Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, 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

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

Ask a question

Thanks to Teahouse, my new Article is here...

Hi, all. I just had to let you know that, thanks to all of you and especially LauraHale and Fuhghettaboutit, my newest article, Incident at Hawk's Hill, can be found here, Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on June 12, working its way to DYK status. What fun! To everyone who answered any of my MANY questions, or will answer the ones I haven't come up with yet, a great big THANKS! Tlqk56 (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Need help with an article about a current event

Yo Soy 132, the crown jewel in my contributions (lolz) is a current event with lots of editors stopping by to add info and usually not coming back. It doesn't help that those with the most useful info are usually non-native English speakers. I seem to be the only one concerned with keeping it up to Wikistandard. Is there any way to ask for help with it? Specifically, I need help solving the references issue (they are getting mixed up), because after putting so much work into fixing other people's contributions, I need a break from the article. Another editor to monitor additions is needed. A bit of help from a proper Wikifier would also be good. What's an effective way of finding editors who can get involved with these issues? ʝunglejill 03:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Junglejill, I can certainly give you some assistance on the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Asking in appropiate wikiprojects is a good way to contact interested editors. In this case, ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mexico and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left messages on the project pages. ʝunglejill 04:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new wiki/ the need for a wiki solutions/problems

I was wondering if there is any initiative among editors to create a wiki for page for educational problems and solutions. I'm wondering if anyone is already working on a wiki that provides problems and solutions to students- I know there is a wiki proofs and a wiki books, but I am wondering if there are any wiki resources that are devoted to problems with known solutions(also I doubt wiki proofs includes general proofs for chemistry problems[PV=nRT for example]). Is there wiki for proofs, problems and solutions? Is there any initiative to start one? TheKaramanukian (talk) 11 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKaramanukian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, TheKaramanukian. I don't know of any specific wiki for "proofs, problems and solutions," but some wikipedia articles contain proofs and many contain links to proofs and calculators. For example the Ideal gas law example you use contains links (right at the bottom) to a very useful-looking calcuator and a page of alternative derivations as well as links to the orginial articles with the proofs. If you're looking for explicitly educational content, you may be better off starting at Wikiversity. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, TheKaramanukian. Perhaps Wikiversity] might be suitable. That wiki is somewhat neglected. Wikipedia is of higher importance to the foundation but the other wikis are available. Take care, DocTree (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

[

Can someone check this for me?

Well, I'm either losing my marbles or my computer has just had it. I just finished adding some info and an image to this page: Cedric the Forester. I thought everything was great till I noticed that big red message at the bottom of the page: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page. But that notation IS there, and the references ARE showing up. I even tried removing and redoing and changing the form and location, and going away and coming back -- but that red notice won't go away. What in the world did I do now? (Head in hands.) (It's happening to my sandbox, too. So maybe it's my computer.) Thanks.

Preceding question added by Tlqk, my signature appeared when I added nowiki to the ref tags. Hi Tlqk! The issue occured because {{reflist}} only affects references that are above it. Since you used the RefToolbar to add the external links, it added ref tags. I removed those tags and fixed the problem. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So I should manually enter the refs for External links because it gives the reflist a headache otherwise? LOL Thanks so much, I really thought I was going crazy. But it's not the first time, and won't be the last. I sure hated to save it and leave it like that, though. Tlqk56 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You could use cite web, just remove the tags afterwards. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had, but obviously not. Thanks for figuring it out. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to my last edit page after saving it?

When I tried to save the article from the sandbox, a split screen flashed -- A red note appeared stating that a "blacklog" ref was used for a cite in the article and needed to be deleted -- Then when I tried to go back to the sandbox to edit the cite and delete the ref I lost the entire document already formatted for Wikipedia. No entry of my latest edits appear in the history contributions logAngelandlinda (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Angelandlinda, welcome to the Teahouse! Your description of the screen flashing doesn't ring a bell, but the article looks to be present at User:Angelandlinda/sandbox. You will want to be careful about using the browser's "back" key. It's better to go "forward" to what you want to see, by bring the article link up from your WP:WATCHLIST, or after finishing an edit to the article. Please note that if you only do a "show preview" of the edit, it is not saved until you do a final "save page". Hope that helps. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what happened was that you tried to save the page with a link that is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (see also Wikipedia:Spam blacklist) and probably got the message seen at MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. I hope you hadn't written too much before losing this edit (so frustrating, but at least it wasn't a term paper or something of that sort), but there is a lesson to be learned: Always copy to your computer's clipboard—highlight selected text (or (ctrl+a to select all) then ctrl+c to copy—before hitting save when you make any big edit, and for a really big edit, maybe actually copy and paste into an offline wordpad/textedit document). It becomes second nature after a while.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wooooww! Back to square zero since I had already built the article in the Wiki format and was ready to post for edits (:-( At least I still have a little bit of energy left to redo it while trying to remember all the changes I'd already made to the original document in the sandboxAngelandlinda (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Angelandlinda - I've been reading your work, as I do have an interest in the field. You have done a great job, from what I was able to read. It looks like you lost all of your references and other work - and we all know how time consuming references can be to get right. I wish I had a magic wand to bring back your lost work - but I don't. C'est la Vie - "see also" option 3!

One thing we can help with is making it easier for you to work smarter and faster - and I for one what to see that article published. So - what have you found slows you down - what is taking up your time as an editor? That may sound like a stupid question, but different editors experience different bottle necks. It does depend from subject to subject - page to page. There may be tools, tips and tricks that can be of help in you recovering and moving forward.

I know it's frustrating, loosing so much work - but we may be able to deal with other "lesser" frustrations in the work process, so you can move forward quicker. It's not much, I know, given all the work you have evidently put in. But, we are here to help! We don't give up easily! All the best - and as I said, I want to see that article published. Let us know what we can do - to help you move forward.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK Anyone please! Rookie question: What's the easiest way to link cites [1] to the references sub-heading (1. ^abcd Doe, J....) and hyperlinking other cites such as the ones under "See also" or embedded in the text?

Criteria for a band to be considered "notable" enough

Hi, I recently submitted a new article about a band from Austin, TX, called Wild Child. The article was declined because "the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I've read the list of criteria on the "Notability (music)" page, and though this band hasn't won any major awards or placed on national radio charts yet, I believe that it still meets notability requirements, per criterion #1 (full text pasted down below). Wild Child's album has been reviewed favorably by some of the biggest music outlets around, which seems to me to be enough to fit the bill here.

Here's the crux of my question: Was my submission declined because I'm mistaken about the notability requirements, or simply because I failed to quote enough neutral press clips?

The rejected submission is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wild_Child

Thank you, Evan

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:

Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]

Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Majornation (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Evan. Majornation is quoting a rather hard to follow Wikipedia guideline (the details of which can be found at Wikipedia:Notability. You'd have probably found this on your own, and if it didn't make sense there, it wouldn't make sense here. Please let me try to explain it in simpler terms. Wikipedia cares about getting information correct. Because Wikipedia cares about getting information correct, it is important that all information that appears in Wikipedia exists in reliable sources; things like respected periodicals, newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Any information that appears in Wikipedia should have first appeared in those sorts of reliable sources. If something or someone, like say a musical act, hasn't been written about extensively in reliable sources, then there isn't any reliable information we can use to verify what is in a Wikipedia article. If there isn't any trustworthy information about it, then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. Does that make sense? --Jayron32 19:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I got a Tiffany & Co. Vintage Solid metal 18k,Plat.,&sterling fountain pen over 30 years ago.

Want to know if there are pics. of solid precious metal fountain pens by T.&C. & what they are worth? Thanx,Raven75.105.32.39 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse Raven. I suspect you'll have more luck looking at what they're going for on auction sites, but you could ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks in persondata?

Is there supposed to be Wikilinks in persondata, i.e. place of birth is Denver Colorado instead of Denver, Colorado? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, placing square brackets around a word in a persondata template has no effect - because it is not transcluded or showing up anywhere. So it won't link. So generally, don't link. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's funny that this should be asked. Please see a discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Persondata. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh. I never knew if it should be or not. I notice when I'm playing around with DAB solver that sometimes it gives me persondata and I never really know what to do! Sarah (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Replying on their usersandbox talk page

If I reply on someone's user sandbox talk page do they get an automatic notification? Or should I let them know I answered there? Thanks to all you awesome people who help us out here. You save me time, frustration, and make me smarter at the same time! Tlqk56 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You should let them know; users only get notified when it's their main talk page that's been changed, not their user page nor any subpages. (And even then, only if the edit isn't marked minor.) Oh, and you're welcome! :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Writ Keeper. DocTree just tried a little experiment for me that proved it. So clever. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting tags on articles...

Hello! Back again!!

Is putting tags on articles something that newby editors can/should do? Although it seems generally pretty accurate, the article on Nervous Conditions names a couple of references but gives no in-line citations (and it's a pretty big article!). I'd like to have a go at improving it but probably won't get around to it straight away so I wondered if it should have a tag while it's waiting for me/someone else to get to it?

Also, if it does need a tag - would it be best to put an in-line citations tag, or an original research tag or both?

Thank you!!

