Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

User page

I want to create my user page , kindly help me what should I write in the text editing box while creating user page? Miloom (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Miloom. Your user page should contain any information you deem relevant to your editing here on Wikipedia. Mine, for example, lists some articles I've created (as much for my convenience as anyone elses) and some information on my editing interests. Take a look at some other users pages to get an idea for what to include, and/or have a read of WP:USERPAGE! Hope that helps. Sam Walton (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

How to use the GA Review template

I"m right now doing my first GA review on God Help the Outcasts, but I'm having issues using the GA templates for reviewing. Are they necessary? Even if they aren't, how do I use them properly? Luthien22 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing an Edit

I made va minor edit to an article last night and decided today that the original was OK. Is there any way to withdraw my edit, or has the moving finger written? Babybaby0 (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You can just go to the edit history, find your edit, then click "undo". Be sure to clarify why you're reverting your own edit in the edit description. Luthien22 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleting an entire section

Can someone tell me how to delete an entire section?Jessica8491 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you have good reason to delete an entire section, you edit the section, select all the text, hit delete, and save. Do not forget to leave an edit summary and, probably, to state on the article talk page why you have done this. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the official, recognised way to indent during discussions?

I saw that the correct way to indent on talk pages is using a : before the comment (as detailed at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). However, I always see (during AfD discussions) people using * before their comment instead. Which should I use during AfD discussions and on talk pages? StewdioMACK (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi StewdioMACK, Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, I think the correct way is to use ":" before a comment. But as far as I know there are no rules against using "*" to bold text in comments. As it's mentioned in WP:SHOUT bold text may be used to highlight key words. And it's ok for you to use "*" when necessary.--Chamith (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

moving a page

I need help to move the western broad-nosed bat page to be titled inland broad-nosed bat. I have spent a lot of time editing the page but in doing all my research have realised that the inland broad-nosed bat is more commonly used by the majority of the resources (some don't even acknowledge the other name). Unfortunately I am not an auto confirmed account, can anybody help? Regards, Nmonk01Nmonk01 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nmonk01. I see only one recent edit by you to that article. Admittedly, it was a major edit. In my experience, most editors who aren't autoconfirmed don't even know what "autoconfirmed" means. Autocofirmed status is not a high hurdle, requiring only four days and ten edits. Are you in a big hurry to make a major change to an article about a bat species? If so, why? I took a look at the article's talk page, and saw no discussion there. That's most certainly the place to initiate discussion about a rename. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! If you are unable to move a page, you could request it to be moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Should a page require moving, the new name should follow Wikipedia's naming convention. You could also request you account to be confirmed, however you should preferably open a talk page discussing the new name or request a move. ///EuroCarGT 05:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting image

Can I directly request administrators for image being uploaded(from url) in their talk page?Jojolpa (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jojolpa: Hi Jojolpa. You can request it, but there's no reason it would need to be an administrator (unless there was some technical impediment that admin tools were required to to address). Please see Wikipedia:Files for upload. However, you could also just tell us here. We are here to lend a hand after all and many of us have file experience and copyright knowledge. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jojolpa. You can request an administrator to help you with any function specifically requiring administrative help. But keep in mind that administrators are just trusted editors with a few extra buttons in their tool kits. Most things here can be done by any experienced editor. There are lots of competent editors who can give you advice on image uploads. For example, I am not an administrator, though I know a fair amount about image policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

how to write a "works cited" from information obtained at wikipedia?

Writing my 1st MLA format research paper & down to section to record "works cited"...I don't know where to locate version nor published date...that I would normally have if I had the hard copy of an encyclopedia? can someone tell me how to type it out? thank you in advance173.81.195.248 (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. On the bottomish left hand side of any page you will see a menu labeled tools. Underneath that you will see a link for "Cite this page" Click that and you will be provided with citations for the page in various formats, including MLA. See also Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia (where you will learn some cautions about using Wikipedia as a research paper source. In that regard, see also Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Academic use). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Creating different sections on a page.

Greetings everyone, i am very new to wikipedia. I would like to understand how to correctly create different sections on a single page ? For example: Biography Album Websites References. Derek Reese 02:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekreese (talk • contribs)

To create the headers, using something like ==Biography== will give a header like most of this page has; more equal signs indicate sub-headers. Hope this helps. Chris857 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do also check out WP:CHEATSHEET, which covers this and other topics in an accessible symplistic manner. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome,

First add ==Reference== at the bottom of the page, and add wiki code {{Reflist}}

Then add references to the article, it will be automatically written in the section.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems playing sound samples

I am having problems playing audio samples from my computer, even though I have been able to do so in the past. Yes, I have downloaded the Ogg Vorbis codecs; that's definitely not it. When I navigate to an article with an audio sample like Let It Be (song), there is no dark bar with a right pointing arrow like usual. When I click through to the audio file itself, I can play the file by clicking on the upload date. Also, I can play the audio sample as usual on my mobile phone, just not from the article page on my computer. Is everyone having this issue? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! Have you tried refreshing the page or restarting your computer? You could try clearing your cookies and/or cache. ///EuroCarGT 01:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, have you tried different browsers? If it happens only on Wikipedia then like EuroGT said try clearing cookies. You can do this by using freewares likes CCleaner--Chamith (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleting or improving?

Hello, Teahouse. During a search for grammar errors to copyedit, I've stumbled upon this article and I've noticed that its last edit was a case of WP:DISRUPT and WP:LIBEL by an IP editor; this edit has been promptly reverted by me ([1]).

Eventually, I've read the whole article and I've realized that it has multiple issues, such as WP:PROMO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OR. Since I've several options to consider, my question to you is: what's the best way to proceed in this specific case?

Should I try to improve an article that is mainly a list of product features? Should I just put a few warnings on the article+talk pages hoping for a positive development? Should I go to AfD? Should I ask for a speedy deletion?

