Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245

←== Should I get the new article I created reviewed ==

Around two days ago I asked a question about reviewing and showed you guys a new article I created, which I didn't put through "articles for creation". You said that you were fairly impressed by my efforts at creating my first article, but advised that I find reliable sources to go with the facts. I've done that now, and I would like to know what you think. Should I get it reviewed? Click here for the page. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again, PotatoNinja123. 'Review' is a process which happens at WP:Articles for Creation before the article is moved into the main Wikipedia space (reviews accept an article for the main space or reject it, requiring the submitter to work on it for further scrutiny). As your article is already in the so-called 'mainspace', it's not needing to be reviewed right now, except informally by someone who might come across it, or give it a look now to see whether you improved the sections that were problematic. Apologies for the confusion.

As I was mistaken earlier on, I'll let someone else judge whether it fits their criteria or not and whether the tags should be removed. The sourcing looks better, so the 'relies on one source' issue may be fixed, but Grand'mere Eugene was more perceptive about the subject than I was so I suggest that you ask them directly whether they think the article has been improved. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied below on the original post. Good work, so far, PotatoNinja123. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which copyright to use when uploading photos for client?

I've done some editing of medical articles for my client but now I'm uploading an article he's written and need to include some photos. Since I don't own the copyright to his photos, is there a specific type of copyright I need to choose from the selections provided? Any comments and/or instructions you can provide will be greatly appreciated.Justael2 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your client will need to release the photos under an appropriate copyright licence. See WP:COPYREQ. I also recommend you read the conflict-of-interest guidelines at WP:COI for editing on behalf of your client. RudolfRed (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

changing titles of articles

I'd like to change the title of my article so that both words in the article name are capitalized. How do I do this? Elephants3 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term a proper noun and normally capitalised? I only see your article work on "junk ensemble" which, while a proper name, is deliberately not capitalised. Collect (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "junk ensemble" is the title I am trying to fix. You're right that its deliberately NOT capitalized, so I would ideally like to list the company as "junk ensemble" no caps, but if that's not possible then I want to list it as "Junk Ensemble" with both words capped...Elephants3 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elephants3. To rename an article, you move it, using a tab at the top of the page. I have moved it to Junk Ensemble per our Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Trademarks_that_begin_with_a_lowercase_letter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my Wikipedia Article keep getting rejected

Hi, I'm really new to this! I have submitted an article several times with changes and wondered why it keeps getting rejected?

Could anyone advise me please :) (BeckyLuck (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pink box at the top of the draft should explain it, but in brief the article must cite reliable sources that demonstrate that the subjects meets the notability requirements, which in this case are set out here.--ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeckyLuck. I've looked over your submission at [1], and I don't see any citations there to neutral, reliable sources. Are you sure that the organization is WP:Notable? If so, then it will already have been covered in places like newspapers, magazines, websites (not blogs), etc. Or are you simply trying to make it notable by including it in Wikipedia? That won't work. What you should do is to send your information to, as I said above, newspapers, magazines, websites (not blogs), etc., that might be interested in doing an article about your group. Starting out with Wikipedia won't do the job because we're not that kind of "service" or "news agency." We are an encyclopedia. So get your publicity elsewhere and then come back here with evidences of your notability. I hope this helps you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my inputs, both to philipofJMJ and philipofBVM?

second attempt to post items You deleted my first attempt at philipofJMJ , now, you are trying to delete my new name of philipofBVM I want you to know, that the article on Pope Sylvester I, correctly states this pope as the one who baptized Saint Constantine The Great. The page on Constantine is incorrect, as it states he was only "baptized" at death, and that, by an Arian heretic. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipofBVM (talk • contribs)

Hi Philip, I'm Dave. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the problem here stems from your very purpose on Wikipedia. Wikipedians expect other Wikipedians to focus on a primary goal above all else - that of building an encyclopedia. Every role here is somehow related to it, either directly (in building content) or indirectly (in managing it). We even have a page about what people are here for.

It appears, however, that you are here for another purpose, promotion of either yourself or your beliefs. Wikipedians are allowed some leeway in broadcasting their beliefs and opinions in their userspace - but if that is the only thing you're doing, it's likely that a dim view will be taken. I hope that answers your question. Dave. Worm^TT(talk) 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But PhilipofBVM is also discussing the content of Wikipedia articles, and that is very much consonant with our purpose. Philip, as far as I can see, both the articles Pope Sylvester I and Constantine the Great refer to the legend that Sylvester baptized Constantine. If you have reliable published sources which throw light on that claim, you are welcome to open a discussion on the talk page of one of the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Editor who doesn't know where to get started.

Hello,

I joined Wikipedia tonight, since I've read wikipedia for as long as I can remember. I've always loved the site, and decided to get involved. I'm extremely interested in politics, history, national cultures, weather, and automobiles, but I don't know where to start editing. It seems that many articles on these topics are very well written and don't need further editing. Furthermore, I'm unsure as to how one starts an article "properly." I know how to create one, but when adding your own pictures, I'm not sure what pictures wikimedia commons considers "okay to use" and which ones aren't. For instance, when creating an article, on say, a mall, would a picture of the mall from their website be alright? Sorry for the long post. I'm so excited to have joined, but I just don't know where to begin!

72.222.132.231 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just realized that I wasn't logged in when creating this...whoops. Search for the Wikipedia user "LibertyandLinguistics"

Welcome to the Teahouse, LibertyandLinguistics. You will often find articles here that are pretty well-written, but that doesn't mean they are perfect. A careful reading by someone highly familiar with the topic will often reveal certain weak spots where a reference or two to a reliable source can be added, and a few sentences rewritten and expanded. Also, you will often find that major articles about important topics are quite comprehensive, but that secondary articles about specific narrower aspects of those broader topics still need a lot of work.

As for images and copyright law, that is a highly complex area. Your example of a photo of a mall from the mall's own website is pretty clearcut: almost certainly, such a photo is copyrighted and can't be used anywhere on Wikimedia projects. The obvious solution is to go to the mall yourself, take photos, and upload them to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. But there may already be freely licensed photos of the mall there, if it is inconvenient for you to visit.

To start an article properly, first verify that the topic is notable. Then, familiarize yourself with what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. Summarize what those sources say, leaving out your personal opinions and personal experiences. Add references to the reliable sources. Referencing for beginners explains that process. A good overview is Your first article. Feel free to ask questions at the Teahouse at any time. We are here to help, and thank you for volunteering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is pretty common as well, so always be on the watch for that. Sometimes it isn't as obvious as you think it might be. If you're still wondering what to add, maybe try checking users' contributions to see what they're adding, maybe even me... Stubs should also be expanded if possible - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's, but I hope people will forgive me if I recommend another site, to wit Wikipedia Simple English. There are far fewer people working on it than on Wikipedia English. Many major lacunae exist. Yet it is a tremendous resource for children and non-native speakers. It's very easy to find topics that are not covered or have only a stub. Kdammers (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Simple English is actually quite difficult due to the grammar restrictions and limited vocabulary. It's not like writing "natural" English so it's not something a beginner should get into too quickly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: I know it wasn't a serious comment anyway but regarding Macys and Gimbles it isn't really an apt metaphor. There isn't any competition between Wikipedia and other sites that use Wiki technology such as Wikibooks, Wikiquotes, or (and I didn't even know this one existed so thanks for that) Simple English Wikipedia. We all have different goals and we support each other rather than compete. If you are looking for ways to get some basic editing experience have you tried looking here: Wikipedia:Community_portal? Scroll down to where it says "Help Out" and you will see examples of pages needing basic kinds of changes (e.g., "Fix spelling and grammar") and a "Learn how" link next to each kind of change requirement to help new editors understand how to make those changes. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Content to a new Wikipedia Page

One you have a Wikipedia Page, how do you add new information to it? What is the process for this (who can add it, who reviews the content, how approves it)?74.85.18.234 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anonymous user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Anybody can edit a Wikipedia page (apart from a very few pages which have been locked due to a history of excessive problem edits). At the top of each page is the "Edit" tab - click that and start making your edits. If you need help learning the special markup language used on Wikipedia pages then I recommend taking a look at Help:Getting started. And if you have questions, you're always welcome to ask here in the Teahouse. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anonymous user. I want to add something to what Gronk Oz has said. I'm making a guess from your words, and forgive me I've I'm guessing wrongly; but I suspect you are talking about an article about you (or your band or your company). If that is the case, please be aware that you are regarded as having a conflict of interest, and should edit only in accordance with the recommendations in the article I just linked to. It might help to bear in mind that it is not your article: it is Wikipedia's article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?

