Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hawkmist (talk | contribs) at 03:20, 8 August 2013 (→Use of extra pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

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.


Use of extra pages

Is it ok for me to start a new article within my own user directory for humour purposes? I.e. User:EnglishEfternamn/Pagename EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 02:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it's your userspace. --Silverstream 03:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve articles?

How can I improve the articles? Wangedgar (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. Could you be more specific?Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I complete?

Hello, Earlier you help me suggesting I should i proper links and i did. I also add some photos this time. The only one thing i couldn't do was add resources, would be able to check if I am going the right wat and if i submit it will be accepted please.

Thanks Adoracionpuntual (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are referring to User:Adoracionpuntual/Lenny Flamenco, see #Trying to anderstand Wikipedia. below? You are going in the right direction, but you still have no references to published reliable sources. Without those, your submission would immediately be declined. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice on how to deal with my first heavy editing of an article on Wikipedia?

I am working on improving a Wikipedia article. This is the first time I have really tried to improve an article,I usually just correct grammar or remove vandalism on pages I happen to be reading. The article I'm working on is Dance Moms. It is a hot mess. My problem is the every time I change what needs to be changed, like removing unsourced claims, or opinions, anonymous IP's or people with a user name but no talk page just change what I write back to how it was before I changed it, or they add in statements that are even worse. Their are boxes throughout the article stating what needs to be changed so that is what I try to do. I always explain my changes in the history and on the talk page. But I feel like I'm not getting anything accomplished on the article. Since Dance Moms is a popular show, it seems to attract a lot of fans who just don't understand the guidelines of Wikipedia and write statements that are nothing but opinions. I'm not trying to claim ownership of the article, I'm not even a fan of the show,but I have watched the show,which is why I looked up Dance Moms on WP in the first place. If anyone would care to look,they can read the history or the Dance Moms talk page to see the statements I have removed,to see if I am correct for removing them. I just feel like I'm going in a loop everyday trying to fix this article,removing the same things over and over again,yet accomplishing nothing for the article. Thanks for your time. BeckiGreen (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Becki. After a bit of page history exploration, I have semi-protected the article for three months. This means that editors without accounts, and those with accounts who are not autoconfirmed will be unable to edit the article during the span of protection. This should allow you more room to make good changes without all the hassle I see in the page history. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much for your help.BeckiGreen (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Boxes to Graphs

Hi, Teahouse. I'm on Big Time Rush Discography and I'm trying to add two more promotional singles but I don't know how to. I'm in the beta editor, and I'm more used in editing with a transclusion. That's all, bye.IGotProof (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IGotProof. VisualEditor is still in development and has a lot of limitations. One of them is not being able to add rows to tables. Click "Edit source" instead to use the old source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Bell Article

I am trying to find an article I created last night about Lindsay Bell and I cannot find it. How can I look it up if it is not published yet? Thank you.67.61.149.88 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The article was declined and you can find out more at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lindsay_Bell. You may also want to read our Notability guideline for politicians.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference about how to look it up yourself (other than bookmarking the page in your browser or saving the URL somewhere), what you can do is look at your contribution history. One easy way to do so is to click on your signature. If you are not on a page where your signature is already posted, you can simply type four tildes (~~~~), then click "show preview" rather than saving the page, and then when the preview comes up, click on the linked IP address.

Another thing you can do is sign up for an account, which takes about 30 seconds, has many advantages over editing by your IP address, and is actually less anonymous than having an account. Logged in accounts can add pages to their watchlist, they can save links on their userpages, and their contribution history is available from a dedicated link they can access from any page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an infobox for an organization?

Hi, I am trying to create an info box for an organization, I've read in other post my first step would be to go to Category:Infobox templates, yet I keep getting stuck at this section. Is there any way someone can just post the basic code, or send me the link to the actual templates themselves?

Thank you.Gchac (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gchac, welcome to the Teahouse. Go to Category:Infobox templates and click "[show]" in the box saying "Wikipedia templates: organization infoboxes". That gives links to infoboxes for many types of organizations, for example the general Template:Infobox organization. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!Gchac (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

articles that need editing

where/what is the address of the Wikipedia article that includes suggestions for articles that need editing? Andreapark (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there are a few ways of doing this:
Hope that gives you some ideas Jebus989✰ 21:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hey Andrea. I am not 100% clear on whether you're seeking a page that provides suggestions on editing itself, or one that suggests articles needing editing.

If the former, there are quite a few; some are:

If the latter, I think you may be looking for one of the categories that certain maintenance templates place articles into when they are added to articles that need attention. Some examples are:
Just a point of terminology. In your question it seems you were referring to pages such as those above as articles. We generally only use that descriptor for the encyclopedia articles in the mainspace. We call everything else generically "pages", or refer to the specific namespace they are in, such as a "category" page, "user" page, and so on. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to reference external links? Gchac (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am creating my first article one of my questions is must I cite external links? Even if by clicking on the text the viewer would be directed to the webpage. Gchac (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gchac. Firstly, inserting external links into articles is discouraged. So your best bet is to write out your information and reference it to the URL you wanted to link. Secondly, and I may be misunderstanding what you are asking, but all articles must be referenced. Have you read your first article? There are lots of helpful hints there. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. When you create an article you reference the content with sources. These sources can be online but should not be "bare urls". These will generally be removed and formatted into an inline citation if left. However we are allowed to create an "External links" section for the article at the bottom of the page. Some restrictions apply. See Wikipedia:External links for more information.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank a Page admin Help

Hello! I need the help from an admin to blank this page Michka Assayas to move it properly form the original draft. Miss Bono [zootalk] 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is to maintain proper attribution since several editors worked on the draft. I am not an administrator or I would do it. I believe that the article was created by cutting and pasting the wikicode from a sandbox. Miss Bono, can you please link to the draft as well? For future reference, please use the "move" function to move an article from a sandbox to main article space, when not using the Articles for Creation process. I made the same mistake myself when I was getting started here, so don't feel bad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you tag it (& the corresponding talk page) with {{db-author}} it should be speedily deleted, then it can be moved properly from User:Tattoodwaitress/Michka Assayas, assuming that this is where it came from. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the move. Just seconding what Cullen328 said. Copy and paste moves are undesirable because they split the page history which is required for copyright attribution (although if only one editor ever made edits, and they perform the move, it is not always a copyright problem). These can sometimes be repaired if there aren't overlapping page histories, but if there are, we are left with a page that has to refer to another for its copyright history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an infobox

I'm currently making an article and I don't know how to create and infobox on the page. Help!ZeMusicFan (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZeMusicFan, welcome to the Teahouse. To use an infobox, find the one you need first, at Category:Infobox templates. (From your name I suspect you may want Category:Music infobox templates). Once you find the one you need, copy the text between the {{curly brackets}} in the "Usage" section, and put it at the very top of the article. Then fill out all the fields you can, and delete any that don't apply. Howicus (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You also may not delete the ones that are left empty, because maybe other editor have such information :) Miss Bono [zootalk] 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info it helped out a lot. But, 1 more question. I looked it up on the search engine, but when I pressed search it took me to the page. How do I get the page to be in the results?ZeMusicFan (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles whose titles are in italics: How do you make the title have italics?