Personally I would ask for a speedy deletion, because a quick research on Google tells me that the topic is not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, but any opinion by better experienced editors would be welcomed and it would help me a lot to understand how Wikipedia procedures work and how the guidelines are applied. Thanks! LowLevel73^(talk) 22:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptistry heater Fiddle Faddle 22:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fiddle Faddle Thanks for the opinion! May I ask you why you preferred this solution to a speedy deletion? LowLevel73^(talk) 23:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@LowLevel73: This route does not preclude speedy deletion as an option, but gives others a chance to discuss it. If the consensus is to delete it means that any replacement article about the same topic has to be different and potentially substantially better. I find it a borderline speedy deletion candidate and prefer discussion for borderline items. I could have gone for speedy deletion and moved to a full discussion had it been disputed. Fiddle Faddle 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fiddle: Thanks for the explanation, very useful. LowLevel73^(talk) 00:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@LowLevel73: Hey LowLevel73. Regarding speedy, there is only one criteria this would arguably fit under in my opinion (unless it's a copyvio. but I just checked and didn't find anything determinative, though it becomes difficult with articles as old as this, even with the Wayback Machine), blatant advertising (CSD G11), but I would decline that request though other admins' mileage might vary. What I would have done here is prodded it under the bases you identified and taken to AfD if the prod was removed after looking for sources (see WP:BEFORE). If Prod is applicable it is a good to try before taking to AfD because AfDs consume community resources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I considered a PROD, but felt in this case that it might cause hackles to rise rather than be a simple process. It is not a clear PROD candidate for me, and people do get defensive when a contested PROD is taken to AfD. Now, I cannot tell you why I felt there was the risk of alienating an editor here, I just felt it in my water, so to speak. One gets an instinct for these matters and one may be wrong . Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for your opinion, it's much appreciated. In this specific case I excluded a PROD from the list of options because the article was already prodded in the past, albeit for a reason different from those that have been cited in the present discussion. It is my understanding that previously-prodded articles must not be prodded again, regardless of the reasons for deletion used in the previous PROD. Is my interpretation correct? I'm also wondering whether a past failed PROD could be a good reason to avoid a speedy deletion too. LowLevel73^(talk) 12:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@LowLevel73: Oh yes, if prodded before it can't be prodded again. But Prod would have no effect on most speedy bases were they applicable. If it was prodded as, say, advertising, that would have no effect on an A7 (which this, in particular, is not subject to because it's a product), and certainly not on a G12. But speedys, where they fit, are an allowance to delete, not a requirement. Were an article prodded as non-notable, for example, and it was removed with an edit summary convincingly indicating it was, I might thereafter not feel comfortable with acting on an A7 since that is a lower bar than notability (even though A7 targets what's presently in the article, whereas notability is an assessment of the merits of the topic, regardless of what's currently present in an article). Where a speedy requires a judgment call, we are and should be conservative.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Really thanks, everything is clear. It's important to me to understand the logic that editors follow to take these decisions and your explanation helped a lot. LowLevel73^(talk) 15:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with my wikipedia submission

Hello there, I wrote a new article for Wikipedia however it has been rejected twice for lack of references. My most recent submission had 17 references from various journal articles and websites however those didn't seem to cut it. As a professional researcher and new Wikipedia editor, perhaps I am taking the wrong approach and can use some guidance. I have been trying for several months to get this article posted and as one can imagine, there's growing frustration.

User name: bld175, Article title: High Strain Composites I'll note that I have a dozen colleagues who intend to expand the article once it is posted online. As a result, I have left several blank titles for them to eventually fill in. Perhaps this is something I should eliminate?

Thanks, BruceBld175 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bld175: Hi Bruce. I do think you should remove the placeholder sections but the issue with the sourcing is that you have fifteen citations for the table data, and only two citations in the article's prose; two sentences sourced out of about twenty. That's the reason it was declined. The table being sourced is great but, had it been the other way around—all the prose was sourced and the table was not—while that would have presented an issue, it would have been far more minor and likely it would have been accepted in that state. Given the sophistication and polish of the writing, I have no doubt you are capable of fixing this. Doing so will also set the example for any expansion. You add a fact, you cite a source that verifies that fact. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bld175: Maybe a model would be good for you to look at to see what you're striving for (in general and in terms of sourcing). Check out some of the articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Engineering and technology, such as Waveguide filter. Oh, and please note that the reason that the lead section of the article does not have any citations in some of them is because they are true leads – a summary of content already expanded upon in the body and sourced there. The draft's top section is the first and only introduction of content so it needs citations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bld175: Fuhghettaboutit has it exactly correct. I had no quarrel with any of the sources you have in the draft, just with the ones you do not yet have. The paradox of Wikipedia is that a draft needs to look complete (ie no placeholders) to be accepted, but can be expanded hugely at once. However, placeholders are generally removed on sight. That is why I declined it just now

By the way, please ensure that your colleagues each have their own logins here when they expand the article, and do let them know that it can be expanded by them now, even unaccepted, as Draft:High Strain Composite Structures. As long as they use good referencing and write neutral and good prose all will be well whenever they get started. But remember that one account = one person only. Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, Bld175 and welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse. You seem to be very well qualified to contribute to our community, and a very good way to introduce yourself to others is to write a few sentences to start your user page. Editors often put in a few words about what they would like to achieve at Wikipedia, and/or about what they do when they aren't banging on a keyboard. You can start your user page by clicking on your user name at the top of any page.

I had a difficult time getting my first article accepted, in my case, because reliable sources were quite difficult to find for that subject. If I could give you a tip: keep asking relevant questions like the one above. It seriously speeds things up. Also, there are a number of places within Wikipedia where your questions can be asked; editors will sometimes answer your query by guiding you to the help page which is most relevant. I hope that is useful. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My first attempts am I doing the right thing

My article The Bierton Crisis was put up for deletion so I have attempted to alter and add to it. Here are the addition but I am not sure if have done the right thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bierton_Crisis

Please help me as do so want to get it stared on the right foot. 213.104.226.208 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, you need to show that the book meets our notability guideline for books. Briefly, a book is considered notable on Wikipedia if it has received reviews or other significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, or has been made into a movie, or won a major literary award, and so on. Your article lacks references, and unless you can furnish them, it is almost certain that the article will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct "grammar" for vehicles no longer in production

Hello all, I've edited a few pages of automobiles which are no longer in production & I've noticed that the pages say "The (insert make) (insert model) IS a ...whatever the type may be," rather than WAS which would probably be used in everyday conversation. Is there a consensus on this? Is it the view that as there is probably an example of the make & model still existing somewhere, that the current rather than past tense is felt to be correct. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Eagleash:, and welcome! I looked around the manual of style for some universal rule regarding tense of discontinued products, but didn't find anything. I did however find this instruction in the Computing manual of style, which lays out an argument for using present tense to refer to software that is no longer in production. That rationale makes sense to me, and it seems like it would apply to automobiles as well. Hope that helps, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: Well it does seem to answer the question as far as Wiki is concerned, even if I find it grates slightly...:P. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Where can I post my article-in-progress to get consensus on its notability?

