Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 149

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

Archive 145

←

Archive 147

→

What to do about foreign language accounts

Sorry, I did not intend to be back so soon, but I apparently have an account on the French, German, and Frisian Wikipedias; and my knowledge of those languages is seriously lacking (to say the least). I would use them to compare the English Wikipedia's articles to theirs, or search for articles that didn't exist on the English Wikipedia, I didn't realise this would create an account on them until I received a message on the French Wikipedia. Though I can read them through a translator (more or less), I cannot see any way that I could contribute much, if anything to them. Now, I feel quite foolish, and I'm really not sure what to do. As the Crow Flies (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello As the Crow Flies, why not just not use the accounts? Leaving them won't do any harm. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey As the Crow Flies. Do nothing. Worry not at all. Your feeling of chagrin is misplaced:-) Unified login automatically reserves your account name for you on any other Wikimedia project (where the name does not by happenstance already exist). When you visit there you are automatically logged in (which is a good thing). Some Wikipedias have automatic welcome template placement for anyone who logs in the first time or user who scan for new arrivals and welcome them, so if you visit, you may get such a welcome template, as happened here. This implies nothing, imposes no obligation on you, and is run of the mill event that happens numerous times every day. Just ignore it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both, I tend to worry about things (no matter how irrational), so I had to ask or I would have kept on worrying about it. Thanks again! As the Crow Flies (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Using a company website as a reference for sales information

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing, and am interested in updating the sales list for the Hyundai Sonatas article. Is it acceptable to use the sales numbers that are provided on the Hyundai website in the form of downloadable excel sheets, or is this not considered a valid reference? Thanks. Danielle.lee92 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable to source statistics, especially sales, to the company's website. If a newspaper or journal article wrote about this, then that would probably be fine. See WP:PRIMARY for more information on primary sources. Adabow (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia pronunciation symbols

I know IPA notation is some sort of standard generally meaningful to people who study phonetics, but it's of little help to a layperson. Is there a tool out there that converts this notation to an audio file so I can just learn how to say a word? 69.255.0.253 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello 69.255.0.253. Good question! As far as I can tell, no such tool exists. From discussions my google search unearthed it looks like it would be a quite a difficult task to create one. --LukeSurl^{t c} 22:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you add multiple inline citations to a single fact

I would like to know if you can add various citations to a single fact so people reading the article can check the fact from various verifiable sources outside of Wikipedia, thanks in advance. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I would encourage doing that. If you have three or more citations, you may like to look at the practice of bundled citations which can be used to achieve maximum verifiability whilst still keeping the article nice and neat. --LukeSurl^{t c} 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Page declined because it reads like an advertisement

Hello! I'm a marketing administrator for a company named "FirstCarbon Solutions". I'm trying to create a page for our sister company "ADEC Group" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ADEC_Group). Unfortunately, it has been declined a few times, as Wikipedia feels it reads too much like and advertisement. I'm not sure how I can include the facts and services of the company, without making it sound like an ad. Any suggestions on how I can get this page approved?

Thanks, Sarah

Swilson322 (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Sorry you are having difficulty. An encyclopedia article about a company is very different from a company's description about itself on its website. To begin with, it should be written in prose, not bullet points. Next you need to find some references that are completely independent of the company to show that the company is notable (that it, has been noticed in the world of business). Press releases don't do this. Just being large and successful doesn't mean a company in notable in the sense that an encyclopedia uses it. Look for articles about the companies that make up the group. They are more likely to have been written about than the overall corporate structure is. Next, approach the article from an historical point of view. When was it founded and by whom. Add information in historical order. Your milestones by year are too detailed for an encyclopedia article. Each piece of information you add needs a reference. For some the these facts press releases are OK.

Your main problem, though, may be that creating this page has become part of your job. That is, you have a conflict of interest here. You may be judged on how the article turns out. The article needs to be completely neutral, not for the company and not against it. If notable information exists that the company doesn't like people to see, it will still need to go into the article. So Wikipedia strongly discourages paid people from editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, Sarah. You should also read WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:RS for a better understanding of what StarryGrandma said.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Working in sandbox