I recently created a redirect from Meet Whiplash Willie to The Fortune Cookie. I note that we have The Fortune Cookie in italics but I couldn't make the title of my re-direct (Meet Whiplash Willie) appear in italics. How do we create an article and ensure its title is italicised? Jodosma (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jodosma! To make an article title appear in italics, you begin the page with {{italic title}}, although I'm not completely sure that it would work with a redirect. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was told is that by using the infobox for a movie, the title appears in italics automatically.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ndash etc. in article titles

Why would anyone use an ndash in an article title. I've recently been viewing 2012-13 Football League Cup and found that it was a redirect because the article was created by using an ndash for 2012–13. I've noticed a few like this and just don't get it. Why not just use a hyphen to create the title; if you use an ndash you find that it doesn't work properly in the search box. How do you enter an ndash in the search box anyway? Jodosma (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I learn about the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom)?

Hi, I was wondering what kind of issues go to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) and what the correct process is for presenting them to ArbCom? -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the answers at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph
Hi David, thanks for the quick response. Do we know how effective ArbCom really is? -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've assessed their effectiveness at 77%, which is pretty good considering they are all volunteers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User's day

I've seen many users have their own day. What is that? What does it mean? Miss Bono [zootalk] 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bono :-) - its just a barnstar noting special -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks Moxy... I just asked for curiosity. You should have one of those... :D Miss Bono [zootalk] 17:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just got a message apparently that barnstar is dead as per User:Neutralhomer/Today/Archive....User:Moxy/Barnstars :-) -- Moxy (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, Moxy (that you have one) Miss Bono [zootalk] 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback script error

A fault seems to have developed today with the Talkback script. I am getting an error message saying:

" There was an error requesting the page edit. Code: protectedpage": The "editprotected" right is required to edit this page. "

Have other users encountered the same problem? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had to move this section to the top of the page, in accordance with Teahouse conventions, as the "Ask a question" button put it at the foot of the page in line with normal Wikipedia practice. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if the problem was temporary, as it seems to be working again now. I'm now just curious as to what the problem was. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

naming rights for American Airlines Theater at the Roundabout in NYC

how much did American Airlines pay and what is the term of the commitment? 208.54.87.238 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Teahouse, which is a place for newcomers to ask questions about using & editing Wikipedia. You may be better off at the Reference desk. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities and towns in Hungary

This article, List of cities and towns in Hungary, is a mess. I'm not good enough with tables & inserted pics... Can someone fix it? Thanks in advance. 81.62.227.171 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go. It's slightly better! Sionk (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

Is there a way to change my username without losing credit for previous edits?Wolfdude359 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wolfdude359, you can request your username is changed at Wikipedia:Changing username. Have a read of the restrictions/limitations before you request though to make sure it's possible for you. Cheers, Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 15:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Cabe6403 , found and completed requestWolfdude359 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to anderstand Wikipedia.

Hello, I just believe i did my first page, i would like to know the status of it, i am reading a lot in this page about some possible errors, formatting. I upload some photos that i own the proper copyright, How do I know if i create the page successfully? I also wounder about translating same page in Spanish, whats the protocol for that. Thanks so much. 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoracionpuntual (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The page which you have edited so far is not an article, but your user page. As that was presumably intended to be a draft of an article, I have moved it from User:Adoracionpuntual to User:Adoracionpuntual/Lenny Flamenco, as a user sandbox. At present, it certainly would not be accepted as a Wikipedia article. You need to read WP:Your first article, and other documents linked from there. Wikipedia does not use inline external links as you have tried to do; what you do need are references, so you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners. If you want to include images, these would need to be uploaded to Wikipedia or to Wikipedia Commons (and have appropriate licences); you can't directly include images from another website. See WP:Images. More fundamentally, before Wikipedia can accept an article you need to prove that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's definition, which means that it needs to have received substantial coverage in independent, published, reliable sources. For persons, the notability requirements are at WP:BIO.
When you have read all of that, if you have any specific questions, please ask again. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Account

How do them work? Miss Bono [zootalk] 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you referring to legitimate uses of alternate accounts? If so, have a read of that policy and make sure your indended use is compliant. When you've created the account make sure to link them publicly on both accounts (e.g. by putting {{User alternative account}})). Can I ask what you intend for an alternate account so I can try provide you with more relevant advice if I can? Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 15:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking, Cabe. I was thinking about creating an legitimate alternate account for when I use another computer in public places, such a school, which I often do. So I don't compromise my actual account. Miss Bono [zootalk] 15:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could, for example then, create User:Miss Bono (alt) or User:Miss Bono (public). If you do you should link both accounts using the template I previously. I.e. on the new account you should have a notice saying it is an alternate account of User:Miss Bono and your current account can have a notice saying something along the lines of "This user has an alternate account for use on public computers: User:Miss Bono (alt). How you name them and go about doing this is up to you. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good example is User:Jauersock Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Cabe! Miss Bono [zootalk] 15:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I am reading and educating my self on it now. Are there any videos that you can recommend me to get started? Adoracionpuntual (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get a page created? (Subjects below)

Hello,

I just went to see if Michael Tronn could be found on Wikipedia?

I was surprised by the fact that he is not here.

In brief, Michael Tronn was one of the pioneers and creators of the underground Club Kid movement, and featured for being so appeared on the cover of New York Magazine in March 1998.

After a decade there, he went on for another decade leading the underground art, nightlife and tastemaker scene in South Beach.

He produced the Miami launch events for Madonna's Ray of Light and Liquid albums.

and much more.

On www.michaeltronn.com there is a large bio of work and art accolades.

Thanks, Coopermichael (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coopermichael. Welcome to the Teahouse. There is a process for requesting articles which you can read about here. There will need to be significant independent coverage of the subject for him to be deemed notable for an article. The best way of course will be to write it yourself, working in your own sandbox until it is ready to be submitted for creation. You may find Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons useful. Do call back if you have any further questions.--Charles (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many details before submitting a new page ?