I want to make an article about the popular app Alien Blue, but I would like to make sure it is notable before proceeding. Where could I get consensus on such a matter? StewdioMACK (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@StewdioMACK: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you're worried about a notability of the subject, you might want to see if it meets the General Notability Guideline. Have the app received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,' as explained in the guideline? If yes, you are free to create the article. If you are unsure of its notability, you are free to create a draft of the article through WP:AFC. After you collected all the news source on the topic, you can ask an experienced editor to evaluate its notability by leaving a message on his talk page. However, please be aware that there is no way to determine a subject's notability, and that even articles that have been around for a long time might be challenged through deletion processes. KJ ^Discuss? 13:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I ask other editors to look at my first article?

Hi. I am attempting to write my first Wikipedia entry and I have written the text with citations, but I am finding Wikipedia very complicated despite reading some of the tutorials. I am confused about the difference between Sandbox and Subpage and I believe one of them is deleted after 24 hours? Where do I put the text in order that I may invite an experienced editor to take a look and how do I ask or find someone to do this? At the moment the text is saved in a Word Doc. I am nervous that I have got the code wrong for the citations or just generally made a faux pas with encyclopedia-style writing.Julietpw3 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Julietpw3: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Neither the Sandbox nor the Subpage is deleted after 24 hours. If you're talking about the WP:SANDBOX, the community sandbox, it is regularly cleared after a period of time (not 24 hours, but much faster) so WP:ABOUTSAND recommends that you make tests only regarding wiki syntax, though other edits are permissible. Subpages can be kept as long as the user wishes, as long as it's not a violation of copyright or other 'disallows' outlined in WP:SP. If you wish to create an article with help from experienced editors, I suggest that you use Articles For Creation. When you believe the article is ready, you can submit the article to get reviews from experienced editors. If you want help writing the article, you can other, experienced editors for help on their talk pages. Don't worry about getting the article perfect for the first time. Coding errors and etc. can be fixed, but copyright violations are not. KJ ^Discuss? 13:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And a user sandbox is just one of potentially many user subpages: it is distinguished only by being called User:<username>/Sandbox, and having a link to it at the top of every screen when the user is logged in, [[User:|Julietpw3]]. It's unfortunate that the same word is used for two things which, though they have something in common, are really quite different in purpose and behaviour. In my view, the user sandbox is a hangover from the past, and isn't really very helpful today when we have the articles for creation process and the even more recent Draft: workspace. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

how to get things done. Personal assistant.

so i thought to self, if only there was some place that actually had answers. ended up on wiki teahouse, find myself asking, fine little red bone, come one, we heading home, turn up turn down, for what, hold up whee are the lights, and i, thought who better to ask than wiki teahouse, question is;

is there such thing as a online personal assistant, where common people, can go to and say , " id like to do something like, start a new hobby,.. like making my own shirts / pants." online assistant replies with, " well options are, 1. invest in a small buisnness, 2. buy a sewing maching, 3. take sewing/textile class 4. go shopping 5. found materials for purchase online, cheap if bought in bulk."

Siri just came to mind, but she wont see it through, like start from scratch. to finish, .. does she?

like somewhere you can go to and be like " i need a tailor to cut this material and make a shirt? or like where can i get images printed on shirts? or where can i make jeans, pants, sweats, and find such material?

know what i mean?

174.1.117.50 (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello person editing from 174.1.117.50. Actually this page is not the page you're looking for as it's for questions related to using/navigating/editing etc. Wikipedia and not for general knowledge questions. The page you want is the reference desk. However, since you asked, I think the site that might be a good fit is allexperts.com. You just have to locate the right category and get a good expert. I actually answer questions there in the pool and billiards category. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Defamatory edits

Hello What can one do against defamatory edits, apart from deleting them when noticed? What is a specific user keeps adding garbage back? Isamalarre (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Isamalarre. If you're referring to specific edits, can you point me to where these edits occurred? In general, the best way to deal with flagrantly unconstructive edits is to revert them. A secondary step that can be taken is to warn the editor on their user talk page, but it's not strictly necessary to do so. If the disruption is persistent, it can be helpful to issue warnings, which will eventually result in a block if the behavior continues and additional warnings are necessary. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Notifications of edits to an article I created

Hello Is there any way to set up automatic email notifications whenever an article I contributed is edited?Isamalarre (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Isamalarre: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the white star at the top of any page (next to the edit and history buttons), it will turn blue. That means that the page is on your watchlist, which can be accessed here. However, I am not sure if there is a way to receive email notifications for that. --Jakob (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a way to receive e-mails. Under Preferences - User profile - select the very bottom tick box "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" - it will then do that, but - if you have a lot of pages on your watchlist (I've got over 750) - this can be very annoying. Arjayay (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If you prefer, the History tab has an RSS feed. Any news reader can see this and you get notified of changes without the need to bother with email Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think every page has an RSS feed. Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that Plön [town] Wikipedia entry, already included as a link, refers to King Alfred School.

See History; para beside photo of "Plön seen from Castle". Circa 1949, the Rank Organisation film produced "Looking for Trouble", the story-line was based and filmed at King Alfred School, Plön although an accurate representation it is not a true documentary. Otherwise, Wyvern Club are continuing to digWyvern4859 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice on resubmission

My draft Wikipedia entry concerning King Alfred School, Plön has been rejected because of lack of published sources. The [British] Army Institute of Education destroyed all the archived records of the school in the 1970s. Therefore the only remaining records of the school are the full set of Red Dragon, school magazines, held by the Wyvern Society, the former pupils' association. My draft Wikipedia entry was produced with the full cooperation and approval of the Wyvern Club members. I have quoted the Red Dragon Magazines and Wyvern Club as my sources What more can I do?Wyvern4859 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wyvern4859: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Have any respectable newspapers, magazines or books covered the school in detail? What determines notability is what independent reliable sources have said. The sources you have used might be used to supplement what the independent sources, if any, have said. But they could only be used for uncontroversial information, and the article itself must have a neutral point of view.