[2] Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bananasoldier and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd say based on this Google search, seems like it's a notable source and probably safe to use as reliable. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this, Bananasoldier and Technical 13— there is a bit of nuance here, because while grist.org is notable, they do carry a point of view that can be seen as non-neutral. My general recommendation when considering a source is to see if there has been previous discussion of a source at the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can search the archives for previous discussion. In this case, grist.org has been discussed and while there were only two editors participating in the discussion, both agreed not to use the source because the neutrality was unclear. Since grist frequently analyzes or reposts news from other sources, it may be worth following your data and checking to see if the information you would like to include in the article was originally reported in a source that is considered more neutral. None of this is to say that the source can't be used, however; it's about being careful. There is plenty of analysis regarding this topic in this essay. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SEO

How do I make sure my page shows up on google and has the right SEO attached to it? Jewishsarah (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jewishsarah, and welcome to the Teahouse! If the page you're talking about is a Wikipedia article, then I'm afraid the answer is that you don't; since Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, SEO should be irrelevant to Wikipedia articles (though, given Wikipedia's fairly high status with Google, SEO isn't usually needed anyway). If you're talking about a website outside Wikipedia, then I'm afraid we can't really help you here; the Teahouse is more for questions about editing Wikipedia. The fine folks at the Reference Desk (particularly the computing reference desk) might be able to give you some answers, though. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewishsarah by SEO I assume you mean Search Engine Optimization? Things like assigning meta-data to a page so that it gets properly indexed by Google and other search engines. There isn't a lot that can or usually needs to be done, as Writ Keeper said, Wikipedia is so dominant article almost always show up pretty high in most searches. Keep in mind that it may take a few days from the time you create an article to the time Google updates it's servers. Also, assigning the proper wp:categories to the article will I think help with indexing, I think the category key words are passed on as metadata about the articles to search engines. However, if when you say "my page" you mean your specific wp:user page then the answer is different. User pages are not supposed to be indexed by search engines. I think they can still show up sometimes but the point of a user page or any page you host on wikipedia should be to develop wikipedia articles only, not for other uses. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! I appreciate the quick response and understand my mistake.

Jewishsarah (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IMDb not considered a reliable cited reference?

It's confounding that Wikipedia, the most prolific user submitted and maintained encyclopedia of information would consider IMDb as "unreliable" because it contains user submitted data. Do you realize that IMDb is not only curated (just as Wikipedia is), but that to make changes to any filmography or biography, you must be a paying member of IMDb and The Powers That Be at IMDb cross check references with all the other members? It is 100% more reliable than Wikipedia, itself, when it comes to what is accepted for listing. BlackAndBlueMedia (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a reliable source because it is user-generated content. Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. RudolfRed (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as you just said Rudolf -- IMDb is no less reliable than Wikipedia and therefore, it should be considered just as reliable as a source. Did anyone at Wikipedia notice that you have to have a paid account and you have to prove who you are and your role in the entertainment industry to be allowed to create profiles or filmographies or make changes to such on IMDb to have those changes take effect? So what? I can source some press release site, where companies talk great about themselves with no oversight, but I can't cite IMDb? Can I cite The Onion, even though it's a parody news site? I'm sorry, but I just don't get the distinction and why Wikipedia would have the nerve to consider IMDb any less reliable than Wikipedia or any other website.

BlackAndBlueMedia (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. We do NOT consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, BlackAndBlueMedia. You seem to have a deep misunderstanding of how we define reliable sources here on Wikipedia. We do not allow references to press release hosting sites like PR Wire, though a few of those slip through. We most certainly don't allow The Onion as a source, and we do not allow any source which is user edited. Including Wikipedia. One Wikipedia article is never acceptable as a reference in another Wikipedia article. If any experienced editor notices such references, they are expected to remove them immediately. As for IMDb.com, we do allow external links to that website. But we do not allow it as a reference within the body of an article, because we do not consider its editorial control stringent enough. Again, we do not consider our own editorial control stringent enough, so that is no insult to IMDb. But you can't change our longstanding consensus here at the Teahouse. It is what it is, and is based on discussions by many editors over many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackAndBlueMedia, please refer to WP:WPNOTRS for more specific information regarding why Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles. Let me also add that it seems from this talk page comment, this username change request and this edit sum that you may have some kind of professional or personal connection with the subject(s) of some of the Wikipedia articles you've been editing. If that is the truly case, then you'd be considered to have a conflict of interest. Although COI editing is not expressly prohibited on Wikipedia, there are some limitations placed on what COI editors are allowed to do which can make it a little tricky to pull off. The edits of COI editors also tend to more scrutinized by other editors working on the same article. So, it might be a good idea to read through "Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide" and "Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing" just to familiarize yourself with what is typically expected from COI editors. Good luck.

- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Cullen wrote that "But you can't change our longstanding consensus here at the Teahouse. It is what it is, and is based on discussions by many editors over many year." While it is true that the Teahouse is not the place to change consensus, the rest of the quotation is unfriendly and, I think, unhelpful. While "long-standing" (That is a matter of perspective: to me, Wikipedia has not even existed for many years.) policies have some intransigence, they sure had better be subject to re-evaluation. Maybe the source has changed since the last extensive discussion; maybe there is more to the source than met the eye of the discussants.Kdammers (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kdammers. While I did not intend to start a campaign for inclusion of IMDb in the Teahouse, it was the easiest way to ask the question and potentially open discussion on IMDb's inclusion for future Wikipedia Editor conversations. I can say with authority that the majority of the people composing the US entertainment industry trust IMDb for accurate and verified information on a variety of subjects (especially filmographies and profiles), so its exclusion by Wikipedia as a verified and reliable source very much confuses me.

BlackAndBlueMedia (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor copies great swaths from other sources

I've found an editor who is obsessed with U.S, fire departments. He has been adding articles about such departments for quite a long time now. Here is his contributions page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FDNY18. What can be done about reining him in? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at least wait until he responds to your message on his talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was just the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. I've found multiple copyvios and have cleaned some and warned--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit the Self-Regulation page to add article information rather than it just stand as a Disambiguation page?

Hello all,

I'm trying to edit the psychological term "Self-Regulation". I'm trying to create a self-regulation entry, however, whenever I enter Self-Regulation, it brings me straight to the Disambiguation page for Self-regulation about terms that may be associated with it.

However, Self-Regulation is a term that has it's own definition and is important enough (see Education movement towards Self-Regulation) to merit its own Wikipedia entry.

I tried moving the Disambiguation page under a different title, but it didn't work like I thought it would. I thought it would free up the title Self-Regulation for me to make an entry under it but it didn't.

I keep getting put back to this Disambiguation page for any format that I try to add with Self-Regulation (i.e. Self-Regulation (Psychology)).

How do I Disambiguate the page or bring it somewhere else for me to actually fill out the article entry for Self-Regulation?Psychmajor22 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise writing and posting the article under the title "Self-regulation (psychological term)." GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse @Psychmajor22: I think before you worry about the exact title of the article it would be better to take a first cut at writing a draft which as far as I can tell you haven't done yet. Many of the existing articles on that disambiguation page are also related to psychology. The first thing you need to establish is exactly what topic you are writing about, is it wp:notable and is there already an article that covers the topic? "Self regulation" is a term that can apply to neurons, individuals, or groups for example. Here is a good place to start for new editors who want to write a first article: Wikipedia:Your_first_article Also, IMO it is far better for a new editor to get experience by editing existing articles first and then move on to creating a new article. It is much easier to make useful edits to an existing articles than to create a high quality new article from scratch. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly Self-regulation (psychology).--ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if the article is accepted the new entry will be added to the disambiguation page Self-Regulation. w.carter-Talk 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to create and insert the side-bar summary with picture into your artice (is it automatic?)?

Hello,

Sorry about the vagueness of the title. I wasn't sure exactly how to word it.

I was wondering, I often see a side-bars on many articles with a short synopsis of what the Wiki article is about and is usually headed with a picture. How do you create those? Or are they automatically placed there once there is enough information...? (I'm new to this coding)Psychmajor22 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Psychmajor22. It's called an infobox and has to be added manually with the right information. See Help:Infobox. You can also click the "Edit" tab of a similar existing article with an infobox to see how it was made. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of "articles for creation?"

