Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

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

Most recent archives
1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240

I have my article ready in my sandbox.How can i submit it for review?I mean afterclicking the review button in green,i am directed to another sanbox kind of place and my article is missing? Do i have to copy paste it?Shubham.opensource (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shubham.opensource. Just follow what the instructions say. Just click "Save Page" and let our system do the rest! Your article will be added automatically. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on some spelling errors. The latest one concerns the use of aquarius instead of Aquarius. Is there a way to force a search to discriminate between upper and lower case. Jodosma (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Jodosma and welcome back to the Teahouse! There is no way to do a case sensitive search that I can find anywhere I'm afraid. The only way you are going to get that information is to request a database dump scan. I'm currently in the process of downloading and processing the approximately 50GB expanded file for this. As soon as that is complete, I'll see what I can find for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some of my links get an automatic footnote number and some don't. I am citing court cases and Congressional testimony links mostly. Is one type more important or useful then another?Seattle2311 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Seattle2311, welcome to the TeaHouse. After looking briefly at your talk page and one of your article drafts, I think the numbers you are seeing may not be what we refer to as "footnotes" at all. So for example Brandt v. United States commentary is an external link with a limited text explaining what it is, and thus the text appears as the link here. By contrast, [1] is what we call a "bare URL" with no text explaining what it is, and thus is represented by a number here as you can see. But neither of them is an inline citation (also known as "footnote").

For how to add inline citations aka footnotes, see WP:REFB. This is preferable to including external links in the body of your text or at the end of your draft.

I'm not sure how well an apparent opinion piece in the Washington Examiner qualifies as a reliable source, if at all, but it is more useful when citing it as a source to mention the name of the publication, the title of the piece, the name of the author, the date published, and a date you accessed it.

Also be careful using Google search links as references because sometimes what they lead to might be different depending on who is clicking the link and when. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I submit an article about myself? 66.91.199.148 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 66.91.199.148, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, creating autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as the writer may have a strong conflict of interest with the subject. However, if you are notable enough to deserve your own article, you can request that the article be written for you here. Cheers! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually requested articles are at WP:RA. AFC is Articles for Creation, where the OP will (mostly) be required to write the article themselves.

It would be best first to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing carefully. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently i am doing my project on Biography and autobiography in literature ...94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)so i need to translate the whole content to another language...94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)how can i do that.................hope will help me translate the content94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, person with an Ip starting with 94, and welcome to The Teahouse. For Wikipedia articles that need to be tranlsated, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Translation. But it looks like you may be talking about something else, so if that's the case, The Language Reference Desk is where you want to go.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 94.59.126.83 and thanks for the question. If the translation you need is not listed in the language list to the left of the article, there are a number of alternative options that might help you. If you tell me which article you are talking about and what the target language is, I will try to help you. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wonder why contributors edits massively on an Wiki page of any topic or person of which the contributor is not native!

I have witnessed native users creates a Wiki page about a topic or person and non-native person uses his/her Senior level with manipulating edits.

For example I know my neighbour better than a person who lives in thousand miles away and tries to edit Wiki pages on the basis of some reference which the person believes or may be stack with. :)

Correct me if I am wrong.

Regards.

Dhruba Deka

DhrubaDeka (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DhrubaDeka, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedians can edit any article they want to, whether they're familiar with the topic or not. They may be editing to copy edit the article, fix syntax or typos, or revert vandalism. However, as long as they cite their sources and write in a neutral point of view, there's nothing wrong with them being there. While a native might know about a subject more than others, sometimes other editors need to get involved to ensure the article meets encyclopedic standards and avoids any conflicts of interest. Cheers! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have written an article on Swarachakra.I wanted to know what is its status?Is it reviewed or still in process?Also if i make some changes in the document (in sandbox),will it be reflected in main document?Shubham.opensource (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shubham.opensource! Your article was actually deleted, because it didn't say why it was notable. I see you already have it saved in your sandbox. Just keep adding more references to it and when you feel it's good enough to have an article click the "Submit your draft for review!" button highlighted in green at the top of the page. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Point (lookout) I've made a few links to this entry as the shorter form name is showing details of a tv show Is this an acceptable name-ing usage ? Should echo point the tv be changed to include something else ? Can I make a disam page for three items as opposed to the disam page for just Echo ? Compared to Ruined Castle how short is too short ? Dave Rave (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2006 ICC Awards is contested for deletion. The nominator pooints out the notability of the article. I find no reason for this to be non notable and we have a lot of articles in wikipedia regarding each annual awards. So, how come this be "for sake of creation". I don't think this should be deleted.Abhinav0908 (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhinav0908. I see you have removed the proposed deletion tag from the page, which means the article will not be deleted at this point. Should the editor who placed that tag wish to nominate the article for deletion then you will be able to voice your opinion as to why it should be kept. I recommend that if you haven't done so already, add the article to your watchlist so you can see if that happens.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Philg88, I read in the policy that the nominator can remove the tag with an explanation and i have added it to my watchlist now.Abhinav0908 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Helo Sir/Mam Can u will helo me please in my article it show it is an orpahn there is no links in this article ad links how to add links thanks.RockySharma1328 (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add the link to your article here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question seems to be Md asif. Am I correct, RockySharma1328? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your page got a link from List of Indian film actors now.[2] This is how you solve the "orphan" tag issue. Tag removed, happy editing.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change the actual image in an image file (say, to a sharper or better-sized version of the same thing) without having to re-do upload process, re-submit fair use rationale, and leave an orphan behind? If so, how? Specific problem (currently) is with " File: Wood Pile, 1949, b&w print by artist Fay Chong.jpeg " in article Fay Chong. Right-hand border of image keeps getting cut off, just want to tweak it a bit w/o having to create entire new file each time. Thanx, Tomseattle (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tomseattle. The answer to your question is "yes". If you click on the image, you will get basic information including that you uploaded it. Then click on the license information, and the full details will appear. You will see a choice "Upload a new version of this file", so that's what you should click, with a simple explanation of why the new version is better than the old one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks. I'll look for it.Tomseattle (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cullen328:. So is it really possible to tweak the above mentioned picture even though the file is tagged with: "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed..."? This is the case with the pictures at Fay Chong. (I am curious about this for pictures I might want to use in other articles, and this seemed just as good place as any to ask.) Best, - W.carter (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've sorted out the licensing templates with the image but I see no reason to crop it. Maybe it is a problem with your browser/settings, Tomseattle?  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the file I saw yesterday had less than the original image. The right hand edge of the image was missing. So uploading a low resolution version of the full image is acceptable. The image is being used as a representative example of the artist's work. That is an acceptable use of a non-free image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was using "crop" here in the photographic sense i.e. to remove the border, I didn't mean that the upload/use was unacceptable.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a biography for Marcela Paula Carmen Houston and it was rejected twice, I think because I did not have any references that could be used to verify the contents. I obtained the information to create the article by conducting detailed interviews with Marcela over many days. I got the information directly from her. There is nothing to actually reference since nothing else is published about her that I know of. The link to the draft that has been rejected is Marcela Paula Carmen Houston.