Hi everyone ! I'm new at wikipedia. I've already made edits as an IP before registering, so I understand the syntax and how the community operates. However I don't really know at what point (at what level of details) a new page should be submitted. I created a stub on my sandbox (User:Stpeter3/sandbox) but I don't know whether I should continue working on it alone so that it is a little more comprehensive before I submit it, or if I should already submit it so that other people can help (that's wiki's goal, after all). Thanks for you feedbak ! 46.14.77.224 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC) (I apparently was disconnected while I was writing my question, but I (stpeter3) am the one who wrote the question. Stpeter3 (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Stpeter3, glad to see you've registered an account to contribute to Wikipedia. From looking at your sandbox it seems that the person meets the WP:NBLP requirements. If you moved it into article space I believe it'd stand on its own just fine. If you'd like a second opinion you can click the "you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." link on your sandbox at the top and one of the WP:AfC regulars will be along to review it at some point. Any questions, feel free to ask Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 13:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cabe6403 ! Thank you for your answer. So I moved the article to the article space. I'll continue to improve it and I hope other people will too ! Stpeter3 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for experienced editor to guide me

Hello,

I'm desperately trying to get an article reviewed/approved but everytime, I get different comments on what's wrong or not by different editors, each one of them with a different point of view (last one used an aggressive and warning tone!). I am open and very willing to delete all items considered not proper to the article but I need clear guidelines and a fair review. Can anyone help?Mmarraas (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mmarraas, I presume you mean this article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Automatic Systems. I agree the most recent reviewer's comments are quite blunt and I'm sorry you found this aggressive. However, the reviewer is quite right to say that Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for advertising. To be honest, your article looks like a long advert for Automatic Systems' products. There are fundamental problems (proving the company is widely known, removing advertising) which need to be addressed, therefore if you simply tweak a sentence, or only replace a single source before re-submitting it for review, reviewers will inevitably get frustrated. I'd recommend you write a simple article about the company, using information that has been published independently in reliable, journalistic sources. Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image addition - regarding

Hi, I am a new user and i have created an article for my college. The article was also reviewed and tagged by reviewers. But there is a mistake in the title of the page. A comma that should separate the name of the college and the place it is situated is missing. Also i wish to know how i can pictures to the article. PraveenPraveen043 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praveen, and welcome to the teahouse. The reviewers seem to have reviewed this article incorrectly. Agricultural Engineering College and Research Institute Kumulur has now been deleted as a copyright violation. As a long established educational institution, the college is probably notable enough for there to be an article about it. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Your first article and then try creating an article in your own words, but supported by references to independent reliable sources, at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Good luck! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

simple answer to a simple question I cannot get.

In Australia since the beginnings of film in this country, the place you went to see a movie was called a theatre or earlier a picture theatre. The simple answer I want is what year in the 1980's did it become cinema. As I am the spokesperson for a group of friends whose mothers, grandmothers and our own children only knew the word theatre or picture theatre. we would simply like to find out this fairly easy question. Why can't we?124.184.184.88 (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Here we answer questions involving Wikipedia, policy, guidelines and collaboration efforts. For your specific question, please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Thanks you.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the folks at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language might be more adept at this question than the Entertainment specialists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries Question

Hello! I noticed that editors here often include things about "good faith edit" and links to various pages that address rules in their edit summaries. This is different from Wikia and I was wondering if people do this manually or if there is a way to do it automatically?

Thank you!

EvergreenFir (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse EvergreenFir. I am unfamiliar with Wikia, but at Wikipedia the edit summary will allow you to add links so that editors who view the changes in their watch list (where watched pages show just the edit summaries along with the edits) and gives them direct links to verify the given information. As long as it is an existing page on Wikipedia, adding the 4 brackets: [[ ]] around the page title will link to that page, even in the edit summary. Automated links is not something I am aware of.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! I appreciate it! EvergreenFir (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there is an automated manner to do this EvergreenFir. In the edit window there is a "Help" selection. Click that and it brings down a drop box with information. Select "Links". This will allow you to drop the titles into the preformatted Wikilink or the url for an external link. You still need the page name to use the tool however.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover

can you use a book cover from amazon or anywhere else and how do you upload it on Wikipedia? (Monkelese (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. The best way to answer this is to have you review Wikipedia:Non free content and the related pages. As non free content, it must pass a ten point criteria for use.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Monkelese. Because covers of books published since 1923 are copyrighted, we can use such images only in narrow, strictly defined circumstances. We can use a low resolution version of a book cover in a Wikipedia article about the book. The same applies to album covers and movie posters. Please read WP:FAIR USE for a detailed explanation. The image needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia Commons, and can only be used in one Wikipedia article. So you can't post copies of your favorite book cover or movie poster on your user page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much detail on plot synopses?

This has already been asked to a certain extent, but not exactly.

I like how individual TV episode pages are being converted into lists of episodes; seems more compatible with the notability guideline. I have been noticing a lot lately, though, that on these list-of-episodes pages, Wikipedians are providing more and more plot information per episode. It seems to me that a two- or three-sentence summary should suffice for a list article (something like you'd see on a satellite TV info dialogue), but some pages have paragraphs of plot information for a single 48-minute episode. Not only is this annoying because it gives away spoilers, but also it doesn't seem very encyclopedic in nature.

I've read the guideline that stipulates that plot summaries should be between 200 and 500 words; that length seems reasonable if a TV episode deserves its own article, but in a list, I think it's overdoing it. I was wondering if I had some sort of support from the Wikipedia rulebook when asking people to give briefer summaries in episode lists (maybe a banner template for "too much plot", or a guideline I could refer to when deleting extraneous content).

Thanks! Jon VS (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Depending on the size of the overall primary source the plot should not be longer than needed to summarize the basic plotline. Overly long, detailed plot summaries are a misuse of the guideline on summarizing source material. Do not interpret the source or attempt to make claims in the summary. Be concise and use brevity.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Jon vs. The length of a plot summary is determined by editorial judgment and consensus. I think most editors would agree that something more than two or three sentences is entirely appropriate, but on the other hand, there is no need to describe every scene. Please don't be concerned about spoilers. Wikipedia articles routinely provide complete details of plots including what some might consider "spoilers" and there is consensus that this is encyclopedic. Those who don't want to know the plot details should refrain from reading the plot summary. Please read WP:PLOTSUM and WP:SPOILER for further insights on these issues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of locations for information. I like to suggest the style guide at WP:FILM: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#plot (although this is just a project guide and may not be as accurate as other MOS guidelines) as well as the MOS guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. :) Jon VS (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article nees major corrections

How do I make major corrections, or complely delete and article? 70.183.27.180 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 70! Welcome to the teahouse. Your question would be much easier to answer if we knew specifically what article you are referring to. Could you share that with us? Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hey person at IP address ending 27.180! If an article suffers from major problems, you can boldly edit it, including a complete rewrite. Please note that there's is something of a divide between articles that are well or fairly well sourced to reliable sources through citations, and those which are not. Often a complete rewrite or major edits to a sourced article should be done with more circumspection and note that removal of sourced content may be seen as a red flag for some editors, depending on the changes made. I suggest you take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial to learn the basics of editing if you are going to undertake this task. I can only be general in my advice here, and very broad, because you haven't disclosed the particular article you are here about. Regarding deletion, there are four chief processes under which articles in the mainspace are deleted:
It really would help if you told us which article you are here about so we could target our advice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is REVERSE MORTGAGE. The entire first page is misleading, and contains outright misinformation. The National Reverse Mortgage Loan Association has a much better explanation for reverse mortgages, and I would like to delete the present article, and replace it with truthful, substantiated information.