I recently saw that a user's page was rejected and I was linked to a page that allowed users to have their pages submitted and reviewed for creation. Is this how we're meant to create articles? I have always though that you needed to press the red link when you search up a term to do so. But since users appear to be able to have their pending pages reviewed and classified, I'm still wondering how a page I created could be reviewed (Porpema). - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an option, a good one for new editors or people who want feedback on their article before it goes live. Other editors will be able to make suggestions and perform copy-edits before you put the article into the main Wikipedia 'space'. Putting something incomplete or with dubious notability directly into 'mainspace' does run the risk of deletion, and I think WP:AFC is a good option for new and less experienced editors, despite the long wait for review. However, it's not the only option, and it takes a long time to get an article reviewed, so some people don't recommend its use.

Regarding your own article, I see it's already been accepted and is in Wikipedia. If you are that good at writing articles, I think you should be OK with writing them directly into mainspace. There's a few little tweaks I will do for you (e.g. formatting of the 'See also' links - they should really have bullet points before the individual topics)...but well done. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 19:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree and partly disagree that PotatoNinja123 should be okay with writing articles directly into mainspace. It is very seldom a good idea to write articles directly into mainspace, since very few editors can really write an entire article in a single edit. If an editor tries to write an article directly into mainspace, it will show up as a new article, and will very likely be tagged for deletion because it is incomplete (which it will be). If Lstanley1979 means that PotatoNinja123 can reasonably write an article in user space, and then complete it in user space, and copy-edit it in user space, and then and only then promote it into article space, I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Robert. I took a look at the article and was quite impressed by PotatoNinja123's efforts. I think that it probably wouldn't have fallen under any immediate deletion criteria. I would just have corrected the formatting and move on on that one. I'd definitely echo, however, that it's definitely better to draft something and move it later on, or submit it to AFC for judgement. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The completion of the references is the most difficult part of completing an article. Some of the editors who review new articles in mainspace are deletionists and will tag any article whose references are not in final shape. Maybe you are not a deletionist and welcome new articles. However, an editor who is reasonably confident of their own ability to complete an article would do better to edit it in user space and move it into article space than to edit it in article space, where it is likely to encounter deletionists who do not leave a work in progress alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this question to the Teahouse, PotatoNinja123 . The point of the AfC process includes review of all new articles by unregistered users, but it's also to help new editors get it right. I suspect had you used the AfC process, the reviewing editor would have required you to find a few more references, as you have only one in the infobox, and the question of whether this critter exists at all is open for question, according to your description. Some of your statements present conclusions that may be original research (see WP:NOR), so having other editors provide feedback at this stage helps to improve the article as well as protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Robert McClenon. Thanks for your help explaining it. As Grand'mere Eugene points out, there are issues with the article that I haven't learned to spot - I generally only go for the articles which are clearly not up to standard and leave other work alone, mostly that which passes through speedy criteria. Thank you both. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 22:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually got most of the information from the chondrophore page, which is the family that the genus belongs in. The description was simply based on all of the characteristics that all of the chondrophores share. So I doubt I would be able to find any references, unless you want me to use the references used on the chondrophore page. The other information was just based on observations made of the illustrations made by Ernst Haeckel. Oh, and how do I get it reviewed? Do I have to wait? - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PotatoNinja123. Ideally, every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be referenced to a cited reliable source. If you have not found a source saying something specifically about the species Porpema prunella (I assume that's the article you are talking about) then the article should not say it. It can (and should) have a Wikilink to an article about the genus (or higher taxon if there isn't one for the genus), so that the reader can follow that and find out the general characteristics of the genus; but in the absence of a reference, the article should not say that it does or doesn't conform to these characteristics. The references on the Chondrophore page are certainly worth using, if they are relevant; but they should be used only to support statements that they actually support, not deductions or syntheses from those. You can get a page reviewed by editing it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll add as many references as I can and submit the article for reviewing when I'm done - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags at the top of the article, and left a comment on the article's Talk page. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to Create a Stub Article

Hello,

I am still confused about how to create stub articles! I have read the articles about how to create stubs on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right. (PS it would be helpful if we added an example to the stub how-to page.)

Do I just place my stub tag at the end of the article I'm writing? (i.e.

This biography of an academic is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

)

Thanks!

Psychmajor22 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I just answered my question. Now, I'm not sure how to delete this. Haha. Help with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychmajor22 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Psychmajor22, it seems like the Teahouse brings enlightenment to users in many ways. :) And to answer your question about deletion: You don't. Everything written here at the Teahouse is archived for future reference and is searchable in the archive at top right of this page. Maybe your sudden insight will help others in the days to come. Happy stub-making, w.carter-Talk 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But at least make sure when you are creating a stub that it is reasonably capable of being expanded into a fuller article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Psychmajor22. This is 2015, and Wikipedia has almost 4.5 million articles in English. In my opinion, no serious editor should set out to write a stub these days. Stub is defined as "an article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject". Instead, I recommend that your minimum goal should be a well-referenced, introductory overview of the topic in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors

Can more than one editor edit a file at the same timeNextstepsailing (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grettings Nextstepsailing welcome to the teahouse. Yes, absolutely more than one editor can edit a file at the same time. This means there can occasionally be an wp:edit conflict when two people try to commit their changes to a file at the same time. That article I linked to explains how this happens and what to do when it does happen. Also, editors can use the wp:talk pages of articles to coordinate their work. But for the most part edit conflicts aren't nearly as much of a problem as you might think, they don't happen that often and when they do they are usually easy to resolve. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are busy making several changes to an article, you can type a template like { {In use} } or { {Under construction} } at the top of the page (just don't leave spaces between the brackets, as I have just done). That warns others to stay away for a while. The tags are removed automatically if there has been no editing for a time. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tip for GeorgeLouis: you can use the template tl to talk about a template without inseting it. So if you write {{tl|In use}} it appears as {{In use}}. That also has the advantage that it is a link to the template, so you can go and look at its documentation easily. --ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neutral point of view

Hello world! I've added some info to the article Muhammadu Buhari (I'm 62.233.34.78) and then another IP undid my revision using a rather dubious argumentation (claiming my edits were not done in good faith). But everything I added is sourced and even if they might seem negative for Buhari, I feel they balance out what was initially an overtly positive article. What's more, everything I added was found on the Internet on a quick search, nothing more… I would have undone the revision, but this IP edits wikipedia only to remove the negative stuff on Buhari and I'm a bit afraid he/she would just go at it again… Do I have other options? Passenger68 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Passenger68: welcome to the teahouse. First, just a point about how to identify yourself on Wikipedia: the preferred way is to create and use a user ID which you did. So once you do that you no longer need to identify yourself by your IP address. Just make sure to always be logged in before you make any edits. Regarding the article on Muhammadu Buhari first, you were right not to just get into an wp:edit war with the other editor who reverted your work. Second, yes there are still options after someone reverts a change. The next step when that happens is to take to the talk page of the article in question which in this case is this page: Talk:Muhammadu_Buhari The most common thing to do when someone reverts your edit and you don't think the reversion was justified is to post a new section on the talk page for the article. Explain why you think that the reversion was justified and respond to their rationale for reverting which in this case is the claim that your source is biased. BTW, you can see the edit history for any article by clicking on the "View History" tab. In this case the history is here: Muhamid B Edit History As I look at the history it seems that other editors are reverting each other as well so you aren't the only one who is involved and I think at least one other editor agrees with you. Also, the justification being used by the IP editor who reverted your work is not IMO a strong argument. They say that your source represents "opposition research" and is a "dirty" source. Just because a reference has negative information does not mean it isn't a good source. Also, keep in mind that since I believe this person is still alive the rules for wikipedia:biographies of living persons apply. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Passenger68 I took a closer look at that article and the changes. It turns out there already is an existing discussion directly relevant to your changes. Here is the appropriate section of the talk page: Talk:Muhammadu_Buhari#suppression_of_well_sourced_informations I suggest you add your thoughts to the discussion there. I think the main issue should be how credible the wp:references are. One way to help resolve the dispute might be to post something on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about the sites used as references to support this information and see if there is a consensus there about how reliable they are. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MadScientistX11 ! First of all, thanks a lot for your help. I think I'll do what you say, hoping someone will help me. Tanks again Passenger68 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome Passenger68. If you have additional questions feel free to drop me a message on my talk page or of course to come back to the teahouse. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help on re-submitting a deleted article

