Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, 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

Please join our discussions! To reply, use the edit button across from the title ↓

How do I resubmit an article for peer review after edits according to reviewer comments?

Hi, I had submitted an article for creation and had received comments from a reviewer to do some alterations. I have followed the comments and edited the article. However, I do not know how to resubmit it. I have indicated my comments below the reviewer comments within the article itself and saved it. I also created a talk page for the article stating that I have edited the article. Is there a resubmission process, or any coding that I should put within the article for resubmission for review? Thanks for the help. Kevylyap (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

when does ephedra go to seed in utah and were to find 64.77.248.104 (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

in utah 64.77.248.104 (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think you're looking for an answer about something related to the content of Wikipedia, not editing. That's totally okay, you should head over to the Reference Desk where they're a LOT better equipped to handle your question. Good luck! If you need help posting there, one of us Teahouse hosts can help you. All the best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I safely remove title of article remaining in my user space?

This seems a dumb question. I created an article in my user space and then moved it successfully to Wikipedia. The title remains in my user space, together with a redirect message. Can I safely remove the title and redirect message - that is, delete the page in my user space without that action interfering with article in Wikipedia? Thanks so much Mdscottis (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to! There's actually a specific way to "delete" the redirect/page—just add the text {{db-author}} to the top of the page, and an administrator will come by and completely delete the page...with no harm to the actual one in the article space! Theopolisme _Boo! 01:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Mdscottis (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete sentence in Circumcision article

I'm trying to get a sentence deleted in the Circumcision article.

The sentence under discussion is misleading and advocating advice and support of circumcision.

This is the sentence under discussion- "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." GothHick49 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

These sentences do not seem to agree with the sources. Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none recommend routine circumcision,[26][27] and that none recommend prohibiting the practice.[27]

This is what the first source says. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010) The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications. GothHick49 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi GothHick49 and welcome to the Teahouse! I think a better place to ask this question would be here, that way editors with a particular interest in the subject are more likely to see it and weigh in. Thanks again, and feel free to come back with any further questions you may have in the course of your editing of Wikipedia! Go Phightins! 02:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have done that. But the editor that blocks my edits seems biased towards this article. I feel like I'm getting the Wiki-run-around. GothHick49 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I cite these sources for being against circumcision, www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org

arclaw.org

http://www.nocirc.org/

http://www.intactamerica.org/

GothHick49 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, GothHick49, and welcome! I see from the talk page over at Circumcision that Zad suggested you drop by here. Put simply, the edits you want to make to that article are not going to happen using the sources you've provided. I commend you for having gone off and read several policies and I especially commend your attempt to argue from those policies. Where you're having difficulty (as best I can tell) is understanding that the written policies are just a shorthand for the community consensus. You need to understand the consensus as well as the policies. (I have a few bumps on my head from just this problem so I know whereof I speak....) You're arguing (for example) that the article is not neutral for some — perhaps many — definitions of neutral. That argument may be logically correct, but a successful argument would have to be made based on the community consensus of what neutral means.

There's no shortcut for learning this: it comes from lots of reading, participating and making mistakes. Medical topics have their own sets of policies and consensuses on those policies above and beyond those in less fraught areas. If you're interested in helping us build and encyclopedia then mastering this body of knowledge is a good investment of you time. If your interest is limited to the circumcision article, then I'm not sure you want to invest a couple hundred hours learning how to make an effective argument for your changes. I hope it's the former, but I understand if it's the latter.

Best,

GaramondLethe 05:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, GothHick, and thanks for coming to the Teahouse. The internet is a vast place, and I am sure that just about any argument on any subject can be supported by something you might find on the internet. The is why Wikipedia insists on reliable sources. The simple explanation of reliable sources are fact-checked secondary sources such as newspapers, books, magazines or vetted journal compilations such as JAMA. Special interest websites like the ones you named exist to promote single viewpoints and as such are not considered reliable. Neither are white-supremacist websites on the subjects of race, or NAMBLA on the subject of pedophilia. If you can find articles in legitimate medical journals, by all means your information can be entered as another viewpoint. But the mainstream viewpoint will also remain. I hope this makes it all a little clearer. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability Reference Question

Hi, I was just wondering if I could get some advice about the iDMAa article I submitted on my sandbox. I modeled the article on several other articles written about similar arts organizations with similar citing styles, including Siggraph. I have just categorized the article as a art / arts organization stub, because I want to put it up in order for other people to add references and information to it? Is this the best course of action? What else can I do to the article to make it verifiable? Thanks Timegiftartists (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. The biggest concern with the article, for me, right now, is the lack of reliable sources. In order to merit inclusion in Wikipedia - and show notability - you have to prove that it is just that, notable enough. To do that, you have to use reliable sources - sources that are from trustworthy places, for example, like coverage in newspapers and magazines. Inclusion in art books, biographies and journals are more examples. A reliable source is not a press release, or the website for the organization, which is basically what you used. Here is an example of an article I wrote about an arts organization which is in my hometown: Indianapolis Art Center. Perhaps that can help. You can use a bit of that for influence. We surely need improved arts coverage, so I hope you'll consider contributing more content beyond this one article! Thanks for coming by! SarahStierch (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing reference tags

For the life of me I can't figure out where the citation needs ref tags. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Richards_Group

Maybe I'm using the edit function wrong. I wanted to add a citation about the clients list on this article. Daemperorofdaworld (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daemperor, and welcome to the Teahouse. You'd placed a reference after the {{reflist}} template, meaning that the software couldn't parse it correctly. In addition, the citation template contained <ref> tags inside it, which also bewilders the poor Mediawiki software. I've fixed both issues for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing label "needs additional citations for verification"

Hello. How do I remove a label ""needs additional citations for verification"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibtisam_Mara'ana

I recently added new citations to confirm the information. How can I ask editors to check the page too see if the note can be removed yet or not?

Thanks PalindromeZ PalindromeZ (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

With that much refs now, I think you can most likely remove it... But let's hear from the others first. Btw, sure looks like it could do with some cleanup.. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What kind of cleanup? Can you be more specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalindromeZ (talk • contribs) 09:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Suree... Formatting, wikilinking... The usual cleanup. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm, when wiki linking, you need not, or should I say, should not enter the URL of the target article, but instead just the title, with the [[ ]] brackets.

Example: [[ <------Enter target article title here----> ]] You might wish to read up more and then try cleaning up again. :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks. PalindromeZ PalindromeZ —Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My First article

I have created an article for AfC in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mysore_Cements_Limited. But has been rejected twice for insufficient references. I have added enough references available in News and Media which are totally reliable and independent of the article. Please guide me where I am missing out in Creation of new article in WP. I want to continue as good editor/creator of new articles in WP.

Thanks Chansa Harsha (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chansa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Which references are you referring to? Of the citations listed, I can see only one which comes close to meeting the requirements for an independent source, the Himatsingka article in the Economic Times (currently footnote number 5). The others are either from the company's website or are derived directly from information produced by the company (e.g. the director's report, the company listing at India Infoline, the Worldwide Company Profile). The Economic Times article only contains minimal information about the company, and also looks to have been derived from a press release. What is required are multiple sources which are independent of the company, not business directory listings, company reports or press releases. Without such independent coverage in reliable sources, Mysore Cements does not meet the notability requirements for organisations. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui,

Can you give me some examples, how I can put notable references for this article?