Thank you! RealronRlankford (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rlankford. I assume you are the editor that asked the original question? Although the above information is the correct procedures for attempting to get an article deleted (something only an administrator can do, after one of the above procedures is concluded), Reverse Mortgage would not be deletable by any of them. It is a completely referenced article. I have to point out to you that The National Reverse Mortgage Loan Association is a trade association for businesses engaged in selling reverse mortgages in the United States. The article is about reverse mortgages in several English-speaking countries around the world. Information from the NRMLA would only apply to the US. Further, since the NRMLA is a trade association for the reverse mortgage industry, it would not be an independent and unbiased source. Information sourced to them would undoubtedly be disputed if you put it into an article. Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced to independent secondary sources for all but the most uncontroversial information (addresses, etc). I hope this helps. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do? Someone has hi-jacked my entry.

Thank you so much Miss Bono for adding the colour, but in the last five minutes, two people have changed things on the site, including the colour bar! What is going on? And could you tell me what the colour code is again? Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

people who did that are experts Checkingfax and Nthep, try to ask them. They must have done so because of something. Miss Bono [zootalk] 20:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was put back! HeatherBlack (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HeatherBlack, and welcome back to the Teahouse. When you say "Someone has hi-jacked my entry", you are showing a bit of a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. You don't own an article you start, and any other editors are perfectly free to edit it at any time, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on artist box error

Hi Teahouse. I am trying to add the artist box to an entry. I cut and pasted the box from this site and am expecting a blue box with the artist's name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_artist Instead I have a pink box with no blue header and no web address. Any suggestions as to what I did wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Hornyak Thanks for your help! HeatherBlack (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Heather. I checked the article and I don't even see the pink colour, it's colourless for me. Miss Bono [zootalk] 18:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot change the colour for the infobox as far as I know. Miss Bono [zootalk] 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try using this

{{Infobox artist | bgcolour = #FBEC5D ('''change the colour here''') | name = | image = | caption = | alt = | birth_name = | birth_date = | birth_place = | death_date = | death_place = | nationality = | field = | training = | influenced by = | influenced= | movement = | works = | patron = | awards = }} 

 Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I tried the box but it is still light pink with no blue across the top. HeatherBlack (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HeatherBlack, I made some changes to the page. See if it works now? Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do like the blue. But is there a list of colours somewhere? HeatherBlack (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. try to Google list of hex # colours Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sure, we have them here. This is the link: Web colors. Fylbecatulous talk 21:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General TV Series question

Is there a standard for when we update the number of seasons we list for a TV show? Before the season has aired after they've been developed and properly sourced or after they've aired? KatCheez 17:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a specific guideline Katcheez, but I would wait until the first episode of the new season is aired. That is when it is indisputable. There is always a chance, however slim, that a series could be cancelled. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Page

To Whom It May Concern,

Last Friday, August 26 I resubmitted another version of my wiki page, however I have not heard back yet. Please advise as to the status of the wiki page.

Thank you

Cmchatton (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmchatton: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your submission does not have {{subst:submit}} on it, therefore it is not submitted. However, I would say that with the addition of a few more sources (hint: look here and here), the submission will squeak by on notability guidelines. There are also a few minor formatting issues that can be easily fixed. Note to other hosts: The submission is WT:Articles for creation/Youngme Moon. King Jakob C2 17:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To resubmit, when you've addressed the necessary points, just click the button labelled "Resubmit" in the box at the top of the page. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great ! Do you see the resubmission now ? Thank you ! Cmchatton (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just checking in on my resubmission, can you see it ? Cmchatton (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is in the queue for review. This may take a few days. --LukeSurl t c 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Millis Transfer notability citation

An article on Millis Transfer has been declined due to lack of notability. According to WP's notability requirements: Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. The article cites a respected independent regional newspaper publication [i.e. Brown, Diane. “Getting it there Millis Transfer Style.” The Banner Journal. 29 August 1990: Page 10-11. Print.] Does this, in conjunction with the environmental protection awards won my the company, meet the notability requirement? Bringstaff (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bringstaff. We are looking for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (plural). The newspaper you mention is a small town weekly, and the article was published 23 years ago. It is assumed that small town papers will write routine articles about local businesses, but that doesn't constitute significant coverage or notability. We call that "run of the mill" coverage. Offline articles are allowed as references, but reviewers are unable to evaluate the depth of coverage. When I search for coverage, all I see are "help wanted" ads and discussion of business permit issues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reference a

I am trying to refrence some web pages and It will not allow me to make the changes. Can some one help me? Marika.fraser (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you subsequently made this change to Nicholas Anthony DiMarzio, but you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners. The details of the reference should be given between <ref>...</ref> tags immediately following the text which the reference is being used to justify, and then Wikipedia will put the reference number in there and the link down to where the detail is displayed, in the References section where the {{reflist}} tag occurs. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on contesting an article's speedy deletion?

Hi, my article has been put up for speedy deletion "notability" any advice on how to contest this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beasts_(British_band) Here is my reason so far, the post hasn't been deleted yet.