I want to make massive improvements to an existing article and elevate it to GA or maybe even FA. But I prefer to work in my sandbox until I'm convinced that the article can clear the review process. Is that okay? I won't be able to explain every corrections or changes that I make since I intend to do it in a single edit when I'm done with it. Does that violate any policies or anything like that? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In general I would suggest that you would be better making the changes in manageable chunks, upon which other editors can take a view (and revert if appropriate) in each case. If you try to do the whole lot in one chunk, if other editors object to one part of it they would have no easy option but to revert the lot. Other editors may have different advice for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)HiSriram Vikram. I confess I'm not enamored with the idea. There are times it makes sense to do what you are suggesting, if the article is in horrible shape, and a consensus of editors is that it needs an overhaul. In those circumstances, it makes sense to work on a replacement version in a sandbox, although usually it is done as a sandbox off the article talk page. Is that the case? I'm particularly troubled by your observation that you might not be able to explain every edit. While that is not strictly necessary, you must be in a position to explain every change from the existing article (which is not quite the same thing). Can you identify the article, which might help make this discussion more concrete?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend anyone. Its just that I want to keep it a surprise. ;) -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a surprise, it is a collaborative editing enterprise. Trying to do things on your own in secret smacks of "ownership". - David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you may do work in your Sandbox,as opposed to creating a Wikipedia page before the content is complete. Doing the latter could result in your page's premature deletion and cause unnecessary confusion. I would suggest the sandbox to avoid this issue. Best of luck, Padraig Singal | ✉ 14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the OP, Padraig. If he had been talking about generating a new article, the sandbox is a good idea, but he is referring to changes to an existing article. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean a NO? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm with David. Perhaps you want to update a bio of someone, and show them the result. However, it will moot the surprise if it is reverted. Major changes, absent consensus, are highly unlikely to stick. I wish I could give you more positive feedback, but this isn't sounding like a good idea. Which isn't a "no" it is more of a case that your plan has potential for undesired consequences.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So, I'll try to make edits in chunks as have been advised to. Thanks everyone. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Does University Dissertations only as a reference make an article notable?

Hi, I am new in wikipedia. I want to publish an article which has little or no reference in newspapers, magazines, radio and TV but has reference in University Dessertations. Will this article be marked notable?

ikol (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ikol, and welcome to the Teahouse. Doctorate dissertations can certainly help show notability, but to guarantee notability is another thing entirely. They may be reliable sources to depend on, however. At Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari one of the main sources was a dissertation. If I knew the topic I could probably point you to something more solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Copying over Wikis

Hi, Sorry to trouble you all, i have found a lot of red links on foreign footballers, i can find details on them on other Wikipedia's, (i.e Spanish and German) can i just copy/paste the translation to create a new artice then just clean it up, or is their a different way it's done?

Thank you in advance. Iantheimp 11:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ian. When copying from another Wikipedia (or from one article to another here) you must provide copyright attribution. It's easy: when you copy the content here, place in the edit summary, before you save, an attribution note like (for a Spanish originating article) Copying content from [[:es:Exact Name of Spanish Wikipedia article]] for translation. You should also place on the talk page the filled-out template {{Translated page}}. Where to do this is important. If you're not going to pre-translate, but post in the original language and then work on the translation, I would always start this as a user sandbox (a subpage in your user or user talk namespace), in a form like User:Iantheimp/Name of title. Not doing so might lead to its deletion under CSD A2 before you can even get started. When you've completed the translation and are ready to 'go live', you can move the article to the mainspace. Note that other Wikipedias may have different notability thresholds or the articles may not even belong there but haven't been deleted yet. So before undertaking a translation, I would make sure in my own mind the topic is notable. Are there independent reliable sources covering the person in depth to cite to? Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm so green it hurts... Just tried to post my first article - REJECTED! Help

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trattoria Cucina Italiania Asia

Hello - this is my first go at this and I must say it's very foreign. I tried to post a new article about a restaurant that has several locations throughout Indonesia called Trattoria Asia and it was rejected. If anyone could help it would be much appreciated.

Thank you,

Jody Superhero Cape Designer (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jns4eva. The reason your article was declined was because it didn't really cohere to WP:NPOV and seemed more like an advertisement. For example, in the first sentence, you mention how it offers an "unbeatable value". This is more subjective and sounds like you're advertising. A good way to think when creating or editing articles is asking yourself "is this a fact or an opinion?". Using the above example, "unbeatable value" is more of an opinion. Instead, it would be better to write "Trattoria Cucina Italiania Asia is a restaurant chain founded in December 2002 that serves Italian cuisine and pizza".