Also, "the full cooperation and approval of the Wyvern Club members" is irrelevant to Wikipedia's purposes.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably nothing, I'm afraid, Wyver4859. A Wikipedia article should consist almost entirely of summaries of what reliable sources, independent of the subject have said about it. Certain limited kinds of information can be reported from non-independent sources, but if that is all there is, it is impossible to write a satisfactory article about the subject. The school magazine is not independent (and even if the archives survived, they would be neither independent nor, probably, published, and therefore doubly inadmissible). Unless there is substantial coverage of the school in such independent reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers), no article can be written. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyvern4859, I have a slightly different attitude about this specific topic than what other hosts have written so far. An essay called Common outcomes summarizes what usually happens in various types of deletion debates. In almost all cases, articles about secondary schools and high schools are kept, unless the article is a hoax. If it is true that this school educated students through grade 12, then it falls into that category. The fact that the school is closed is not a factor, since notability is not temporary. With enough looking, I am sure that some independent sources discussing the school, perhaps its closure, can be found. Those could be in German or English. The school magazine can be used for basic, non-controversial facts, per our guideline on use of self-published sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as possible sources, I see in the reference section of our article on Freddie Spencer Chapman, the founder and headmaster of the school, that at least two biographies of him have been published. It seems highly likely that the school is discussed in those books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your helpful and constructive comments.

I appreciate the point about finding independent references to the existence of King Alfred School, Plön I have gone back to the Wyvern Club to get their members to dig out any external references to the school. Is it worthwhile just having As an interim measure is it worth limiting the entry to: Photograph, School Crest, History - Para 1 and History Para 2 up to Gordonstoun?Wyvern4859 (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Pages for two bands of the same name

I am trying to correct the record regarding a band named No Authority. Currently, there is a page for one band called No Authority, which was a pop band in California. They had three albums before breaking up.

The other band is from Europe (I am trying to determine if they are from the Czech Republic or Germany, since there is conflicting information presently), and is a ska-punk band. They have had more than six albums and are still touring.

First of all, is this notable enough, and second, how would you suggest keeping the two pages separate? 2601:9:3480:BFA:7864:6CB2:2D5F:E100 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Beg Pardon, I am adding my signature. I didn't realize before that I wasn't logged in. Rev. Mik McAllister (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to notability, look for reliable sources that are independent of the band and contain substantive information you could mine to write an article. It's really as simple as that. If you can't find those sources (in any language btw) then an article is not warranted. On a parenthetical note, many people write articles by putting down what they know and then try to find sources to verify the claims, but the other way around is much better: look for, read and digest sources first, then (if sufficient sources exist) summarize what they say in your own words, and cite those sources.

As for keeping them separate, this would be done by using parenthetically disambiguated titles. Unless there is a primary topic, each article would be titled in a form like No Authority (American band) and No Authority (German band), and "No Authority" should point to a disambiguation page. On the other hand, if one of them is determined to be the primary topic (though I don't think this is likely here), then it should be at the base page name and no disambiguation page is needed (though a hatnote should be placed at the top of the base page pointing to the location of the other). The ins and outs of disambiguation, disambiguation pages, and when to use them can be very foreign so if you have any takeaway from what I've said, what you really need to know is that if the article should be created, and you determine the country, a name like No Authority (German band) or No Authority (Czech band) is fine and can always be refined through a title move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I am working on getting the sources. It doesn't help that there are a lot of circular references and combined/blended references on some of the major music sites. I've already removed an incorrectly attributed album from the No Authority (band) page. -- Rev. Mik McAllister (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rev.MikMcAllister: Hey again Rev.MikMcAllister. You can now create the article at just No Authority, which you can see is now a red link, as there is no other article currently that it would need to be disambiguated against, and we only use disambiguated names for existing titles. The reason there is no other article is that I just deleted No authority (band) under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as it was entirely a copyright violation, with no non-infringing version to revert to. The redirect to it as the base page name was also deleted (note that the page should always have been just at the base title, not at "...(band)", so that's where you should create it now that the other page is gone). If someone creates a proper page at some future time for the U.S. boy band, disambiguated titles can be dealt with then.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with this deletion proposal

I was a major editor on the page Clarence Elkins. Someone put a deletion proposal on the page citing the reason that Elkins himself doesn't want the page up for personal reasons. I've never seen this type of deletion proposal tag and I have no idea what to do with it, where you discuss it, how "person doesn't want to be written about on wikipedia" requests are to be dealt with, etc. Whoever placed the tag removed virtually everything about his ex-wife, which leads me to believe it probably has something to do with that. Not sure how to proceed and would appreciate some feedback. Bali88 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't dealt with this issue, but as I understand the policy for deletion of BLPs, this should probably be done by deletion discussion, not PROD; but the likely outcome of the discussion would be deletion - both because the subject requested it and because the article seems to meet the criteria for a subject notable for only one event. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bali88. In general, whether the subject wants the page on Wikipedia or not has very little weight: deletions are determined by Wikipedia's policies, chiefly that of notability. If a discussion were finely balanced, then the subject's wishes might tip the balance, but that's all. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD tag and started a discussion on the talk page. While the article has some undue weight and coatrack issues its not an auto-delete situation. At AfD it may be considered a one event BLP, or maybe not. There seems to be a lot of sourced content there. One possibility it to change the name of the article to the crime and not the person falsely convicted. There is still a consideration of notability either way but a name change would solve some of the issues. But as Colin has said it is not the procedure on WP to delete an article just because an anonymous editor with three edits who claims to represent the wishes of the subject (or is the subject) asks for it to be removed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I thought that was probably the correct move but wasn't sure. Bali88 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Add persona data

Dear Wiki-Editors, How to add persona data ? with medals too ? Thank you in advance, Ilona Ilona1203 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ilona1203 Welcome to the Teahouse again. Can you please provide a further clarification on your question?. By persondata you mean persondata on biogrpahy articles of people or your user page?. Because sometimes users call their barnstars medals.--Chamith (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ChamithN for the question> It's in my sandbox the text to edit. It concerns the persona info box. This is for the biography of the swimmer and not for my user account page. Thank you for more details.Ilona1203 (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Ilona

You're welcome Ilona1203, By the way I checked your sandbox and it seems like you are doing fine with adding medals to the article. You have used medaltemplates under {{Infobox swimmer}} which is the correct way to add medals of a swimmer to the infobox.--Chamith (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's encouraging, Thank you ChamithN, for having given me the good mood, for editing this article in Wikipedia. May I have other questions related to editing, I will pass by The Teahouse:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilona1203 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

need to upload a photo to my article.