Hi there. I recently had an article deleted for copyright infringement. Having revised my article - I see now that I was a little sloppy and have rewritten some areas. How is the best way to go about resubmitting it again? I'd also like to get some advice in case there are other issues that need addressing. Thanks for your help as I'm looking forward to getting more experience and becoming a regular contributor.Angelariedle (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name of the article? Somebody here can look it up to help you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

procedure for adding a new page

I know a sculptor who I think is worthy of a wiki page... he has a sculpture at the World Health Organisation Headquarters in Switzerland and another one in front of the State legislature building in Juneau Alaska as well as others. Am I allowed to add such a page? If not, what is the procedure for getting approval? Thanks for your help. I have not been active for a while because I have been travelling around the world. Ready to get back into it again now Reefswaggie (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with a few exceptions. In particular, there is no advance procedure for getting approval. The procedure for getting approval is to create the draft and have it reviewed, unless you have a conflict of interest. If you have a reliable source about the subject of the article, you can use the WP:Article Wizard to create a draft article in draft space and then submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Real Estate Valuation

I have completed a Master by Research on the Theory of Real Estate Valuation. I would like to contribute my theory to Wikipedia as a way of having the thesis reviewed J W W Lawson (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias in general, are tertiary sources. What you are looking for is a journal. John from Idegon (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, J W W Lawson, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to publish any kind of original research, theories or processes; in fact there is a specific policy Wikipedia:No original research. Perhaps your thesis supervisor can suggest a suitable reviewer, and then it might be published in a journal, as John from Idegon suggests. Even then, that journal publication would be what Wikipedia calls a "primary source" and it would not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia - that will have to wait until there is extensive, independent coverage (such as when multiple newspapers and professional newsletters write articles about you and your thesis). Only then will it be "notable" in the special Wikipedia sense of the term.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to begin anew, after a speedy deletion of philipofJMJ

My name is philipofJMJ. My new name is philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me start over? I wish to contribute to Wikipedia, but, it seems, I got it wrong the first time. Can I get some help over the phone, maybe? philipofBVM07:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings PhilipofBVM. Almost everyone who edits or supports Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers so there is no phone support. There is a real time chat IM help option though. You can ask questions of someone and engage in a dialogue with them about editing Wikipedia. To use it go to this page: Wikipedia:Help_desk and then click on the link to the right of the page that says: "Do you need real-time chat help with your issue? Join our IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-help" Another option is the adopt a user program: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user If you add the following to your user page: "{{subst:dated adoptme}}" You should be contacted by someone who can mentor you and help you get started. Also, here are some articles you may have seen already but if not you should definitely take a look at, they give some of the most important principles to being a productive editor: wp:42 wp:five pillars Wikipedia:Objective Sources wp:civility --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you are hoping to include any of the material currently on User:PhilipofBVM, please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting your theories, and that material is also inappropriate for your user page and should be deleted. Furthermore, all information added to any article, needs to be supported by references from from independant reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry, PhilipofBVM - that kind of stuff can't be on user pages, I'm afraid. We're not an ordinary social media platform - we're a working encyclopaedia. This is nothing personal - we'd come down just as hard on other views and opinions expressed on userpages. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on BLP

If you look at my contributions you can see that I recently edited a biography on a living person which I created long ago. There is one editor who indiscriminately deletes my edits to the article and the talk page. The article is on an individual that was subject of controversy in Mexico. The editor has removed anything that remotely mentions that controversy. A Google search will yield plenty of news articles on the matter (in Spanish). Perhaps my edits in the past violated BLP, but his last edit makes me feel that the article is being deliberately censored.[3] Is there anywhere that I can go to get a clarification on this matter? I've tried to discuss the matter with the editor but he simply accused me of COI. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ajaxfiore. I notice that on March 14, 2014, you wrote in response to an inquiry from FreeRangeFrog that "I have no COI but I will stay away from this article." You also received a formal editor review that pointed out your problems editing that article. Why are you returning to the very article that you agreed to stay away from? If your motivation is to make the person look bad, then that is a major BLP concern. I will put the article in question, Jorge Erdely Graham, on my watch list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed links you pasted into the talk page which were excised from the article because your edits were wholly inappropriate and very obviously in bad faith towards the subject. You also have a conflict of interest, as you know quite well. And yes, you agreed to stay away from it, which you apparently are unable to do. You were chased off the Spanish Wikipedia for the same reasons. I'm thinking of bringing this to WP:ANI to formalize a topic ban so that the moment you even change a typo on that article (or any other related to the whole La Luz del Mundo topical area) you can be blocked immediately. I don't have a problem with anyone adding correctly-sourced negative information to this bio, however given your past behavior I do object to you doing that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRangeFrog, just to clarify I was not chased off the Spanish wiki but decided to leave of my own free will. Also, in my defense I have not added negative material to the bio. Thanks for the help Cullen328, I will go back to reading BLP. I apologize for bringing the dispute here. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Have a cup of tea. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

making an article

Hello, i was tasked to make an article for the organization that I am apart of and it said I plagiarized from our own site. Is there a way i can enter an article with paragraphs from our site without showing up as plagiarism?

James Hishmeh Trash Mountain Project

Jameshishmeh (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jameshishmeh Welcome to the Teahouse. The process for donating copyrighted material is described here: Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials However, in my experience as an editor I have never seen an example where material from a web site was deemed appropriate for a Wikipedia article regardless of copyright issues. The problem is that a web site and an encyclopedia almost always have very different requirements for the kind of prose. Most web sites tend to be wp:promotional, the whole idea is to say "look at this cool thing and here is why it is so cool and different" where as the tone for Wikipedia is supposed to be wp:objective BTW, you can quote directly from a copyrighted web site or other sources as long as you properly attribute the quote but those quotes should be a few sentences or a paragraph or two at most never a whole article or even a major part of an article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jameshishmeh. I'm afraid you have been tasked with a job which is very difficult for you (in particular) because you have a conflict of interest and so you are strongly discouraged from working on the article. Please also read WP:CORP, and be aware that if your organisation meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability and may therefore have an article about it, it will not be your article, and your organisation will have no control over it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what others may say, you certainly can submit your version of an article about the Trash Mountain Project. Just be sure it is written in a neutral tone and that it has some WP:Reliable sources. I see that at least one reliable source (a newspaper) has written about the project here. I'm sure you have more news clippings in your files somewhere. You will find many good editors here to help you whip the article into shape. We all realize, though, that when we create an article it no longer belongs to us, but it can be edited by everybody. Good luck. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox review

Hey guys could anyone give my sandbox a review a give me a few pointer on how to improve it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RDs123/sandbox Thank you! 86.45.170.58 (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP. Unfortunately, your sources are not supporting the society's notability: all the news sources point to general economic news (perhaps featuring the person they refer to in other contexts) rather than news specifically about the society. Sources need to directly refer to the subject of the article: the society gets a passing mention, but only as the venue for the comment made; the sources don't discuss the society itself as an organisation independent of its guest, which IMO would be necessary to establish that it was notable itself.

I'm not entirely sure the organisation qualifies as a notable organisation, and I don't think this is going to make it into the encyclopaedia: per the Student life section of the university notability guidelines, the society would require thorough coverage in mainstream (i.e. non-university, external) publications to qualify. (For instance, the Oxford Union is an example of a notable student society; the society here would require that sort of coverage to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.) If and only if you can find such sources, then the society would be notable. As it stands, the article doesn't prove that to me, at least. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 19:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

I remember coming across a wikipedia policy on verifiability that said that although claims need to be verifiable through inline citations, it isn't mandatory that the sources should be available online. I'm unable to find the same. Can someone point me to it? I would like to use a few video interviews given by celebrities but those that are available in YouTube are published against copyright infringement. I would also appreciate if someone could enlighten me on the suggested course of action under such circumstances. Thanks. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sriram Vikram Welcome to the teahouse. First here is a general tip that I find very useful. When you are searching for something related to editing Wikipedia try typing "wp:" in the Wikipedia search box and then start typing the word or phrase you think might merit a Wikipedia article devoted to editing the encyclopedia (rather than actual encyclopedia content). The "wp:" tells the search engine to look in the Wikipedia wp:namespace rather than the normal default which is the article namespace. So in this case wp:Verifiability But to get to your specific question: yes you are correct you absolutely can reference something even if it's not available online and that includes videos. The specific template you want is: Template:Cite_AV_media I used that template a few months ago for this article if you want to see some specific examples: Margaret_Mead look at refs 41-44. In this case I was able to link to the actual video because it is in the public domain but it is fine to use a ref to any film even if you can't link to an online copy as long as the ref is relevant to the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MadScientistX11:Thanks for the tip. However, I'm familiar with both the tip and the aforementioned template. But, the question is, what am I supposed to do if the video isn't in public domain? A video of the interview exists in YouTube but it has been uploaded by a casual user therefore violating copyrights. With no official or public domain videos available, I have no other info such as its title, the date it was published, the publisher etc. How am I supposed to fill the av media template? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. If the video is not in the public domain you just don't put a URL in the template when you cite the video. Just fill out the other info as best you can: timestamp where the event occurs, name of the film, etc. It's no different than referencing a book or news article that isn't available online. Having an online source is best but it is not a requirement. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can Wiki be kinder