What can I do to get this article published? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. CMW4903 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CMW4903:, the reason your article is declined is indeed because it has no published sources. We require reliable sources to prove that information about this person is true. Moreover, since you stated that this person has nothing published about her, she is likely not notable enough for Wikipedia. See our notability criteria for artists. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) 02:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CMW4903. By interviewing the artist, you have engaged in original research, which we don't publish on Wikipedia, but which is perfectly fine elsewhere. I suggest you submit your article to a reputable companiesart journal instead. If published, that article could become a reference in a future Wikipedia article about the artist, if she becomes notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heard someone say that we shouldn't change the citation format. Do I need t learn several types? Harmelodix (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harmelodix! You should learn a little about the various types of citation formats, so that you can decide which one you'd like to use when you create your own articles. If you are adding a source to an article that you happen to be reading, you can usually just look at the code and copy the format that the previous editors have used. Sometimes you come to one that already has more than one type, or some that are well formatted and others that have missing information; then you have to use your judgement and copy whichever seems to be mostly used. The main thing is not to go into a article that has many complete citations neatly organized in one format, and decide that you like another one better and change them all. Not only is this a waste of time, but it's disrespectful to the editor who did the previous work. Also, for scientific and scholarly articles, there are sometimes types of referencing that are specifically preferred for those subjects, and another editor may revert your changes. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Harmelodix. If you write a new article, you can choose the referencing style you prefer. If you are editing an existing article with an established referencing style, do your best to stick with that style. You can copy the Wikicode for an existing reference from the article into one of your sandbox pages, and then change all the fields to the material for your new reference. Once you have it right, copy and paste the new reference into the actual article. So you don't really have to "learn" it. You just need to copy its format accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm brand new to making changes on Wikipedia pages. I edited the page for Pagliacci Pizza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagliacci_Pizza), addressing the issues with it being "written like an advertisement" and "not citing any references or sources" but I forgot to add my edit summary. Is there a way to go back and add the edit summary without making more revisions to the page? Also, can anyone tell me how else the page can be improved upon so that the "multiple issues" box goes away? Thanks in advance!

RebekahW (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, RebekahW. You can make a dummy edit, leaving an edit summary for your previous edits. See H:DUMMY for details. I will check out the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted an unreferenced claim about support for charities. I removed the tags you mentioned since those issues have been resolved. In other words, the way that the "multiple issues" box goes away is that any editor removes it. You could have removed it yourself, RebekahW, but I am happy to do it for you, since you are new to this kind of thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where can an IP editor request rollback? If here - User:Carllica4. Thanks. 82.132.224.220 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only registered editors can be granted rollback. If you are Carllica4, you are indefinitely blocked and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all, except to post an unblock request on your user talk page. Requests for rollback are handled at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, but no one's likely to grant you the tool unless you show a lengthy pattern of productive editing. Deor (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Where can an IP editor request a rollback - ie of all User:Carllica4's edits. 82.132.213.68 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I know I have seen references to vandals having all their edits reverted, but I can't remember where.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I want to create an article about one of my former university professors. I no longer attend that particular university but I want to write that entry as her work is very relevant to her field. I want to make sure my entry is not seen as promotion.

Thanks!twitterstorian87 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twitterstorian14 and welcome to the Teahouse. While we would welcome an article on your former history professor, it will need to satisfy some Wikipedia guidelines with regard to notability and it needs to be written in a non-promotional tone. You might like to read this guide for some pointers on what that means. You can also use the Article wizard to help you. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you aren't too sure if your former professor qualifies, you can ask a Wikipedian (one of us, perhaps?) and we can give our opinions. A good rule of thumb for professors is to check if either a) they have been the subject of one or more biographical articles, either in the popular media or academic press, or b) they have an h-index which is fairly high for the field (showing impact). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since yesterday I have been trying to create a page but I am failing every time. The reviewers are deleting it saying it as "unambiguous". I really need to create one. So any one out here who can help me create one.

The email I received is below:

The Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Phoenix Of My Heart has been deleted on 13 June 2014 by RHaworth, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Phoenix_Of_My_Heart.

Editor's summary: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Mosiur Rehman 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosiur Rehman (talk • contribs)

Hi Mosiur Rehman and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, your article has been deleted for being unambiguous advertising so I can't give you any specific pointers on what's wrong with it. Please read this guide to assist you in creating future articles.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create one for me?

Mosiur Rehman 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosiur Rehman (talk • contribs)

@Mosiur Rehman: What is the page about? We can give you tips on writing articles. For example, try to write in a neutral tone. Try not to promote ideas or viewpoints - just state the facts directly. Think about wearing a jabbawockeez mask - the mask isn't happy, sad, funny, or serious. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have repurposed my article a bit and am looking for feedback before I submit. What do you recommend I change to encourage acceptance of my article? Does it look ready to submit?

Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox

I just want to make sure it is as perfect as possible. I appreciate your time and thoughts.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John and welcome back to the Teahouse. It's certainly an improvement, but I would remove the "Company culture" section as it and its reference read like a recruitment advert. Good luck with your resubmission.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does someone adopt me as a user. Is there any one opened. Cincao03 13:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cincao03! A user that I'm sure would be willing to adopt you is, Matty.007. Just ask him on his talk page.Schoolskater (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians I was just reveiwing a project I am responsible for in my Sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Mansouri/sandbox) when I confirmed the changes the last bit of my document isn't appearing in the read mode any more. As we'd like to send this article soon to review to Wikipedia I wanted to set up everything and now an important part is missing. How can I get the external links and the references back to appear again? In the edditing window they still show up.Magnus Mansouri (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse. Looks like you had a reference formatting issue in the final section. I think I've now fixed it.