OK...I AM stuck. I am a newbie, and got hooked with your request for help with info and images for the National Register of Historic Places. My wife and I restored a federal house in Vermont during the 80s, and it is listed on the National Register. I clicked thru your list during Sept, and found it listed, but with no photo. Well, we have thousands of our OWN photos of it, before, after, etc. So I actually opened an acct, and put the photo on your listing page of National Register Properties in Vermont.

then I decided to complete an article about the house, so I did. It's called Galusha House, and the article is done, with refs and everything. Take a look and you'll see my incorrect attempt to get an image there! NOW....HOW do I get that photo from the National REgister listing into the article. I just cannot do it. I also have the photo on my computer. I've been trying for hours. ??? THANKS for your help, Ray AllenBlueridge12 (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Blueridge12. I believe that I have corrected the error for you, and I hope that I added the image that you wanted to the article. Please check. Instead of adding the image file name, you had tried to add the URL of the page where you had earlier added the photo. Images on Wikipedia are created by linking to image file names. Linking to any other page, name or file will not produce an image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

new page

I am considering starting a page about the following website:

uselectionatlas.org

I wanted to know if such an article would meet wiki's standards of inclusion Not based on the content I add, but whether such a page is warranted in the first place Quadist (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Quadist. It seems that we have a brand new article called Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This article lacks any references to coverage in independent, reliable sources showing that the website is notable. Please read our notability guideline for websites and add such references to the article, In the lack of such references, I consider the article to be at high risk of deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Biography Article(s)

If an article is a biography or you create an article and it is a biography how do you let an editor know this? Zafiraman (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zafiraman. I assume that you are talking about Jack Binstead. Please note that this article has three categories at the bottom. These are biographical categories. It also has "Infobox person" at the top, which is used only in biographies. Accordingly, it is clear to anyone reading the article or analyzing large groups of biographical articles that this article is a biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I put in an image? How do I improve grade of article?

I recently posted an article, I'd like to include an image; change it from being an orphan; and improve its grade (it's been graded C).

Any suggestions, or links to answer these would be helpful.

Thank you.

Vero

VeroOvid1 (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello VeroOvid1

I will also suggest to read the article here.

You will find it very easy to upload and place at right position your pictures in the said article.

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 02:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, VeroOvid1. In addition to Aftab Banoori's advice, I'd like to add some other observations.

It appears that WikiGnome W.carter has linked your article LigoranoReese to 2 other pages, and removed the orphan tag. WikiGnomes do a lot of the most valuable work on Wikipedia, for which we are all grateful, as one of the strengths of the Wikipedia editing process.

You've made a great start. To develop and improve the article, you can check out the assessment criteria and see examples of articles at each class level. You can also add an infobox using either the one for artwork or the one for artist, depending on whether you consider the artists more the subject of the article or their work to be the subject. You will also want to read up on biographies of living persons, and research a bit more about their lives.

If you have images (photos) that you have personally taken of the subjects or their artwork, you can upload to Wikimedia Commons using the wizard. Before you do, however, you can search the Commons site for relevant images that may already have been uploaded. Do not, however, copy photos from other websites, as they are assumed to be under copyright and not freely licensed for use.

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@VeroOvid1: I think there are three parts to your questions: including images, rescuing it from orphan status, and improving its article assessment grade. I'll try to address all three aspects.

If you want to learn about inserting images, the most helpful tutorial is WP:PIC. To summarize, if you'll like to insert an image, user the following code: [[File:Name|thumb|direction|caption]]. In the File:Name section, enter the name of the File. For instance, if the name of the image was 'image,' you would put in File:image. Leave the 'thumb' part. For the section 'direction,' enter whatever side you want to show the image; either the word 'left' or 'right,' corresponding to the side of your choosing. Caption is the section in which you enter a description for the image itself that would be helpful in explaining the image to the reader. There are also other options, such as specifying image size and entering captions, but if you want to learn about them, please look at the tutorial. If you were talking about uploading images, please see WP:UPIMAGE.

Per WP:O, an orphaned article is defined as 'an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace.' The information page suggests finding relating article but only make links that are relevant to the article. You might also wish to ask for help in the WikiProject WP:DO.

To improve your article, you would first want to improve the article itself according to the article quality guidelines. A widely followed guideline for article assessment is the Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team Assessment. A summary of the B-grade is that 'the article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.' A more specific criterion is given in the page. After you improve the article, you would want to ask for reassessment from an uninvolved editor who is experienced in editing articles related to your topic. KJ ^Discuss? 02:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.

VeroOvid1 (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding References

Can someone please guide me in adding references properly. Please and thank you. MalkaAdler (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MalkaAdler. I see you have been adding references to the "References" section of pages. Wikipedia doesn't work that way - you add them in the text immediately after the specific statement that the reference supports, and the software will collect them together at the end. A floating "reference", not attached to particular information, is not regarded as a reference in Wikipedia: it might appear in a "Further Reading" section. If there are several statements that are referenced to the same source, you can collect them together using named references. Please see Referencing for beginners for more information.

More important than where your 'references' should be placed is the question of whether they are appropriate. They are not; you have been adding link after link to the same school, using classroom descriptions as if they were reliable references. The overall effort has shown your intent is to promote the school and the classes rather than to help the reader understand the topic. A number of editors have reverted your additions, calling them spam and promotion. Please stop. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How many users are allowed to cancel what I post?