Loriski (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Loriski, welcome back! Anyone can tag an article with maintenance tags, so go for it! Both tags would probably be best; I have a feeling that all the article's content couldn't have come from just the book and one other article about it. But do whatever you think is right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you WritKeeper :) Loriski (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing Incorrect Information

I was wondering what the process is for editing/changing incorrect information on a Wikipedia page?

Thanks! Aebiley (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Aebily, welcome to the Teahouse! The process is, in a phrase: go for it! BUT: keep in mind that others may see your edit and disagree with it. If they do so, they might revert your edit. If they do, try to resist the urge to reinsert your information; instead, you can go to the article's talk page (which is that "Talk" tab at the upper-left corner of any page on Wikipedia) and discuss what you'd like to add and why. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and it's kind of the standard operating procedure around here.

Also keep in mind that Wikipedia's minimum standard for inclusion of information is verifiability; basically, this means that you should be ready to back up your edit with a reference to a reliable source that supports it. (Ideally, you would add this source in a citation in your initial edit, but it's not always necessary.) Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Banners within Wizard

Hello, I am new, I am creating a page for an Australian Rules Football team. I am using the Collingwood Football Club wiki page as a guide and I notice their box on the right hand side has 3 banners but it looks like within the wizards for Aus Rules football only two are provided for - is it possible to increase the number of banners and is that easy to do? And also how does one change the name of the banners Tx FroggyFroggyPeterson (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there FroggyPeterson - sorry if it looks like we have been ignoring your question, but I had to do some digging to see what is going on. I had a look at the the page you have been working on - and it is clear you have been working on how to the solve the issues. I can see you have you have tried every trick you could think of! Good On Ya!

I also had to track down the template for Oz Rules Football teams - but it looks as if you have also been attempting to use the source code for generating the template. One trick for looking at templates is to just type a character for each entry - I use a ? - and this then fills in the template and also reveals any "Hidden" banners inside the template. The template for Oz Rules Football teams has two Banners which are always displayed - that is "Name" and "Club Details" - but there are two others which are hidden unless they are needed, and information in the template has been filled in which makes them appear. Those headings are "Club Details" and "Other Information". I'm not sure if those are the missing headings you need?

If there are other fields you believe need to be included, or other headings, can you let us know. I'm not sure that we can get the template changed, as it does work across all of Wiki Land as a sort of brand identity and logo for Oz Rules Football. We can help you to make sure missing information does end up in the right place on the page you are working on. All the best!
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverting multiple edits

On to the next question probably covered in some remote corner of the project pages - there must be a way to revert multiple edits, so what is it? Is it reserved for certain users? ʝunglejill 14:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Jill - you are a busy bee! P^) There is a page which deals with the issue Help:Reverting. It explains how to do it - but do please read all the details first. There are very powerful tools available, even from just the page history page, and it is important that when reverting multiple steps you don't re-introduce bad content and citations - references. Some pesky vandals love to do minor edits that don't get noticed - and when pages are changed no all editors make it clear what they have done and why.... so you do have to check over the page you revert to carefully. It's always a good idea to explain major reverts on the talk page - and if you have spotted issues to make them clear on the talk page. There is no special group with the Power to revert - anyone can do it. But it does have it's own logic and even risks, so be bold but know the risks and the right action to take! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just in addition to the above: if I need to revert back to a particular point, I normally use the article history to find the point which I wish to revert to, and view that version. Then if I select "edit", put in the reason and save, that version will become the new current one. This will effectively revert all edits, from all editors, back to the revision you are restoring. Problems arise if some of the intervening edits were good ones, of course. - Bilby (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To revert multiple edits by one user, you can apply for rollback rights which save you pressing undo a number of times or taking it out manually. If you want to revert multiple users, I'd go with the suggestions above. Rcsprinter (constabulary) 15:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, that's a lot of useful information. ʝunglejill 16:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Family members

Hi.

Almost all of my family members edit Wikipedia. I am the last to have started editing. They have their own user accounts and probably your buddy right now.

My question is: Do I need to do anything? Because recently, I start to get the feeling that I must.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is compulsory Codename Lisa. We are all volunteers and do as much or as little as we feel like.--Charles (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there Codename Lisa - nice to meet you.
  
  You have asked an interesting question. It does deserve a serious answer.
  
  Wikipedia is voluntary, and there is no must about it. Wikipedia is about sharing human knowledge and making it available to everyone in the world free of charge. That is a big task. Some Wikipedians are faster at sharing than others, and some have very particular knowledge that takes time to share. Everyone in Wikipedia is Equal and we all work at out own speed and in the way that best allows us to share knowledge.
  
  If you are being pressured by other people, that is not really an issue we can deal with - but we can support and encourage you in the knowledge you bring to one of the biggest projects ever known. If we can help support you do that, please stop by and have a cup of tea any time. Many new and inexperienced editors can feel pressured - and in many ways Wiki Land can be overwhelming. There is Jargon - fast moving editors who don't explain what they have done and why. We have all experienced that. That is why the Teahouse was set up. It's here to help people like you who benefit from a more human approach.
  
  If there are specific issues with editing Wikipedia that we can look at for you, please do let us know. We are Human too - so we do know how it feels.
  
  Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm a beginner like you, and I'd just like to add one thing to the good advice you've gotten above. If you're not sure if you want to work on Wikipedia, how about dipping in a toe to see? You might try searching out articles on something you love -- a book, song, place to visit, favorite food or flower, etc, until you find an article you think needs help. Then do some research and add to it, and see how you like the experience. There are thousands of articles out there that need some TLC, and you'll get a feel for how Wikipedia works. I work on articles about children's lit -- not everyone's cup of tea, but a passion of mine. That's what makes it fun. And come back with any questions, no matter how small. Folks here try not to bite us new people. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hello again Codename Lisa! One important point that the others here have not mentioned is that if for some reason you or any of your family are investigated with the CheckUser tool, a small group of trusted administrators will be able to see that your accounts use the same IP address. It is a good idea to be careful with things like this, as we have a policy against misusing multiple accounts, and normally if editors are misusing multiple accounts, then those accounts get blocked. The administrators using the CheckUser tool will also take behavioural evidence into account, like writing style, times of day spent editing, and areas of interest; however, it is best not to rely on such things, and I recommend declaring the accounts of your family members on your user page. See the advice on sharing an IP address for more. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Mr. Stradivarius

Yeah, about that; I do not know their accounts. I asked before and they politely said that it is a private matter of their own. I don't know why. Maybe because they didn't want me to misuse our relation; or maybe because ... you see, their overall opinion of Wikipedia is bittersweet. Do you think I can use this CheckUser tool to find out their accounts?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I move our article into Wikipedia?

Hi, I just wrote an article based on an author I enjoy, Billy Bob Buttons. How do I move it to Wikipedia so it can be discovered on a search? I moved it from my Sandbox to Wikipedia but still it will not come up on a search of Wikipedia. God, this site is complicated!Hickory Crowl (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It seems that you simply accidently moved it to the wrong place - I've moved it to Billy Bob Buttons, so all should be good now. - Bilby (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Hickory Crowl - Nice of you to drop by for a cup of tea. I see that whilst I was looking at the problem Bilby sorted it out. We do aim to please and be fast and efficient - we serve hot tea and quickly! P^)

I did look at the Billy Bob Buttons page, and spotted that we may be able to provide a few extra tips to improve it.

You have mentioned a number of books by Edward Hugh Trayer, but you haven't provided citations to show the books exist.

There is a great trick for that one - makes it so easy! I see that his books are listed on http://books.google.com. If you navigate to the Google Books page for a single book you can pull a Brilliant and Fast Trick for creating a book citation.

You copy the URL (that's the web address to the page you are looking at) and then you go to this web page citation tool for Google Books - you past in the URL - push the button - and it generates all the relevant Wiki code for the citation. You just copy and paste that generated code to the right place on the Billy Bob Buttons page.

It's a great trick for making citations for books easy - and saved me so much time as a newbie P^). I do it using three tabs in my web browser - one for the Wikipage - one for the book at http://books.google.com - and the last one for [citation tool for Google Books]. Makes it all so easy. Hope it helps.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Using different names for an article

Hello everybody! The name of the company my articles refers to has changed from "Eurex" to "Eurex Exchange". So im about to changing its name. Is it possible to redirect searches for "Eurex" to an article named "Eurex Exchange"? Can the search results display my article with the previous name ("Eurex") but redirect to the "new" name ("Eurex Exchange")? or is the article's name linked to the search results?Thank you! Eurex (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you may have a Conflict of interest, but that apart you can change the page name by using the move tab at the top of the page. You can then create a redirect page with the old name which will lead to the current page. Putting #REDIRECT [[target page name]] will do this.--Charles (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Eurex - glad you stopped by. We are here to help!

One thing though - Your username is Eurex and the page is Eurex - so I do have to ask if you have a "Conflict of interest. If you are not sure you can check the details at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

I do have to ask, as it affects the way us Teahouse Hosts have to work with that issue. It does not mean we can't help, it just means we have to help in different ways. All the best and hope we can help you move forward soon.

Oh - and I looked at your references - how they are laid out, We can help you clean those up too, and improve the page.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Media Hound 3rd, first of all thank you for your help.I considered the issue you raised and changes the information on my User page. Is this sufficient? Thank you. Eurex (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Eurex - thanks for clearing up and admitting to the Conflict of interest. It does help with a big issue here on Wikipedia WP:GOODFAITH.