Chansa Harsha (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Some examples of references which might count towards notability would be: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. None of these are particularly brilliant, but they all seem at first glance to satisfy the requirements. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

disambig page format

Morning Wiki!

My first article added at Greenfish recirculation technology! Great fun!

I am however not shure I've departed from MOS in the GREENFISH disambig page? I found it more clear to present several fish species with the same common name in a table. Is this allowed.

Have a great night!

Björn Linden Urban Greenfish Urban Greenfish (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just edited an article about bitless bridles. it got reset to the old version. why?

I have been riding horses with different bitless bridles for years, do natural horsemanship and know a lot about the topic. the article on wikipedia is incomplete, so I edited it (that was my first time working on wikipedia). I think my edit was good, it was factual and correct. why did it get set back? what would I have to do to actually make all my changes (or at least some of them) stick? Karenguruh (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you go to the page of the person who edited out your material and civilly ask. He or he claims to be a horse person as well. I think the changes were made because of your tone (e.g., the use of an exclamation mark) and what the other editor sees as a bias adn unnecessary or unsupported though commonsense comments (e.g., soft hands being needed). Try to work with that ed to jointly improve the page.Kdammers (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Karenguruh, and welcome to the teahouse! I took a look at your edits to Bitless bridle. That's a good contribution that's lacking one thing to make it "stick": you can't rely on your personal expertise. Instead, you have to be able to cite a reliable source (a book, newspaper, magazine article, etc.; generally not a blog or a press release). This rule can be frustrating if you're an expert and you want to share your expertise. Unfortunately, having us verify your expertise is a hard problem, and so we take a step back and assume (for the most part) that authors of books and editors of magazine and newspapers have done some minimal amount of verification for us. (As an aside, Montanabw's comment of "unsourced POV" is a shorthand way of saying that you were contributing your own point-of-view, not that of a "reliable" source.)

If you have a few books that discuss bitless riding (is that the right term?), then leave a note on the talk page of Bitless bridle mentioning that you've now sourced your edits and will be reinstating them with citations. Google books works well for this if you know the area well but don't have many sources in your library. They may be reverted again; in that case, start a conversation with the editor on the talk page and see if you can resolve the issue. (There are several options available if you can't reach a resolution — dropping by here is one of the easiest.) If you want to take a look at the actual policy on reliable sources, then head over here. And don't be shy about asking questions here. It's a pretty steep learning curve, but I think you'll find it's worth the effort. GaramondLethe 06:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

deletion of MaK(Verge Game Studio) and Verge Game Studio

I do not mean to seem unfriendly! Currently Kinu deleted the two mentioned articles. In case or "Verge Game Studio" I can understand because of the speedy deletion and I read and understood his arguments, but I dont think that the article "MaK(Verge Game Studio)" meets with the argumentation! Both articles were under constuction and on Mak was a mark that I have seven days to edit more details. About the advertisement: I tried to make the two sides objective, so I generally took the two sides Mojang and Minecraft as templates and inserted information i could find over the company and the game. I also got the affirmation from Verge Game Studio that they would increase the information by quality and quantity.

If you recognize my argumentation why this sides didn't need to be deleted, is there a way to restore them of do a have to make them in my sandbox first?

thanks

P.S: New account, my old one "Bot91" also got deleted :(Bau912 (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bau912, and welcome to the teahouse! Hope you enjoy your stay here in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit! Concerning your deleted material, you might wish to consider sending the admin who deleted your work a request to have it back so you can better work on it. Your efforts are much appreciated and once again, welcome to wikipedia! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Bau912. Bonkers suggestion is excellent! Just some additional help. The administrator that deleted the article Verge Game Studio is User:Kinu and he can be reached at his user talk page (click the "talk" link when viewing his user name). When you approach him, you'll want to ask him if he can convert the deleted article to a draft article in your "user space". The "user space" is any page which is prefixed by your user name (so User:Bau912/sandbox could be the name of a "sandbox" or draft space within your user space). If you cannot reach Kinu in a timely manner, you can also make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion where another administrator can respond to your request. The special "Wikipedia word" we use for these requests is called "userfying" (as in "moved to my user space".) The advantage of a "userfied" article is that it can be developed into a proper article at your own pace, and you are generally given more leeway in working on the article and bringing it up to standard before it is "published" in the main article space. You also have the option of using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, which is an optional process for new users (or even experienced users) to get help and feedback as they create new articles. Does any of this help? --Jayron32 13:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What purpose has the option of adding Categorie: ... exactly?

What purpose has the option of adding Categorie: ... exactly?Bot91 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bot91. Welcome to Wikipedia. Glad you came here to ask your questions. The short answer is: Indexing...Categorizing makes finding information you may be searching for much easier. For example you may be wanting to find out about a bridge you crossed on your last trip to Indiana, but all you remember is that it was in Indiana. You could go to Category:Bridges in Indiana and there they all are. Hope that clears the reason for categories.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bot91. The purpose of Wikipedia categories is to allow people to find other articles that are similar. It is a way of creating an index of articles by topic. So, for example, George Washington is categorized in many categories, both "United States Army generals" and "United States Presidents". I can find other people who are also United States Army Generals by using Category:United States Army generals, for example. It is a very useful system for organizing articles. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization for answers to some questions you may have about categories, including the one you just asked. --Jayron32 02:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Categories, along with lists and navigation templates, are different methods of grouping articles. All three methods serve as navigation aids on Wikipedia. The FAQ that Jayron32 mentioned is a great starting point. For a more detailed explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of using categories, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Categories. Cheers,--xanchester (t) 02:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This section was deleted by Bau912, which is (I believe) the new user name for Bot91. Unless I misunderstand how the Teahouse works, a user shouldn't delete a question with the answers which it has received. There should be time for other readers to see the question and answers (& if necessary to amplify the answers). The question and answers will be archived in a few days, but ought not to be deleted before then. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting an article on top of a Redirect

Hi, I'm trying to write a new article for songwriter Denny Randell; at the moment, Wiki has any searches for his name redirecting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Randell, which is a Wiki dedicated to the songwriting efforts of Denny Randell and Sandy Linzer. Can I just write a new article only about Denny Randell here? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Denny_Randell&redirect=no Thanks!