How can the people on Wiki be made kinder? Frogger48 (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frogger48, when I first saw your question I thought maybe that you were a newcomer who had been bitten, but I see that you have been here since 2013, so that's obviously not the case. As you are probably aware, we already have several initiatives such as this very Teahouse that are built around the concept of friendliness, as well as welcome templates and the like. The people over in IRC:wikipedia-en-help, for example, are also usually very friendly. I think this goes a long way towards friendliness towards newcomers, and this is where much of the focus seems to have been. For more experienced users, they are expected to abide by WP:CIVILITY (well, everyone is). The problem, in my opinion, is that that's all there is, except for I'm sure a few essays on the subject. There are no welcome templates or friendly teahouses. Just the expectation that everyone gets along. What really needs to change is the mindset of some of the editors here, and I'm not sure any policy or essay alone will achieve this. I don't have a solution, but it's a worthy question. Discant X 10:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just my personal thoughts, but one of the greatest things about Wikipedia is that you can't "make" anyone do anything. That means that everyone does things they do because they want to - which allows us to have policies like assuming good faith. That's not to say I think people shouldn't be kinder on Wikipedia - as far as I've seen, the best way to do it is to lead by example. Make sure that you're kind, even in the face of adversity. That goes doubly so in high traffic areas. Worm^TT(talk) 11:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Last week I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Welcoming committee and thought to share in this discussion. I see that Teahouse is mentioned further down in the WC article. Just a suggestion--maybe Teahouse & WC could do cross-links to each other's articles at the top of the page? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post to someone's "talk" page to ask them a question about changes they have made to my page?

I have had one person suggesting that I add pages for people (all of whom are published poets) mentioned on an original page but who do not already have their own pages - and another person has already deleted the names of all those people without their own pages from my original list. How do I explain this to both of them without causing offence when I re-place the removed names? I am happy, time permitting, to add stub pages for all these extra people; equally there may be other contributors who would like to do the same. I don't really understand why the person who removed those names without their own pages as it seems that the existence of such a non-link would serve to encourage other experts to post pages about these poets? How, precisely, do I post on their talk pages, I cannot see how to do it when I go to them? Thank you. Steve Millar (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To directly answer your question: Go to the talk page of the user in question (from what I understand you already know how to do this part). Then in the upper right hand of the page click "Edit source" the same as you would to edit an article. Scroll to the bottom of the edit box and start a new section with a title that briefly describes the issue. Below that, leave your message.

As to the issue you have with the user who removed the authors, I am not too sure what his rational is. I had a brief look, and if I understand correctly, those authors are indeed contributors to P.L.P., and as such should be included in the list of authors. Red links are okay on WP; it just means there is more work to be done. I would approach the user and say much what you said here – that is, that you intend to create pages for those authors. I would also remind him that not everyone who is mentioned in an article needs his own WP page. Discant X 10:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, that is very helpful. Steve Millar (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is WikiCup?

Hi, I only joined Wikipedia very recently and everyone seems to be talking about this Wikipedia tournament called the "WikiCup". I've tried researching it but I'm still quite confused. What is it exactly? Feather-Bucket (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feather-Bucket welcome to the Teahouse. Another editor asked this question on the Teahouse. I'm glad that lots of editors are interested in Wikicup. For your convenience I will provide my answer to the previous editor. Wikicup is a competition which you can win by showing off your skills in editing. Like other competitions Wikicup has a scoring system and some rules. Team of judges (Experienced Wikipedia editors) will announce the winner(s). You can score points by uploading good pictures, bringing articles, topics, portals and lists to Featured/Good article state. Improving Did you know?, In the news sections and doing Good article & peer reviews are some other ways of getting point. Give below is the scoring system. (snipped from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring)--Chamith (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

**2015 points**
Featured article	Good article	Featured list	Featured picture	Featured portal	Featured topic	Good topic	Did you know?	In the news	Good article & peer reviews
200	30	45	20	45	10 per article	3 per article	5 or 10	10	4

However, my advice to any new editor, and to many experienced editors, would be to ignore the WikiCup. It is the source of considerable controversy (and some editors, for that reason, have proposed that it be abolished). For a new editor to focus on competing in the WikiCup would, in my opinion, distract them from more important considerations such as generally learning what the environment and culture is. Welcome. Wikipedia does not need to be a competition. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ignored chapter parameters

I figure I've got a few credits in the Teahouse bank, so my turn to ask for some assistance. Some recent change has caused the |chapter= parameter to be ignored in certain citation templates. I spent a million years on the prose and just don't feel like looking for a solution myself. Can someone please attempt a fix of the ignored chapter parameters at Przevalski's nuthatch (not removal, but a fix that will place the intended attribution in an appropriate place in the citations)? You can see them easily in the references list, as they have the red error text saying the parameter is being ignored.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit on Template:Cite journal it says that the parameter |chapter will not be displayed. I guess that's why it's being ignored. In order to fix that someone has to add |chapter parameter to Template:Cite journal.--Chamith (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChamithN. Yep, that's why I'm looking for an alternate parameter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Why don't you try including it in the "|page= |" parameter? Instead of writing "|page=p. 110|chapter=Przewalski's Journey in Tibet|" you write "|page=p. 110 (Przewalski's Journey in Tibet)|". Or even "|page=p. 110 (Chapter: Przewalski's Journey in Tibet)|". I did a quick check and it seems to work, the name of the chapter shows up and all. I haven't changed it in the article. Just a suggestion. w.carter-Talk 14:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking that out that suggestion now. As always, thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can use that but I'd really prefer it to display in the normal spot for a chapter name (after the date, before the title of the work). I suppose I could try to shoehorn them into cite book, though I;m not sure if there are some information in the journal parameters that wouldn't have a place there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joining a "course"

Hi. I am trying to join a "course" for my class that requires us to be on Wikipedia. The course is "BIOL 345", I do not understand how to join.

jocie (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jocebz. You have succeeded in creating a Wikipedia account, so "well done". As for signing up for a course, you haven't even given us the name of the school you attend. As this is a worldwide encyclopedia, there are thousands of possibilities. I suggest you take your questions to your professor. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jocebz: The course feature is only a small part of our website and some users don't know about it. At Special:Courses I only found one current course with "BIOL 345" in the name so I assume you refer to Education Program:University of British Columbia/BIOL 345 Human Ecology (Winter 2015). There is an "Enroll" tab at the top (and also an "Enroll" button in the top left box). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why are you erasing my inputs?

philipofJMJ is my name on Wikipedia. I am new, and nothing stays. Please advise. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for an answer. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipofJMJ: Your edits to anti-paganism policy of Constantine I was reverted by Favonian due to WP:NPOV concerns, maybe he could explain more to you. In the meantime, I think you should read up on WP:NPOV. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhilipofJMJ. It seems that you tried to add unreferenced information, including the statement "See other Wiki articles by philipofJMJ on wikipedia."

We never use one Wikipedia article as a reference for another. No respected Wikipedia editor ever promotes their own article work in article space. I am proud to say which articles I have helped improve on my own user page. But it would be entirely inappropriate to do so in an encyclopedia article. Please take this as a lesson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning a lot by these responses. Thanks. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hello, Mr. Favonian, can you help me out, as the gardener spoke of above, please? philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, don't make a series of marks (as the plus signs above) to set off your contributions. Use a simple colon (:) to indent your contribution, or more than one for more indents. Second, go back to the Talk Page here, and I will try to help you out. See you there! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the way people are using the lead section

I'm not sure if this is the right place to complain, but anyway: Editors, please stop using the lead section of articles as a newsfeed. All I see is dates everywhere (i.e on October 8 2014, NASA discovered ... ). Also, people are just dropping information there for visibility. The lead is by far the most important part of the article (it is what most of the visitors read) and unfortunately it is needing severe copyediting in many articles. I am getting kinda tired of having to shorten and copyedit stuff people simply drop there, so perhaps an administrator could enforce more severe rules regarding the addition of content there.