If you have any more questions, feel free to reply or ask me on my talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope to see your article up soon! Jns4eva (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, to ensure that the restaurant is ready to have an article about it, I strongly suggest you read our guideline Wikipedia:Notability (restaurants). A restaurant article can only be published it it meets those requirements. It must have coverage in news media or academia. Not just mention that it exists, but actual commentary about its career and impact. There are many millions of restaurants in the world, but only a small portion are qualified to have their own Wikipedia articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A Question Concerning the Chicken Breed Infobox

Hello, I have been cleaning up some of the Chicken Breed Infoboxes, and I cannot seem to get them to display the ABA information. The creator of the infobox, Stepshep, is semi-retired; so I wasn't sure where to inquire about it. As the Crow Flies (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, As the Crow Flies. Stepshep last edited about two weeks ago, so discussion on that editor's talk page is appropriate. Also, they have email enabled, so sending an email might get a quicker response. A comment on the talk page for the template itself is a good idea. Technical 13 is one of many editors skilled at solving template problems. (I'm not.) Ask on their talk page if all else fails. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wasn't sure how to go about it. I appreciate your help! As the Crow Flies (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Click here to contest this speedy deletion".

Wikipedia wrongly accused me of doing something I didn't do. Where is the "Click here to contest this speedy deletion"? I can't find it. Please help!!! Kennyzwong (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know what you think you are being accused of that you didn't do. As far as speedy deletion is concerned, if you are talking about Guachoya it was deleted in January 2012, so there is no longer a link saying "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" for that article. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you have only made two edits in the past year and a half, Kennyzwong, the comment above and a minor change to your talk page, so please clarify exactly what you mean. An individual Wikipedia editor making a comment to you does not speak for "Wikipedia" as a whole, although it is wise to pay attention to more experienced editors, especially when they are trying to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Traclisting not getting rendered correctly

Can someone please check this - User:Sohambanerjee1998/sandbox, the table and tell me where I missed something, pipe etc. Sohambanerjee1998 15:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Got help from {{help me}}, thanks. Sorry Sohambanerjee1998 15:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Making an article on something that is already a section

I have made a page for Will Savage but he already has a link that goes to his section on List of Hollyoaks characters (2011) how do I make this link, link to my article?

#Soaper1234 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You have submitted the article for review and it is awaiting review. If the article passes the guidelines, it will be moved to mainspace. The reviewer will take care of it. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 16:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please can someone halt this - this is a sockpuppet in play. Plus that article is focused on recent storylines. Little effort here.Rain the 1 23:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

How do I make proper references (they exist) for this page. It is factual but evidently does not have all the references. The person/artist DOES absolutely meet Wikipedia criteria for a page for a person.

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Randall_Schmit

THere is an extensive bibliography on this artist, which includes catalogue essays by museum curators and directors, as well as many many reviews in top art magazines such as Art in America and Art News etc. In addition this artist has won several important awards (Gottlieb award is international and $ 25,000), Schmit is also in the permanent collections of a number of Accredited museums.(AMA).

Can you please help me understand what I need to reference in order for this article to be approved?

Should I just upload the full bibliography to the page?

I am unsure of the format to do this?

Thanks so much,

Vaaltje (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Vaaltje, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please start by reading Referencing for beginners. Independent sources like Art in America and Art News are best for establishing notability, especially if they give significant coverage to the artist. And if the award he won was mentioned in independent sources, that should be referenced. My view is that you should select a smaller number of the highest quality sources to get the article approved and into main space. Don't include the entire bibliography. And format the references properly. A simple link to an external site is not the proper way to format a reference. All the relevant details should be in the reference itself. And all of the factual assertions in the article should be verifiable from the references provided. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

hi I tried to watch your video instructions for citing, however the video screen does not employ.

I have tried my best to list top sources for each fact. I did upload the entire (known to me) bibliography on the artist, but this can be easily removed if you think it improves the chance to get this page live.

The admin "Matthew Vanitas" has suggested that each fact should be verified with a footnote and I have done this. Many of the articles I am working from are from old journals and are not online, hence no URLs, so there is no way fro me to insert the URL.

I am going to resubmit now. I will remove the bibliography if you recommend it. Thank you, Vaaltje (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How to create an archive of talk?

I am considering moving my talk to an archive and creating a new talk page, how does that work? DudeWithAFeud (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You might try User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 18:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You might, but User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo is challenging to experienced editors and I should think it'd be downright offputting to a new user. It's not necessary to start a bot archiving your talk automatically, DudeWithAFeud, unless that's what you want. You can do your own simple archiving, which goes like this:

Cut out the content of your talkpage, or the part of it that you want to archive, and keep it in your clipboard.
Create a page by the name of User talk:DudeWithAFeud/Archive 1 — clicking on my redlink there will take you to it.
Paste the content of your clipboard into the new page and hit save. Now your archive is ready.
You don't need to create a new talkpage, your talkpage still exists; it just doesn't have any text on it right now. Put a link to the archive on your talkpage, so your readers can find older discussions.