76.166.175.157 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi 157. Just below the page title of the page you are redirected to you will find a blue "redirected from" link which will take you back to the redirect page. You can then edit that page into an article assuming that you have well sourced notable material. The page you are redirected to is all part of Wikipedia so it may be as well to start a discussion on the talk page of that article about splitting into the individual writers.--Charles (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can also work on a new draft in your sandbox, and then submit it to WP:AfC — a reviewer could then help take care of it. (Just another method!) Theopolisme _Boo! 00:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

need help/approvement of editing a page

hi, i would like to make an edit in the article about train accidents. I find it a great article and very helpful. However, I don't know, if my story qualifies: On february 17 2011, I got hit by a train at the Main station in Winterthur, my leg was broken and I lost a lot of blood and went into a short coma. But I survived. Let me know, if you think this accident is worthy of being in your list. yours truly, F.B. (188.155.176.116 (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! If you can substantiate your story with reliable sources, then you can add it. Otherwise, it seems to me that it's original research. Thanks--Go Phightins! 19:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it was not in the papers or on TV, if that's what you mean by reliable sources. And I have found anything on the Internet... I think that destroys my dreams of being mentioned on Wikipedia, forever... (If you had the time you could check with my doctor at the KSW, that's Kantonsspital Winterthur, but yeah, yeah, I know... It seems unlikely, doesn't it?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.176.116 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 188. Yes it is unlikely because that would still be original research. Wikipedia only publishes what has been written on in reliable second party sources, like newspapers or magazines. And although I am sure your accident will forever be a life changing thing for you, in a world-wide scheme of things, even you would have to admit it isn't very important. That is, unless some new legislation was enacted because of it. Then it could possibly be notable, but only if that story appeared somewhere in the media. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing an image file type

How can I update a reduced image with a new file type? Currently the two types are not compatible.

Daniel Kivari (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, and welcome to the teahouse! I'm not certain, but I'm guessing you're trying to upload an image that's in a file format that WP doesn't support, and you've figured out that just renaming the file doesn't help. If I'm correct so far, try loading the file into any application that will let you view the image and then try "Save As" and select a new filetype there. If that doesn't work, let us know the file type you're working with and someone else here might be able to help. GaramondLethe 19:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! Actually, the issue is that the nature of the file as a logo does not warrant the use of a jpg file. I have converted it successfully to a png file, but Wikipedia will not upload the file, because of the conflict in the extensions. [File:Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute Logo (blue).jpg] --Daniel Kivari (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding a band

hi i just want to add my band to your list of punk rock bands. (208.188.159.100 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, unless your band has received significant coverage that would allow it to pass our notability requirements, we probably won't be able to allow you to do so. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Sorry. Go Phightins! 17:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

need help adding an image to an article

Hello - I am having difficulty adding an image to a couple of articles. I have a logo for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen which I would like to add. But, when I go throug the protocals in "Upload file" the system will not allow me to upload it.

Would appreciate some help.

Thanks, David Dwhitewdc (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome David! Are you trying to upload it at Wikimedia Commons? If so, you won't be allowed because logos are used under fair use, but the Commons doesn't allow fair use images. If you're trying to upload it here and are having difficulty, you may want to ask your question here. Sincerely, Go Phightins! 17:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How come scripts/Twinkle things are showing up twice for me?

Hi everyone. I have a few different scripts installed and Twinkle, too. On Friday I woke up to notice that I was seeing a few things twice - my Twinkle tools, for example, are all listed twice on my Twinkle menus and I also have a script installed that allows me to see edit count/permissions/etc of editors by visiting their userpages - this is showing up twice, too. I'm not too savvy with script and Twinkle tweaks and installations. Anyone have any thoughts about why this is suddenly happening and how it can be rectified? I look at my vector.js and the scripts aren't doubled or anything... Thanks for your help! SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Sarah-- is it possible that they may also be copied to your common.js page? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good tip, I did have a few things doubled up - weird that they never showed up duplicated until recently. I did remove them from common.js but the edit count/gender script is still showing up twice. Hmmmm.... SarahStierch (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts, anyone? SarahStierch (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, invoking IT help desk 101, copy the contents of your .js pages to Notebook, delete your .js pages, purge the cache and then recreate adding the scripts 1 by 1 checking behaviour after adding each one. A pain in the arse I know but if it doesn't work should identify which script is causing the problem. Chances are its a cache issue or a recent tweak to a script that are the problem. NtheP (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

East sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asien_Bd1.jpg In these site, world map in there. world map have seen right mark, but there are in the wrong mark. Between korea sea and japan sea name is East sea but in world, the sea name is sea of japan. so come up the correct notation in these site because A lot of people know the fact that it was looking at the map. As soon as possible corrective hope14.55.104.14 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand your question - the area on the map you've linked to is labelled "Japen Meer", which translates (from the original German) as "Sea of Japan". Yunshui 雲‍水 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see now - you want to use the Korean name "East Sea", rather than Sea of Japan. Leaving aside the fact that Wikipedia editors can't "correct" the map (it's from an 1892 German atlas), the current accepted international terminology for the Sea of Japan is - the Sea of Japan. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to add there is a whole article Sea of Japan naming dispute about the ongoing discussion as to the name of this sea. It has been discussed on Wikipedia too and the convention is to use Sea of Japan but mentioning East Sea - see WP:NC-SoJ for details. NtheP (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

how to add to an existing article?

I am writing an article about a small topic that would better link into another more substantial article about the larger topic in hand . my article is about networked performance which is a type of digital theatre so my question is how do i go about adding my small article to the larger one? thankyou --MRPERRY145 (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

MRPERRY, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. My first impression is that possibly Networked theatre is a notable enough topic to stand on it's own, you draft would need some more references but I can see the topic being self standing. However if you don't think it is and that it should be a section in the articles, for example Digital theatre or Digital performance, then you can simply edit the existing article and include Networked theatre as a section within that other article. You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre for a second opinion. NtheP (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Article quality moving up.

I was wondering, how does an article move up on the quality scale? Thanks! Horai 551 (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! Two of the highest grades are assessed by a panel of editors. FA-Class articles are assessed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and GA-Class articles are assessed on Wikipedia:Good article candidates. A-Class articles are assessed by WikiProject departments like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. The lower grades (B-Class, C-Class, Start, and Stub) are assessed by individual WikiProject members, and not several editors like the higher grades. Each quality grade has its own criteria, as listed on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Hope that helps,--xanchester (t) 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disapproval of my article

Hello,

I already asked this question specifically to the editor, who declined my article on his Talk page. However, I thought it would be a good idea to ask the more of you. The article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Socialbakers is about a company called Socialbakers. Could you please read it and give me some feedback? Specifically, what have I done wrong and what needs to be rewritten so it would comply with the Wikipedia`s rules? Thanks, Michal.smetana (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Michal, I haven't read it in detail but certainly the tone is a lot better than it was and doesn't give me any problems. I still have concerns about the references though. Yes you have introduced several external references but still over 2/3rds of the references are from Socialbakers themselves and that is far too high a proportion. The number of references dependent on Socialbakers own site should be minimal and then only to verify simple, non-controversial facts, certainly nothing that needs an objective assessment regarding notability. Sorry to say that if I were reviewing the article now I would be declining it on that basis. NtheP (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So, if I delete some of the references pointing directly to Socialbakers` website, do you think the article would be good to go for submission? Michal.smetana (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the teahouse. The notability of the subject still has to be demonstrated by independent, published secondary sources, and to a lesser degree, tertiary sources. Also, the coverage must be significant and not trivial. A detailed article by the New York Times profiling the subject, for example, would serve as an excellent secondary source.--xanchester (t) 10:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Article deletion

I put an article up and it got deleted because it was thought to be an advetising article. i was still working on it, I have finished with all the necessary references needed for the article. Can I just repost the article or is there a process I have to go through again. Thanks Jeffasiedu (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend sending the article through the Articles for creation process, where a reviewer will double check the article's readiness prior to posting it, but you may repost it yourself if you've addressed the prior concerns. Go Phightins! 02:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation

This may sound like a daft question.But genuinely what is the purpose of citation and/or footnotes within a Wikipedia article. How important is it and does it break any rules when not used. Thanks.--Jeffasiedu (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jeffasiedu, and welcome to the TeaHouse. Both the existence and content of every wikipedia article is directly dependent on the sources that underpin it, whether those sources are references or footnotes. Articles without sources are liable to get deleted with little or no notice. Sections of articles and individual claims without sources are liable to be trimmed. So to answer your question, the footnotes are vitally important. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As Stuart said, footnotes are what make Wikipedia work! Otherwise, anything could be added -- which would basically make Wikipedia useless as a research source -- as you wouldn't not what was true and what wasn't. You may want to take a look at this page for a bit more policy-ish text on "Verifiability", if reading that kind of stuff floats your boat. Theopolisme _Boo! 00:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleting pre-published edits

Hello, I'm new here. I was wondering if there is a way to delete pre-published edits for articles I submitted through Articles for Creation (ie article for Mason Mathews), so I dont look like an idiot for having fumbled around for hours with formatting and sentence construction, etc :)

Thank you!Newtack101 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! What do yo mean by pre-published edits exactly? Go Phightins! 21:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I just mean edits that I made before I submitted the article for review through AfC. It is purely a superficial question.

Newtack, if you mean can it be published with a single edit in the history then no. The edit history is an integral part of how the article and wikipedia were built. You won't look like an idiot, we've all been there and created articles where the edit history is tortuously long and if anyone were bothered to investigate, would find all sorts of mistakes. Don't worry about it and instead celebrate the success of the published article. NtheP (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! Edits cannot be deleted except through Wikipedia:Revision deletion, which is only used for the most serious of cases, as listed on the page's Criteria for Redaction. Article draft pages in your user space can be deleted (although it is technically not deleted, only hidden from non-administrators), through the process known as Speedy Deletion. Just place "{{db-self}}" on top of the draft page that you want deleted. Don't worry about past edits! All of us were newcomers once.--xanchester (t) 21:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks you all. Newtack101 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ectomorph/Endomorph/Mesomorph articles consist pretty much entirely of pseudoscience.

Ectomorphic, Endomorphic and Mesomorphic are pretty much completely pseudoscientific, with sources made up of online weight-losing guides, body-building magazines and similar. I am not familiar with wikipedia policies, but this seems like an extremly bad take on medicinal/anatomic subjects; the problem being that they are presented as being genuine, while they are probably of more interest described as cultural phenomena. We already have Somatotype for this, so I personally think an outright deletion with the pages being replaced with redirects to Somatotype would be a proper solution.

What would the appropriate measures be to notify more experienced users of the problem? Autharitus (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! There is an entire noticeboard on Wikipedia devoted to pseudoscience and fringe theory articles: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Hope that helps,--xanchester (t) 18:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I forgot the hello, so hello to you! Thanks, I'll look there. Autharitus (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The use of company/personal websites as references.

I was recently started an article on an online performance group called the Plaintext Players that was deleted because, so far, it only referenced both the companies website http://yin.arts.uci.edu/~players/ and the founders website http://www.forger.com .

I was further going to add sections which referenced academic text such as http://playground151.servus.at/sites/default/files/OP6_HelenJamieson.pdf

My question is, I've noticed various other articles on wikipedia that use company websites and personal websites in their references in combination with actual academic text, is it ok to use company websites and personal websites when used in combination with other sources? Or can they never be used? (should the articles i found on wikipedia be notified?)

I'm new to wikipedia and eager to learn. SWalton91 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

SWalton, welcome to the Teahouse. Use of company and/or personal websites is ok in limited circumstances, for example, to establish non-controversial facts like date of founding, but as Wikipedia wants to establish the notability of the company then the evidence needs to be from reliable Independent sources which indicate how the company is at least acknowledged, if not well regarded by the rest of the world. NtheP (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Company and personal websites are known as primary sources. As Nthep has said, primary sources can be used to verify non-controversial details, but cannot be used to demonstrate a subject's notability. Self-published primary sources are not considered reliable, which is why Wikipedia favours secondary, and to a lesser degree, tertiary sources..--xanchester (t) 18:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou both User:Nthep and User:Xanchester So, correct me if i'm wrong, you're allowed to use their websites for information such as specific facts, dates of founding/performances and information only they can provide like how a piece was devised. For the rest of your article you should rely on secondary sources, articles written about the company from someone not involved with them. Your help is most useful, SWalton91 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, but only secondary and tertiary sources can be used as evidence of notability, and there must be significant coverage of the subject. A detailed article profiling the subject by the New York Times, for example. Trivial mentions by sources are usually not sufficient enough to meet the guidelines. Hope that helps,--xanchester (t) 21:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

To help you out, I found some usable sources for you on the Plaintext Players. The Routledge Companion to English Language Studies published by Taylor & Francis, Women, Art, and Technology published by MIT Press, and Cyberpl@y: Communicating Online published by Bloomsbury. The subject does seem to be notable, but the page just needs more citations.--xanchester (t) 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Xanchester Thank you very much that's incredibly useful, i'm going to be updating it on my sandbox tomorrow morning between 09.00 and 12.00 GMT and will provide you with a link. Your continued advice would be very helpful. SWalton91 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Xanchester I've now updated the initial overview of the Plaintext Players with more reliable sources (academic texts rather than personal websites). I'm about to undertake a section which details brief descriptions of their work, unfortunately the main source would be the company's website http://yin.arts.uci.edu/~players/, do you believe it would be allowed as a reliable source as it is conveying facts rather than subjective opinions on whether it's good or not. I learn as I do, SWalton91 (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Can someone create an image locating the map map of Cyprus China relations article ?

There is an article of the new article Cyprus China relations which needs a locating map and I do not know the application to create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsrArmen (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! A good place for this request might be the Geography Wiki-Project. On the talk page there, if you post this request, someone may be able to help you. Thanks--Go Phightins! 17:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

IsrArmen, I think the file you want already exists, it's File:China Cyprus Locator.png NtheP (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear NtheP you are right but I do not know how to add the picture on the article! Please if you have the knowledge to do it, it would make my life easier!IsrArmen (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I can help with this. In the editing window, in the blue interface, there's an icon of a picture. If you click it, it should give you a pop up where you'll simply copy-paste the title of the picture, and then whatever caption you want (make sure not to include ending punctuation in the caption) and then click insert, and then save the page. Go Phightins! 20:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not an area I'm familiar with but looking at other article on X-Y relations, the map gets used in conjunction with the template {{Infobox Bilateral relations}} so I think you need to add something like {{Infobox Bilateral relations|China–Cyprus|China|Cyprus}} to get the outcome you want. NtheP (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

true- if you want it in the infobox, follow those directions; what I said is for when you want to put it in the article somewhere. Go Phightins! 20:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

how do I add a reference??

I am working on the article for GCIU - and I want to add the following reference for the sentence that says that George Tedeschi is the President of the GCC. - how do I do that??