Incidentally, Wikipedia accounts are intended to be used by one person each, so "we" is an alarming pronoun to use. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Demiurge1000 I think Magnus Mansouri is referring to the two users working in tandem on the article. (This is evident from the history log of the sandbox.) Not so uncommon and within the lines of the Wikipedia. I would also say "we" if some user was helping me getting "my" article in shape. Best, - W.carter (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions: 1 - how does one *unwatch* a page? 2 - came across an article with a *sweep* template & decided to tidy it, but when I opened the edit box for the section, there was no template code in it so I can remove it when I'm finished - so does anyone have an idea where the template's code might be lurking? TYVM. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - OK, just the 1 ques. The template was under a different header than the sub-section I'm tidying. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one's easy too - go to the page in question, click the little blue star at the top, watch it spin and turn white and bingo! page unwatched.

(You can also do this by messing around with the source code of your watchlist, but for a single page, the star is much easier). Yunshui ^雲_水 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM! :-D ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please can somebody help me in correcting the mistakes/issues that are mentioned below. The link of the article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sooraj_Santhosh

Please note this is not a autobiography. All the details given have been collected from the internet by me and I am not the person about whom this article says.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article may be an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. (December 2013) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (December 2013) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (December 2013)

Thanks in advance,

Uma Forthesakeofmusic 07:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthesakeofmusic (talk • contribs)

Hello, Forthesakeofmusic. One thing that I noticed right away is that the article has a lot of citations, but many of them are to web sites such as YouTube or JukeBox which are not considered independent and reliable because anyone can post to them. Sources for a singer should not be to recordings of the songs themselves, but to published news reports, music reviews, magazine articles, etc., written by journalists and music critics. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anne. I have added all the articles and newspaper clippings available. Most of the Youtube videos provided are by the music companies.

Anyways thanks for the help. I will try to collect more reviews and use it for the citation.

Forthesakeofmusic 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthesakeofmusic (talk • contribs)

The page that I created says it is an orphan. I have quite a few links in the page from other wikipedia pages. I looked at the help to see if I made a mistake linking and I can't find what I did wrong. I used [[ ]] to indicate a link.

Also, I am having a little difficulty with the categorization. I am not quite sure what categories I should use other than what I have. I think I am misunderstanding a few things.

One more question. I have a sandbox 2 that I would like to delete. Let me know the best way to do that.

Any suggestions?PerformerResearch (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PerformerResearch. Is the article you're referring to is Marc Douglas Berardo? If it is, then the problem seems to be that there are no other articles in the main article space linking to it. In other words, the article has plenty of outgoing links, but no incoming links. I think that one possible way you can create an incoming link is to add Bernardo's name to Rye (city), New York#Notable people. You can create another (if you want) by adding information regarding the 2014 Wildflower! Arts and Music Festival to Wildflower! Arts and Music Festival or 2014 Kerrville Folk Festival to Kerrville Folk Festival, etc. You might find the information on What links here? to be helpful. Regarding your sandbox, you can blank it if you want to keep it and just change the name to something else by renaming the page, or you can ask that it be deleted for good by adding {{Db-userreq}} to it (See WP:U1). - Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to block someone for horrible editing. I went to the block log and did the tag filter and the early year and date and it dosent work. I have done everything to try to do something on the logs but failed. Cincao03 23:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cincao03: Hi Cincao03. Only administrators can block people. The logs show past actions only. I can give more targeted advice about requesting a block if you advise what this is about but see Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cincao03. Sorry to hear that you're having problems with another editor. Have you tried discussing things with the other person either on their talk page or on the article in question's talk page? Perhaps it's just a simple misunderstanding that can be resolved through discussion. Requesting that another editor be blocked seems like a serious step to take, and one that should only be taken after you have tried everything else. Also, you might want to read "Dont' shoot yourself in the foot" before you pursuing further action. Reporting another editor means that your actions may also be scrutinized. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit (talk) how don i become an administrator. Cincao03 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<Noticed but not answered as account is no longer able to edit--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)>[reply]

How does one add names to a list of names? for example, if I want to add recipients for certain military awards, how is it done? I'm sure it's quite simple, but I don't want to do something improper. Thanks!

William von ZehleWilliam von Zehle (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@William von Zehle: Hi William. If you are talking about an article that is a list, say List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients, you would click edit this page at the top, and then add your entry into the table, studying the code to see how it's done. Such an addition can be for a person who does not yet have an autonomous article on them, but only for a person who is notable in their own right (this is a disputed subject). Note that many list articles have explicit list selection criteria defined in their text which any addition should meet.

If you mean listing someone in a category, then they must already have an independent article. If they do, find an appropriate category (I find it easiest to go to a few articles on similar subjects and see what categories they are in) and then add at the bottom of the page the code [[Category:Name of Category]]. For some subjects, often for people, you need the name to sort by something other than the article title. If the article has more than one category, you can sort by placing above the categories {{DEFAULTSORT:Last name, first name}} If only one category you can use that anyway, but you can alternatively just pipe the sort: [[Category:Name Of Category|Last name, first name]] Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have been working on getting this photo up for quite some time now and wanted to make sure that it is fully usable before I add it to the article page. It was released under a cc by-sa 4.0.

The link to the newly submitted photo is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sally_Steele_at_the_Vegas_Rocks_Magazine_Music_Awards_2012.jpeg

The link to the webpage with the cc by-sa 4.0 disclaimer is located here:

http://vegasrocks.com/?p=1757

TIA for your help!

Rocksinnerqueen 21:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

OK, I added the 4.0 html tags to the photo. Is it useable now?

Thanks!

Rocksinnerqueen 21:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

So is it good to go now?

Thanks!

Rocksinnerqueen 22:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rocksinnerqueen. According to the website, the photo has been released under a CC BY-SA license (which is great), but it has been uploaded to Wikipedia rather than our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. My suggestion is to upload it to Commons, filling in all fields carefully and properly, since that is the project that hosts freely licensed content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocksinnerqueen. I've fixed up the licensing template and moved the file to Wikipedia Commons for you. There is nothing else you need to do but if you have any further questions please feel free to ask.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! Your time is greatly appreciated!