Done. I've used this system for 8 years and I like it — don't want no stinking bot to decide when to archive my page, I want to do it when it suits me. Of course by and by you will want to create User talk:DudeWithAFeud/Archive 2 in the same way, when archive 1 is getting long. I don't want to persuade you to use either of these two systems: please take a look and see which you like best. You're very welcome to ask on my page if my instructions are unclear. (Better not ask me about the Miszabot archiving, though, because after all these years I still don't understand it.) ;-) Bishonen | talk 22:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC).

How to move my article from Sandbox to main space on Wikipedia?

Hi Team, I have created an article with the title "Dev Sharma". It is showing under my Sandbox area. What should I suppose to do so that it would be available for everyone's reading. Requesting for your assistance.

Thanks & Regards himaanshuuuuHimaanshuuuu (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Himaanshuuu. The answer is to move it; but don't move it at present, because it will certainly be deleted. The main problem is that it has no references at all, and without them the article does not establish that the subject is notable (in the special Wikipedia sense). It is also not appropriate in tone, as it reads like a résumé, not like an encyclopaedia article. I recommend that you read WP:your first article and the pages linked from there, and bring the article nearer the standard required. When you think it is there, you can request review by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why did someone review a (draft) article in my user space? And how do I SEE the review?

I received a notice that an article (actually, a disambiguation page) in my user space had been reviewed. There was a link to the/my user space (sub) page, and a link to the reviewer (who says he/she is an admin), but no link to the review.

Why did this editor review the page? Where can I see the edit? And how can I keep (sub) pages from being reviewed (for instance, if they're in-progress)?

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome! It was probably marked as patrolled. Meaning the page is reviewed, not the article itself, but the page in general. Many of my userspace pages were marked as patrolled, most of them by DragonflySixtyseven who he or she is an admin. If you placed the article in Articles for Creation than if reviewed you'll see a reviewed box on top of the page once after you submitted your draft of the article. ///EuroCarGT 23:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your talking about User:Lightbreather/Assault weapon (disambiguation), the page was marked as patrolled. I do not see a "Mark this page as patrolled" option on the bottom of the page, meaning the page itself was reviewed. ///EuroCarGT 23:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

how do I delete an 'rejected' submission

ok you misunderstood. The entry is still there. Should I just wait til it is deleted automatically or can i delete manually? BTN Bigthinknow (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Last year I created an entry here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Barry Building, It was turned down. I got discouraged so I never went back. Recently tho I noticed that an entry for the subject has been accepted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Building. I feel somewhat vindicated! But here is my question: How do I take delete my unsuccessful submission? -bigthinknow Bigthinknow (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome! If a Articles for Creation article has been rejected or never been edit for more than 6 months than, it would be speedily deleted per G13 as " Abandoned Articles for creation submissions". You could try searching for it, however to clear the AfC backlog it will be most likely deleted. ///EuroCarGT 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The version which you proposed through the AFC process is at The Barry Building, but there is already a version at Barry Building. The latter would be the correct title, so it is perhaps rather surprising that the reviewer accepted that without checking for the presence of the former. It has been proposed that the articles be merged, so hopefully if there is anything of value in your version it will be included in Barry Building. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC).

ok you misunderstood. The entry is still there. Should I just wait til it is deleted automatically or can i delete manually? BTN Bigthinknow (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bigthinknow, perhaps you should put {{db-u1}} at the top of the page User:Bigthinknow/sandbox. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a layman and have designed a new atomic model and periodic table. I have written a 2,000 word article in layman's terms describing new model and periodic table. Could I get in published on Wikipedia? 187.194.42.54 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. No, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Wikipedia requires its content to be sourced to material already published already published in reliable sources, including peer-reviewed scientific journals. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answers

LukeSuri,numbermaniac,Theroadislong (talk)and Konveryor Belt, Thank you for your posts. They make a lot of sense and I'll take on board what you have said. Much appreciation, Red and black partisanRed and black partisan (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the real ethic of altering articles?