I would also advise that you declare the Conflict of interest on the Eurex Talk Page - and also provide a link direct to your disclosure on your User Page as well.

You can if you wish also link to this dialogue at the Teahouse - here is the code to copy over:

[[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Using_different_names_for_an_article]] .

That will also show that you have been acting in WP:GOODFAITH and been both courteous and professional. It does help! P^) Once that is done we can start to deal with content the Wikipedia way.

And thanks for doing the right thing! It does make the lives of Hosts here at the Teahouse so much easier. After all we are here to help!
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

how do I retitle my "user-sandbox" page?

I have a page that I have submitted, and I see it in the list of Articles For Creation, but it has my username and sandbox as the title, not what should be the proposed title of the page. I'm sure that whoever reviews it will catch that, but it looks silly i the list. How/where do I edit the title of the page? (such a basic question!!)Nko1212 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nko1212! I have moved it for you but in the future you can change the title by moving the page. See Help:How to move a page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan!!Nko1212 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

huh, somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think this bot moves pages like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan220195 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

1st (and probably last) Article Submitted

Well, depending on how this goes, I may have 1 more left. Any way for you to let me know if mine is going to make it? Cnhudson (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Cnhudson. I found your article at Rising Sun Lodge 29. I see that you put a lot of work into it. I also see a probable conflict of interest issue because you are a member of the lodge. I also see that some other editors added some {{citation needed}} tags. All those problems can be overcome. A second party who isn't connected with the lodge can help and junglejill (talk) posted an offer to help down a bit further here in the Teahouse. If you ask on her talk page, she may be willing to work on your page before it is reviewed. A couple suggestions:

• More independent third-party reliable sources since most are now primary sources. Look for articles in newspapers about your lodge's charitable and community activities.
• Review other Wikipedia articles on lodges for ideas. Is the building historic or notable?

Then please stick around. Everyone can make valuable contributions to Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

help on new article

i made countless efforts to write this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mehr liaqat hussain jalvi but each time for any minor reasons it is declined. may i have your help please?(15:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godissupreme (talk • contribs)

It reads like an article about a person who would not be considered of general interest or importance written by someone who knows them personally or is a member of their political party. There should be references from news stories, etc. showing why this person is of any importance meriting an encyclopedia article. Articles of this nature will consistently be declined or deleted. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Godissupreme, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I agree with Obotlig. One way to approach getting your article accepted is finding someone who you think has equivalent notability and who already has a wikipedia page, then using that as a template (especially in terms of what's considered to be reliable sources). If you aren't finding people of equivalent notability, then chances are the person in question isn't appropriate for a wikipedia article. Garamond Lethe(talk) 01:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Godissupreme. Nice to meet you. I have been looking for information on Mehr Liaqat Hussain Jalvi, to check out the notability.

This is interesting - I believe there is already a Wikipedia page for Mehr Liaqat Hussain Jalvi. Someone moved the page and "Capitalised" the name. I'm not sure if the New page title is correct.

It changed from Mehr liaqat hussain jalvi to Mehr Liaqat Hussain Jalvi. Can you please check to see if it is the correct person?

I think you have been working on a page and improving it, when all of your hard work could have been better used on the published page. I'm sorry of someone in Wikipedia has done the right thing and then not explained it to you correctly.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors watching articles

Is there a way of knowing whether an article is being watched by other editors? ʝunglejill 23:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Junglejill! You can check if it is being watched, but not who is watching it. If you click view history, near the top of the page above the "compare selected revisions" button there is a link to "Number of watchers". If there are more than 30 watchers, it will tell you how many watchers there are. If there are less, it won't say anything. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool! I never saw that before. Teahouse Q&A has 144 watchers. Thanks, Ryan! heather walls (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just curious, do you know what's the reasoning behind the 30 watchers minimum? ʝunglejill 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My nderstanding was that if vandals could work out which pages were unwatched, they could target edits to do more damage. So the count stops at 30 to avoid letting them know when there are very few watchers. - Bilby (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Where do you put "III" in the ref?

Well, here's one I don't remember hitting before, and I can't figure out where to look to find out. When you're dividing someone's name to cite last name first, where do you put things like "Sr" or "III" as in George Jones III? I did it Jones, George III, but I have no idea if that's right.

• (edit conflict) Hello. You would put the it after the surname, i.e. John H. Smith, Sr. would be |first=John H. |last=Smith, Sr. Hope this helps. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm not actually seeing the article, but an abstract of the article, and quoting from it. How do I deal with that? Again, it's new territory for me, but I know some of you awesome folks will know what to do. Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Rosiestep. It makes sense to do it that way, but for some reason I though it was wrong. Sometimes I wonder what my brain is doing, LOL. Anyway, I appreciate the answer. Have a great day. Tlqk56 (talk)

Reliable Sources?

Would a .gov website be considered a reliable source? And what is the policy for citing a book (that I have in my hand) that does not have an ISBN number? Or a book that has multiple authors or contributors? Thanks in advance for the help Tattoodwaitress (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tattoodwaitress! A .gov website will almost always be reliable. I would be surprised that the book doesn't have an isbn, but you should fill in as many fields of {{cite book}} as you can. It also has a coauthors parameter for citing a book with multiple authors. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tattoodwaitress. Sometimes books don't have ISBNs printed in them but they have them asigned later. A good place to check for after-the-fact ISBNs is worldcat, and a link to there can be used as an identifier for a book. As for whether a .gov website is a reliable source, generally they're considered reliable for issues which aren't considered currently political (i.e. whether water boarding consititutes torture), in which case it's usually better to use foriegn sources to contrast/support US ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a bunch Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 22:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool signature TW! :D Sarah (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Tattoodwaitress - and I have to agree - that is a Rather Stylish Signature! P^) I have also had to track down missing ISBNs - and one place that relies on them heavily, and does tend to get them right is Amazon. They actually use ISBN as the coding reference for all books they sell directly and on behalf of other sellers. It's saved my bacon a number of times - especially if there is a conflict between the older ISBN-10 and the newer ISBN-13. Some books have been given "Multiple" ISBNs in both 10 and 13 format - Yikes! . Amazon seem to always use the latest awarded code. Also - Google Books tends to be a good place to check - and even if No ISBN is visible the citation tool for Google Books seems to be able to pull the correct and valid ISBN from the Net by magic. Hope it helps.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah and Media Hound, I am still trying to perfect the signature to be exactly what I want. Picking up the coding fairly quickly, thank you both for all the info too... very helpful Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 14:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Flood of Questionable Articles - How Should This be Handled?

User Gregj84 is posting lots of new articles directly to the main space. Many are just a copy-and-paste of a paragraph from A Chinese Biographical Dictionary, by Herbert Allen Giles which was published in 1898. It's available at Google Books as a free download. Some examples include Sun (surname), Sun Yuting, Fu La-t'a, Fu Yau-yu, Fu Yue and Sun K'ai-hua. In my opinion, these tiny stub articles are not appropriate in the English Wikipedia. The user objected to a speedy deletion and denied copyright violation even though it was obvious when I nominated one of his pages that was a copy-and-paste from a current copyrighted document that is partly available in on-line searches. So many articles are being created so quickly that the usual articles for deletion procedure will be a burden. What is the appropriate action? Suggestions, please. DocTree (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the teahouse. The articles with copyright issues would have to be tagged for speedy deletion since having copyrighted information here is not allowed. However, I don't see any other way by which the other articles can be deleted other than AfD. You may try PRODing it. Roshan220195 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In the first instance, when you percieve an issue with another editor's actions you should probably take ask the editor in question about it, either on the editor talk page or the article talk page. In this case, it seems very likely that the articles meet the notability threshold. There is an entire community of users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles who go through authoritatative sources looking for classes of people / places / events / buildings / etc which meet the notability criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there - I'm no copyright expert, but it says the book in question is called "A Chinese Biographical Dictionary (1898)" - and it was published in 1898. Aren't publications prior to 1923 considered in the public domain? That may well mean there is no Copyright Violation. If there is an issue over copyright, and it is happening many times - the best place to get it dealt with is the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations or WP:CCI. If there is an ongoing issue with many pages, they are equipped to deal with all the violations on mass - in one go! Hope that helps.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My perception is that these articles are a case of what Wikipedia is not, specifically not Mere collections of public domain or other source material. The articles are cut-and-paste, making every name in the source document a separate article with no apparent attempt to write an encyclopedic article. As an example, below is one article:

Fu Yao-yu (1024–1091) was an upright official of the Chinese Song Dynasty, and a vigorous opponent of the reforms of Wang Anshi, for which opposition he was banished to act as a superintendent of pastures. At his death, the empress said, “Truly he was a perfect man, as it were of gold or jade!"

The Chinese Biographical Dictionary is a great source for work on the list of Missing topics about History of China. If the consensus of more experienced editors is that creating a similar article for each of the 2,579 names listed in the biographical dictionary is appropriate and that the articles meet the notability threshold, I will cease my objection. DocTree (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Thanks, Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^), but the copyright issue was separate and dealt with in the usual way.