Also if it is practical what are their user names? Aurumdog (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", theoretically about 7 billion people i.e. anyone, provided they edit within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Currently the English Wikipedia has only had 22,891,274 users, but that figure will be out of date by the time I post this, and only 132,286 of them are deemed to be "active users".
If you mean how many Administrators are there, who can delete your article entirely? rather than remove your additions, or revert your changes, there are only 1,386 on the English Wikipedia - but any editor can request them to act by posting in the relevant place. - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

hey arjay, thanks for the answer. can I further ask, of the 1,386 administrators, who is the top dog? thxs again, aurum Aurumdog (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically Jimbo Wales, but he rarely gets involved in disputes.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

hey Vchimpanzee, alright forget about Jimbo Wales. What about the top dog who still has his ear to the ground and will listen to the plebs? c u 8er, aurum Aurumdog (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aurumdog, Wikipedia is not a hierarchic community in the usual sense. This article in the most recent Signpost describes it very well: Article in the Signpost. All the best, w.carter-Talk 18:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Aurumdog, I presume you're dissatisfied because someone has been reverting your edits; but if you hope to appeal the reverts to some higher authority, that's not the way it works. It may help you to read Editing policy and Dispute resolution. No one has more right to edit an article than you; you can dispute a revert on the talk page for the article and try to get a consensus among the editors in favor of your edit. However, Wikipedia has well-established Core content policies (that were also determined by consensus) as well as a manual of style and you must adhere to them. An experienced editor will be more familiar with these policies and how they are interpreted in general, so the consensus will probably be in their favor. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

hey rock, that is all well and good. The reason I ask may be clearer after my last post to idreamofhorses' talk page: hey horses, I want to take back what I said in my last post. "Rude," I hate being the dumbest person in the room but... Rude is completely wrong: when one editor can remove the edit of another without even saying they have: it is AN ABUSE OF POWER. This just shows us how wiki has gotten away from its roots. Wiki recognizes at heart that all knowledge is evolving, changing. Whatever we now know is different, more complete than in the past, and in the future we will know more [completely] than we know now. This is true across all fields of knowledge. Wiki is the only way to meet the constant, changing nature of knowledge. If we allow wiki to be abused by those running it, what hope does it have? All a senior editor needs do when removing someone else's edit is inform them (transparency) and at the very least give them a reason (hopefully a reasonable reason) for doing so. What do you think? all the best, aurum I hope that helps you understand a bit more where I am coming from rock. Catch ya later, aurum Aurumdog (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Aurumdog. If you want to make sure the person you are addressing get your message, you must use the Wikipedia markup to either mention them or "ping" them. I will leave a small guide in how to do this on your talk page. I will also mention RockMagnetist here to be sure this user will get your message. As for removing the text at I dream of horses page, you could simply apologize to the editor and ask that editor to remove the text from the page or just archive that post out of sight and start over on a more friendly basis. w.carter-Talk 10:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Aurumdog, you're right about one thing - I dream of horses could have made a better effort to explain the reverts. Maproom made a reasonable effort in the edit summary, but you clearly need more. So here are some of the issues. The two fundamental issues are, first, verifiability. Your citation, "the books of Markides, Kyriacos", doesn't give the reader adequate information to check the accuracy of your paragraph. You need to provide more information - at a minimum, the title of the book, publication date and a page number. See Citing sources for more information. But even if you fix that, your anecdote about the childhood of Stylianos Atteshlis is very far from achieving a neutral point of view. It gives undue weight to a minor incident. Encyclopedia articles also need an impartial tone, a feature missing in phrases like "As an example of his innate wisdom" and "Psychologically, this is incredibly smart ...". They might be o.k. in a hagiography or a blog by a fan, but not in an encyclopedia. Finally, the language is unencyclopedic - it is full of slang and swear words. Some of these issues might be fixed, but fundamentally, the incident is too trivial to belong in an encyclopedia. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

help with editing

I just had my first article accepted but it is stub class. Could someone help me edit? I'd like to submit more articles in the future and would appreciate someone helping me learn the ropes.Obrienboone (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've done some clean up on the article to bring it into compliance. If you need help put a note on my user talk page. The main thing is to find more sources for this person. At present their notability is questionable and could result in the article being nominated for deletion. So see what you can find. I looked on High Beam and there were not any articles. Let's keep looking.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Academics and Notability

Hi, I'm editing William Nericcio's entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nericcio). There's a "Notability" warning on it from 2009. I added a section on awards, and plan on fleshing out the section reviewing his work.

At what point and by whom can a warning banner be removed? I can get this up to scratch, can I remove it?

Thanks! FaulkTest (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello FaulkTest, I don't think it's time to remove it yet. What's mentioned in the banner seems correct. There are hardly any reference to prove the notability of the article. But I suggest you to start a discussion on the article's talk page and seek others opinions--Chamith (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's remember, User:ChamithN, that it's the notability of the subject that needs to be evidenced, not the notability of the article. Off-hand, I can't think of any Wikipedia articles that are notable, unless you count ones like John Seigenthaler.

Nericcio's notability seems unlikely to be in doubt, so I have removed that template and instead added some more relevant ones. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I'd like to work some more on it, and will also start on the Talk page FaulkTest (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Capital letters in the title?

Dear Wiki-Editors, Any clue where I can change the title of the page ? The name should have capital letters. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Ilona M Ilona1203 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ilona1203 Welcome to the Teahouse. To change the name of an article you have to change/add the syntax related to it. The syntax for DISPLAYTITLE is {{DISPLAYTITLE:Desired Title}}. However it is often applied through a template. It's strongly recommended to discuss the matter on talk page before changing the article's displaytitle.--Chamith (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ilona1203, are you talking about the article at Keira shepherd? In this case, the way to change the title is to move the article to a new name. Click the "Move" option at the top-right of the article (it may be hidden in a "More" menu). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the article into the user's draft space as the article is a BLP with no references, to avoid the work being deleted altogether. Once references are in place the article can be moved back to the main space.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I move article to Article For Creation

Hi I have written a new article in my user page and need to move it to Articles For Creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HeatherBlack/Nancy_Petry. Can someone jog my memory, please? I really appreciate the help. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@HeatherBlack: I believe you just put {{AFC submission}} at the top and wait. Is that what you were asking? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You might also want to move it to the draft namespace. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Is one process better than the other? Or do I do both?HeatherBlack (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@HeatherBlack: You'll actually want to place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article, not {{AFC submission}}. The latter will still submit the article for review, but won't properly categorize the page.