Rocksinnerqueen 19:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

Hey Teahouse. I was wanting to know the qualifications for the different tyopes of warnings when using the software, Twinkle. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schoolskater. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "the qualifications" - do you mean in what circumstances they are appropriate? You may find what you need at WP:Twinkle/doc. --ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse, Schoolskater! Some helpful links that may answer your question are: WP:AGF, WP:Vandalism, WP:UWUL, and WP:WARN. If you are interested in anti-vandal type stuff, you may be interested in signing up for the WP:CVU and going through the WP:CVUA. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has placed a comment on my talk page and signed it with my own signature. Can anyone tell me how this can happen? I know this is a simple thing to do but how can I find out who did this. Jodosma (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jodosma. It appears possible that your account has been compromised. I recommend changing your password immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my account has been compromised. I don't need a new password, as you can see now. My name is Jodosma but I'm signing off as Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it you.

@Jodosma: It only seems like you signed off as Cullen328. However, anyone who checks the diff will know the truth because diffs never lie. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Jodosma, Have you looked at the history of your talk page? While it may be possible to fake a signature, I doubt the user can change "alias" in the history. - W.carter (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all that I hear to the contrary, I believe that you can change your body language if you really want to. Jodosma (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of cause anything is possible with computers. Unfortunately. Maybe you should ask at the Village Pump where all the tech sages hang out instead. - W.carter (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jodosmad. Not meaning to upset you but I saw the problem that you were wanting to address. And while I was looking at it, I also saw that you reacted kind-of rash toward the other editor. I know it can be upsetting to see other users signing off with your signature, But please don't react in the manner you did. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mad; if I was I wouldn't have starred out the letters. It was a useful comment, so why didn't they sign off properly. I may have wanted to send a thankyou but I can't because they didn't tell me who they were. Jodosma (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodosma: Hey Jodosma. Here's what happened. When you list a discussion at RfD using Twinkle it gives you an option to "Notify page creator if possible?"; if you don't take the checkmark out of the box Twinkle then provides a warning for editors of the category through your account automatically when you save. Here, since you are the only editor of Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines, when you listed it for discussion in this edit using Twinkle, you automatically warned yourself the same second (and then yelled at yourself for doing so:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for solving the mystery, Fuhghettaboutit. You are a 21st century Hercule Poirot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments; I'm a lot calmer now it's been explained. I'll take a little longer to think about such things in future before I jump in the deep end. Sorry if I upset anyone. Jodosma (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so all of this proves that anything really can happen with computers. I rest my case. - W.carter (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I prefer to be called by my first name, Frank – Frank Columbo. Poirot can never match my lazy-eyed, pretend-befuddled stare;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure you have solved the mystery. When I decided to see if they could find a solution for this, I got this response.

Twinkle isn't automatic. It is your responsibility to read the user manual. Legoktm (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse! Let me see if I can explain the chain of events that led up to what is a misunderstanding by you...
  1. 08:17:30, June 12, 2014, you, Jodosma moved page Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines to Category:Mountain passes of the Apennines: To correct spelling of "Apennines in the title
     • See the N? That means that you created a new page.
  2. 08:29:27, June 12, 2014, on Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines you, Listed for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 12#Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
     • You see the (TW) part on the end there? Remember that. See the time stamp, compare it to the next.
  3. 08:29:28, Jun 12, 2014, on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 12 you, Adding Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
     • That also has that odd (TW) part on the end, and see the timestamp is only a second apart?.
  4. 08:29:29, Jun 12, 2014, on User talk:Jodosma you, Notification: listing at redirects for discussion of Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
     • That also has that odd (TW) part on the end, that means that you made that change using Twinkle which is a tool that allows you to make edits without the normal edit box through the api. See the timestamps are only a couple seconds difference?. Using this tool, you left a message on your own talk page for yourself informing you that this page you created (via move) was list at WP:RfD.
• This means that you actually made all three edits at the same time including that edit on your talk page and no-one else is SIGFORGE pretending to be you. I hope that helps you understand how you technically made that edit and sets your mind at easy that no-one is pretending to be you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes yes, I understand. I now realise what went on and don't need to be talked down to by arrogant people like you. A smiley face in a post like your last to me is hypocritical; I can even see your smirk. If you don't think you're being arrogant why don't you take some time out and read what you wrote. Get.off.my.back. You seem proud that your home page has only been vandalised 3 times. I'm surprised it's not a lot more. ciao. Please don't reply to this because I really don't want to know you. Jodosma (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize if it seemed like I was talking down to you. That was not my intent, and the Teahouse is suppose to be a calm and civil place. I was unsure that this was clear and resolved to everyone that has commented here based on Vchimpanzee's comment directly above mine that reads I'm not so sure you have solved the mystery. which implied to me that not everyone understood the chain of events. Again, I apologize if I seemed to have come off harsh to you and I hope that any future interactions we may have will be much more pleasant for both of us. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sometimes working on Gotland and today another user was kind enough to contribute with some information to the section about "Sports organizations". I am just curious about the way the user referenced the info, i.e. the fact that there were links in the references (number 56 & 57). This is an experienced editor and I know that this is common practice at the Swedish Wikipedia where every possible linkable word is linked, but I have not seen it here. (Well, yes I have seen it in Help:Referencing for beginners, but not at the articles). Have I missed something? - W.carter (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Template:W.carter. I usually wikilink names of publishers, publications, notable authors and so on, within references I add. This makes it easier for the reader to learn more about the source. I would consider it a "best practice". But wikilinking common words is not a good idea on English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen328, in this case it was sports organizations, so maybe the links are valid. Best, - W.carter (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an article to review and I can't find it again or see which is its status, what do I have to do? Arturo Barajas Saavedra (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arturo Barajas Saavedra. Your submission is right here. A notification was also sent to your talk page. It appears that your submission was declined. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arturo Barajas Saavedra. It seems that the reviewer concluded that your draft article is original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. In other words, reliable, independent sources do not seem to devote significant coverage to the topic of "short serious games". They discuss broader topics which you seem to have synthesized into this draft article. I am sure that this is disappointing, but perhaps some of the content you've developed could be incorporated into one or more existing articles on broader topics? Or, perhaps your material could be submitted to a journal of pedagogy, and once published there, could be cited here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am free from studies and currently waiting for result. Now, I want to improve wikipedia because that it contains some incorrect information. But I do not know, what's the method? Kindly guide me Or give me training.39.42.126.119 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create an account and try out The Wikipedia Adventure? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you see an issue with a page, you can go in an fix it yourself by clicking the "Edit" tab at the top of the page. Check out our introduction to editing, and as Fauzan recommends, I would create an account and try out the Wikipedia Adventure. If you need more help, feel free to come back to this Teahouse and we would be happy to answer any questions. Mz7 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I support the suggestions above: create a user account, try out The Wikipedia Adventure, and ask for help here when you need it (they have always been very helpful to me). In addition, for more detail you might want to look at the Wikipedia Tutorial. Then start with some simple edits, and remember to use the "Show preview" button before you save, just to make sure it all worked the way you intended. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to this article then click to go to the talk page, you are lead to a redirect which goes to the talk page of Prakash Singh Chib. It's as if a move was performed sometime ago but the talk pages got mixed up. These two articles are about two different people so it looks like the move was a wrong one. Incidentally the Prakash Singh article looks like a CV and seems very personal, perhaps it was written by the man himself. Probably needs an admin to sort it out. Jodosma (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for highlighting the issues with these two articles. I will sort it out and let you know. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done . It was actually a very easy fix, and didn't need an admin - all that had to be done was the removal of the redirect code at Talk:Prakash Singh. I've also reverted the article to a pre-spamgasm state, and added some project templates to the talkpage. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; everything looks better now, and less confusing! Jodosma (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Yunshui, that was lighting fast. Thanks!  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a spam link on the wiki article "Professional Employer Organization". The spam link is from Staffmarket.com, this company sells PEO services. How do I address this spam link properly? Mikesmith5656 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confident that it's spam, remove it. Tutelary (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was spam or not, but it was a dead link so I've replaced it with another. Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to become a better editor, so I hope it's okay if I ask another dumb question here. It concerns wikilinks to other articles. The background is that when the target article's title has more than one word, I have been looking in the browser address bar to ensure I get it exactly right, such as "Tennis_Australia". Then in the wikilink I pipe it to the more readable [[Tennis_Australia|Tennis Australia]]. But now other editors have been systematically reversing all those to [[Tennis Australia]] with the (non-)explanation "clean up using AWB (10241)". So my question is: is there a guideline about what is the preferred approach? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: Hey Gronk. The underscores are a function of URL address – URLs never have blank spaces so underscores are substituted for them. You never need include an underscore in a wikilink and you should not pipe links unnecessarily. In this case it would be truly redundant; [[Tennis_Australia]] functions as a link the same as [[Tennis Australia]], except that the former does not read properly, so always leave out the underscore(s) and link directly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help, Fuhghettaboutit. I will do that now; all those redirections were a pain in the neck anyhow!--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, My first article was rejected for the second time based upon issues of notability and lack of references. I've referenced virtually every statement from published articles, and added more information to increase the ability of readers to see what is notable about the subject matter. One of the reviewers recommended stopping in here. I'd really appreciate any advice from experienced Wikipedia contributors and editors.

