source for the degree he received. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you read the policy you probably know this, but unsourced or unreliably sourced contentious statements of any stripe in a BLP should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. However, by this I do not imply the material you specified in this article should be removed. There's nothing about a statement that someone attended so and so school that is contentious on its face. If you have good reason to believe the statement is false, however, that would be a different matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How to underline something on Wikipedia?

Hi fellow Wikipedians and I have a random question. I can bold something, and italicize something, and even do both, but how do I underline something? Thanks. JHUbal27 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Underlining, which should be used sparingly and is generally frowned upon (read that as don't unless you really have to - see WP:BADEMPHASIS) is achieved by using the HTML markup <u> </u> around the text in question. NtheP (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sorry for the extra question at the top, I tried to erase it. JHUbal27 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate question ,no problem - easily removed :-) NtheP (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing "stub" status

I wrote an article a week or so ago, which originally was brief, and my intention was to expand it over time. Right away it was judged to be a "stub" with a suggestion to add more detail. I have done that, and the article is much longer now with lots of detail and citations. But the "stub" status is still there. I would think it's no longer a "stub," but I'm not really sure. How does this status get changed?

K828 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

K828, welcome back. Mary Sands is most certainly no longer a stub article. To change that status, edit the article and somewhere near the bottom you find a template (in the {{ }} curly brackets) with, at least, the word stub in it. Just delete this template and the article will no longer show as a stub. Note this won't change the quality scales of the projects identified on the article talk page. Those will need to be manually amended when the article is re-assessed. NtheP (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help.

K828 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, K828! There are two Wikiprojects that consider the Mary Sands article part of their domain. You may want to go to those projects and find the place where you request reassessment from them. You will find links to the project's home pages on the articles talk page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check that out.

K828 (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How to Add Column to Table

I would like to add a Synopsis column to and write the synopses for Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes. First of all, is this something that needs to be approved? Assuming that it's okay for me to go ahead with it, how do I add a column to the existing one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alfred_Hitchcock_Presents_episodes#Season_1_.281955.E2.80.9356.29 Grayline88s (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Greylin88s, welcome to the Teahouse. Adding a synopsis is fine, I'd just suggest that you keep it brief and try and make sure it's in your own words - it can be difficult to do both! As to the markup, it's not too difficult. First thing to do is add another column in the header definiton section. currently it looks like this:

! First aired
! #
! Title
! Stars
! Writer(s)
! Director

You need to add after the last line ! Synopsis, this will generate another column. It's then a question of adding the details for each entry. Each row in the table (after the header row) looks like this (this is the first entry)

|-
| 2-Oct-55
| 1x01
| "Revenge"
| [[Ralph Meeker]]<br>[[Vera Miles]]<br>[[Frances Bavier]]
| Francis M. Cockrell ([[Teleplay]])<br>Samuel Blas ([[Short Story|Story]])
| '''[[Alfred Hitchcock]]'''
|-

After the director entry - in this example Alfred Hitchcock add as a new line | and your text so the resulting code looks like this

|-
| 2-Oct-55
| 1x01
| "Revenge"
| [[Ralph Meeker]]<br>[[Vera Miles]]<br>[[Frances Bavier]]
| Francis M. Cockrell ([[Teleplay]])<br>Samuel Blas ([[Short Story|Story]])
| '''[[Alfred Hitchcock]]'''
| Synopsis of the plot
|-

If you don't have a synopsis at the moment for an episode just add the pipe character | for that row otherwise the table will be slightly distorted. NtheP (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, NtheP!Grayline88s (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

notability / self-promotion

I came across this article the other day: Revere (band)

There seem to be all sorts of issues with it in terms of notability and self-promotion; the subject is a small unsigned band, without a record label or much media attention, whose Wikipedia article is nonetheless 3,000 words long and full of enthusiastic language (the whole thing reads very much like a press release). On the talk page, a user says they've been asked by the band themselves to edit the article on their behalf.

I'm only a casual and occasional editor, so don't really feel confident about editing the article, given how much of it needs attention. Is there anywhere I can go to ask for help from more experienced editors, or should I just get stuck in and do what I can?

Smells like content (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It does read like a press release, you're right. I'm new as an editor so this is just one opinion, however my initial feeling is that enough has probably been done to establish notability by way of references, but the style is not yet as appropriate as it could be. My guess is that you'll be encouraged to 'be bold' and trim some of the hype if you feel like giving it a go. It looks mostly like requiring excision of some superlatives, removal of unevidenced claims, and a little re-ordering of sentences which currently have rather too promotional or journalistic a feel. As an English grad you'll probably be great at that, but I'm up for collaborating if you'd like to take it section-by-section and use me (or another editor) as a sounding board. John Snow II (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi both of you, I have just taken a look and the band do appear to meet notability, but this is a very slick, overlong puff piece which makes for a high-profile cv of the band on Wikipedia and the Internet.
I have totally removed the 'press quotes' section and the 'noteworthy performances'. If you want to work on the text it needs some serious pruning, removing all unsubstantiated claims (i.e. they were invited to record at Abbey Road) and all of the rubbish references, in general YouTube videos are *not* used as references. If you have doubts, ask more questions! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankee, Cap'n! All you say sounds sensible to me. Smells like content, over to you - if you'd like to work on it further, I'll pitch in too. John Snow II (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)