I just had to vent. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 02:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that is probably best brought up elsewhere (maybe the village pump?), but for what it's worth, I agree. I was just reading an article yesterday where someone had dropped in random miscellanea to the lede that wasn't even mentioned elsewhere. If it doesn't even fit in somewhere in the main body of the article, what on earth is it doing in a summary of it?! Discant X 10:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra quark, I just had a thought. Maybe the the best way to deal with this issue would be to create a Wikiproject that is focused on improving the lede sections of articles. I would be more than happy to be involved myself. I didn't see any that currently exist in the project directory, so if there is interest one of us could submit a proposal. Discant X 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I had in mind. I just didn't have enough time to create a whole wikiproject and also I'm already taking care of mine (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology. But hey, if you create that project, be sure that I will do all I can to improve it! Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DiscantX: oh and by the way, I don't think that it is necessary to submit a proposal. It is for a good cause, so just create it and we start inviting people. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra quark: It might not be a bad idea to propose it just so that the people who watch that page will know about it, in case they want to join. And then we can create it regardless :) I will not have much time over the next day or two to create it anyway, so I might just throw up a proposal and then when I have the time create the project. Discant X 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DiscantX: Go ahead. Leave me a message when you submit the request Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 01:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra quark: Okay, I created it here. The name is open to debate.

Hi Tetra quark, it's good to meet you! You are right, the lead of an article shouldn't be used that way - but I think you'll find that most people who do something like that are inexperienced in Wikipedia's in-house writing style. If a new editor presses the "edit" button to add information, the first block of text they see is the lead and so they will add it there. If you see it again, feel free to move the information to a more appropriate place in the article, but perhaps also have a snoop to find out who put the information there in the first place and perhaps have a pleasant chat with them? Thank them for their edit and help them see how their edits can be even better in future? Worm^TT(talk) 11:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of a recently submitted entry.

How can I find out what happened to a draft entry I submitted recently -- on January 10? It was a completely rewritten text, based on interviews and e-mail exchanges with the subject, a previous version having been rejected because it was too close to a published profile of the subject held to be under copyright protection.108.24.49.137 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. All you have to tell us is the name of the user account you were using (or IP address you were assigned) when you posted the page, or the exact name of the draft, inclusive of the original capitalization. Either will allow us to look at the deleted content and then advise you further. Right now you are posting from an IP address whose only edit is your post here, and you have not provided any information to target what page it might have been. That having been said, unfortunately, it sounds like you posted a draft article based in whole or in part on original research, which is material we cannot use. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. Our articles must be based on published, reliable, secondary sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post a wiki article here so I can work out the kinks?

My article has been denied three times for differing reasons. The first was for copyright - I fixed it. The second was for not meeting minimum inline citations and the third is that reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. I've changed many of the things that might be problematic but would like to check and see if I can work out more of the kinks before I re-submit again. How can I transpose my article from my sandbox to over here at the teahouse so I can specific feedback on the specific article?Blackmarionball5285 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Blackmarionball5285. There is no need to post a copy of your draft article here at the Teahouse, since any experienced editor can find it in a few seconds, by looking at your edit history. The draft article in question is Draft:Lindsay Shearer-Nelko. The reviewers have given you excellent advice. Read it carefully, and follow it.

In my opinion, (in addition to other improvements), the article needs a lead paragraph which summarizes the person's life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do deal with editors violating WP:CON

Hi, how do I deal with two editors who are refusing to gain consensus before making controversial edits. I can't keep reverting them without violating 3RR. One of the editors said in response to a question on their talk page that they "do not care for your consensus because your consensus has no relation to fact". The requests for page protection says admins do not revert to specific versions of the page. Ho can I get the page protected at the version of the status quo until consensus is achieved, per wikipedia policy? The page is social conservatism. Colonial Overlord (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will request a page protection myself, don't worry. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 02:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue that resulted in speedy deletion - Angel Sessions Article

Hello, An article I was waiting for a review on was deleted. I took the exact wiki article and copied it and place it in another website called, "IMDB.com" The reviewer saw that and requested speedy deletion even though I am the person copied from my own article. So, I decided to remove the copied article from the IMDB website. I was told that I could have left the exact copy up on IMDB if I added the following statement as the end using the same ID?:

"This article is CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licensed"

My question is: Do I have to fill out some type of form and add the statement as well or will adding the above statement enough by itself?

If it is not too complicated I would rather reinstate the IMDB article and add the statement at the end and left it. My next question is after putting in the statement can I reinstall the code to my original article and then continue from there or do I have to have someone undelete my article first. Lastly, do you work for hire? I want this article and keep running into one thing or another. I am new to this and I am learning.

Demetrius Guidry (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrius Guidry hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know whether imdb will allow that text on their site, but I have reviewed a number of movies there, dating back to before I had ever heard of Wikipedia. They might let you do it. But I have read that once a review is on that site, it is considered copyrighted and can't be used here.

We are all volunteers here but there is Wikipedia:Mentorship. To get your article back would require that you intend to make major changes, but the procedure is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have already uploaded and then had IMDB to delete it. The problem is that I put my Wiki article on that site. The wiki article was written first and then I placed the exact same article on IMDB. I deleted it thinking that would resolve my issue when in fact I deleting it did not satisfy the reviewer. I will put the article back exactly has I placed it before. However, I was told that I have to include a statement that "This article is CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licensed." My question was, do I have to fill out a form or is making that statement at the end of the article I only need to place the text at the end and then that satisfies the copyright issue? Thanks, 108.251.108.176 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler solution is never to copy any draft or part of a draft from WP to any other site - only do so after the draft has been accepted and moved to mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Now that I have done that what is the best way to begin again. Rewrite the article using my same account and use different wording and then submit it for review? 108.251.108.176 (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning for soapboxing

Hi all. Could someone help me out with this please? Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Mufaddal Saifuddin. Summichum (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC) This editor goes in and revises pretty much everything I do but gives me no explanaition at all. I can't see what his issue is but he is intent on preventing anything that goes against his point of view. Perhaps I am going wrong somewhere and would love to know what steps I should take. Noughtnotout (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to top of page) Noughtnotout hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and if things get really bad, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The first step is to discuss the problem calmly and politley on Summichum's talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - no sooner had I had this warning then out of nowhere an administrator banned me from this page and all pages related to the topic of dawoodi bohra. He has accused me of 'declaring one party as a winner', being used as a sock puppet and not posting on the talk page none of which I have or aimed to have done. It really was a surprise and I am at a loss because all I did was add detail and references for 2 sides of a claimant issue. I need some help on this big time, he has banned me from the page edit and the talk page so I'm effectively muzzled altogether. And it all came about almost straight after the other editor in the piece reverted all my additions and sent me the block warning.

So much for JeSuisCharlie :-( Noughtnotout (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I can do to help you in this case. I was hoping someone else would see this and respond. Try WIKIPEDIA:UNBAN. The fact that you can still post here indicates it is not a site ban.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one prevent a list from being unduly reverted?

A group of anonymous users typically from the Philippines as shown by their ip addresses are out to insist that the list of the world's largest arenas ends at the Philippine Arena. Using the Merriam-Webster definition of arena, I truly believe the list should include those that I posted. Several links and websites were provided to back up the entries I provided and were retained so for a certain group to undo my revisions makes them appear to have an agenda.Vegas.Pete (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vegas.Pete, welcome to the Teahouse! In this case, I have to agree with the IPs. There's already a list covering stadiums - List of stadiums by capacity. In general, you should use the article's talk page if someone reverts a change you made. Please see WP:BRD for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN! Thanks for the info. I will take a look at the options you presented and hope you won't mind if I a ask a few more questions in the future. Cheers! Vegas.Pete (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Hello again NeilN. I see you reverted my list of indoor arenas stating that none of the seven I added were not arenas despite the Merriam-Webster reference? I look forward to your reply. Thank you! Vegas.Pete (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2015 (EST)

You cited a Merriam-Webster entry which is about arenas but makes no attempt to distingusih them from stadiums. There is no agreed definition on the precise distinction between arena and stadium but if the field is football-sized (as in American football or association football but not the smaller Arena football) then it's generally called a stadium and wouldn't belong on List of indoor arenas by capacity. The "largest arenas" may sound a bit like asking for the tallest men who aren't giants, but I think it's roughly about the most seats around fields (or other performance areas) significantly below football size. For an international encyclopedia we cannot go by whether the locals call it an arena, stadium or something else. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki page of the Singapore National Stadium ^[1] states on paragraph 3, that it is an arena so, by your definition where usage is the benchmark, shouldn't it be included in this list? Vegas.Pete (talk) Vegas.Pete (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "your definition where usage is the benchmark". It hosts football mathces so the field is obviously football-sized and would make it a stadium under my definition. Wikipedia is not a reliable source but National Stadium, Singapore has stadium in the name and calls it a stadium far more times than an arena so I don't know why you think that article would support arena over stadium. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a article about my company on Wikipedia?