My article is here: User:Janisadore/sandbox

Thanks in advance for any help.

Janisadore (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Janisadore. The only reliable sources I saw on your article were Huffington Post (which was only a passing mention and not the discussion in detail which is required to show notability) and WSJ. The WSJ article was a reprint from Business Wire, which is a website that reprints press releases, making it not independent. Independence is required for references to vet notability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I appreciate your clarification.

Janet Janisadore (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the 1997–98 season at User:Matty.007/sandbox/List of Kingstonian F.C. seasons, I can't get Leworthy's goals to format such as at my guide, List of Margate F.C. seasons. Please can someone fix this? Thanks, Matty.007 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matty, and welcome back (I think you're a veteran around here, correct?) to The Teahouse. The only problem I see is that Leworthy appears to be the only one whose goal total is even in the table. Maybe I'm seeing something different from what you see.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee: yes. Leworthy was a test, but in Firefox I saw his number of goals (30) in the references column, but I have been told that it is viewed fine in IE and Chrome. Thanks again, Matty.007 10:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I resubmitted an article that I had previously submitted in error. The article is now complete and I have resubmitted for review. Can you please let me know if it is being reviewed.

Thank you much!

Sylviahaidar (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylviahaidar, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it looks like Draft:SONAR Flow Meters has been submitted successfully and has been placed in the review queue. A reviewer will take a look at it within this week, I would say. Best, Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I took a glance at the submission and I noticed you've provided few references to reliable sources. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and see if you can add more references to reliable sources to your submission (such as news sources, books, scholarly papers, etc.). This is required so we can make sure the information you have written in verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. Mz7 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article or section may have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. (April 2014) (38.112.210.2 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This article reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone. Please help by either rewriting this article from a neutral point of view or by moving this article toWikinews. When appropriate, blatant advertising may be marked for speedy deletion with {{db-spam}}. (April 2014) (38.112.210.2 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the tea-house. Looking at the history of Gerson Lehrman Group these concerns were raised in April, but since then, there have only been two, extremely minor, edits to the page. The problems are therefore, unaddressed and the first thing to do is address these, by re-writing the article in a neutral, non-promotional tone.

However, I note that although you have a sporadic editing history, it already includes several edits to this page, so I wonder if you have any conflict of interest in editing this page? - If so, please read our policy on conflict of interest and propose any changes on the talk page, providing reliable, independent references to back them up. - Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Arjayay says: the tags were added by user DGG, so if you are not clear what is required, you could ask that user on User talk:DGG. --ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am. When I place an "advertising" tag, this means that if not rewritten, it might be considered for deletion. Material such as "Clients work with Research Managers who, with the help of a proprietary set of online profiling and compliance tools, identify, find, vet and connect relevant experts with users." is advertising. I imagine every similar company can say the same, using similar jargon. If this was not copied from your advertising, it reads as if it were. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients --that sort of content is considered promotional. You are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you have COI, the current best practice is to suggest your rewrite on the talk page, and ask us to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start but there is MUCH more to do. Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please i want to know how to create the right information table containing name, logo, location and so on. Thanks Oluwatobiakinmade (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oluwatobiakinmade. That's an infobox - they can be added to articles by using the appropriate infobox template. Because these vary quite a bit in the parameters used, it's helpful to know which article you want to use the infobox in - if you want a common example, {{infobox person}} is fairly widely used and will give you an idea of how they operate. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Excited about submitting my first article, I managed to do so without giving it a title. Now I can't edit it anymore. What can be done? Best, Reconnamon Reconnamon (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Reconnamon, and welcome to the TeaHouse. You don't need to worry about this, because if the reviewer accepts your article submission, they will give it the appropriate title when doing so. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arthur goes shopping. Thank you for the friendly welcome and your reassuring answer. I feel like such a newbie :) Reconnamon (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Reconnamon. I have moved the page to Draft:Blacklane (page titles aren't part of the page, but say where the page is in Wikipedia, so you change the title by moving the page). Your existing sandbox is (automatically) a redirect to the new place, so you can still get there from it. I've also removed the {{user sandbox}} template, as Wikipedia objects to it now that the article isn't a user sandbox.