On the main help page there is the injunction to "Be bold in improving articles!" but the Talk pages are very daunting, showing that even experienced editors complain there about problems, explain weakness in great detail, but don't make the required changes. I've made perhaps a hundred edits, so I'm barely experienced. I've taken to stating on the Talk pages what I'm inclined to do and wait for a response, but this is hardly bold. I'm wondering if the real ethic has subtly changed over the years: while Be bold was essential and needed during the early stages, maybe the Talk pages are telling us that more consensus is the new ethic. Honestly in a quandary. pagnol (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, pagnol, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! Always interesting to answer a general/ideological question. I always abide by the bold, revert, discuss ethic. Be bold in making changes, don't get upset if they are reverted, discuss the changes with the reverting editor or the community at large. Most of the time, bold changes are good. When they're not, they can always be reverted. This is not everybody's ethic, but it's mine. Thanks, the one sean 15:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello pagnol and welcome to the Teahouse. In response, I would say that every article is different. More specifically, some articles receive tens of thousands of page views a day, and others receive a handful. Some articles are about highly controversial topics, and other topics have essentially no associated controversy. Some articles have dozens of active editors, and hundreds watching. In the case of other articles, you may be the only person who cares on a daily basis. And there is a continuum between the extremes I've described. I suggest that you gain experience by improving lower-visibility articles, before jumping into to battleground of editing highly visible, extremely controversial articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for good advice. Cullen, how do I find out how much traffic (how many watchers, how many editors etc.) a given site has? pagnol (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi pagnol. If you go to the "View history" tab of any article, you'll see (just below the "Browse history" box) a list of links labelled "External tools". The last two of these - Number of watchers and Page view statistics - are probably most relevant to your query; you may find the other tools interesting as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is X's edit counter lagging?

Hi everybody, hosts and parasites.

Today I found the that X's edit counter is suffering from a replication lag of 1 days, 6 hours, 48 minutes, 28 seconds and went to this link but could'n't understand any of that. So will somebody explain it to me? Sohambanerjee1998 14:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sohambanerjee1998. The data that X's counter uses has to be processed by other software at Wikipedia's servers before the counter can access it. This data is done in batches, and since Wikipedia relies on donations, it only has so much processing capacity available. Priority is given to the readers of the encyclopedia, so sometimes the administrative functions are put off until there is a lull in server demand. Eventually, the edits will be counted, but sometimes it takes a while. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see, has it happened before? If yes then when was the last time? Sohambanerjee1998 14:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It happens several times a month. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Getting Articles Accepted

I am new to Wiki and my first submission was declined. I have taken note of the comments and would like any ideas on how to improve this ready for resubmission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/St_Mary-at-Latton_Church,_Harlow

many thanks

StmaryatlattonStmaryatlatton (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stmaryatlatton, and welcome to Wikipedia. I am afraid that you have started off badly by breaking (unintentionally, I'm sure) two of Wikipedia's main policies. First, you have chosen a username which indicates that you are representing an organization; all editors on Wikipedia have to edit as individuals, and not have usernames that promote organizations (even ones that are dear to their hearts!). You can change your username by following the advice at this link: Wikipedia:Changing username.

Secondly (and more seriously), although the person who reviewed your article didn't notice it, you have copied large sections or your article from another web site (and one with a copyright notice printed right on it!). This is not legal, and so the article can never be accepted, and indeed will need to be deleted. Wikipedia editors must write text in their own words. A short article is acceptable, provided that it includes references to independent sources. I hope that you will take the time to rewrite and not be discouraged by these initial problems. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anne. I have revised the page and hope I have covered your concerns. As I have not got many edits worthy of keeping will it be best for me to create a new user name and ignore the old one? If I do this is it the case that I can continue to improve this page while it awaits review. I would make edits under this name only.

thank you chesterStmaryatlatton (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and HTML?

Hi, does Wikipedia use HTML or does it use another different way to make edits to pages and articles. And how is posting a picture here different from HTML? How can I post a picture in an article or page and do the pictures have to be provided by Wiki or can you use a picture from the internet? Thanks.(N0n3up (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up, welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your questions in order: Wikipedia does not use HTML, it uses Wikimarkup instead; I've never posted an image in HTML, but Wikipedia:Picture tutorial shows how it's done here; any picture at Wikimedia Commons is usable on a Wikipedia article, but a random picture on the internet is almost certainly not usable because of the copyright on the image. I hope this answers your questions. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

to answer your first question: yes and no, you can use some html, but not all tags are supported, and use of html in articles aside from <br/>, is generally discouraged. I use a bit of html in my userpage, but most of the time, I don't need anything beyond wiki markup. see Help:HTML in wikitext. for Images, they need to be uploaded to either commons, if they are licensed appropriately, or to wikipedia. the picture tutorial linked above can probably help you more on that. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 06:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

How to expand my entry in Wikipedia?

Hi, My name is Adrian Gray and I have an entry in Wikipedia, but it does not have any details. I understand I cannot update my own entry and want to know how to get relevant information entered.A quick search on the internet will show many print interviews and TV I have done, plus exhibitions and shows I have been involved in. My website stonebalancing.com has my CV with lots of other information. How do I get this information on my entry. Thanks Adrian81.135.76.82 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Adrian, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that we have an article about another Adrian Gray, a darts player, and that you are mentioned in Rock balancing. You will see that other rock balancers like Andy Goldsworthy have blue links. That means that Wikipedia articles have been written about them. Your name is a red link, which means some editor in the past thought an article about you would be a good idea, but it hasn't yet been written.