Consensus is pretty nebulous around this kind of thing until actually tested. The page titles listed on Missing topics about History of China all look reasonable to me, but I know almost nothing on Chinese history. If you have a problem, pick an article, do the usual AfD homework and then nominate it for deletion. Your nomination should make it clear that this is a test case. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I reviewed the above list and think most of these articles meet the requirements for notability. Their source is old enough to be Public domain and thus not a copyright issue. The articles would benefit from copyediting. Adding biographies on notable historical Chinese people will help wikipedia with its desire to avoid a "western" bias; I would not be surprised if a Chinese language wikipedia (maybe Mandarin) doesn't already have articles on these folks. Hope this helps. Rosiestep (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. What Rosie says is correct - the subjects meet general notability guidelines and the materials used as sources pre-1923 are public domain, so the editor can do what they desire with those sources :) Sarah (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all - I sometime need a good whack to reorient my perspective. DocTree (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

use of blogs as sources

If anyone insist on putting a content from a blog to an article, can this lead to block? Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Egeymi, welcome back! I don't think it can lead to a block, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will let us know. I rarely use blogs in my Wikipedia writing because they aren't often considered a reliable source. There are some instances where I do though - perhaps getting a quote about a living person I wrote about (from a blog they wrote) or blogs from reliable websites, such as the New York Times, Smithsonian, or even the Wikimedia Foundation. Just like most primary sources - there can be a place and a time for them, just judge wisely. :) Sarah (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In my experience, this depends to some extent on local consensus on a per-article basis. Blogs themselves (unless hosted by reputable news publishers) are not considered as reliable sources. Therefore, they rarely contribute to establishing notability for topics. However, if the blog is written by an established expert then content can be included - although it's generally worth noting the source/author in the article prose, to qualify the opinions/comments. The relevant policy is at WP:BLOGS. -- Trevj (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC) To answer your specific question, if an editor repeatedly included info from a blog within an article against consensus, then that could be seen as being disruptive and could, I suppose, ultimately lead to a block. -- Trevj (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It also rather depends how the person insists. If the person insists on it by edit-warring, then yes it will definitely lead to a block. If the person's insistence devolves into personal attacks, then yes that can lead to a block too. If the person just says a couple of times on the article talk page "I insist that this article should have content based on this blog", then no that can't lead to a block. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominating an article for speedy deletion

I have nominated FYICODE for speedy deletion. All I have to do is include the tag, right? No need to inform admins elsewhere? ʝunglejill 05:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Jill :) Just be sure to leave the following template on the creators talk page:

{{subst:db-notability-notice|FYICODE|header=1}} ~~~~

...and you should be good to go! Sarah (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Junglejill, if you want to tag articles for speedy deletion, you can use Twinkle. With Twinkle, you can also revert vandalism and welcome/warn members. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 21:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing

I don't know any websites to get any reliable sources when i want to edit something. Please help Beggsie221 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Beggsie. What type of subject(s) are you interested in writing about? Perhaps that can help us help you :) Sarah (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Music, mostly the genres of songs or albums it's really hard trying to find a reliable source about genres Beggsie221 (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you could try AllMusic, Discogs and MusicBrainz? benzband (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: There are templates available to make referencing these websites easier: {{allmusic}}, {{discogs}} and {{musicbrainz}}. For instance, if wanted to reference say Op Ivy, i could use:

• {{Allmusic|class=artist|id=operation-ivy-mn0000471355|tab=|label=Operation Ivy|first=Steve|last=Huey|accessdate=June 10, 2012}}
• {{Discogs artist|artist=Operation Ivy|name=Operation Ivy}}
• {{MusicBrainz artist|id=931e1d1f-6b2f-4ff8-9f70-aa537210cd46|name=Operation Ivy}}

and for their compilation album of the same name i could use:

• {{Allmusic|class=album|id=operation-ivy-mw0000096395|tab=|label=Operation Ivy|first=Bradley|last=Torreano|accessdate=June 10, 2012}}
• {{Discogs master|master=135019|name=Operation Ivy|type=album}} (here with {{discogs master}} instead of {{discogs release}} because it happens to be a master release)
• {{MusicBrainz release|id=0d042b03-1058-372d-9034-fabd8579df55|name=Operation Ivy}}

Hope this helps! benzband (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist

So how does this watchlist thing work? I thought I would be getting messages when listed pages were changed, but this hasn't happened. I only get a message when my own talk page is edited. Also, I posted a message on someone's talk page, and didn't get a message when they responded. How do you know when someone responds on their talk page? Is there a way to get a message when an article/ talk page is edited? ʝunglejill 03:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Junglejill! Your watchlist is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist or by selecting the "My watchlist" link from the top of the page. Unfortunately, no, you won't be told when a change occurs - instead your watchlist will be updated when next you view it. I think most of us probably just keep our watchlist opened in a separate tab and refresh it every so often.

To catch responses on people's talk pages, you will need to add their talk to your watchlist and just keep an eye on it. As it is possible to miss this, many people have taken to leaving little messages on the talk page of the person they are responding to, using Template:Talkback, much like the Teahouse message I'll add to your talk page. That triggers the notification message, so you know that they responded. That, of course, is dependent on whether or not they choose to use it, and not all editors like them, so it isn't safe to assume that you will get such a message. - Bilby (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. The whole process seems rather cumbersome. ʝunglejill 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is. There have been a few attempts to build a better watchlist and there a big discussion at the moment about how best to highlight articles which have changed since your last visit. Part of the problem is one of scale - once you've been here for long enough, your watchlist gets huge (mine has 6000 pages, for example, and isn't anything like the largest), so any form of push notification is going to have problems. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Jill! In addition to what Bilby said, now there is a choice to receive email for watchlist changes if you have it enabled. Click 'my preferences' in the upper right. If you scroll down under 'user profile' to email options, there should be a choice for 'E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed'. And yes, some things are quite cumbersome, I hear you. heather walls (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Heather! Who wants to receive all those emails, though? Especially not someone that has 6000+ pages on their watchlist! I'll keep doing it the same as the rest of you, then. ʝunglejill 03:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew about this option. Thanks Heather! Sarah (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Jill - The e-mail option is not as bad as it sounds - even with 6000 pages on a watch list P^). If you have email option enabled you will only receive an email when a pages is changed - but if you don't visit the page after that, you do not get any follow up emails about changes.

I use it as a way to monitor at risk pages ( and it does work ) and my email client is set to display the email messages about the pages I keep a close eye on, and not just filter them into folders. It paid dividends over the weekend when an orphaned page on a rather nasty subject was vandalised in a really nasty Religious and Sectarian manner. I knew about it as soon as I powered up in the morning. As for the less important emails and various pages that I have been monitoring - a number of them just get deleted on arrival.

My main way to monitor changes on my watch list is RSS to see what is happening in real time - but It is worth considering how to use the email option to spot real issues and know to act fast. It does work.

If you think that using RSS may be a better way for you to keep up with changes on your watch list, you can read all about it at Wikipedia:Syndication - It works for me, but it's up to you to decide if it's your thing. I use RSS and email as a "Belt and braces/Belt and suspenders" approach! I get updates the way that best works for me.

And don't forget - you can remove pages from your Watch list. Just use the star tab at the top of any page. Also you can get to you watch list for a clean out - click "My watchlist" and then just below the title select "View and edit watchlist ". I had a recent clean out and removed a couple of hundred pages that had crept in and really were not worth watching. I mean - who remembers to use the star tab to deselect a page after a quick edit as you move on to the next page and edit.Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with formatting!

(I was BOLD and moved this from the bottom of the page to the top. Hope that's OK.)Tlqk56 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am trying to edit a page called "Time's Up!", but I am first writing my draft on the talk page. There was some writing already listed on the talk page so I scrolled down to the bottom and started from there. However, the first few sentences of my work are not showing up on the talk page after I save the page. Does anyone know why? I have tried everything and I cannot get it to appear on the actual talk page. If I edit it however, the missing text shows up there. Why is this happening? Palderoty (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, Palderoty, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm moving your question to the top of the page so it will get noticed, I hope you don't mind. (Teahouse is the exception to the rule that at Wikipedia you add new material to the bottom of the page. That's because so many of us new people haven't figured that rule out yet -- but you have. Congrats.) If you click on "Ask a question >>" which is in the top section on the Teahouse page, it will put your question in the right place for you automatically, next time. I'm new , too, and I can't really explain what's happening to you, but I can tell you that the best place to work on a new draft of an article -- or an entirely new article -- is your sandbox. The Talk page of an article is really just for discussing the editing of the article for other editors to see. Give me a minute and I, or someone who knows more than me, will tell you how to start a sandbox for the article. (My visiting grandson just woke up.)Tlqk56 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Howdy, Palderoty! All content on Talk:Time's Up! seems to be showing up. Please clear your cache and try again. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Howdy again! As Tlqk56 said above, you should make edits in your sandbox, which you can create at this page. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It looks as if Talk:Time's Up! could do with some tidying up. This can be done (see WP:REFACTOR) but content should generally not be removed unless it's totally irrelevant to improving the article in some way. You should find a "New section" tab at the top next to "Edit". Using that will include your edits in a new section at the bottom of the talk page, without affecting the existing discussions. -- Trevj (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have created a draft from the content on the articles talk page at User:Palderoty/sandbox1 Mdann52 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your advice! I will try my best to follow your instructions. If I have any more questions, I will write on this post. Palderoty (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell me some thing about lists