If you want to do something useful to it while waiting for review, I advise improving the formatting of your references: see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, ColinFine! I also realised after posting, that they looked a bit of a mess. I really appreciate being pointed in the right direction! Reconnamon (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please give me some feedbacks regarding my article Draft:Force-A before I re-submit it review? I am aware of the remarks and comments for the last decline, and I'm looking forward to hear from you whether I should include or change anything else. Thanks! Andrchan (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrchan. I think the most important thing for you to focus on is better high quality secondary sourcing for expanded content (if you take out the lists of products and awards there really isn't all that much content) and making the article read from a more neutral point of view. In that regard, some of the language reads as rather promotional. Encyclopedia articles report on a company; they don't exclaim the virtues of a company. Examples: "thanks to its capabilities..." and "innovative solutions for a sustainable European agriculture" read as market speak from a promotional brochure. Some other notes:

 • Citations go outside of punctuation. Thus, it's never: Text^[1], or Text^[2]. and always Text,^[1] and Text.^[2]

 • Article subjects should not be written in all uppercase unless they are distinct acronyms ("NASA"). Thus: downcase all uses of the title in the draft to Force-A. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Downcase all other products listed as well.

 • Never use registered, trademark, service mark, etc., symbols in an article (except for rare exceptions, such as in an article about trademarks). Remove every one.

 • External links do not belong in the text of the article. You might use them as citations, between <ref>...</ref> tags but you should not have links in the body like "SITEVI Innovation Awards 2013", and in fact you're already using the same external links as references. Remove all of them.

 • Speaking of external links, they should not display in citations as URLs but as links to the title of the source. So, for example, instead of

<ref>http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/publications/CerovicZG2012PhysPlant.pdf Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal flavonoids. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.</ref> use

<ref>Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). [http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/publications/CerovicZG2012PhysPlant.pdf A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal flavonoids]. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.</ref>, which will format as

Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal flavonoids. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.

 • A very minor issue: remove the {{DEFAULTSORT}}. It is superfluous as the title does not need to be sorted by something other than its proposed name.

 • I have removed the logo from the draft. Fair use images may not be used outside of the article mainspace.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks very much for your feedback. I have just made the modifications you suggested. Could you please check my article Draft:Force-A again to see if I can resubmit? Andrchan (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrchan: Anytime. The article is much cleaner now, but the most fundamental issue remains unaddressed. In effect, you've cleared out the messy shrubbery which would have been a problem also, but you have not planted the trees – which are the main exhibit. You need reliable, secondary sources addressing the subject in detail. I'm sure you're aware of the rejection basis stated by the reviewer for you, that most of the sources are mere mentions of Force-A, in connection with its products. Find reliable sources that discuss the company and which are unconnected to it and use them to flesh out the entry. Please understand that No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. So, I suggest you attempt to address these issues before you resubmit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

We were blocked as we were told our entries were too promotional - we're not sure what we need to do to rectify this. The entries are below... can you advise?

(212.56.99.183 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just explain in your unblock request that you had no intention to promote yourself, you were unaware of the policies, and you will never do that again. You should read the policy, and never commit such offense again. But if you did again, you will be blocked again by the admin. OccultZone (Talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I note above you say "we were told". Wikipedia accounts should be used by individuals, not groups. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please read, understand and follow our guidelines on conflict of interest, as I suspect this was behind your previous problems. - Arjayay (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am working on a page for Eugene Daub, the sculptor for the Rosa Parks statue in Washington D.C. I would like to edit the Rosa Parks page but it it protected and must be edited by autoconfirmed editors. Can you advise me as to contacting an editor with that ability?Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(not a teahouse patron) but you should have already been autoconfirmed a long time ago. You have 134 edits, and have been registered for at least 1 year, when the requirement is 4 days. Hmm...I'd put in a request for confirmed rights, which is basically the same thing, only under a different name. An admin, seeing that you already meet the qualifications, will likely give it to you. Then you can edit the page. You should note on that page that you have been registered for over a year and have over 140+ edits, thereby meeting the qualifications for being autoconfirmed. It may have been a software bug or something. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out own comment, mistaken.[reply]

Hi Andrea, your account actually is already autoconfirmed as it meets the requirements and you should be free to edit the page. That said, Eugene Daub is not protected. Could you link the page you're trying to edit? Sam Walton (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam Walton, Dr. Andrea Bruce says "I would like to edit the Rosa Parks page..." so I think she means Rosa Parks. Best, - W.carter (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, of course. I misread. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this just as a slight possibility because I thought they fixed it long ago, but there *was* a known bug where the display of the "view source" notice on semi-protected articles would deceptively show for people who could edit (i.e. not just for not-yet-autoconfirmed users), thus fooling people into thinking they could not edit a page when they could. When this happened, if you ignored the display of "view source" and clicked on it, you could nevertheless edit the page. Anyway, you should be autoconfirmed and able to edit Rosa Parks directly. What happens when you try? Are you editing using Tor which may delay autoconfirmation/extend the requirements to reach it? (if you don't know what that is, forget I asked).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note this down: an account becomes "autoconfirmed" after it is 4 days old and has made 10 edits. After that, your account should be able to edit semi-protected pages, like Rosa Parks. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us why are trying hard to be better encyclopedia editors should devote some serious thought about why an article like Rosa Parks has long been a magnet for vandalism. I don't fully understand it, but it is a very sad aspect of our work here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add some updated information on the George Marsh, Martyr page, in the legacy section, that, 'on 10th June 2014 a documentary was broadcast on Revelation TV' http://www.revelationtv.com/webdev/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_TV

My source for this is http://www.revelationtv.com/bin/sc-jun-2014.pdf

Is this source sufficient for this update? I'm trying to avoid an "edit war" SPSutherland (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, SPSutherland. I am unsure that this TV show broadcast by a controversial network is important enough to include as part of the "legacy" of a person who died 4-1/2 centuries ago. I suggest discussing the matter first on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. However, this advice does not seem quite right to me since you refer to Revelation TV as; "a controversial network".? How is controversy related to this film? George Marsh was controversial, plenty of media stations, BBC, CNN, newspapers, countless TV shows, radio shows are controversial. So what? I do not see that controversy is the issue, if it is then should not large amounts of information on here (Wiki) be removed. Or is there something else? SPSutherland (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I found a an bio on Bill Bellamy that had no info on his personal life on Wikipedia. I found an online article from Essence Magazine that he had been married for 13 years and has two children.