As for the page's location, it doesn't really matter in terms of reviewing as the page will be reviewed all the same once you place {{subst:submit}} at the top. The Draft namespace is simply preferred, however, since it keeps things organized and isn't within your personal userspace - I recommend you move it there :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So for drafts I just put {{Draft article}} at the top of the page?HeatherBlack (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that works! Thanks again. HeatherBlack (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@HeatherBlack: Well, to mark it as a draft, yes. That won't actually submit the article for review, however. I'd also move the page from User:HeatherBlack/Nancy_Petry to Draft:Nancy Petry. Let us know if you need anything else! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I think I've got it! HeatherBlack (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

complicated footnotes

I want 2 footnotes to support a single sentence. Both sources will be used again, so I use <ref name=X>before {{cite book}}. Second source is article in edited book. 2 questions:

Do I list second source author of article as author of book? Do I call him author 2, following author of first source? How get title of article inserted before title of book?

I got a number for second footnote, but am told author is messed up. Why doesn't }}><ref name= end first footnote and allow second?

Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:02, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

‎*@TBR-qed: Try using the |chapter= parameter for the title of the article, and the |title= parameter for the title of the book. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: For your second footnote, the name of the author of the article should be in the "first" and "last" parameters, and the name of the book's editor should be in "editor-first" and "editor-last" parameters. The form to follow is at Template:Cite book#Examples under "Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor". I'm not sure exactly how to interpret your other question, but are you remembering to close the first citation with </ref> before starting the second citation? Deor (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit first article

Dear Wiki-editors, Please advise:

Need to write about an olympic swimmer. Where to create the first page with not my user name but the name of her. And how to upload pictures without being deleted ?=

Thank you for your practical answers. Best regards Ilona1203 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ilona1203! To answer your first question, go to Special:Search and type in the name of the person you want to write about. If there isn't already an article about them, then it will display a message saying:

You may create the page "Example", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

Then click on the red link there and you're ready to write. Be sure the person meets the notability guidelines for sportspeople, and make certain to include plenty of references. You can find more stuff about article writing at Wikipedia:Starting an article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ilona1203. While the method G S Palmer suggests is valid, I would strongly advise an inexperienced user not to create a page that way. If you create the page that way, it will be in main article space, and subject immediately to all Wikipedia's rules about references, original research and so on: it is likely that other people would change it, and perhaps even nominate it for deletion, before you think it is ready. I would advise you instead to use the Articles for creation mechanism (or the Article wizard), which will create the article in Draft: space, where you can work on it and get it up to standard before explicitly requesting a review (anybody can see it there, but it is customary not to do anything to a Draft article unless invited by the person who created it, or unless there is a serious problem like copyright infringement). --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As to the second part, for an image not to be deleted, it must meet one of Wikipedia's image copyright criteria: it must be either your own work or demonstratably 1) in the public domain; 2) released under an appropriate license, such as one of (but not all of) the Creative Commons licenses; or 3) meet the standards for Fair use, explained at Wikipedia:Non-free content. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the very helpful answer. Best Ilona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilona1203 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, you can find the appropriate license tags at Wikipedia:File copyright tags and the various lists linked from there, such as Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Did you know" problem

I created an article on notable potter Carol McNicoll and attempted to nominate it for the "Did you know" page here [2] I don't seem to have been successful though can anyone see what I did wrong? Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There were two errors. If you're referring to this page in its current state, the error is that you misspelled the article name, so an administrator moved it to its proper place, which is here. However, there was another error there because the nomination was placed in brackets. I have fixed this. ([3]]).

That said, you'll need to expand the article to more than 1500 characters before it will pass the DYK review process. It is currently only at 691. I hope that is useful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's great thank you very much, I'll get expanding! Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @Theroadislong: Hey Theroadislong. After moving the template to the corrected title I wasn't sure what was still causing the error but 78.26 fixed the remaining issue and has told you here pretty much everything I had written here when I edit conflicted. I was also going to tell you about the length issue. You can check the character count using this tool (my calculation was that you has only 702 characters using it) and please note that having a bit more text than the minimum is recommended. Start writing! You might want to wait until you've written a bit more before transcluding the template at DYK, so it is not rejected on length grounds before you've had a chance to address the issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Here's three sources you might use: [4], [5] and [6].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you kindly for your help I've added more referenced content, so my next question is how does one transclude the template at DYK...phew this is complicated stuff!Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Go to Template talk:Did you know and click on "October 22" in the table of contents. Click "edit" on that section, and insert "{{Did you know nominations/Carol McNicoll}}" at the top of the section. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help I've gone and done it. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Antakya Belediyespor

The page name should be changed to Hatay Büyükşehir Belediyesi (women's basketball) due to name changing .I added the source but it is Turkish. Can someone change the page name? —Statli12 (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

References

@Statli12:, hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I see you did move it, and User:Yunshui moved it back so he could do a history merge. You should ask him on his talk page if he doesn't respond here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Importing diagrams and equations

Hi, I'm new and have prepared an article on the Rollett Stability Factor, but it's in Word and I can't find a way of cutting and pasting the few diagrams and equations into the sandbox. Does anybody know how to do this as the word2wiki macro couldn't do it, that or I was somehow getting it wrong. Would really appreciate some help.Jonhuwmac (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jonhuwmac, welcome to the Teahouse. For formulas you can use LaTeX; see Help:Displaying a formula for how to do it. For figures you probably will have to upload them as images; see Help:Files for an overview of how to upload and use images. —teb728 t c Let me add that uploading images is slightly complicated by the requirement that images be licensed under a free license. If you created the figures by yourself without copying them, you can license them under your choice of a free license. —teb728 t c 09:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

New Article

I created an article on Wikipedia, and through email I have been told my page has been linked, I have read wikipedia's policy that those who create an article do not own it so what does it mean? Zafiraman (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zafiraman and welcome to the Teahouse. It is quite correct that you do not own the article, however, you created it and contributed to it and if someone else links another article to it there will be an automatic confirmation of this to you if you have that box checked in your "Preferences" along with the e-mail option (see top of the page). It just means that you have made a good contribution since someone thought it might be a good idea to mention that article/subject/thing in another article. Keep writing nice articles and you will get plenty of those notifications. :) Happy editing, w.carter-Talk 08:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zafiraman. What we mean when we say that nobody "owns" an article is that unlike some other websites, Wikipedia does not let the creator of a page control the content of the page. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for more on the policy. Keep up the good work! —teb728 t c 09:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It means that even though you are the one who created you can't claim ownership of the article. Wikipedia is a community of editors who are helping each other to build an encyclopedia. So everyone is free to make changes to the article unless it's protected.--Chamith (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question

Copyright: > 2012 Miller et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

The above appears in a journal article I want to cite. Is this the correct copyright that allows more flexibility in using direct quotes? Cutting and pasting is still bad, right?