Hi all! So I came across a BBC article about Zildjian [1] and I thought it was cool that it was both a family owned and run by women. (No offense to men at all, I think it's still a statistically unbalanced ratio.) I tried to find info or a list on women owned businesses, thinking it has to be around here somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Then I went to look into lists and categories and I was completely overwhelmed. Is there such a list? Can we make one? Is there a reason not to? heather walls (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Heather! I think I can help you with the idea of a category. If a category was created it would probably be Category:Female owned companies and would be a subcategory of Category:Women in business and probably Category:Companies. Before you did that, I would seek consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. I don't think any such list exists. We do have List of Jews in sports; I think any problems that might be associated with your idea would've applied to that as well, and since it's been a long-standing article, I think yours would be a safe bet. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:28, 9 Jun 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Howdy, heather. We do have an article on women entrepreneurs, but no such list. If you'd like to make one, then Be bold! and make one. Head over to the draft creation area at the Article wizard and get started. See you soon! --Nathan2055^talk 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The category is a good idea but I think a list would fall foul of Wikipedia not being a directory, notwithstanding other stuff existing.--Charles (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. That page is only 8 days old and I would argue not very well written. Maybe I'll work on that, too. Thanks!! heather walls (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a general list of companies owned or started by women would not meet the standards of significance for inclusion, but a list of the largest or most notable of such corporations would be appropriate for a section in Female entrepreneur. If there are enough encyclopedia-worthy companies like that, you could make a separate list article. In other words, if there is an article for a female-owned-company, or should be, it is notable enough to include in a list. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing 'Needs Citation' Tags...

Hi there!

I think I've fixed the 'lack of citations' problem on the Fred D'Aguiar page (it had no references before, and now has several...). Do I just go ahead and remove the 'needs citation' tag or do I ask/wait for someone else to do it?

Thank you!

Loriski (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Loriski! If you feel you have fixed a problem mentioned by some maintenance template, just be bold and remove it! In this case, {{refimprove}} was added in December 2007 because the article lacked citations but since then things have moved on. Congratulations on your work by the way :D benzband (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you benzband :) Loriski (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you make your own wiki?

I was wanting a wiki, like how people make minecraft wikis, zombie wikis,etc. Can you make your own wiki?Laws16 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laws, an welcome to wiki-pedia! A question like this would usually be asked at the computing reference desk, as it is more of a factual question (about computers) than a question about editing wikipedia :-) I believe you can set up a wiki with wikia (http://www.wikia.com), which is a free web hosting service for wikis co-founded by Jimmy Wales himself, founder of Wikipedia. You could also create your own wiki hosted on your local computer running MediaWiki software (which is used by Wikipedia). benzband (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice on Sports club entries - synchronised swimming.

Hi,

I've asked this already on the main help page but asking here as well in case anyone in the teahouse is knowledgeable about sports clubs.

I am trying to get a sports club (synchronised swimming club) onto wikipedia and we keep getting rejected. We have external references to the club, internal wiki entries that mention us, notable Olympic swimmers listed, our British Championship results, TV show appearances but still we get rejected.

There currently is no synchronised club on wikipedia and only one page describing the sport which is dated - which is sad considering in the Olympics the sport is a sell out and will be performed in front of 17000 people. I am trying to bring this womens sport into wikipedia as it is sadly lacking with nothing regarding how it is run in the UK or the rest of the world where special schools have been created dedicated to the sport.

Any help will be much appreciated.

Synchroleeds (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Synchroleeds, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability in Wikipedia term means has the organisation received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? Significant means not trivial, so mentions in newspapers etc have to be primarily about the organisation, so a newspaper report about an event organised by the club or reports of the clubs performance in championships would be acceptable, a newspaper listing saying that an event is going to take pace would not be acceptable. Reliable secondary sources means the source of the information can be "trusted" e.g. not a personal blog and is independent of the club e.g. not based on press releases. So really what you want is media coverage, either print or electronic that says something about the club and what it does. Looking at your draft you don't currently have this, you've got a lot of references to say the club exists, which is fine for establishing that fact but really there isn't anything significantly reported about the club. The best you have is some fairly innocuous publicity stuff but that doesn't tell the reader anything about the club. What is wanted is more about what the club has achieved or what has it done for British synchronised swimming.

I suspect from your username that you are involved with the club? If so can I suggest that you read the guidelines on conflict of interest and make sure that what you write is neutral and non-promotional. When you are passionate about something it's very easy (almost natural) to become partisan about it and to try and promote it rather than report about it. NtheP (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, if your purpose here is "Trying to get a sports club into Wikipedia" you are probably in the wrong place, especially if you are associated with the club. Wikipedia is only interested topics that enough other people have already written about (in newspapers, magazines, books): if a club is at the stage of trying to get noticed by the media, then it is not (yet) suitable for a Wikipedia article: that is what the notability criterion is about. You say that the existing article synchronized swimming is dated: how about working to improve that, rather than trying to promote your club? --ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes I am the secretary of the club and tried to make it impartial - but I know that's difficult to do. I'm not trying to promote the club but really trying to get Synchro on the wiki. There are an abundance of speed Swimming Clubs, so why not synchro, especially if we have such a radical setup. What I may do is get an independent writer involved. There is a lot to sport that the general public would not know about, such as the training techniques, underwater mirrors and wave motion detectors to improve technique and as you say, maybe I should be looking at this from a different angle and improving the page thats already there - which would hopefully create more interest that way and then the need for our club page may be realised. Anyway, thanks for the advice, its becoming a lot clearer now. Its very chicken and egg this, because I want to write about the club on wiki to tell them what a different setup we have, and how we are approaching the sport from a different and new approach but to do that, I need someone else to have done it first, and they are not going to do that unless they read about it on this wiki. We've had loads of magazine articles, but none have been online and our results were in the Yorkshire Evening Post, but they are not online either. Thanks once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synchroleeds (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there SyncroLeeds nice to meet you. I take a mug of builders with 6 lumps. Pull up a chair!
  
  So you have a conflict of interest? Hmmm - it's an issue but one that can be addressed and worked through. I have had a look at the page you have put together and I can detect the Loyal Club Secretary beavering away - pushing web content - and struggling under the burden of too little time and money .... and still trying to figure out that darned technology at 3 in the morning! Am I right?
  
  In Wiki Land we don't do web pages. We do verifiable information. A web page and a wiki page may look similar on the screen, but they do have a number of differences. I was looking at the section you have called "Publicity" and you have written " as featured" and then put in a link to the Huddersfield Examiner and then the BBC One Show Wikipedia Pages. Now that works if you are doing websites, but here we do Encyclopedia and it's not the same thing. So if you can find me the web-pages from the Huddersfield Examiner, and That BBC One show web page, we can show you how to do the Encyclopedia thing. In Wiki Land you need to tell us the date, who wrote it or said it ... so that anyone can literally go and check it and make sure it's true. You see the difference?
  
  You find those two references and we can work at it from there. Also you mentioned some mags that don't seem to appear on the net. Now I know that "Syncro News" or "Swimming With Sharks Quarterly" - what ever - may not have a big readership, but they can still be valid sources - they just need to be cited the right way. So do think, and pull out any magazine articles you have copies of - and do ask the team members if any of the mums have been doing a scrapbook and keeping news paper clippings. You might be surprised what you find! P^)
  
  I have to warn you - it can be a bit frustrating at the start dealing with Wiki Land ways and working out what does and does not fit. So do watch the biscuits to go with your tea. I used to be 10 stone and now I'm 16+. I'm working on it, but that's what comes from jumping in the deep end - a bit like you have! P^)
  Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Synchroleeds. welcome to Teahouse! As a frequent user, I can say I think you'll like it here. I'm jumping in to clear up one point you mentioned -- although Wikipediea likes online references, feel free to use newspapers, magazines, and books that aren't online, too. Sometimes all your sources may be offline, other times there might be a mix. Just cite them like you would if you were writing a research report, so anyone who wants to follow up will have all the info they need to track it down. But don't leave them out just because they aren't online, too. And please do improve the general article if you can. People will be looking it up soon to find out more about the sport! (Please excuse any typos. I've got to go find my glasses...) Tlqk56 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the advice, it's really comforting to know there is help out there and I think I get more of a feeling for what needs to be done. Regarding the references, the Huddersfield Examiner one is correct so if you click on that it goes to a reference of the club being on the One Show. The BBC unfortunately have not uploaded the item to the one show site. let me drop them a note asking for a link to the video and for a write up of the event that was aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synchroleeds (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@Synchroleeds If there are few examples of existing articles to match it, you probably need at least five newspaper stories to demonstrate notability, or provide some evidence that high level swimmers have been involved with the club. For example, in athletics and swimming articles, coaches are notable if one of the people they have coached has won a a major international championship or an Olympic medal. This might be one of the easiest routes to try to get notability. If you need more help, please drop a message on my talk page as I write more about sports (and writing about sport COI) than I would thought I would ever know. :) --LauraHale (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is my article declined?