It is good that you understand that it wouldn't be a great idea to try to write about yourself. See our Policy on autobiographies for more information. The issue is whether you have received significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources, and whether you meet our specific notability guideline for artists. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions here, or on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Border in film infobox

I am having a problem. I was updating and improving the infobox for Black Wind, White Land, and as the film poster with a white background it blends with the white background of the page. I added a yes to the border parametrer but it doesn't work. Can anybody help me please. Thank you. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! The border did work! I compared it with 'no' and 'yes', and 'yes' shows it has a light grey coloured background around the theatrical release poster. ///EuroCarGT 23:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you help me get this article approved?

Can you please help me understand what I need to do to get this submission accepted? I don't understand why it is still declined after multiple edits. Thank you. Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Octane Fitness Juliemking (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Juliemking. It seems that the reason it was rejected the last time is that it hadn't changed much since the previous rejection. It still reads like a sales pitch for the company. An encyclopedia article is different from a company history on its website. Here you just describe the company -- what it is, how it developed, how its products were introduced. Most company articles on Wikipedia aren't well written, so its hard to give you a good example. We are trying to improve them. I will leave some comments on the page that will help. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you read over all of the messages that have been left for you on that page? They detail what problems the folks looking over new articles found with your piece. If you follow their advice, find citations to back up your claims, it will no doubt be more successful. I recommend you consider the advice you have already been given...the Editors that approve new articles look over hundreds each week and they know what they are talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Will try again.67.162.83.51 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Will try again.Juliemking (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Article I created still in my Sandbox

Earlier this year I successfully created an article, Darren James (broadcaster). I have just noticed that what looks like the 'live' copy of the article is still in my sandbox. Is there a procedure to remove it or does it belong there? This article went through the peer approval process and was uploaded by the approving editor. Any comments/assistance appreciated.Melbourne3163 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Melbourne. You can request the page be speedily deleted by using the this criteria (U1), which allows users to request deletion of their own userpage or subpages. Putting the template {{db-u1}} will do the trick. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively you could just replace it with something else in your sandbox or blank it until you use the sandbox again. Valenciano (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I thought I would try the blanking suggestion to save bothering other editors, but that left the article heading showing in the sandbox, and more importantly, entirely removed the article from Wikipedia. If I try I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}'s suggestion, is the same thing likely to happen? Melbourne3163 (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, Melbourne3163. I think I see what happened here. At some point, you moved your article from your sandbox to the article space (mainspace), which created a redirect from the sandbox to the article. If you go here, you'll get to the redirect that is your sandbox. I'd recommend using the speedy delete template because otherwise, all of the old page history will be there from your last move if you decide to write something else in it later. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your speedy response. Yes, the editor who approved the article did move it. I have now added the speedy deletion template, and thank you very much for your assistance. Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You actually added the speedy template to the mainspace article instead of your sandbox, I removed it. You need to add the speedy to this page, not the article itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Somehow I thought it was the sandbox one. Thanks for removing it. Melbourne3163 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Uploading images

Thanks for your reply Cullen. I have followed directions exactly but cannot see the image I selected uploaded. Also, there is no 'box' for me to state which Wiki page it should be inserted into. Is that right?

David Shrimpton Davidshrimpton (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Good! The image is now uploaded at Commons successfully. For using the image in any article, you can copy this text.
[[File:Fulham legends, George Cohen, Les Strong and Tosh Chamberlain in July 2013.jpg|thumb|"Write your caption here"]]
However, the email through which you have received the permission for publication needs to be sent to our OTRS team. The instructions of how to do that are posted on your talk page of Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Also remember, when you put images in infoboxes not to put the File: path name. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 18:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What Konveyor Belt said in his reply isn't always true. It depends in the design of the infobox, so you need to check. See Help:Infobox#Adding an image to an infobox. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

How do I move a new article?