Hi! It needs references. Try searching for some reliable sources. Miss Bono [zootalk] 13:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Ktsoni100 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Beasts have national presence online, in high-quality mainstream publications, and on radio with a release on all major digital marketplaces through major digital distributor, AWAL . Beasts have supported major recording artists including Miles Kane and Dinosaur Pile-Up. Whole post is verifiable via references.[reply]

Ktsoni100 (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ktsoni100. Simple "presence" in digital marketplaces is insufficient to establish notability. Neither is playing on the same bill as notable bands. Please read our notability guidline for bands.
Procedurally, the Teahouse is not the right place to contest the deletion of an article. We discuss editing Wikipedia here, but we don't make decisions about deletions. Read the pink box at the top of the article and follow the instructions there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - (I can't see your name). "Notability" is a bit of Wikipedia jargon, and is not the same as "importance". It says that reliable sources unconnected with the band (major newspapers and websites with an editorial policy comparable to major newspapers) have written about them: not the band members, their mates, or their fans, and not blogs or forums. If these references in newspapers etc exist, then the band are notable, and all that is required is that the sources are referenced in the article. If the references do not yet exist, then the band is not yet notable, and may not have a Wikipedia article at the moment. --ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice on increasing "notability" of an article

Hello. I need help. My article was declined due to lack of "notability" any advice on how to improve on this? thank you. 84.235.50.245 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Christy84.235.50.245 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WarLess Dental Procedure? If you read the box at the top of the draft, you will see that it has numerous links to the advice you need. It says:
"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."
and there are further useful links below that.
When you have read those links, please come back and ask if you have specific questions. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that as well as the submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WarLess Dental Procedure there is another draft at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/WarLess Dental Procedure. That is the wrong location, so I would suggest that you (or the author of it, if that is not you) request deletion of that (or simply blank it) to avoid confusion. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic blanking of talk page (users own talk page)

Is a user permitted to automatically blank every message he/she receives? User talk:Neptune's Trident does this without exception, within minutes and with the same "Blanked the page" comment. I am just curious to establish if this is acceptable WP practice ? Melbourne3163 (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, this is fine. There are a few exceptions, see WP:BLANKING. Removal of a post is normally taken to mean the user has read it and is aware of its contents. Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this, and for the reference. Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with "orphans"

I do minor edits and often see the notation, "this article is an orphan". This is typically in items referencing something very specific, such as a particular song. I can see that is should be linked to more general topics such as an artist, a recording label etc., but can't see what would link to it. Can an experienced editor please explain the logic and policy behind flagging orphans and what sort of links are sought? Chrismorey (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chrismorey! The policy behind it is "if it's an orphan, and you want to tag it, tag it. If it's not an orphan any more, and you want to, untag it". Fixing it isn't usually that hard, just find something related and link to it. It can be inline links or "see also" links, either/or. If you need help with a specific article, you can ask here and I can take a look for some ideas :) Happy editing! ~Charmlet -talk- 03:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Chrismorey. It is worth the effort to link to an article so it is no longer an orphan for several reasons. It makes the article easier to find, and increases the chance that other editors will help improve it. The wiki model behind Wikipedia's success depends on an interlinked web of knowledge. Regarding your specific example of a notable song, namely a song that has significant coverage in several reliable sources. The song could be on the track lists of albums that contain it, and may be mentioned in the biographies of its composer, lyricist and performers who recorded charting versions. If it won a major award, it may be mentioned in the article about the award. Please read WP:ORPHAN for a more complete discussion of this issue. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Can I remove a cleanup box for "tone" on an entry that I wrote?

Hi again. I just found the Teahouse last week and due to your help had an entry accepted. Another entry was also accepted at the same time but was before I had a chance to improve it (I now understand what peacocking is), it was flagged for tone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Hornyak Can I remove the box myself or can someone here read it and either ok it or tell me what else I need to do. I really appreciate your help. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HeatherBlack! A good idea would be to ask the editor who added the tag if the issue has been dealt with. If he or she does not reply, and you think you have removed the promotional content, you can remove the tag yourself. If it turns out that others don't agree, they may put it back, in which case you could discuss it with them on the article's talk page and see how to make improvements. Good luck with your editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Anne. I will do that. By the way you worked on my first for Montreal artist Hannah Franklin in early June. Thank you for finding those extra sources. HeatherBlack (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article and see no glaring issues regarding tone. I think you should remove the tag, and keep working on the article. I think you need more truly independent sources, as commercial galleries are in the business of selling art work, and are therefore not independent sources. They may be OK for noncontroversial biographical details, but not for any praise or critical assessments. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

How do I add a photo the infobox after I have uploaded the photo to wiki commons?Vinylhero (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the code of the infobox says image=, add the name of the image after the = without the File:. It should work! Happy editing :) Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Actually, had to leave in the "File:"Vinylhero (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes in the article, Vinylhero. I hope you don't mind. There was no need to put the [[]] and the thumb thingy... caption is for the description you added after the thumb :) Miss Bono [zootalk] 20:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks!Vinylhero (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claim an Article?

Hi, I wrote an article before I had an account. Can I 'claim' it? Piratenfiber (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Piratenfiber, sure why not! Best. =) Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Piratenfiber. It depends what you mean by 'claim' it. If you mean, can you say on your user page that you had a hand in writing it, certainly. If you mean, can you get the history changed so that it attributes the edits that you made to your current account, I'm afraid there is no way to do that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about talkpage headers

Is there some kind of standard for talk page headers? Is there somewhere I could go to find out about that (sorry if I'm asking something really easy to locate) KatCheez 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kat, thanks for your question. Check out the guidelines for new topics on talk pages. I think most of this is common sense, but basically you just need to create a title that describes the question or comment you have that is clear. Sometimes this can be short, but other times it is longer. Did that answer your question? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! The "see also" has some solutions to other things I was curious about as well. KatCheez 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De-Orphan Article?

How do i De-Orphan this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PathSolutions38.102.148.162 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I wonder if it's notable, though. Biosthmors (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could not see Infobox preview

Hi,

I am writing text in sandbox for company page and tried to add text in infobox, but could no see the preview in it. it is showing even the code that we write after saving the text and preview it.

Could you help me out at this point. and If I want to select a Template for writing a page for my employer where is the option for it.

I would like to follow the template of "Infosys", Can you please help me out what is the name of the template they use.

Thanks in advance.Sri.sabni (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sri, and welcome to The Teahouse. I think I have fixed your infobox problem, but your article has many more problems at this point. There is no text in the article that is suitable for Wikipedia. What you have now needs to be replaced with a description of what the company does that does not sound like an advertisement. You need to read about neutral point of view and conflict of interest. And when you add the other sections, be sure to use independent reliable sources. That means newspapers and magazines that have no connection with your company, which have also written substantial coverage of the company.
There is another possible problem, too. Why does it say "code that we write". You are supposed to be writing this article by yourself. If anyone else is helping you that person or those persons must have a separate username.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does extensive coverage really matter if a notable publisher recognizes a source with little coverage?

Hi,

I've been studying the WP Notability criteria and I believe there is a bit of a flaw in Notability criteria for certain types of organizations and companies that don't get extensive coverage in other notable publications.

For example...