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bfpage. From the legal point of view, yes, such a license allows you to quote more extensively, as long as you use quotation marks and cite the article properly. From the standpoint of proper encyclopedic writing, I urge restraint. Do not over-rely on one specific source, just because of its Creative Commons licensing. The article should summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, without regard to the licensing and copyright status of any given source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license

Hello Teahouse! Why does Wikipedia accept images with a CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0) license but the Wikimedia Commons upload interface does not list the 2.0 version among those that can be selected? Does it mean that the only way to use in an article an image covered by (CC BY-SA 2.0) is to upload it through the Wikipedia upload tool? LowLevel73^(talk) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LowLevel73. In brief, the 2.0 license is an earlier version which is fine in most cases. But the licensing language has been updated to better reflect copyright law worldwide. So, Wikimedia Commons prefers newer versions of the license. If you have found an image off of the Wikimedia websites with the older 2.0 license, you will have to check at Wikimedia Commons whether or not there is a way to upload it there. You may also want to ask the copyright holder if they would be willing to upgrade the licensing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. After a better inspection of the Wikimedia Commons upload tool, I've found that there is a way to specify that older 2.0 CC license. The photo was found on Flickr and the upload tool has a specific option for the licenses used in that website. Thanks for your answer! LowLevel73^(talk) 11:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Assistance needed with an article for deletion

Hi everyone, I've not been editing for long and I've run into a spot of trouble I was hoping someone could give me a hand with. I've been trying to submit the article Agrius and Oreius as a candidate for deletion. I seem to have managed to get a banner up on the page itself. I've also managed to open a specific article discussing the issue here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agrius and Oreius. However on the deletion log - [[7]] - I can't seem to get the formatting right and for some reason its joined onto a discussion about "Our Lady's Primary School"! Any help would be greatly appreciated! Nyctimene (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nyctimene: Hi Nyctimene. All fixed. For future reference, follow the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. The deletion page actually takes the template {{Afd2}}, which places a whole bunch of formatting on the page when you save. It is in the form:

{{subst:afd2
  |pg=Name of article
  |cat=fill in from category list at Template:AfD categories
  |text=Nomination text. ~~~~
}}

See step II at the AFDHOWTO page. What happened here was that you placed just the nomination text in the discussion page, rather than placing that text next to |text=, so the nomination had no header or other needed accoutrements of a nomination. Thus, when you looked at it at today's AfD log, it just flowed into the nomination before it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest that for future ease in this area, simply go to your preferences and enable Twinkle? It automates the whole mess! John from Idegon (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I submit a draft for review and comment?

I have a draft of an article. It is not yet finished and not ready for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can I submit it for review and comment before it is finished? N142pb (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, N142pb. The short answer is you should not submit the article at this point. If you submit the article in your sandbox as it is, it will be deleted for lack of any references, which establish notability. All facts need to be supported by references in an encyclopedic article. It may help you to see referencing for beginners. I would also suggest more formal tone, especially refraining from using first person plural. The Articles for Creation process is rigorous, so check out the WP:Five Pillars and give it your best effort before you submit. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings N142pb I agree with Grand'mere Eugene the article isn't ready for formal review yet but absolutely you can post a request here to have other editors take a look and give you feedback. I looked at your sandbox and it looks like a very good start. The thing that really stands out right now is you need in-line references. Here is a good place to start for that: wp:references for beginners Also, Wikipedia articles should have a certain tone that I don't think you quite have yet. Here is an article that describes good wiki writing style: Wikipedia:Writing better articles So for example, in the draft article you say "It was clear from the start that, if we were to be successful in providing a System/7 based environment for laboratory automation in the SJRL, we needed to develop a real-time, sensor-based, multitasking and multiprogramming operating system.." That sounds as if you are writing a document for internal IBM use or from the standpoint of a certain community. It should be more general, for example perhaps start "It was clear from the start that, if the new system was to be successful..." Also, those kinds of claims are the kind of thing that should be referenced with a source. Otherwise it counts as wp:original research which is not what Wikipedia is for. Another example is the sentence: "The result was MS/DOS which would not achieve the level of power and sophistication of EDX for many years" The tone there may be somewhat wp:POV Advocating that this OS was "more sophisticated" than DOS. (BTW, I actually AGREE with your POV here but that's not relevant. What individual editors think doesn't count, it's what good Wikipedia:Objective Sources say that count). Hope that helps. Feel free to leave follow up questions or if you want someone to take another look at a second draft feel free to leave a comment here in the tea house or on my talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. That is exactly what I was looking for. N142pb (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Spelling check required

Greetings,

I found an errors in an article; I guessed this would be the place to submit.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophethood_(Ahmadiyya)

‘Prophet's relation to Divine Scriptures’; click section 5 link from the 'Contents' box.

Issue – ‘fist’ word – I am assuming the word should be ‘first’ not ‘fist’. (Russell.mo (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC))

Hello again Russell.mo. Thank you for noticing the error. Even if you have declared in no uncertain terms on your talk page that you are not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia, correcting small spelling errors like this yourself would be an excellent place to start. If you find an obvious spelling error in an article, please correct it and leave the small comment "typo" in the edit summary. Happy editing! w.carter-Talk 08:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm right. Can someone check and take the honour to mitigate please. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC))

I made the change. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Calliopejen1 I wasn't sure how to start... (Russell.mo (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

I know how to start now! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

Resolved