Can I ask for specific help here. My company's page has been declined. It is a highly notable company that is referenced in other Wikipedia articles. It is written in an extremely neutral tone. The references are very strong. Can you please help me figure out why? Page is called "Innosight" Innovatewiki (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You say "the references are very strong", but [[2]] has only two independent references, one of which does not mention Innosight, and the other refers to it but is not really about it. If you mean the list of papers published by Christensen they are not independent, and so cannot be used to establish the company's notability (that long list is in any case inappropriate in an article about the company). The references you have got almost certainly establish the Christensen is notable, but not that the company is. You need independent reliable sources which have written substantially about the company, otherwise it is not currently notable by Wikipedia's standards. --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Innovatewiki. Does ColinFine's advice make sense to you? Feel free to come back if you have other questions. heather walls (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

T.S.Eliot's Preludes.

What is the main focusing theme in PreludesParamie Manthila (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Paramie. Thanks for coming by. We are here to help people learn to edit rather than answer specialist questions. You could try asking at the Reference Desk under the Humanities section.--Charles (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Government hansard debates, bills and statutes not sufficient to establish notability?

I have posted an article for creation on a topic that someone has attempted to submit before me. My article is pending review. I noticed that the article before me was rejected because it was found to not meet notability requirements. The article referenced published provincial government legislature debates which address the topic of the article. I can't imagine a more reliable and independent reference. I'm hoping to avoid having my article rejected for the same reason that the earlier article was rejected. I was sent an invitation to the teahouse by the person that rejected the earlier article and since there are 650+ articles to be approved before mine, I thought I would get some information now to help ensure the article will meet notability requirements when it comes up for review. Thanks! Timothin (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's required or not but here's the link to the article: Alberta Municipal Government Board

Hi Timothin! Besides it's subject being notable, your article should be properly referenced (from third-party sources) so as to be verifiable, which can help assert notability.

Also, you can improve the existent article/section Alberta Municipal Affairs#Municipal Government Board (redirected from Alberta Municipal Government Board), which currently consists of barely two sentences and has been marked as needing references (using {{citation needed}}). benzband (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Benzband. I updated the subsection you mentioned with the opening paragraph of the article I am trying to create. I am concerned that if I place all of the content from the article into this subsection, it will become disproportionate to the main topic. Back to my primary question: My article cites statutes passed by a legislative body independent of the administrative board which is the topic of the page. My question is whether or not such a reference would be sufficient to satisfy notability and reference requirements; especially when this primary reference is supplemented by other references? Thanks for the help! Timothin (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Timothin - I see you have been working hard, so I've been digging and poking about, seeing where my nose takes me.

I think your falling fowl of a simple issue. Hansard is great and a most reliable source - I use the UK Hansard all the time, and some people do regret what they have said. P^) The problem is that Hansard, whilst public, is in fact an internal document for parliaments and other statutory bodies. So some people see it as almost an internal memo for a corporation. I see that the editor who reviewed your last submission has pointed to the Golden Rule - **Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.** - and it would seem that in many ways that is right. Whilst Hansard is public it is not 100% independent of the subject. It's sort of Government reporting on Government. That is how some people will see it.

I also see that you have stated at the bottom of the revised page that you do have a Conclict Of Interest. You have done the right thing in declaring it - just not in the right place. If you read the advice to another Teahouse Visitor you should be able to figure out how to sort that one out. You may even be able to help each other out.

being close to a subject can be an issue in more ways than one. Often you get tunnel vision and don't look outside the box - and then someone like me mixes up metaphors to make it more complex! Have you used all available sources for references? Are there any in newspapers that can be used independent of Hansard? If a news paper article says the Alberta Municipal Government Board started "Publication Date" - that is independent and supports the existing citation from Hansard - it works as a double reference. There is no real issue in using primary sources - provided there is an Independent sources the supports it.

You say "The Board was created in 1995 as a merger of the Alberta Assessment Appeal Board, the Local Authorities Board and the Planning Board." and point to Hansard and legal references, but is there any Independent source that says it too? I believe in referencing and I'm not shy in doubling up or even using triplets, if it verifies the point or subject. In working life some people would see that as labouring the point - but Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, so referencing is not labouring the point - it's clarifying and even proving the point.

You may well find independent sources by looking in Google Books, Google Scholar and also Google News (Put in a search and then Choose the archive option on the lower left side of the page). I was able to spot news references for Alberta and Municipal Boards going back to 1936 - so there may well be some history that is significant!

Also when referencing Hansard you need to treat it like a Book and not just point to the web resource at the queens publishers. Think of the bound volumes - the date - volume number - edition - "Page Number" etc and you can also embed the link to the queens published in the citation with all the other information. I would also look at how information is reported in the Alberta Gazette (Plain Text Format) - as it does give all the relevant details as if it was a book.

Hope those ideas help. Sometimes we all struggle and it's all about seeing the trees when we are getting lost in the forest.Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This was very helpful MediaHound, thanks for the ideas! Timothin (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Using journals as sources?

Hi, it's me again. :) I was under the impression that you can't use autobiographies or published journals as a source of facts for articles, but now I'm wondering if that's wrong. There is an experienced Wikipedian who is adding a lot to Wanda Gag, which is great, but he's using her published journals as one of his sources. Is that OK? I don't want to ask him about it. Thanks for clarifying. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! I was checking out the Citation Guidelines, and according to this section of the page that you indeed can use journals as sources. I don't believe that article said anything about autobiographies. Does that help? --A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 01:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It gets a bit murky when you hit autobiographies. Generally they aren't preferred, but for non-controversial facts and opinions attributed to the author they can be ok. So it is alright to quote someone's autobiography to say that they were born in a certain place, or what their first job was, but if those issues are in dispute, or aren't simple factual statements, then they will be dropped in favour of secondary sources. They also don't count towards keeping an article - only independent secondary sources count for that.

All else being equal, secondary sources are preferred over primary and autobiographical ones. There's a bit more detail over at WP:ABOUTSELF if you are interested. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome as always Tlqk! (If you don't mind me calling you that =) ) +1 to both Bilby and Abigail. As a Wikipedian who is a curator and researcher by trade, and someone who frequently uses primary sources in that work, when I have written biographies about people and utilized primary sources - such as oral histories or journals (diaries), I always use them sparingly. I use them to perhaps clarify certain facts, i.e. the spelling of something, birth date, locations, degrees, jobs. I never include things like gossip, so to say, or things that could be the least bit questionable, since it is a primary document. Perhaps this helps a bit...as when I do use these primary docs, I just keep it to the facts and the least challengable content. Sometime I do include perhaps a comment about another person (like another artist) in that artists article ("smith though that pollock was a "snarky asshole," for example because it is entertaining, and true ;) ). Hope this helps a bit. Sarah (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. I misunderstood that; I've been leaving out information if I couldn't find it someplace else. It's good to know you can use them for some things, occasionally I find a person's writing fills in gaps of employment or schooling, for instance, that I can't find anywhere else, but I thought I couldn't use it without a verifiable secondary source. I guess I took the strictures against them too seriously. I think I've been trying too hard not to get it wrong. This does help me to understand it better. I will read the page Bilby mentioned, too. So, thanks again everyone, (and you can call me any form of those letters or names you want, Sarah. NP) :) Tlqk56 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You can also use {{cite journal}}. benzband (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was for "journals" as in "magazines". I was using the journal as in "diary" -- and I guess I should have specified that. It is confusing. And so hard to tell which "rules" are really important and which ones are looser. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Ignore all rules:

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

(what this actually means). I'd say among the utmost important rules are the five pillars that hold the encyclopedia up :-) benzband (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Until somebody comes along and blasts you for it with some other rule you've never heard of before. LOL But I get your drift. Just wish everyone managed to be as helpful as people are here. Honestly, some stuff that's happened would have made me throw in the towel earlier, but knowing I can come here for honest answers has kept me going. So, Thanks, everybody. And I'll make a copy of that rule, benzband. I like it. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion request

Dear All,

When I tried to make my first contribution by adding a two-line update to an article, providing valid references, my edit was reverted promptly and soon I was accused of edit-warring, refspam, being against Wikipedia rules, I was inundated with Wikipedia jargon and generally I was bullied and talked down by a handful of deletionists. I now seek impartial third opinion on Talk:Necrophobia posted under Active Disagreements in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. If sby would like to voice a third opinion, thanks in advance.

Btw, when I made that contribution I was not logged in. Is there any way to cover the IP address already registered with my current username after having logged in? I am a bit worried about what I read here about the possibility of IT attacks.

Thanks

H tan H epi tas (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, H tan! There is no way to change the association of an edit, but really, you don't have to worry too much about it. The things I was talking about in terms of IP addresses were worst-case scenarios; geolocation based on IP address alone is usually very inaccurate. It's worth it to double-check whether you're logged in or not before editing, but if you forget, it's not that big a deal!

As for your third opinion request, I volunteer quite a bit at the the 3O board, but I generally dislike taking more than one at a time, and I have one outstanding at the moment. Just be patient; there aren't all that many of us there, so it could take a while for us to get around to you, but we'll probably get there eventually. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all the info! --H tan H epi tas (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Offering help with copyediting

Hi. There's probably a way to make myself available for editors seeking copy-editing and such. What would that be? junglejill (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Junglejill! Welcome to Teahouse. (If you haven't been here before. I'm not sure.) I'm just finding my way around here myself, but I do know there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors you will find if you click on this link. They are organized and active, and it's one place you can definitely connect with people who need your skills. Happy editing! Tlqk56 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am indeed new. Thanks for the quick reply! Where's my tea now?junglejill (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you go! Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Navboxes minor?