  • We have a notable publishing organization (i.e. The Notable Publisher) that publishes research papers.
  • The notable publishing source's research papers are automatically treated as acceptable sources by WP (and this is not the problem).
  • The research papers, themselves, cite sources as references for the content within their papers. So, for example, one research paper may cite 50 sources, some which get extensive coverage and some which don't. However, they're all vetted by The Notable Publisher as being solid sources for the research paper (or the paper would never be allowed to be published).
  • If the source being cited within the research paper has been fully vetted and accepted by The Notable Publisher, regardless of whether or not it has had extensive public coverage, then why wouldn't it be good enough for WP, especially since WP defers to The Notable Publisher (and does so in writing)? (The whole reason why WP treats them as Notable Publishers is because WP believes they check their facts before allowing publication.)

The problem manifests itself on WP when WP applies the rule of "extensive coverage" for a source, in order for it to be notable. The fact is that if a source is notable enough to be acceptable to The Notable Publisher, then it should be automatically acceptable for WP articles (so long as it's on topic). The fact that WP would not accept certain sources on the premise that they don't have "extensive coverage," while allowing others to make it through, seems to contradict logic and also violates the rules that other notable Encyclopedias have always followed.

Examples of low coverage sources that are commonly used by such Notable Publishers include but are not limited to things like Dictionaries/Glossaries and Public Government Databases (like the US Patent and Trademark Database).

Does anyone else see this contradiction or is it just me?

My Best,

--FGuerino (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FGuerino, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't quite see a contradiction. If I understand you correctly you are observing that a source could be accepted as reliable for the purposes of us citing it, but without the source itself necessarily being notable. Is that a fair summary? Biosthmors (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi User:Biosthmors. No, the source is notable because it is vetted by the publisher, who WP trusts to check the facts, even if the source does not have extensive coverage. Therefore, if it is good enough for the publisher to cite, and good enough for other encyclopedias to cite, why would WP not allow citing the same source on the premise that there is not enough "extensive coverage" for it in articles? "Extensive coverage" is not a normal criteria for valid sources outside of WP, so why should it be criteria for WP? It sounds like it was made up on a whim. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FGuerino, I think you might be confusing something here. Notability and reliability are different concepts. Things don't have to be notable to be cited as sources here. When you say why would WP not allow citing the same source on the premise that there is not enough "extensive coverage" for it in articles, I think you are mistaken. The Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources allows us to cite the same sources considered reliable by experts in field. Biosthmors (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Wikipedia could allow us to cite the source in articles, but Wikipedia might not consider an article on the source itself worthy of attention, if other reliable sources haven't written about it. Biosthmors (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FGuerino. I don't see a contradiction: sources and topics are entirely different things. Extensive coverage is completely irrelevant for sources: all that matters is that they are reliable (and support whatever they are used as a reference for). Vetting by the publisher makes the source reliable, not notable. Subjects of articles require extensive coverage in independent reliable sources, because without that a good quality, well-referenced article is impossible to write. --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as it is possible for a source to be reliable, but not notable, the reverse can be true. A publication can be notable but unreliable. The Weekly World News is one of many examples. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a subject could be confirmed by a reliable source to exist, or a fact to be true, and still not be suitable for the encyclopedia. For example, if I find reliable sources to prove that I was born, lived at a certain address, graduated from high school and got a job, I still wouldn't necessarily be notable enough for an encyclopedia article. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine & Anne Delong, while I agree that there are cases where something can be a source and not notable, I believe there is a case where you are both incorrect and the reverse is true. It is a pattern that many educated and successful researchers use to find something valuable in what appears to be nothing. This is the case where something is cited as a source, consistently, in multiple publications. In such a case, the fact that it is cited as a source multiple times by multiple notable publishers establishes a pattern of notability for the source. And, that pattern of notability is good enough for other encyclopedias and other notable publishing platforms so why wouldn't it be good enough for WP? -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FGuerino, I think Wikipedia:NJOURNAL#Criteria is something that corresponds with what you're saying, no? Biosthmors (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biosthmors. Thank you for pointing this out. I definitely think this is very close to what I was saying and I believe it represents a good start. I also believe this should have a broader range than just academic journals. For example, it should also apply to industry papers, articles, and journals that also cite the same source(s), repeatedly. How would we apply the same criteria to all notability guidelines? -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome FGuerino. Well Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an essay. As is the other page. And there is a difference between policies, guidelines and essays. You might try to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and see what people say. Or you could identify a Wikipedian who has helped draft/edit/discuss the guideline or essay you're interested and discuss it with them at their talk page. I'm not sure what specific problem you are trying to solve, though, so I'm not sure if I'd get too invested in the idea that I was about to change a guideline, but good luck! Biosthmors (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biosthmors. Thanks for the pointers. I'll definitely look into them. My goal is to improve the policies so that they're more consistent and clearer. There are too many admins that still give you different answers to policy questions that should, by now, have very consistent and solid answers to them. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name for an Article for Creation.

I have written and had accepted by Wiki two Articles for Creation. 1. Ernest Frank Richardson and 2. Alfred Herbert Richardson. I now want to write a new Article for Creation on their father, Frank Richardson. All three were notable persons in the English Constabulary, and as it happens all related. Before I started with a title for Frank Richardson I checked the Wiki list and there is a Frank Richardson, footballer, by that name there already. Not sure what to do about this or how to start the article off as presumably it will clash with the Frank Richardson-footballer. TimothyWF (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tim... We have this, Frank_K._Richardson, I don't know if that's the guy you want to write an article on.
You have to add between () his profession. Hope this helps. Miss Bono [zootalk] 15:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello TimothyWF. From my quick glance maybe we could move Frank Richardson to Frank Richardson (footballer) then Frank Richardson could be a WP:Disambig page and list all the Franks. Your Frank could be named something like Frank Richardson (his profession). Or we could use your Frank's middle name. I hope that makes sense! =) Biosthmors (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Biosthmors (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Code for COI

Hey! I was wondering about this: Have everyone ever though about developing a code that help us to avoid COI usernames, I mean... e.g: Some guy in real life, He didn't know about Wikipedia and one day he finds it, I want to create an account and help (good faith) to axpand the wiki... Let's say he is a fan of Simple Plan, as he doesn't know anything about Wikipedia policies and those tricky stuffs, he chooses the username Pierre Bouvier and start editing. Nowadays, some use notices that and the whole template for COI starts... really a big deal! then the paperwork for a username change... and finally, the user desists and moves on... What about a code that when the user introduces the name Pierre Bouvier or any other in the scope of WikiProject:Biography (e.g Bono, Meryl Streep, Gary Sinise or Lou Reed) the page shows a messages that says:

Wikipedia has a policy against creating a username that is the same as that of a specific identifiable person. Please, choose another username. Thanks. (or something like that).