Hi there, I am completely new to editing WIkipedia and I have just finished an article. How do I "publish" it? Thanks! Munchkin2013 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Munchkin2013and welcome. If you are referring to United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, the article was created in mainspace and is live (ie. "published"). I hope this helps. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Sorry for the stupid question, but does this mean that the article can be found on Wikipedia now? Or do I need to do something else? Thank you and sorry again for the unintelligent questions... Munchkin2013 (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Munchkin2013, yes it can be found on wikipedia now. On another note, I wonder if the long lists add much to the article, eg the faculty list. Just a thought. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Munchkin2013, I agree with Flat Out that the faculty list is excessive. I recommend trimming it to notable faculty members who have Wikipedia biographies. Also, I suggest reformatting the references to hide the URLs. Please take a look at Referencing for beginners for tips. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your recommendations! I will take a look at it right away! Munchkin2013 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome Munchkin2013. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

How to find a mature, female mentor

I would like to find a female mentor, preferably mature and moderate. My background is in (early) computer programming (CoBOL), and (more recently) news writing and editing. Lightbreather (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: What kind of mentor are you looking for? A mentor for Wikipedia editing? If so, see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, but editors are mostly anonymous, so you could well end up picking a male, immature, and extreme adopter

--Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jakob. I'll need to think about that. I have enough males in my life - inside and outside WP. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There's the m:WikiWomen's Collaborative maybe? --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I second LukeSurl's suggestion. If you go to m:WikiWomen's Collaborative and scroll down the page, you'll see bios of some of the women participating and I think there are a few who have a background in science and technology. I'd post a "Hello!" note on a Talk Page or two and see who gets back to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I think I've found someone! Lightbreather (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Where can i discuss introducing a contemparized exposition of (Dharma) The Support

I wish to create a modern guide to Manuel Adaptation which i can display as a technical training guide without being harassed on grounds of original research and closed platform synthesis,How can i go about this--Prograce (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Prograce. That doesn't sound like anything which would be appropriate to Wikipedia. It might fit in the sister project Wikiversity. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about that, i will check it out, thanks Colin --Prograce (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Offline Wikipedia

Hi guys, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask but I am really at my wit's end. Please bear with me :-) I recently downloaded the Wikipedia dump. Some 9 gb. It took around ten grands in my currency (no wifi here) to d/l I used 7z to decompress and now I am left with a 41gb file that ends with. Xml Now, what do I do to read/use Wikipedia offline? Thanks a lot already.

Kaling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.196.155.198 (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 106. What you have there is not Wikipedia: it is a dump of the Wikipedia database. You need some software to interpret it - and if you want to read it as a Wiki, you will need your own copy of the MediaWiki software, and a Web server to run it on. I suggest you look at WP:FAQ/Readers#Can I get Wikipedia on CD, or download it for offline use? for another way to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Contributions

How can I show my contributions to other users?--Paleocemoski (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Paleocemoski, just link people to this page. You can find a link to it in the upper right corner of any page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paleocemoski!

Just type [[Special:Contributions/*YOUR USERNAME*|contribs]] wherever you want to show-off your contributions...

P.S. - Do remember to replace *YOUR USERNAME* with your username :) Martinian^{Leave a message!} 00:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

Good evening,

I am wrapping up my first wikipedia article and was looking for any suggestions as to my citations, format, language, etc...Do you think it is ready for submission? Any criticism is welcome! Thank you all for your help! Here is the link... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thecyberfusion/sandbox

Thecyberfusion (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thecyberfusion! Thanks for dropping by the Teahouse. Aside from some minor copy-editing issues which I will get into later, your article seems very well written. There is not any promotional language at all, and that is great. But, and unfortunately it is a very big but, there is nothing in your article to show notability. In order for an article on a subject to be published on Wikipedia, it must be notable. That is our criteria for inclusion. Unless you show that reliable, independent, secondary sources are talking about your subject, then it does not get an article. There are no references to secondary sources at all. You will need to find some references from books, magazines, newspapers, radio or TV news, or respected scientific journals that talk about the company in detail, not just a passing mention or as a part of a bigger discussion on something else. The specific notability standard for a company, WP:CORP, also requires that whatever coverage in secondary sources you can show be "wide-ranging", that is, not just from the company's local area. All the copy-editing stuff can be done after it is published; however, until you get some referencing showing notability, it isn't going to get published. Good luck with your research! Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong w/ the references in my article submission now?