Is adding a navbox to an article considered a minor edit? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Strikeout! I'd say probably not; my rule of thumb is that if you have to ask, it's probably not minor. And no harm really occurs if a change is misflagged (with one exception: if you're making a minor edit (fixing a typo you made or whatever) on someone's user talk page, and you don't flag it as minor, they'll get another, perhaps unnecessary "You have new messages" banner). But all in all, it's not something to break a sweat about; if you're not sure, just make the edit without marking it as a minor edit and go on your way. It's not a big deal. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again AutomaticStrikeout! According to Help:Minor edit, "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article" does not constitute a minor edit (see Help:Minor edit#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit). Hope this helps, benzband (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Create new article

SASQ (Sorry for Asking a Stupid Question)...

How do I create a new article, which does not exist yet? MeliusWeideman (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a common question, not a stupid one. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melius! Welcome to the Teahouse, we're glad you are here. And no, like Blue said, it's not a stupid question :) It might be easier for you to get started with that link above, or simply click the "My sandbox" link on the top right menu by your username and you can start working in that space. If you have specific questions about the editing process, etc, feel free to drop by and let us know. Welcome to Wikipedia! :) Sarah (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing the article

Hi All !

I want to add the following information to an article:

---

Bhangi Misl also held the possession of Zamzama, the famous cannon, and it got names like Bhangi Toap, Bhangianwala Toap and Bhangian di Top. To this day it retains these along with several other names

---

Citation Used:

Singh, Khushwant A History of the Sikhs, Volume 1: 1469-1839. Oxford University Press, 2004, Page-198, Footnote-11,ISBN 0195673085, 9780195673081

---

Please let me know if this is correct, as a few earlier edits(whose citation was not considered genuine) were deleted.

LakhdeepSinghFarwaha (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi LakhdeepSinghFarwaha, welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like you already worked this out with another editor on your talk page and the information is now included in the article. Congratulations! Great job being patient, persistent and using correct citation. heather walls (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Parentheses

This might sound a bit basic as I tend to think I know what I am doing on Wikipedia, but what is the difference and uses between [ ], [[ ]] { }, {{ }}. Also, which one causes text to turn blue and which one justs causes the text to become a number ie. [1]? Thanks. Dan653 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• [ ] is for external links. Example: [http://www.google.com Google] will turn into Google
• [[ ]] is for internal links. Example: [[Google]] will turn into Google
• {{ }} is for adding templates. Example: {{cn}} will add "citation needed" after the text.
• To add references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Before this I would guess and use the preview button, but could never remember which did what because no one ever outlined it for me. Dan653 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help. If you have any further questions, just ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dan!, if you ever forget in the future you can look at the top of the edit window. There is a button that says Help. If you click it, a drop down menu appears that reminds you how to do some of the formatting. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange copying

Since the mid-April, I have been waiting for the decision over the article, Mishari bin Saud that is under review. However, today another user published this article. I have realized that s/he copied the article using the link on my talk page. Is it fair? Can you please help me ? Thanks,

Egeymi (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I can. Whilst everything you write on the encyclopedia is released under license and you hold few rights to the text after releasing, you do hold the right to "attribution", something this editor did not provide you. I'll get on this and sort it out for you. Worm^TT(talk) 17:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The attribution wasn't given. Mishari bin Saud bin Abdul-Aziz vs. [3]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I've done a history merge, so it's now clear where the information came from - publishing the article for creation. It looked notable enough for me, if there's an issue, it can be taken to AfD. I'll now explain to the editors on their talk pages. Worm^TT(talk) 17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How can I upload a picture for rationale use?

The article Alenoush Terian needs one of her last photos. I have found some pictures of her but non of them is free to use so I thought to upload a rationable non-free content picture. but the upload form needs details about the person who created but I couldn't find anything about the creators of the pictures? Can I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pouyakhani (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pouyakhani. Can I ask why you think the article needs one of her last photos? The photo which is there is free to use (I assume, since it's on Commons) and clearly shows what she looks like. Generally, to use non-free images we need to meet some specific criteria and one is that we use as little non free content as possible - shouldn't use it at all if an equivalent shows the information. That's why I ask, why you believe the article needs a different non-free photo. Worm^TT(talk) 17:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fast reply! The image is used already is old and yeah it is free to use and I guess is not really recognizable. That non-free image I wanted to upload is This one.. but you as an experienced Wikipedian think it doesn't need a new photo then I guess it's unnecessary too. Pouyakhani (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not the be all and end all here! One of the reasons I love wikipedia is that everything is up for calm discussion. So, if you believe the article needs that image, that it illustrates her as a person more accurately than one when she was younger, or that there's some specific reason that the article should have that particular image (if it were to show, for instance her dress sense in later life, which was relevant to her career as a physicist). Of course, it's important that we keep the encyclopedia free too, so it's all about balance. Worm^TT(talk) 17:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I just thought that image is better because it was used in the media more. Although I don't know who is the creator so I guess I will not be able to upload it. Pouyakhani (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if the media is using it, then us publishing it on the free encyclopedia will likely cause the owner of the copyright to lose out financially. Worm^TT(talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh Yeah you right.! Thanks for helping again!Pouyakhani (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambigulation + Moving an article.

Hello Teahousers. I have an uncommon artist I am writing an article on, with a rather common name, so it will need to be disambiguated to read John Smith, artist, instead of just John Smith.

--Can you point me to an example of how to disambiguate for the correct title.

-- So pretty soon it will have the correct title and be moved. To move this article into the main section (possible dumb question here) do I move it to "Wikipedia" or to a different label in the pull-down? Last time I picked the wrong word, and it was corrected, but I'm not sure how.

Thanks, as always, Marilyn Nix (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marilyn Nix and welcome back to the Teahouse! You should create it at John Smith (artist) then you can add a link to that page to John Smith. When you move the article select (Article) from the pull-down. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How hard is DYK?

I've decided to chip away at the Newbery Award books and authors that still don't have articles, and I have two under construction. I've toyed with the idea of nominating them for Did You Know when they're ready, but I'm wondering how picky the process is. I'd be happy to have input in the articles, but I'm not interested in opening myself up to being called names or attacked as an idiot, as I've seen happen elsewhere. How tough is the process? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't too bad. The reviewers will take the time to ensure that it doesn't have any significant problems - they will look to make sure that the text is sufficiently different from the original sources so as not to raise any close paraphrasing concerns, they will confirm that the sources are used properly and that the claims in the article are fully supported by them, and they will look generally at prose and whether it is written from a specific point of view. Your hook also needs to be of some interest, but there is normally some help there if needed. Generally, if it is a good, well referenced article of the appropriate minimum length and with ok writing it will make it through DYK without any concerns. You are also always welcome to ask for help from someone with DYK experience before nominating, and that should help cover any potential issues. I've only nominated a few of my articles for DYK, but I didn't find it to be a difficult process at the time.

There are some requirements spelt out at Wikipedia:Did you know, but I assume you've probably looked at them already. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Tlqk56, I don't think DYK is that hard but there are a few things to remember before nominating: 1. Everything needs to be sourced and verifiable. (Outside the lead and plot summaries.) 2. The article needs to be new enough and long enough to be eligible. 3. The nomination needs to be properly formatted. These are the three big things to remember. If you can get something through DYK, you can probably get something through DYK at the end. If you can get these three things done, the other issues should resolve themselves if they exist. I'm willing to help or nominate if you let me know which article. --LauraHale (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me your input, Bilby and LauraHale. I think maybe I will try it and see how it goes. I sometimes wish the DYKs had more literary and art-related facts, personally. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look at User:Tlqk56/sandbox2 and giving me an opinion, I'd really appreciate it. I seem to have about reached the limits of the info I can find on this book right now. I was thinking that the fact that it won the major US children's book award but was originally published for adults might make a good hook, but there's also the fact that the author claimed it was based on a true story. What do you think? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The clock starts ticking when you move an article to the main space. I've had articles sit on my user space for several months before moving to the main space and nominating for DYK. Article would pass length test once moved over as it is completely cited and appears to be neutral enough. --LauraHale (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit of your subpage on Incident at Hawk's Hill – some minor formatting and stylistic/syntax changes, and added categories and replaced one reference with a more reliable source (yes, believe it or not, there is a category for Fictional badgers). Good job. I see nothing here that would make anyone call you any names or attack you! and I think it's a fine candidate for DYK. Once you move it to the mainspace, if you need help with the DYK, please feel free to drop by my talk page for any help, or if you'd like, I would be willing to do the nomination for you (I've done many). Also, once moved I can add the book's cover, but I can't do that until it's in the article space, because it's going to have to be a fair use images upload, and fair use images cannot be placed in subpages. By the way, you might note that I placed "nowiki" tags around the categories (<nowiki>something</nowiki>). You should remove those, but only after it's moved. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Momma badger should probably be added to List of fictional badgers once the article goes live.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for looking at it, and especially for taking care of the categories. I usually skip them or copy them from a similar article. I have tried reading up on them, but there are SO MANY it's ridiculous, (to me, anyway). It makes my head spin. So it's awesome that you did it for me. I see you changed the ref dates to month/day/year. I thought they were supposed to be year/day/month, so I've been trying hard to do it that way, though I find it awkward. LOL While I have your attention, I'd like to understand isbns better. I know the info box says use the first edition one if possible, but if the first edition didn't have one because it was published too long ago, do you add it if it's received one since, or leave it out? I've seen it both ways.