Hi, I would like to create a page for my company with the company background information etc. How do I go about doing this? Please help, thanks Kotwica 15 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kotwica 15, welcome to the Teahouse! Short answer: You don't, per our conflict of interest guidelines. If your company should have an article on Wikipedia someone else will eventually write it. If you absolutely must create one, and your company meets our notability guidelines (independent sources have in-depth coverage of it) then you can use our articles for creation process to create a draft and get feedback from neutral editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering information

Trying to write about a slang term and staying objective. Haven't been able to find a lot of references and questioning the term. For lack of a better word hearsay keeps clipping my article. For instance my Grandmother made it with a,b,c but sure other Grandmothers may have made it with a,b,c and d. The best source found was Goggle Books but then finding author and publisher originals didn't turn up scanned documents or data. Is this Wikipedia worthy? Does anyone know of better sources? If your feeling researchy the term is "Texas butter".Spmicknerd (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spmicknerd. A Wikipedia article must be based almost entirely on information published in reliable sources. If you cannot find any such sources which discuss the subject then there cannot be an article on the subject. (The sources do not have to be online, as long as a reader can in principle get hold of them, eg. by ordering them from a public library). --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spmicknerd: Hi Spmicknerd. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary of slang or otherwise. This does not mean we cannot have an article on a food item like this, if that item has been sufficiently written about in reliable sources to sustain the topic's notability and verification of the content, but generally we do not have articles on words qua words, but on the topic the word refers to. Here I imagine, if warranted, the title would be at some variations of Texas butter or Texas style gravy (in either case mentioning in its text other names the dish is know by) but would be predominantly about the dish, and not the word for the dish. There are rare exceptions, but only where the word, as a word, can be a topic in its own right beyond what would belong in a dictionary. See e.g., Category:English words. It may be that such content simply belongs as a sourced section in a larger article, such as in Texas cuisine--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has suggested that my article sounded promotional

and deleted it post-haste. After inquiry, she said that it was not a question of notability, but of the writing style. I thought I had kept the writing neutral but apparently she didn't read it that way. She suggested that I come here and/or use the AfC. The thing is, I want to know what it is that I am doing wrong before trying to submit it again. How can I have it read by someone for feedback without actually submitting it, so I know that I am within the guidelines? Thanks, Thomas Cesanth (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cesanth, welcome to the Teahouse! AfC is exactly what you want. Creating a draft there will get you feedback from other editors and it won't be deleted because of the writing style. You'll be asked to fix various issues and when the draft is good to go, it'll be moved to article space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

precis of literature

My father has asked me if I would post an article about the Holy Grail literature. In particular he says there is no information about the content of these books on Wikipedia and he has written a precis of them. I said I didn't think literature (or a precis of any literatire) would be allowed on Wikipedia. Was I correct?

John Grubb82.11.127.210 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, welcome to the Teahouse! Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia and that would include any analysis your father has done. We do have Holy_Grail#Beginnings_in_literature which is woefully undersourced. You could add material to that if you have proper sources or expand it into its own article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exception to the above. If your father can persuade a reputable journal or other respected publisher to print his work, that may be used as a source. But probably not the only source. And you would still have a conflict of interest with any of his work that you used.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points in an infobox

In the article Egyptian Revolution of 1919, the first bullet point at result parameter of the infobox in the lead section is shown as an asterisk as if the it is written with? <nowiki> somehow. How should this problem be solved? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Average Wikipedian: After a bit of experimentation, I managed to fix it by adding <nowiki>...</nowiki> before the first bullet. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the {{bulleted list}} template.--ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would also have worked. I'm not a Lua coder but have asked for a general fix at Module talk:Infobox military conflict#Result starting with bulleted list. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one edit the introductory paragraph?

Hello - I see that the top paragraph, the summary of the page is not accessible to edit in the way the rest of a page is. How can I edit that?Noughtnotout (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways - first, use the Edit tab at the top of the page to open the entire article (including the lead) for editing). Second, go to Special:Preferences, open the Gadgets tab, and check the box under Appearance marked "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" - this will change your settings so that the lead has an edit link next to it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - and how does one edit the actual page title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noughtnotout (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page title is the "location" of the page on Wikipedia. To edit it, you'll have to "move" the page to a different location. (That's on a drop down link at the top of the page) Remember, the title is case sensitive. Finally, if it's an established article, you may want to consider suggesting the move at Requested Moves Worm^TT(talk) 15:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

editing semi protected

hello - I was editing a page which then became semi-protected. How do I become eligible to edit those pages?Noughtnotout (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noughtnotout, welcome to the Teahouse. You can edit semi-protected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed (at least ten edits and four days). Special:Log/Noughtnotout shows it happens 36 minutes from now. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Welcome to the Teahouse, Noughtnotout. In order to edit a semi-protected page, your account must have been open for at least four days, with at least ten edits. Your account looks pretty close. This is our modicum of protection against quickie "vandalism only" accounts. When editing using a Tor network, the requirements will be somewhat tougher. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's great. thanks for the reply. Any pointers in avoiding changes being reverted consistently? Even when I leave previous material intact my balancing viewpoints are just taken out. Tried the discussion page. I feel the editing is being done deliberately one sidedly but not sure if there is some arbitration process for it.

Which article is this about, Noughtnotout? Make sure anything you're trying to argue has a good reliable source to back it up - trying to add content without it is going to be frustrating because any 'balancing' of an article should depend both on good sourcing and giving the opinion due weight as it's addressed in the literature. If you're not sure about the reliability of a source, maybe you could ask on the Reliable sources noticeboard for assistance. (Or here at the Teahouse: the source which seems to be under discussion is here.) The subject area you're editing in is a contentious one, and maybe you could edit elsewhere if you find yourself unable to get anything to stick. I know that's frustrating, but the area in which you're editing has stricter oversight than others, so it could be a little dangerous to ignore the talk-page discussion and the consensus of other editors. Tread carefully with this. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing Louise. I think my edits bring balance to the article without removing the other side yet they are quickly removed. Meanwhile a totally one sided angle as referenced above stays. I have sent that other editor a message asking for clarification. Should I be putting that on the talkpage of the article as well? I have initiated the sajda not worship section on the talkpage.Noughtnotout (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia runs on consensus, so you need to continue to discuss this with other editors, and possibly consider asking for a third opinion if it can't be reached. Balance doesn't come from representation of every opinion; it comes from accurately reflecting what the literature on the subject says. Discuss things with the other editors, and make sure you have good sources to back your arguments up, but if it's just your opinion, then there's going to be a problem. If you think the article is unbalanced, try to put together a coherent, well-sourced argument. Take a look at what makes a good source and try to analyse whether your position can be supported by literature before you wade in, as there could be a problem if you get into an edit war to insert your opinion, particularly on an article with discretionary sanctions involved. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to change my username

i want to change my user name for some urgent reasons ,so please tell me the process of changing username (Manish asb (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for more information on having your account renamed. Since you do only have a few edits to your name at the moment, your easiest option may be to simply ditch this account and edit from a new account with a more desirable username. If this is not an option for you however, you can request a rename at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple; be sure to check if your desired username is taken or not at Special:ListUsers. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

markup for "footnotes: page numbers"

Unsuccessful using help page for references and page numbers. Below is the model on help page, followed by my effort to imitate. First reference worked in both cases, but not my second reference. What am I doing wrong?

help page: first reference:^[2]^: 8;

    second reference to another page:^[2]^: 18

my effort to imitate: first reference:^[3]^: 4–5;

    second reference to another page:Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).^: 62–3

Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TBR-qed welcome to the Teahouse. You are getting that error because you made a slight mistake when invoking the named footnote. When invoking the footnote you used <ref name=''Pop 65''/> instead of <ref name="Pop 65" />. The quote marks must be the standard straight keyboard marks (") not (''). Final result should look like this,--Chamith (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reference:^[3]^: 4–5;
Second reference to another page: ^[3]^: 62–3