Thoughts?? I might be wrong, but it sure will avoid so many things!! :) Miss Bono [zootalk] 13:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miss Bono. If you have ideas for new policy or technical things, the Wikipedia:Idea lab would be the best place to discuss them with other editors. --LukeSurl t c 13:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok :) Miss Bono [zootalk] 13:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redinks.........

Can I unlink redlinks in wikipedia??BenisonPBaby 06:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenisonPBaby (talk • contribs)

Hi there BenisonPBaby, welcome. There are two ways to get rid of a red link in Wikipedia. One would be to simply remove the square brackets around the text (a red link is shown as [[a red link]] when you edit the page. If you remove the square brackets it will become normal text like this: a red link). But instead of just removing the brackets, why not create an article and expand Wikipedia? Click the red link and you'll be taken to the page and allowed to create that article. Before you do, it might be worth reading this guide to writing your first article to get a feel for what to do once you remove that red link. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 07:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! Please don't unlink them if they are useful, BenisonPBaby. WP:Redlinks show where future pages (or redirects) should exist. They help Wikipedia grow. But if there is a red link where there shouldn't be a page or redirect created, then yes, feel free to remove. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just want to know that whether there is any problem if remove one???BenisonPBaby 07:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenisonPBaby (talk • contribs)
Which one(s) would you like to remove? If any in particular. Also, you can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~) after your post like this: ~~~~. For me, when I type the four tildes I leave my signature like this: Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BenisonPBaby, yes, removing red links can create a "problem" (or it could be a "solution"). It depends. The reason red links should be there is to they encourage people to start Wikipedia articles on things that should exist. I notice in some of your recent edits ([1],[2],[3]) you've been removing what I presume have been red links. If Wikipedia aritcles could exist on those topics, because they are notable, then we should leave the red links. In fact, adding red links to things that could have articles written about them is a way to improve Wikipedia. To see some discussion on notability and whether or not existing articles should be deleted, you can check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 5. Does that address your concern? Thanks for asking! Best. Biosthmors (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources

Is there a list or database of reliable, free content webpages/resources for use in articles that is accessible somewhere in wiki, I'm nearly certain I found one once quite a while ago but I'm unable to find it anymore. I probably just imagined it but it seems like it would be really useful so I'm reluctant to give up on the idea, a definitive answer either way, would be much appreciated. Biggs Pliff (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Biggs Pliff. It is not necessary to use free content sources to create a Wikipedia article. The quality of the sources is what is most important, and an outstanding non-free source is preferable to a mediocre free source, any day of the week. When you read a variety of reliable sources, and then summarize and paraphrase those sources, and then cite them properly, then you are writing an encyclopedia article. It is OK to quote a colorful and well-written sentence or two from the best of your sources, as long as the sources are cited properly. When used in this fashion, there is no need to rely on "free sources". The full range of reliable sources are available to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Biggs. If you're looking for access to sources that are behind a paywall/subscription, please see Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources. There is a project where you can request others provide a source to you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (also known by its shortcut WP:RX). There's also a number of databases that are either pay, membership or a combination such as JSTOR, Credo, etc. but which have provided free accounts to a limited number of Wikipedia users. I think they may be all filled up but see Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/header for a list. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm reading over it again I see that I should have said "free access" rather than "free content", silly me! Nevertheless the responses were helpful, thanks guys. Biggs Pliff (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get feedback on an potential article.

I created this page today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meander112/Lee_Harrington

As outlined in step six here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article , I created "the article first in your user space".

After I created the article, I was directed to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft

I wanted to "ask for feedback on [my] creation first", so I went here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback . That page says that the "request for feedback" process is currently inactive and that I could ask for article feedback at peer review.

So I went here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PR and per the instructions I put the subst:PR text (with the correct brackets) on my article's talk page. After editing my talk page I received a red error message, rather than a link to a new peer review page.

I then went to my user talk page and asked for help. I was told that I was looking for the subst:submit (with the correct brackets) text, so I put that in my user space page. Subsequently Tazerdadog did something that I don't understand. He "moved" my page (to "Articles for Creation", I think) and then denied my request for creation of an article because it was a "blank submission".

He then seemed to point me in the direction of the Teahouse, which is how I ended up here. I'm just trying to get feedback on the page I wrote. Will someone help me in a way that I understand and that actually gets me closer to the goal of getting some feedback on the page that I wrote? At this point, I'm totally lost on how to get any help that makes sense.

Meander112 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meander112, welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to hear that you've been having trouble. Frankly, I don't really know what Tazerdog was trying to do. What should happen, is that the content User:Meander112/Lee Harrington should be copied to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee Harrington, where it will be reviewed. I'll give you some feedback now: the article will need more reliable, independent sources to show that Harrington is notable. Podcasts or interviews with Harrington are not good sources to show notability, nor is anything written by Harrington. Howicus (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe that an interview which was done by an independent party and published to a reputable source would, in fact, be a very solid citable reference, as it would for any other encyclopedia. FGuerino (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Howicus, thank you for the explanation. I'll work on better sources for the article and when I have them, I'll post it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee Harrington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.21.221 (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the above, "unsigned" comment. I wasn't logged in. 03:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meander112 (talk • contribs)
Or you can improve User:Meander112/Lee Harrington and then just click the "Submit the page!" link on that page. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

negative and positive signs on user contributions page

I've made two edits so far, and one has a (+8) and one has a (-118). What does this mean? Rmorabia (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC) @Rmorabia: Welcome to the Teahouse! This simply refers to the number of bytes (characters) that you have added or removed in your edit. King Jakob C2 17:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jakob, On the first edit you added 8-bytes of data, on the second edit you removed 118-bytes of data. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to merge one article into another and create a redirect

I've just found our article Anti-Suffrage League, which is a stub and doesn't contain anything that Women's National Anti-Suffrage League doesn't do better and at more length. The two articles do indubitably refer to the same long-defunct organisation. So it seems to me that the short one with the short name should be removed or deleted, and in future anyone searching for ASL will be redirected to WNASL. What is the correct way to go about this? Thanks for your help. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted it into a redirect for you. I did this by replacing the entire content with
#REDIRECT[[Women's National Anti-Suffrage League]]
Rojomoke (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BrainyBabe. Welcome to the Teahouse. Merging may be done boldly and without discussion however, be aware that it could also be reverted. If it is, you can then tag the article for a merge discussion at the top of the article itself and then beginning the discussion on the talk page of the article you wish to merge and leaving a note on the target article to allow editors there a chance to participate. While the bold merge can be done, also remember that there are some things you must remember such as attribution of the merged content into the target article. There are a few ways this can be done, but at minimum you must attribute the editors in the edit summary when the merge takes place on the target article. In the edit summary add links to the original article being merged as well as the target article being merged into in the actual edit summary. This allows editors to verify the attribution from their watch pages. For more information on merging please see WP:WPMERGE--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