I'd love for the article to go to DYK, if you or LauraHale don't mind nominating it. I'm having computer probs and I'm worried it will die in the middle. But I have several more in the workds so I'd like to move this one out. Thanks! Tlqk56 (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do you have a DYK hook in mind? (under 200 characters of text including spaces, must be cited with an inline citation in the article). Regarding dates, generally we follow the formatting of the country of the topic, so a British topic for example would be 11 June 2012, but an American topic would be June 11, 2012 and many editors think spelling out the full date (rather than 6/6/12) is better (unfortunately many of the citation tools don't do this, grr). See WP:STRONGNAT. Regarding isbns, If it's pre-1975 and has no isbn, I would indeed use a later edition's but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. By the way, if you want to format an isbn properly with spaces, bookmark this link: http://pcn.loc.gov/isbncnvt.html enter your isbn, click on hyphenate and then hit convert. Regarding categories, try to think of a similarly situated topic. For this, I just headed over to The Wind in the Willows and looked at what it used and looked at a few others. Regarding the note on my talk page, I often use {{talkbacktiny}} to inform others of a reply (I find {{talkback}} far loo large and intrusive).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Place of birth in lead?

Is there a policy against stating one's place of birth in the lead, i.e. (Sample Person, born 6/6/2012, in Anytown, Anywhere)? As in, would the Anytown, Anywhere part not belong? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Strikeout, this may help. I guess it depends on the situation however for my part i have rarely (if ever? ~ i can't remember) seen it that way. Just out of curiosity, are you thinking of an article in particular? benzband (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. I was mainly thinking of it as a way to spend some time. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited numerous articles about people. I would say it is very common for the place of birth to be in the lead parapgraph. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go out of my way to introduce Anytown, Anywhere into the lede unless the person's notability was deeply tied to the place or they had a very common name and their place of birth formed part of the essential disambigation information (Think John Smith). For most people, it's just not that important where they were born. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Also if you happen to remove it from a lead, make sure it is stated elsewhere in the article. benzband (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: i said

"i have rarely (if ever? ~ i can't remember) seen it that way"

~ i apologize for i can't have been paying attention. benzband (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous users

Are there also dangerous users working on the Wikipedia, who are criminals or fundamentalists or something like that in real life? Morgan Katarn (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, probably? I don't know that I would necessarily categorize fundamentalists as "dangerous", although some of them certainly are, but regardless, this is the Internet. You can't really be sure who's behind a screen name. As long as you're reasonably careful though (and creating an account is a good first step), that anonymity goes both ways, and it can protect you as well as them. Don't give out too many (or any) personal details about yourself, be sure to only edit while logged in, and you should be okay. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is it dangerous if you edit when you're not logged in? Ok, your IP gets saved, what else? Morgan Katarn (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing else, but, depending on a number of factors, an attacker that knows your IP address might be able to geolocate you and thus find out where you live and other information about you. (Note that I'm using "attacker" in the sense of a "cryptographic attack", not a "coming to beat you up" attack.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Apart from any security issues it doesn't offer as many possibilities as logged-in users, such as article creation, page moving, customization of the interface, etc. benzband (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Special page where I can ask individual questions like on the Wikipedia:Auskunft in the German Wikipedia.

Hi folks! Is there a special page where I can ask questions like on the Wikipedia:Auskunft what belongs to the German Wikipedia? Morgan Katarn (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Morgan! I don't understand German, but that page appears similar to our reference desk. Try that link and see if it is what you desire. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it ;) Morgan Katarn (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Uploading a picture

Hi guys,

I'm new to the Wiki world of editing, but as a current editor I'm keen to get in the thick of it and get involved.

I've already jumped into the deep-end and edited a few pages (spelling, punctuation and grammar).

However, I've submitted a new page (waiting for approval - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gapyear.com) but I'm finding it really tricky uploading a picture. Could anyone help me with this one please?

Cheers,

Macca501

Macca501 (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Look on the menu on the left of any page and see "Upload file". A wizard appears and asks you questions about your picture, then tells you how to put into into your page. Have you tried using this process? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Macca,

If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.

If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.

Hope this helps. benzband (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help to analyse the article, find what is wrong

Hello, I started to work on the article about "Swiss International Hotels & Resorts" a long time ago. The article was declined several times. Nevertheless I made improvements and got rid of the comment "considered as an advertisement". Links for the coverage in media around the globe are all there. But still something is wrong. Swiss International is undergoing big developments around the world and the info should be available for wikipedia readers.

Please help me to finalise the article.Thank you in advance! EkaterinaTerentyeva (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ekaterina, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. As you say Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Swiss International Hotels & Resorts has been reviewed several times and the reviews always seem to say the same thing - that the notability of the company isn't established. If it is a notable company then there is an expectation that other people will have written about the company. That evidence in the form of reliable sources is absent here. Most of the references are either from the company itself or are based upon press releases issued by the company so they aren't independent. You need to find some references that are genuinely independent and do more that rehash press releases. If you can't then maybe we have to wait until Swiss International has undergone it's expansion and is recognised as notable. NtheP (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ekaterina. When you say "and the info should be available for Wikipedia readers", I think you are perhaps misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Information should be in Wikipedia only if reliable media have already written about it. If reliable media (such as newspapers) have written about what a company is doing, then there will be no difficulty finding reliable references for it; but if they have not then it may not be put into Wikipedia. "Getting the message out" (whether the message is commercial, religious, philanthropic or anything else) is specifically not a purpose of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a question along this line. Is notice in trade publications specific to the industry sufficient to establish notability? Hotel management companies, such as the one in question here, are almost by definition, hidden from view of the general public. All the general public (and this includes newspapers) are to know is the franchise name and possibly the owner. But in many if not most hotels, there is a third player. Most hotels contract with a management company to actually operate the property, and the only people who are generally aware of this are people in the industry. Gtwfan52 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating my user about me page

Thank you to Heather who responded so quickly. I am going to start my user about me page I guess that would be a good place to start. If I come back here later I could ask someone to check it out for me right? And can I always find responses to questions where I found the response to the last question in my new messages section? Or do I need to come back here to see the answers. Oh and where can I find other user about me pages to look at for examples? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, again! You can design your userpage however you wish. There really isn't a specific type of userpage style or guide that I know of that shows you specific examples. Perhaps visiting the history pages of articles that interest you might help? (you can see my userpage by just clicking on my username in my signature). And of course, you're welcome to come back here and have us check it out :) You'll have to revisit the Teahouse to see the answers to your questions. When we answer a question for you we leave a talkback message on your userpage, so when you log in you will be told that you have a new answer. Just follow the link to the Teahouse response in the talkback box. Can't wait to see your userpage! Sarah (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tottood! You can find anybody's talk page by clicking on the blue (talk) link next to their signature. If it's red, it means they haven't started their page yet, so there's nothing to see. To leave a message on someone's talk page, go to it and click on "New Section" at the top right. It opens a page with a place to put the heading, and a big box to write your message in. Scroll to the bottom of the box and save it when you're done. If someone leaves a message on your talk page you'll get that orange message notice. Some people may just post the answer right on your talk page. If you ask a question here, most people will answer here, so everyone can learn along with you. If you click on someone's name (like my Tlqk56), you go to their User page. (Again, if it's red, they haven't started it yet.) Start exploring and have fun!

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia myself. I can say that you are definitely welcome to ask anything here -- I've had to ask a few really dumb questions, along with some not-so-dumb ones, and everybody is always helpful and friendly. Nice to meet you. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Great way to put it Tlqk :) Sarah (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow thank you all so much... now when I reply to you as I am doing now (i just hit the edit button and adding to the bottom is that good? will you get the notice that I replied? Or should I hit your talk link then reply? Hope you get my thank yous. I will work a bit more on this another time... retiring for the evening. Thanks again for the help and ta ta for now. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. You replied perfectly here. Unfortunately, the notice that you've replied here isn't automatic. You also have to go to the person's talk page and leave a message so they know to look here. There's a template you can use someplace, but as I usually just ask questions, I didn't save it. Teahouse is still experimental, and I'm hoping that when it gets more established the notifications will happen automatically.Tlqk56 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

{{New user bar}} Is a nice template suitable for new users. I have posted this on Tattoodwaitress feel free to remove it in case you dont like it. :) --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing to make note of is WP:UPNOT which probably won't affect what you want to put on your page. This is one of those arbitrary "policies" which is more likely to affect a "minority" or "under-represented" person for example expressing support of social or political views that are unpopular. A favorite victim for the wiki-thought-police is anything that is arguably "promotion of pedophilia". On the other hand some administrators have gotten away with plastering their user page with promotional material for blatant terrorist organizations. I would probably like to put some swastikas on my user page and may well do that but what point would there be to arguing whether it was political, religious or inflammatory. I would almost certainly lose the dispute. Anyway, you can't really make your user page a personal web site. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 01:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)