Thanks. I corrected that error and still get error messages. Could the problem be that I put a new section heading between first and second reference? This leads me to a new generic question: I am trying to replace an existing lede section with a new lede and second section. I started by opening "edit" for existing lede. Would that automatically result in a new lede and section 2, with existing section 2 becoming section 3 (and all references in both appearing in existing reference section)? Or do I need to open "edit" for existing section 2 AND reference section in order to replace existing references? My thanks continue.TBR-qed (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, TBR-qed: there is no interaction whatever between section headings and references. I can't make out what page you are working on, so I can't investigate the actual problem. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm clear on section heading, but still stuck on referencing multiple pages from one source. I was unable to use the help page short form, but found the full {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) form worked. But when editing another section, neither the short nor long form works: the pages come up but linked to sequential sources numbered 1, 2, 3... Since I cut-and-pasted the form from where it worked to where it didn't, I don't see how I could have written it wrong. Thanks for your patience.TBR-qed (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TBR-qed. You have probably copy-pasted them from another file such as Word or something like it, that uses typographical quotation marks, like the one in this example: <ref name=“Pop 65”/> . In order for it to work here in the Wiki markup, the quotation marks have to be straight, like this: <ref name="Pop 65"/>. The quotation marks will turn out "straight" if you type them directly in the editing window. Just substitute them there, along with all other "left" or "right" quotation marks, it is the easiest way of doing it. Once it is done, the references will appear as usual. May I also ask, the reason that your article (which is in the editor's sandbox) was declined, was that an article with the same name already exists in the Wikipedia. I presume you knew that all along, so why did you write a new one instead of just adding to and improving the existing one? Best, w.carter-Talk 21:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll avoid cut-and-paste. I would have loved to improve the existing article. But it barely mentions the philosopher who shaped its present definition, and ignores the philosopher who challenged the first. I've sought feedback for 5 months--mostly without result but with several supporters--as the talk page attests. The fellow who declined my sandbox accepted my explanation and urged me to be bold. I would greatly appreciate your reactions after I lay out my case.TBR-qed (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TBR-qed: Since you have new, relevant and sourced information, I would say it's about time you got bold and added your text to the article. Especially since you have been encouraged to do so by others. Since I gather that it will take several days to get everything in the right place in the article, perhaps with new subsections and all, I would recommend that you let others know that by putting the code {{under construction}} at the top of the article when you start. This will result in a box/sign about what is going on. You can see all about it here: Template:Under construction. Please let me know when you start, and I will keep an eye on all the coding and references while you are working, to see that they turn out right. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful recommendation--I've started using it, and overcome my markup errors on the way. Is it legal to reward gurus in the Wikipedia system?TBR-qed (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TBR-qed:Your enthusiasm is reward enough. :) I corrected the template the "nowiki" surrounding is just a way of not making the full sign appear here at the Teahouse. I expect you you can see it properly at the page now. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Stadium,_Singapore
^ ^a ^b {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

Username Creation Question

Sorry, pretty new to Wikipedia so this might be a dumb question, I'm not even sure if this is the right place for this or not. I would like to create an account on Wikipedia, but someone has already taken the username that I really want. I checked on it, and this person has never made any edits to Wikipedia, and hasn't even been on Wikipedia since 2009. The person has also deleted their user and talk page, probably because they decided they wanted to retire from editing. Is it possible to delete this person's account and/or send them an email asking if they still want their account since they never even use it anymore/ or have ever used it in the past? Here's the user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katniss_Everdeen

Thanks, and I would be very grateful if you could help me. Also if this is the wrong place can you please direct me to the right place? 97.88.5.67 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@97.88.5.67: Welcome to the Teahouse. Since the account never edited (or did anything but create an account), it's possible for you to take over ("usurp") it. Just create an account with any name and then request a usurpation of the User:Katniss_Everdeen at this page. --Jakob (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user and talk page have never existed. Such pages are not created automatically when an account is registered. The user has never made any edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! 97.88.5.67 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article created for self-promotion; sources offline

I've reviewed and edited a number of articles created by someone to promote themselves via WP. The main one was Eric Diesel. So far, so good. But there's an article one of his many socks created, Louis Lesser, that I'm having trouble with.

With an article like Eric Diesel or Pearlasia Gamboa, the sources were all relatively modern. This was a good thing, as there were major issues with source clustering, weird Tumblr sources and sources not actually saying what the articles did. But the Lesser sources are old and, where available, are paywalled. So we have a situation where an article has been created by someone with a record of self promotion about someone that he had formed a business partnership with. Although reliable sources have been cited, there's no easy way to verify them, and they were added by someone who's repeatedly not accurately cited before. Any ideas what I should do? Bromley86 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Louis Lesser has died at a very advanced age, there are no major concerns about promotionalism, and the visible snippets of paywalled articles make it clear that he was notable. I agree that there are strange, excessive aspects to this article. The only thing to do, if you are serious about improving the article, is to obtain some of the sources, search for other sources online, and begin a careful pruning of the article, keeping the truly important points. Mentioning every bowling alley he developed seems excessive to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cullen; I was afraid that was the situation. I suppose the solution is to assume the sources are solid (an unsafe assumption, but I've looked for the sources and they're not reproduced except on the paywalled archive site) and prune. Bromley86 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bromley86: Hey Bromley86. You can request access to paywalled articles at WP:RX (Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request). Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I'll have a look at that. Bromley86 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of certain object in London

(This question moved here from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse by w.carter-Talk 09:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Happy New Year Wikipedians, i want to extend the list of Armenian Genocide memorials. According to [4] there is also a memorial in London not for from Hyde Park. It is located on the yard of Saint Sarkis Armenian church, exactly here [5]. Is there any photograph willing to help me with making a photo of it? If so, i kindly ask to make some overview and detailed photos (often at the back or side there is a plaque or inscription) of it and upload it to Commons. I need this detailed photos to add the transcriptions afterwards. Thanks advance, --Aschroet (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this query does not yield any result you might take a look at editors who have a "This user lives in London" userbox (they are listed here and here) and see if any of these have a userbox stating that they are interested in photography, and simply ask at their talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aschroet, Not a bit of London I often visit, but I have posted your request on the talkpage of this Sunday's London meetup. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a nice picture, it may be worth contacting the org to see if it can be released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Thank you. Hope that someone makes some good quality photo which would be best solution. --Aschroet (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get a photo of this, either this weekend or next week. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thrydulf, much appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aschroet: I've now uploaded the photographs I took of the memorial to commons:Category:Armenian Genocide memorial, London. I managed to photograph both sides, there is an English description on the west/northwest side that I have transcribed in the description of those photographs showing it. On the main, east/southeast face are two inscriptions in Armenian that I have not transcribed (this computer doesn't have the right fonts available to even try). There was no separate plaque that I saw. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, thank u for the photographs. Only a few of memorials have such detailed views. I added the missing Armenian inscriptions and corrected minor issues in the descriptions. For your interest, usages: Armenian article about the monument and List of Armenian Genocide memorials in German. Further use will come. Thank you very much again. --Aschroet (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Projective Line Page

Hello. I was a little confused about why ∞+∞ is not defined but ∞*∞ = ∞. This doesn’t make sense. I believe both should be left undefined (for now) and i think 0*∞ , ∞/∞ , and 0/0 should be defined as C where C is a constant. Idk if this constant could be infinity but I certainly think these should be defined. if a/0 = ∞*b then that implies a/b = ∞*0. A similar proof could be done with the others. Am i allowed to change the page or add a note because this is more of an idea but idk if this is 100% correct (maybe a note to the right of the equation?)

From, Michael Orwin

75.129.112.17 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Michael, I hate to pass you off to another locale, but you might get better responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is where all the math experts hang out around here. Maybe someone there can help... --Jayron32 04:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Hopefully someone responds tomorrow or Saturday morning. Don't know how quick wikipedia is. Never used wikipedia beforeJetstream5500 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, every article in Wikipedia has an associated Talk page (pick the 'Talk' tab at the top) and that's the best place to start a discussion about the article. If nobody responds there, then this is one of the places to try, but the talk page is your first port of call. The answer to your question is emphaticaly, Yes, you are allowed to change the page: the worst that can happen (as long as you are not being obviously disruptive) is that omebody disagrees and reverts your change: then you can have a discussion with them on the talk page to try and reach consensus. But here, it doesn't sound like correcting an obvious error, but a difference in approach, so I would recommend the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was a very informative answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a page for my locksmith business. is this allowed

Is it a Good idea? Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:2702:18A0:88BB:EFA9:B7CD:84 (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It´s very likely a bad idea, please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My article was reviewed

Hi,

I recently submitted a article about a public figure in Nepal and it was reviewed by a editor of Wikipedia and was green signaled by 1 editor and other reviewing editor declined . So kindly if some can get my article approved by rewriting my article so that it gets accepted then I would really appreciate it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Faithful_loyal/sandbox

Best Regards, Sunny 977-9841366353 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithful loyal (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Stadium,_Singapore

[Schudson-2] {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

[Pop_65-3] {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]