This is the reference: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/santa-barbara-news-press-charged-with-illegally-firing-journalists-51623987.html

Thank youDwhitewdc (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dwhitedc, welcome to the Teahouse. To add references, insert, at the point you want the reference to refer to, the code <ref>Your reference text </ref> then at the bottom of the page make sure there is a section called References which is followed by {{Reflist}}. The software will then list all the references you have inserted in the References section with links so that you can move between the reference and the text and vice versa. So in the case your would enter

Markup	Renders as
Text after which I enter my reference<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/santa-barbara-news-press-charged-with-illegally-firing-journalists-51623987.html Santa Barbara News Press Charged With Illegally Firing Journalists]</ref> More text and the rest of the article == References == {{Reflist}}	Text after which I enter my reference More text and the rest of the article References

There is a whole load more you can do but this is the most basic, you can find more out at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why no number of times page viewed? Esp. when deleting pages.

This software has the ability to show how many times a page has been viewed/accessed. Why isn't this used when debating the notability of a subject?

If someone nominates a page for deletion that has been accessed like three times, it's probably fine. But if said page has been accessed thousands of times, maybe it is actually notable and shouldn't be deleted.

Why isn't this information taken into account? 41.204.74.36 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

41.204, welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect the answer is because popularity is not a measure of notability, a topic could be very popular, for example a World of Warcraft guild, but not notable in Wikipedia terms. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia considers evidence from reliable Wikipedia:independent sources to gauge this attention. If you start counting the number of page views then these criteria go out the window and notability becomes a beauty contest. In addition it would be very easy to rig page views by the use of bots and other tools to increase the view number. NtheP (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I understand that reasoning. But if something is popular, and has references, and is NPOV, etc. Then I fail to see why it should be deleted. Wikipedia has space. And if a guild is relevant and gets lots of stuff written about it, then it should be kept. I often come to this place to look for info, only to find that the page was deleted. Gone. Anyway, thanks. 41.204.74.36 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is a specific page you're interesting in, you can ask for a WP:REFUND, which will get you a copy of the page back again (so long as there was no copyright infringement). Once you have a copy you can put it on another website, if you wish, or re-cast it to meet WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User

Is it possible to change the user name? --RB-AXP talk 12:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, you need to follow the procedure set out at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple which also allows you check that the username you want isn't already in use. NtheP (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

HELLO.I WANT TO KNOW HOW I CAN CREATE A TEMPLATE IN WIKIPEDIA?Jaijibanswamiji (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

HELLO.I WANT TO KNOW HOW I CAN CREATE A TEMPLATE IN WIKIPEDIA?Jaijibanswamiji (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Jaijibanswamiji, welcome to the Teahouse. Templates are created just like any other page on Wikipedia but are part of the Template namespace. You create one by naming your new page Template:name of your template. As templates can be quite complicated there are a number of places you can experiment before committing your page. These are the Template sandbox and the templates X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8 and X9.

Can I also ask that you switch off the caps lock key on your keyboard. Writing ALL IN CAPITALS, apart from being more difficult to read, is called shouting and can be considered rude behaviour by many editors. NtheP (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominate articles

How do you nominate articles?Ferrari Enzo 2 (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't know what kind of nomination you want but I guess that is for deletion. To nominate an article for deletion, (1) Put the deletion tag on the article, to do that, insert {{subst:afd1}} on the article, (2) create the article's deletion discussion page, (3) notify the author of the article you are nominating for deletion, insert {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} (replace NominationName with the title of the article) to the author's talk page. To view the more detailed and complete steps, see WP:AFDHOW. Thank you and have a nice day! Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

about making new wikipedia article

hello, i just want to ask how can i go through on making new articles in wikipedia. all i know is just some sort of editing. i wanted to make new article regarding our cities progress like putting a list of new and upcoming projects but i just don't know how to start. i tried it once but it never existed and lately, i just received an email regarding my post and was tagged as "vandalism" for not having it complete instead. Degie17 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to create an article, I may suggest you to use the Article Wizard. The Article Wizard is a step-by-step process in making an article. I'm sure you're a little confused at this time but I think this will help you out. If you are going to create an article without the use if the Article Wizard, please double check and be sure that your article is ready because it may be deleted if it is incomplete or if it met some criterion for deletion. If you want, please also use the Help:Userspace draft. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

notability

Hi, i'v recently created a new article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana_Gallery), and received this message: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." I read the guidelines, and was wondering: 1-If the problem is that i needed to add more references? Think i have two newspaper articles about the gallery itself, and a few web-based listings about it 2-If i needed to add more references, until when do i have time to do so. I mean is there usually a deadline before the page gets deleted or something? If so, how can i save the page for a later time, so that i don't have to rework it from scratch? Thanks for your help, all the best, wikialmaWikialma 06:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialma (talk • contribs)

Hi Wikialma, and thanks for stopping by the teahouse! This is a really good question: I'm not aware of any specific notability guidelines for art galleries. You've made a good start with the couple of newspaper articles, but ideally you'd have enough citations so that the article is obviously notable. I would normally suggest looking at other gallery articles, but most of the ones I'm finding have demonstrated even less notability than yours. The Terrain Gallery is the best of the bunch I've seen so far. That's not a bad model to use. I think you'll be well into "notable" territory before your article is at that level, but that's what I'd recommend you aim for.

I have a few other suggestions I'll leave at the article talk page, as my BART train is pulling into the station now.... GaramondLethe 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

About the guild page I was making...

The reason why I tried to make a guild page here about Edge of destiny is that the Spiral Knight wiki doesn't allow anymore pages to be made, including the guilds and such. I don't know why they did that though. Can you explain please? YaRoCheSsa (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes it is simple enough. Wikipedia limits itself to notable subjects appropriate to an encyclopaedia. Edge of Destiny and many other MMORPGs may be notable enough to have an article, but it is rare if ever that a clan or guild is notable enough. It would have to have significant independent coverage from a reliable source, such as articles in magazines (not fan blogs and the like). Rich Farmbrough, 05:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organisation that operates Wikipedia, does not own the Spiral Knight wiki and has no control over the site's operations. Based on the site's Terms of Service, it appears that the developers of the game, Three Rings Design, own the wiki. You may have to contact them on their forums. There's not much that can be done on Wikipedia, a completely separate site, and as Rich has said, all subjects on Wikipedia must meet the site's notability requirements. Cheers, and good luck!--xanchester (t) 05:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing the index of related topics/categories

Hi. the article on reading education, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_education, has a sidebar of articles on reading that doesn't list the article in which it is appearing. That's weird. I tried to edit it, but it doesn't actually appear in the editing field for the article itself. I also couldn't get to it by following the any of the Categories links at the bottom of the page. Tips?

Wikipedia is a good way to spend a night not spent going out...... Strangesad (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I guess what you are saying is the template at the side of the article. You can't edit it on the editing field of the article itself,instead, you can edit the template or sidebar on the template's editing page, here's a quick link to the editing field. Visit or see Help:Template for more info. Have a nice day! Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 03:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you will often see "V T E" or "v t e" on these sidebars. They stand for "view, edit talk" and clicking on the "E" or "e" will (all being well) allow you to edit the template. Rich Farmbrough, 05:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start - is it just me?