I would like to update and edit a lot of the articles about Black entertainment and people since they have very little info. I write and publish a lot of my own articles but I check my sources. Was wondering what is considered to be valid sources on Wikipedia for editing.

Thanks2605:A000:DFC0:26:E94F:F29C:640D:C33 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. General information about how to determine whether a source is reliable can be found at WP:RS. Sources have to be evaluated in context. In my opinion, Essence (magazine) would be considered a reliable source for such routine biographical details for a Black celebrity, since that type of article is their specialty. But we normally wouldn't cite Essence for claims related to an academic matter, for example. If the material is controversial, we would want multiple reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I keep asking for someone to review my article, but I want it to be as perfect as possible at the time of submission. The main area I am concerned about is the "Technology" section in my article. Would you please review my article and provide specific feedback as to what you recommend I should change / if any, before hitting the submit button? Please be specific as to what may sound too promotional if any. I am struggling with the tone a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox

Thank you all so much. I really appreciate everyone on here that is helping me.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to remember that your draft is now at Draft:AlterG, Inc.; User:JohnKnox77/sandbox is now merely a redirect. Secondly, it is better if rather than giving the URL of a Wikipedia page, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox, you give it as a wikilink, so [[User:JohnKnox77/sandbox]] shows as User:JohnKnox77/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. You will have to forgive me as I am still learning.

Do you have any insights as it pertains to the article?

JohnKnox77 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take another stab at the technology section and try to make it less promotional. I will get feedback once my edits have been made.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "ten edits" mean? In other words, can it be my own article, or does it have to be other people's articles? Confession Procession (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Confession Procession, welcome to the Teahouse. Any edit at en.wikipedia.org counts, including this question. Special:Contributions/Confession Procession currently shows nine edits and your account is a little more than four days old so you will be autoconfirmed after your next edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Assuming you are referring to autoconfirmed status, WP:AUTOCONFIRMED states:- Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. However, users with IPBE editing through the Tor network are subjected to stricter autoconfirmed thresholds: 90 days and 100 edits.

I know that deleted edits do not count, but AFAIK all other edits do count, so you are up to 9.

However, please do not move Draft:Franklin Russell Millin, Jr. into mainspace, until you have formatted the references properly - please read Help:Referencing for beginners as a simple guide to how to start. - Arjayay (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikipedian has removed my edits to an article three times already. I have tried to work on this in a way that is constructive, but he just removes all the text from the lead, including the citations, all of which have been in the article for a long while. Where should I go to get input from a senior editor. Ebonyskye (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably you added redundant information. What the you said on the first part of the article, is what you should put under a new section called "Concept". I don't know about the others, actually. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of editing warring, as this is mostly a content problem. Why not just start a new topic on the talk page, and send niemti a message. I am sure he will respond NathanWubs (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well prior to Niemti's edits the info was not redundant. It was summarized in the lead then given more detail in the body. The points were referenced with several sources. When the entire lead except one sentence was removed by Niemti I thought that was too drastic, especially since the banner states the lead was too short. Well, yeah, after you remove everything it tends to shorten the text. Plus he removed several of the supporting citations. He really offered nothing constructive and was pretty rude. So, who do I contact for another opinion to get the banner removed once I feel its ready? Ebonyskye (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen once kindly informed me that you can remove the template code on any article once the issue it's drawing attn to has been corrected. You don't need permission to take it down. ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review the article that I've been working on for Krypton Radio, an internet radio station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ranvaig/sandbox Ranvaig (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ranvaig and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't reviewed your article but you might like to take a look at this guideline, which will give you an idea about what makes a radio station notable in Wikipedia terms.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. That guideline appears to be aimed at broadcast radio, not internet only radio. All the same, I think Krypton Radio qualifies because of it's unique programming, but I'm not sure if I have enough citations to show notability. Ranvaig (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Firstly, apologize for my bad English. I have a question about policies. What rule allows users to insert notes about myths on pages with series lists (like this or this and etc..) without specifying the source? Is there are some special policy for TV show or something? Swix (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swix, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a lot of notes on those pages and I don't know whether you have specific notes in mind. If you just mean descriptions of what happens in the show then MOS:PLOT says: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, do not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." MOS:PLOT is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction but would also apply to this kind of show. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply! Yes, i'm talking about experiment descriptions indicated in block "Notes". This descriptions must have a reliable source to prove Wikipedia:Notability (films), doesn't it? Swix (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia:Notability (films) says "The notability guideline for film-related articles is a standard for deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article." A note is not an article and doesn't need an independent source. Anyway, television shows are not films and don't have their own notability guideline so the relevant guideline for getting an article is the general Wikipedia:Notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I went to the "requested articles" page on Wiki and found a book that seemed easy to write an article about. I wrote the article, put it up, but it got an "immediate deletion" tag instead. I really do not have a clue what I did wrong. I looked at other wiki pages about books, and I tried to make mine look like those, but I guess there was something I was missing. Can you help me figure it out so the next time I write a new article it sticks and does not get deleted? Here is the book I was trying to write about "The Dark Side of Nowhere."Editingright (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Editingright. We have a Notability guideline for books, which you should read. In brief, a book which has received multiple reviews in independent, reliable sources will usually be considered notable. Or a book which has won a major literary award. Or a book that was made into a notable movie or television show. Or a book which is widely used as a subject of instruction in schools. So that's a summary of the things that help determine if Wikipedia ought to have an article about a specific book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The promotional tone is what I struggle with the most.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone - I wanted to get additional feedback on my article before submitting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox I am looking forward to hearing everyones thoughts. It is greatly appreciated. FINGERS CROSSED!

JohnKnox77 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnKnox77 and welcome to the Teahouse. I've had a quick look through the article and here are few pointers that might help:

• The company's growth and sales figures (references 12 and 13 in the company history section) are purely promotional and I would remove them.
• I suggest that you merge the two sections following the Company history section (Titan acquisition and culture) into that one.
• Removing the promotional statements in the Technology section will increase the article's chances of acceptance.