The references include two good sources from established publications in the translation profession - more than one finds in many similar entries. Yet once again it is rejected. The German article has less backup and even the persnickity Germans seem OK with that. 89.180.91.189 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you posted this as an IP editor and the only edit logged from that IP is this entry I am responding to, we have no way to know what you are talking about so we can help you. Could you clear that up so we can? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

having trouble posting articles

hi Wikipedia community: I am a new user, after reading all the entries on how to post new articles, I am still having a hard time creating articles. can someone help me out and make sure that my article is in compliance with all the rules?

thank you

YVC YVC (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The main rules you have to watch out for are WP:reliability, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTABILITY. If it's about a person, WP:BLP is also very important. If you want to make sure your article complies with all the policies before it goes live, you should use WP:Articles for Creation. I hope this helps! Ross Hill (talk) 03:16, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC) 03:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, it is actually about an online magazine. it was deleted because of notability, but I am still not sure what that means or how to go about making it notable YVC (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability is just whether something has been written about by reliable third party sources. This link may help: WP:42. Ross Hill (talk) 03:24, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC) 03:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you

is there a way to go around that? the magazine that I am referring to is on glassdoor.com but I am unable to find other sources that have written about itYVC (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If no one has published anything about this magazine, then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. Maybe in the future it will become more notable. Why not make an article about something else for which you can find sources? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It is by no means surprising that a magazine you started last month has not been written about sufficiently to be notable in Wikipedia's terms. If the magazine eventually does get significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the magazine, then it will be possible for someone to write an article about it, but you should not try to do so yourself, for reasons described at WP:conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or promotion of your magazine. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

How long takes until the publication of a new article?

Hello Team!,

I did my first article and I was wondering how long takes to publish the article? After the revision of the references, and the originality in the article.

Thank you so much!

Wendy Issa 02:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WendyIssa (talk • contribs) 02:03, 17 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wendy. There is a brown box at the foot of your draft, and in there it says: "Review waiting. This may take over 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1334 submissions waiting for review." Ignore the grey box at the top of the article which still says: "Article not currently submitted for review."; that is a shortcoming of the submission process, & that box will eventually be removed from your draft. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

YVC (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Do all articles go through the AFC process now?

Hi. Quick question...do all articles go through the AFC process (which is currently backlogged by 1300+ submissions) or is that only for non-registers users? I believe I'm a registered user but my article is in this backlog. I don't recall this process a few years ago but it's been a while since I've contributed to Wikipedia. Would you please be so kind as to share with me if this is now the new process or if I can submit my article differently because I'm a registered user. Thank you very much Wikalias (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Wikalias and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you have an account, you can just go to a non-existent page (e.g. An example) and start editing, then save the page, just like making a normal edit. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 01:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Wikalias, and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles for Creation is an optional process, useful for new editors, but not mandatory. Any auto confirmed user who is confident that their article draft complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is free to move that draft directly into main space, immediately. But new page patrollers will take a look at the article, and if it appears non-compliant, they will try to have it deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikalias, if you are talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kristine Kershul, I wouldn't move that out into the encyclopedia just yet. It's pretty promotional, and there are sections which appear to be copied from sales web sites and will cause the article to be deleted right away. Please remove or rewrite these right away. The article should have only verifiable facts, rather than feelings and opinions. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

I was lookin' at the Wikipedia article on how to upload pictures, and it was so crammed with techincal crap I couldn't figger out how to do what I wanted to do. So my question is: how do you upload photos to Wikipedia, and how can you tell what copyrights they have? The photos I have in mind-I think they're in the public domain, but I ain't sure. Thanks. Tambelon (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tambelon: Hey Tambelon. Images and how they interact with copyright is unfortunately a very complex area. To boil it down as much as possible:

Most images you stumble upon on the Internet are non-free copyrighted;
We assume an image is non-free copyrighted unless we have verifiable information to the contrary;
As a general rule of thumb, if an image is published prior to 1923 it is in the public domain in the U.S. (where our servers are located). The rub here is "published" – not just an image from prior to 1923 but an image published prior to 1923;
U.S. federal Government works are not eligible for copyright and are public domain in the U.S. (meaning many state works are not);
If an image is in the public domain (or under a free copyright license compatible with our free licenses), it should be uploaded to our sister site, the Wikimedia Commons rather than to Wikipedia, so that all projects Wikimedia have access to the image (once uploaded there is can be used here immediately);
You can use certain searches to find useable free images. For Flickr, try this search (for images licensed under CC-By 2.0) and this search (for images licensed under CC-By-SA 2.0). Also:
• Perform a Google Images search but place "-Wikimedia" in the search so you avoid Commons images;

• Click on the gear icon on the top right hand side of the screen and select Advanced Search;

• Scroll to usage rights and select "free to use, share, or modify even commercially";

• Click the Advanced Search button.
You can provide the specifics of what you want to upload here, at the help desk or maybe better yet, at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, to elicit opinion on whether they are public domain/compatibly freely-licensed;
We allow use of non-free copyrighted images under fair use doctrine, but only if the material meets the strict criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. You might also ask at one of the said locations as to whether a particular image would qualify as fair use and what you need to do to use it, as it's fairly complex.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Tambelon (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)