Looks like the whole preload deal is somehow having problems (and not picking up a parameter?)—it's attempting to save its edits to the Main Page, rather than to the host list... which renders that form rather useless (at least as far as I can tell). Theopolisme _Boo! 00:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's functioning as intended. The host landing page doesn't 'do' anything with the input (hard to use form input without Javascript). So the act of signing is a symbolic agreement. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about signing—rather, I'm talking about what happens once you click the button... I get a "protected page"/you can't edit the main page error. Theopolisme _Boo! 01:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

huh. I can't duplicate that. It works fine for me, logged in or not. Maybe move this discussion to the lounge to solicit more QA from other hosts? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem; there's another button underneath the fancy one that takes you to the main page. Lemme look into it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper to the rescue! :) Theopolisme _Boo! 05:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's fixed, at least in part. Now, the second button will take you to the correct page with the correct preloaded text, but it'll use whatever the person put into the box as their username (not too big a deal) and the editnotice with the helpful instructions doesn't appear to show up. So...yeah. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Notifications saying I have answers from the tea house not showing.

Hey,

I have noticed that the last few times I have wrote a question to the teahouse or talked to another wikipedia editor on their talk page, that the notification is not showing on my talk page is there a reason for this?

LydiaRDoyle1992 (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lydia—welcome again to the Teahouse! These message are actually added manually (using the {{talkback}} template) by whoever answers your question — it's the responder's responsibility to leave them for you (not a system error or anything like that). Theopolisme _Boo! 23:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality of Articles

I have listed the article I am editing as a stub; however, on my talk page it has been rated as Start class by two projects. Does this mean I need to remove the stub template? Franbundey (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fran, quality of articles is not a rigidly defined structure, there are critieria (see Wikipedia:Quality) but how those are interpreted is very subjective. If the article you are talking about is Helen Varley Jamieson then I agree with the other assessors, this article is most definitely not a stub and the stub template can gohas gone. NtheP (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes the article I am referring to is Helen Varley Jamieson. I understand that rating the quality of the articles (even with the criteria), is a very subjective thing. Thank you, Nthep :) Franbundey (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Philosophies stated as definitions

When reading Wikipedia, I've often noticed philosophies stated as definitions. Once I tried to take one of these out, and was reverted with a comment like "restore referenced, relevant material". It is true, it was relevant and referenced material, but it was being used incorrectly.

For example, the opening paragraph of "pedagogy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy) does this. "Holistic" is really not part of any consensus definition of pedagogy. Maybe it is the correct pedagogy, but not the only one. A teacher who thinks her only job is to teach math, and the "whole child" should be left to the parents, still has a pedagogy.

What's the best way to go about fixing this? When I was editing as an IP, I kept running into articles I couldn't edit or being presumed a vandal. I'd like to learn a little more about process now.Strangesad (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. My advice: Always use edit summaries. Editors are less likely to revert if you explain your changes. But if your edit is reverted, you should discuss the issue on the talk page. This is known on Wikipedia as WP:BRD, or bold, revert, discuss. An editor makes a bold edit, and if it is reverted by a second editor, both editors must engage in a discussion on the talk page to establish a consensus. Cheers,--xanchester (t) 15:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I create a Re-Direct?

Hey

I had some brilliant advice from a experienced wikipedia on my article talk page they advised me to create a re-direct see below:

You also need to add a "Redirect" from "Stephen Schrum" - that form is used in his faculty web page and probably elsewhere, and it's always good to make redirects from any likely alternative version (a) to help the reader and (b) to reduce the chance of someone creating a duplicate article!

How do I go about doing that?

LydiaRDoyle1992 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! Create the page with "#REDIRECT [[article title of the page you wish to redirect to]]". Cheers,--xanchester (t) 12:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, where about do I add this if the page has already been created does it go next to the article name?

LydiaRDoyle1992 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Create it here: Stephen Schrum. You have to create the redirect on the page that you wish to redirect from, not on the page you wish to redirect to. Hope that helps.--xanchester (t) 13:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes thank you I managed to do it : )

LydiaRDoyle1992 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks great, Lydia! Let us know if you ever have any other questions about editing Wikipedia — we're more than happy to help. Theopolisme 14:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User boxes on user page

Hi, I am editing my user page and I was wondering how to put user boxes on the right hand side of the page? Franbundey (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. Place {{Userboxtop}} above your userboxes, and {{Userboxbottom}} below. It automatically aligns right. You can also further customise the template by using the optional parameters detailed in the template's documentation.--xanchester (t) 11:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is my article still not accepted?

Why is my article for Novocastrians Rugby Football Club still not accepted?

I have changed what was needed and have added more references in.

Thanks, ZeeGuv

176.255.10.112 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! Your article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Novocastrians RFC, was declined by an editor because the citations do not adequately demonstrate the subject's notability. On Wikipedia, an article must meet the site's general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage by reliable, published secondary sources. Examples of secondary sources include newspaper articles, magazines, books, scholarly journals, etc. The citations currently in the article are either self-published, and not considered reliable, or don't mention the subject directly, like the Guardian article. Once the article has been adequately sourced, go ahead and resubmit it for review. I hope that helps. Cheers,--xanchester (t) 09:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me add to that, I see that you have changed the article since it was declined. But the references you added are not suitable to show the club's notability for the reasons xanchester gives. Beside that it has been less than two days since you resubmitted it, and as the review waiting message says, review can take several days. —teb728 t c 10:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested password, Wikipedia says it sent, it is not in my e-mail.

I haven't edited much since creating my account a month or so ago, but I just found a really biased article I'm excited about fixing.

I tried to log in, but the word I was sure was my password was wrong. So I requested an e-mail of a new password. It didn't show up right away, but I figured it might just take a while, so I started in on the research.

More than an hour later, I decided to rate the page. I included my e-mail address in the rating, and got an e-mail within minutes, thanking me for my interest.

I searched through all of my folders, including spam, but that was the only e-mail from anything which could have been Wikimedia resetting my password. So I tried to reset it again.

This time, it told me it had already sent my password once in 24hrs, and wouldn't do it again.

I rechecked all of my folders at least 3 times, and the likely ones every few minutes for the past 3 hours. Please, I want to edit this page! Help! would be user: FutureImperfect 74.60.156.103 (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi FutureImperfect, welcome to the Teahouse. I see at Special:Contributions/FutureImperfect that your account has edited since your post. I don't know whether you remembered the password or received a password mail. You can see and change the stored email address at Special:Preferences. Some users have problems with mails being stopped by spam filters, sometimes outside their own control. Maybe another email address will work in that case. Comparison of webmail providers shows many free services. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have indeed got back into your account, it is important to check the email address as described above. If you truly loose the password and the email is not working, there is effectively no way for the average editor to regain control of their account, and a new account would have to be created. Rich Farmbrough, 05:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

WikiWomen.

Hey,

I received a invite from WikiWomen an online collaboration to help women on wikipedia work with each other and share edits or new articles they are making on wikipedia.

I was wondering are there any more collaborative groups like this, which any more experience wikipedians could recommend to me as a new wikipedia user.