How do you combine two separate images into one caption?--Typing General (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Typing General, and welcome to the Teahouse! Cursory investigation at WP:PIC reveals no way to do this. Perhaps you could do them separately, one on top of the other? theonesean 06:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that we are talking about two freely-licensed images as opposed to fair use images, then my suggestion would be to use an offline graphics program to create a composite image combining the two. Upload the composite image to Wikimedia Commons, attributing the two source images in the comments. Then, you can remove the two separate images from the article, substituting your new composite with a single caption in the article you're working on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Typing General and Theonesean, this code:
{{multiple image | width1 = 170 | width2 = 170 | align = left | footer = The old Sacramento Music Circus tent in 2001 on the left contrasted by the current Wells Fargo Pavilion in 2011 | image1 = Music Circus Stage.jpg | image2 = Music Circus Stage 2011.jpg }}
produces:
The old Sacramento Music Circus tent in 2001 on the left contrasted by the current Wells Fargo Pavilion in 2011

As used on Wells Fargo Pavilion (Edit-The indenting had messed with the mark-up. Fixed that).--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 06:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both.--Typing General (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this suitable? I wanted to pair the maps of Jin and Song China side by side to show the territorial changes that occurred during the war.--Typing General (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so. I actually think the main function of the mark up was to use to comparative images that both have links to each separate image page.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 08:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Jesselyn Radack article in need of many revisions. All at once, or a bit at a time?

I'm completely new to this, just noticed by chance the Radack article and that it reads like it was written by her attorney. It's biased and inaccurate in significant ways throughout. I have access to most of the sources needed for revision. The changes mostly amount to adding qualifications like "she believed," adding a couple relevant facts or correcting a few factual claims not supported by the sources, and deleting a few irrelevant remarks in support of the general political slant of the article as it stands now.

Should I just do the edits one at a time, leaving time for reaction by whoever oversees the article, or should I just edit the whole thing at once? Should I leave comments justifying the changes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesselyn_Radack

Sanpete in Utah (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Rather than leaving comments, the thing to do is to include references to reliable sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A revision like adding "she believed" won't have an additional source, but will still require justification, right? Sanpete in Utah (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to add what a person believed, it would definitely need a source. However, one of the existing sources may already cover this, and you would just have to add a citation to it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again - about comments: you should be sure to include edit summaries. Also, if you think that a change might be controversial, you can discuss it ahead of time on the talk page, and see what the response is from the other editors. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have been clear. I'm talking about adding a qualification of an existing fact. The article now begins:

Jesselyn Radack (born December 12, 1970) is a former ethics adviser to the United States Department of Justice who came to prominence as a whistleblower after she disclosed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) committed an ethics violation . . . .

It needs to be changed to say only that she believed there was an ethics violation. It was never established that she was correct. The edit would be:

Jesselyn Radack (born December 12, 1970) is a former ethics adviser to the United States Department of Justice who came to prominence as a whistleblower after she disclosed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) committed what she believed to be an ethics violation . . . .

There will be no new source. Should I leave a comment explaining the change? And should I do many changes at once or only one at a time? Thanks.

Sanpete in Utah (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference does not support your change, so you would need to find a suitable source for your revision. Theroadislong (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference rather doesn't support the current statement. It only shows what she alleged, not what was determined to be in fact an ethics violation. There's no source cited that gives any ground beyond her allegation for concluding there was an ethics violation. I can only point out the lack of a source.

My question, though, is about procedure. There are several instances like this in the article, and other problems. Should I edit them all at once and leave a long comments explaining the many changes, or should I do one or two at a time?

Sanpete in Utah (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sanpete and welcome to the teahouse. Like a lot of things in Wikipedia there isn't a right or wrong answer to the question "lots of small changes" or "one big change" My opinion is its better in the circumstance you describe to make lots of small changes. In fact in general I would say its better to make small changes rather than big ones. The reasons are that it gives a better audit trail and its easier to discuss and potentially revert or redo a few small changes rather than one big one. The only time I resort to the "big change" approach is when I want to really rework something to make it flow better and I feel I just can't do it in small bits. Also, when I'm confidant there isn't likely to be much controversy to the change which doesn't sound like the case here. MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll stick to small changes one at a time where possible.

Sanpete in Utah (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sanpete. On the substantive point, it all comes down to what the references say. If the reference says that she alleged something, then the article can (and probably should) say that she alleged it - not that it was so, or not so, or that she believed it, but that she alleged it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radack was interviewed by Audie Cornish on the PBS radio show All Things Considered a few days ago, and the transcript of that interview is a reliable source for Radack's personal opinions on various things, though not a good source for factual assertions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit source??

Is it noral that now the edit link looks like this right now? --> [edit source|edit]??? I am worried, this just showed up this morning. Miss Bono [zootalk] 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to show as [edit source | editbeta]. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/August 2013 update. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new look is annoying Miss Bono [zootalk] 12:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Miss Bono. It was so good to get home and have IE9 and change my status to "online".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like protected view-source plus VE glitches: I was warned how "edit source" is not the same as "View source" but I still instinctively thought, "Cannot edit that page" and in a hurry would not have tried. Expect edit-counts to be far lower for a week, because of that wording. The VE nightmare just keeps getting worse; now I better understand the term "Kafkaesque" and would not be surprised to see a huge cockroach appear onscreen at the start of a VE edit-session. Many people have complained of trying large VE edits, but the Save fails and loses all keystrokes, plus wikilinks of partial words put "[[two words|two wor]]<nowiki/>ds", or images can be easily moved into the middle of a word, but superscript text is not allowed, and new redlinks do not show as red yet?!?!! -Wikid77 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Wikid77 maybe Gregor Samsa is here... working in the VE under a weird username lol. What's the reason for having the VE? Miss Bono [zootalk] 14:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the [edit source|edit beta] is just temporary; eventually the beta will be finished and won't be beta anymore. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what does do the beta? I don't get it. When I click it, it redirects me to the top of the page I am going to edit. Miss Bono [zootalk] 15:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse Miss Bono! Due to the many issues with the VisualEditor, and since I know your specific case better than most, I strongly advise you (and anyone else that wishes to disable VE, at least for now) to check the preference box at Preferences → Editing → Usability features = Temporarily disable VisualEditor while it is in beta. Currently, VE is very slow and unstable for many users with lower quality equipment and connection to the Internet. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Technical 13 :) Love and Peace!! Miss Bono [zootalk] 14:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=567627560"