Thank you

LydiaRDoyle1992 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can more of these WikiProjects at this master list - there're a ton of them, so I'm sure you'll be able to find something to fit your fancy. Thanks! Theopolisme 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

meta:WikiWomen's Collaborative is a recent initiative and different from WikiProjects. As Theopolisme says, there are lots of WikiProjects and probably some which deal with the type of articles or work you would like to do. Another way to look for WikiProjects is to view the talk page of articles of interest. There will often be links to relevant WikiProjects. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

New article

After the deletion of my first article (nothing doing...) decided try the new one here:User:Kinedw/Mykola Budnyk. Could anybody of hosts look at and tell something about? Thanks! Kinedw (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Kinedw, and welcome to the Teahouse! Since the article appears to be written about a living person, it definitely needs a lot more reliable sources. Otherwise, it's looking pretty good, but it may need a little bit of cleanup/copyediting. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for quick responce! This is not an article about living person. Text "† January 16, 2001" could not be clearly visible because of photo (I'm only studying wiki-formatting options). Now I'm trying to fix it. Thanks again! Kinedw (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that text is not usually the way on Wikipedia to indicate someone's death. I just added an infobox to the right of the page for that information to go in. And more references are still needed regardless of living or not. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me! Working with references. Kinedw (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have our way of doing it. The German Wikipedia does it using the * for birth and † for death - but we prefer to keep things as simple as possible. Rich Farmbrough, 05:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

Review Box

I published an Article on Wikipedia. Whilst working in my sandbox, i pressed the button review accidentally. As the page has already been created will this affect anything? Is there anyway to cancel the review? and can you just give me a brief description of what this process means. Hope this makes sense... Samantha2chipmunk (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Samantha, no damage done. I've declined the review on the basis that the article already exists. When you accidentally submitted your sandbox for review, another editor moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Avatar Repertory Theater where it was sat in the queue awaiting review. Had the article not already existed then a volunteer editor would have reviewed the submission for suitability to move to mainspace. Now Avatar Repertory Theater exists you should always work on the live article not on a sandbox draft - this avoids any problems later on if you decide to make major changes later as you will have to take other editors edits into account - not something that will happen on a sandbox draft. NtheP (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Samantha. It appears that instead of letting WP:AFC run its course with a reviewer taking a look. This is OK, it's been reviewed, but nothing really happened since you'd already moved it. Next time, I'd let the review run its course. Go Phightins! 19:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I change my profile picture within the teahouse?

Can somebody please advise me of how I can personalise my profile picture? I guess I will be spending a fair amount of time in the tea room so i believe I should personalise my pic. Cheers Matty. MattyMaltby (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Matty go to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Left column, find your entry and change the picture you want to use against the parameter |image=. You can upload a photo of yourself at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, feel free to ask if you have problems with the upload wizard. NtheP (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

How come my edits wont stay?

I'm editing and putting true facts on and it wont stay there.... Dtpolice131313 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Because you aren't putting in true facts. here you changed an article to deliberately make it wrong, indicating that a Massachusetts high school was located in Palm Springs, California and Canada, changing the name of the Principal to a nonsense name, and adding classes like 'Battletech' to the course offerings. If you want us to genuinely help you, you need to start with being honest with yourself about what you are doing here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 15:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dtpolice131313. We don't usually get vandals dropping by asking why their vandalism keeps getting removed. You might have better luck if you tried improving the article. GaramondLethe 16:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wake-Carolina rivalry

I recently submitted an article or amendment to the "North Carolina football history" wikipedia webpage on the history of the football rivalry between Wake Forest University & the University of North Carolina.

It was denied approval and quite frankly I don't understand "why"??? how can or do you ask for "proof" of a college rivalry between two teams and universities which exist and have a long traditional rivalry? also the information was valid list of games played between the 2 schools. It's really frustrating and annoying when you put hours into doing research and work only to have you efforts wasted! And as someone who lives in North Carolina and is a graduate of the universities, I think the information is factual.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldWell (talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

OldWell, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. All that is being asked for is reliable sources that support what you have written. If, and I'm not doubting it, this is the oldest rivalry in North Carolina then presumably it has been written about in publications over the years that can be referenced. If it hasn't then the question has to be asked, is this a notable rivalry? Please remember this is a global encyclopedia not just a US one so what might appear to be obvious to you isn't necessarily obvious to non-US readers or even US readers outside the Carolinas. I could refer you to Potteries derby which is the rivalry between my home town football (soccer) clubs but without references you'd be thinking "so what?" References make all the difference between something being considered trivial to something concrete even if of not much more than local interest. You said you spent hours researching the article, so you must have been looking at sources, quote those sources and your job is almost done. NtheP (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please check this article?

Can someone please check my article again please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Waterbeach_F.C. I believe I have done everything expected of me adding extras and deleting possible biased literature so just wanted someone to check it if that's OK as it still don't seem to be live yet? I really do appreciate the help so thank you. P.S. Can you also let me know how to delete my previous post on here as don't want to put loads of simular posts on here? Thanks again. Matty Maltby. MattyMaltby (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. If you're ready to submit the article for AfC, place {{subst:submit}} on the top of the page. An editor will review the page to see if it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--xanchester (t) 13:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thought i'd already done that? will do it again, thank you. Much appreciated.MattyMaltby (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you addressed the problems that User:Nthep and User: MatthewVanitas brought up below? If so, then go ahead and submit it for review.--xanchester (t) 13:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi xanchester yes I have addressed the issues that User:Nthep and User: MatthewVanitas pointed out below and have resubmitted but no reply as of yet. Thanks for your help though.

reference section / online article

Hi, had two questions please about a page that i am trying to create. 1-The reference section seems to publish entries twice, and i cannot figure out why 2-How do I know if the page has been published? I cannot see it out there, yet

Here is page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaad_W._Razzouk Thank you in advance for your help Wikialma 09:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialma (talk • contribs)

Wikalma, welcome to the Teahouse. The reason the references are showing twice is because you've entered them twice. In the text you have done exactly the right thing and used <ref>Your reference</ref> at the place you want the reference to refer to. That would have been enough as your later used of the {{reflist}} tells the software to display your references where you have added the reflist template, but you've then re-entered all your references again in the references section, that's why they show twice. You can delete all of this second set. Looking at the article youe have four references, currently numbered 12-15 that need to be placed somewhere in the article so you can just cut and paste those to where they need to be. At the moment they sit alone just above the reflist template

Your article was published the moment, you made the first edit and saved it. If you mean it's not showing in a Google search at the moment that is a matter for Google and when it next updates it's database. NtheP (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this is much appreciated, all the bestWikialma 10:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialma (talk • contribs)

User being disruptive

Hello, a user named FactStraight has been disruptive on the article of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall by adding a dubious tag to an info which has been given two reliable sources. Can administrators stop this editor, this conflict has been going on since the beginning of this month. (Libby995 (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Libby and welcome to the Teahouse! I've taken a look at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and it looks like you an FactStraight have gotten off on the wrong foot. First off, though, just because you disagree with the tag doesn't mean it's vandalism. That word has a technical meaning here and is mostly limited to what bored eight-year-old boys might find amusing to add to Wikipedia (see WP:Vandalism if you want the official defintion). FactStraight is making a good-faith effort to improve the article, as are you, and characterizing his edits as anything else is going to reflect poorly on you.

You're doing the right thing by engaging on the talk page. I don't know if the two of you have had conflicts in the past, but your tone does leave something to be desired. I understand that you're frustrated, but you'll be much more effective if you can remain polite, and that in turn is much easier to do if you assume FactStraight is acting for the best as he understands it.

I'll take a look at your sources and leave a note on the article's talk page. So for the moment, enjoy your cup of tea. GaramondLethe 05:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! You seem to be involved in a content dispute. Consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution.--xanchester (t) 07:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User: GSK

Hi, I am sick of GSK's multiple replies on my talk page. I think he might be harassing me but I don't know. I want to stop this but I want to avoid being blocked. What should I do?--BeasttoBeastUser talk:BeasttoBeast talk 01:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Let me take a look. I'll get back to you in a few minutes. Go Phightins! 01:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, it appears to me that you've made a few unconstructive edits. What you posted on his talk page was totally out of line, and he was well within his right to revert it. Please see the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. If you disagree, however, you are welcome to take it to the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. I'm not sure I would recommend that because you would likely be implicated. Go Phightins! 01:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually you have made a great number of unconstructive edits. The responses by GSK have been mild, as you have wasted a considerable amount of other people's time. As I look at the excited language and typography of the message that you left on GSK's talk page, I ask myself whether you (A) were merely blowing off steam or (B) meant part of what you said. If the former, you'd better cool off before editing here. If the latter, then despite numerous attempts by others to set you right, you've got a totally mistaken idea about Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I was just blowing of steam. Sorry if I made any mistakes. I will try to not leave harassing comments on peoples talk pages. Once again, I am very sorry for this incident.--BeasttoBeast 20:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)User:BeasttoBeast|User talk:BeasttoBeast talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeasttoBeast (talk • contribs)

No date of Birth for Helen Varley Jamieson

I am doing an article for a university assignment on Helen Varley Jamieson. However, I cannot find her date of birth anywhere. Is the date of birth essential? Franbundey (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Fran and welcome to the Teahouse! No, a date of birth is not essential. Some subjects do not wish it publicised, while for some it is not even recorded (generally historical figures). G. Kruger, for example, does not have his first name either as it does not seem to have been recorded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you Crisco 1492 Franbundey (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Waterbeach F.C need help on Wikipedia

Hi I am trying to get this active but am struggling can anyone please help me as I can not see what else needs doint to get it listed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MattyMaltby/sandbox There are 4 other teams active in the same league as Waterbeach so just trying to get the same oppertunity however struggling a little. My main interest is sports and this is to be my 1st listing. MattyMaltby (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Matty, welcome to the Teahouse. First off, I see from the article that you are the team manager so apart from anything else, that puts you into potential Conflict of interest territory although looking at the article, I don't see any problems on that score. Next, you've got the wrong league they don't play in the ECL as the lead pargraph says but the Kershaw league which is another tier down - this needs amending. The only other issue I can see is that some of the language isn't exactly neutral. Phrases like "sadly lost, this in turm fired up the heart of a lion attitude which is to this day installed in each and every one of there players giving them the fight and determination that they need to compete" are not what is called for here, not unless you can reference it. This lack of neutrality is more apparent when it gets onto the section about you - who says you and Jamie are a renowned duo? if you can't find a citation to support it, don't write it. While I waa writing this reply I see some similar comments have been made by an AFC reviewer. The club does meet the notability threshold but needs filling out. NtheP (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Matty, I've seen this article a couple times so far at AFC (incidentally, please don't start new drafts of the same article, just re-submit the same page after making improvements, or it clogs the system). It's pretty close to ready to publish, but needs a few improvements in WP:Tone, and a bit more sourcing. Mainly, WP doesn't use phrases like but sadly lost, this in turm fired up the heart of a lion attitude which is to this day installed in each and every one of there players because those aren't WP:Neutral. The article has to be written factually so that fans and enemies alike have to agree "yes, this article is correct, they were indeed founded in X year, and they undeniably did win the Acme Cup in Y year, and their coach is indisputably Bob Smith as of Z year." Makes sense? Otherwise sports pages would be constant fights between fans and detractors, and wouldn't be credible. That aside, I suggest adding a few more citations to papers like the Cambridge News, since you have some facts (marked with the "citation needed" tag) that don't yet have a clear source, and then just run a basic spelling/grammar check to clean that up. After those things are fixed, you should be golden. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again I have taken into consideration everything that was said and have now come up with this:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Waterbeach F.C. Hopefully this will now be ready can somebody please advise? I really do appreciate all of the help so Thank you. I am sorry that there was 2 simular articles submited, I do not actually know how this was done? so now i will only be editing this one. If someone could just let me know if this one is ready then i would apprciate it very much. Thank you. MattyMaltby (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Matty, I've declined it for the time being. There is a bit more clarity about a couple of points needed, please see my comments on the article page. But it is very nearly there. NtheP (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories.

I am in the process of making a new article currently in my sandbox, however I think my article may be more suited to the category Academics I was wondering how do categories work? and how do I know if an article is suitable to be added to this area?

Thank you

LydiaRDoyle1992 (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lydia, welcome back to the Teahouse! You can add categories by creating a wikilink to the category at the bottom of an article. So, if you go to the category page here, you see how it says "Category:Academics" in the title? All you need to do is put that, within double brackets, at the very bottom of your article, and it'll be added to the category. On the edit page, it'll look like this: [[Category:Academics]]. As for whether it fits or not, just use your best judgement. You can take a look at the other pages in a category, and if they seem to mesh with yours, then it's probably fine. If it doesn't, you or someone else can always come back and change it, so it's not that big a deal. :) Does that help? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lynn, do bear in mind that categories should be as specific as possible, so please don't use just the main Category:Academics, but delve deeper into the "by nationality" and "by subject" categories. So if "Susan Smith" is a British feminist historian, she should have the categories Category:British historians and Category:Feminist historians. All good? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.

Lydia Doyle. LydiaRDoyle1992 (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

New sources

Hi, I was able to add 2 new sources, that look reliable to me :) Could somebody look at it, if the article can be published now? Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Collateral_Management_Conference Peterkortvel (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, and welcome! This lists the sponsors of Collateral 2011, and that includes your FinRoad, SLT, and the second SLT cites. That leaves the Rule cite as the only independent one, and that's probably not going to be enough to get the article through review.

I did a quick check of the NY Times, Financial Times and The Economist and didn't see the conference mentioned. I don't know that you're going to find much more. Establishing notability for conferences is hard. I'm off to Supercomputing at the end of the month; that conference draws 10,000+ people but I don't think the current article would pass a notability check (hmmm.... I should really try fixing that up today). Anyway, I'm not sure what you're going to be able to do with a conference that draws in the hundreds if you're not the World Economic Forum. GaramondLethe 14:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help Garamond. Anyway the FinRoad and SLT are not the sponsors, they are only media partners so I think that they could be relevant... Peterkortvel (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)