Doing the above is no guarantee of the article passing its next review but it should help.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please can any help me remove all the unnecessary referencing that you that was raised in the rejection of my article. And, can only one referencing 'Poker Knave' which seems to be a secondary source be accepted as a single referencing? The link to Newpaper publication 'The Sun Newspaper UK' is a secondary source, but only allows those with paid subscription to have full detailed access to it's publications. Your further verification is needed on this.If you need a screenshoots of the publications, I can make them available to anyone on request. Microbilo (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Microbilo and welcome to The Teahouse. It is not a requirement that people be able to access sources online, and I'm not sure whether you can provide screenshots to anyone. If they have the option of email, that would get around the idea of not posting copyrighted material here. One possibility is the resource exchange and I think I may have access to The Sun.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I see your talk page, it appears that with the sources you have, you're not going to be able to do much with the article. If I can see The Sun tomorrow at the library, I can look at what you have, but I'm not optimistic.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This library does not have access to The Sun. In the London area it has Ealing Times, Enfield Independent, The Evening Standard, Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle, Haringey Independent, Harrow Times, i: The Paper For Today, The Independent, New Addington Advertiser, News Shopper, This Is Local London, Times Series, and Your Local Guardian.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And none of these have any search results for "Michael Lord Smith" or "Microbilo".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to link to a Spanish-language wikipedia page, do I need to link with the full url?Alammana (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alammana: Hi Alammana. to link to another language Wikipedia's article just type inside of doubled brackets a colon, followed by a language code (in this case "es" for Spanish) and another colon followed by the name of the article at that Wikipedia. So for example, if you wanted to link to the Spanish Wikipedia article on the slow loris, you'd type [[:es:Nycticebus]], which would format as es:Nycticebus. If you wanted to link there but have it display without the langugae code, you'd use a pipe between the link name and the display name: [[:es:Nycticebus|Nycticebus]], which would display as Nycticebus. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks so much, Fuhghettaboutit! That's exactly what I needed. Alammana (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alammana and welcome to the Teahouse! It's always nice to see questions about improving inter-wiki language linking. My only question is whether the articles you intend to link to on Spanish Wikipedia already have an article in English. If they don't, please consider using the template {{ill}} (you can get more info by clicking on that link). This will still provide a link to the Spanish article but will indicate that there is no corresponding English article. Otherwise, without clicking on the link, other editors have no way of telling that an English article needs to be created.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Philg88, that's really helpful. A lot of the topics I'm likely to write on have extensive articles in Spanish, but none in English. I appreciate the feedback! Alammana (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Buena suerte mi amigo  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I have finished my draft page for Historic Wintersburg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Historic_Wintersburg_in_Huntington_Beach,_California, but cannot figure out how to take it from draft to "live" or published. This is the first page I have created, so I'm just unfamiliar with some of how this works. All information is vetted. I appreciate help with this so it can be viewed! Mary Urashima (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mary, welcome to the teahouse. You can submit it for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. You may wish to have a look at WP:CHEATSHEET for information on how to format Wikipedia pages; in particular the spaces at the start of paragraphs cause a messy display. Check out WP:REFB for how to add inline citations.

You should also read WP:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia wouldn't normally mention your blogspot page, and especially not in the body of an article, unless it is widely cited as an authority on the subject area by published reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mary Urashima: There are two ways you can get it live: you can try the articles for creation process, or you can directly move it to the mainspace. The articles for creation process submits your draft for review by an experienced editor, who will either accept your article and publish it or decline your article and give you advice on how you could improve it. As Demiruge1000 mentioned, to follow this process simply place the following text at the top of your draft: {{subst:submit}}. This will place your draft in a queue where it will eventually be reviewed. Keep in mind, however, that this process tends to take a lot of time due to a heavy backlog (it may take up to several weeks for a reviewer to read your submission).

If you do not wish to follow the articles for creation review process you can move the draft to the mainspace yourself—this action publishes the article without having another editor review it. If you follow this path, your article may be deleted, instead of just declined, if it contains any major problems (but this isn't usually done if it can be shown the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia). To do this, your account must be autoconfirmed—meaning it has to be at least 4 days old and it has to have made at least 10 edits. Once you are auto confirmed, go to Special:MovePage/Draft:Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach, California and you'll notice a dropdown menu with the "Draft" option selected. Change the "Draft" option to "(Article)", then click "Move page". Alternatively, you can request that someone do this for you here. Best of luck! Mz7 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Demiurge1000, Thank you for making sure I know about the conflict of interest rules. I actually am an acknowledged expert on the topic, written up in national magazines, asked to speak at state and national preservation conferences. And, I have a book published on the topic by History Press. The blog covers the continuing research on the topic and has no advertising or monetary gain. Hope that helps! Thank you again, as I do want to do this correctly. Mary Urashima (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i am not a neutral party. i won a Court case against Tan D. Nguyen for fraud and tried to revise his bio to include it citing the case number and naming the Judge It was immediately removed by another user (possibly a friend or relative of Tan D. Nguyen.

i know of no other source which has publicized the Court Judgments. How can the Judgment of fraud be added to the bio?

Thank you, Notafraidtotell 107.141.210.61 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, person with an IP of 107.141.210.61 and welcome to The Teahouse. Were you signed in under another name? Or do you get your Internet service from a provider which changes your IP? Or did you edit from a different computer? Because this is your only contribution to English Wikipedia. If you could name the article that would help.

By the way, I fixed the formatting of one of your paragraphs so it would display better.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you signed as User:Notafraidtotell. The article is Tan D. Nguyen. If you are personally involved in the case, it would be best to discuss the situation on Talk:Tan D. Nguyen, and make sure to use independent reliable sources, although you suggest there aren't any, and that would be a problem. Other, uninterested parties can add the information you want in the article and make sure it has a neutral point of view which would be difficult for an involved person to do.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to discuss on User Talk:Materialscientist. The case numbers are there so there could be proper documentation but this might be a case of undue weight. One possible objection is that this takes up too high a percentage of the article in relation to its importance.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:Materialscientist left you a polite message on your talk page. That message pointed out that you added unreferenced material to a biography of a living person, which is not allowed. Also, your heading was in all capitals. Instead, it should have been ==Fraud==. But you have to fix the other problems before any information is added to the article, and you probably shouldn't be the one to do it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notafraidtotell, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place to document your legal feud. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines and our sourcing guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 4:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Hi I am just getting started as a volunteer for our local archives. I have been asked to investigate and advise on how to include relevant references to wikipedia articles. We have a lot of information to share about our area in our fonds collection, and would like to especially add pictures in articles. I am wondering if it is copacetic to cite back to the fond collection (we have a finding aid button on the website) or is there a better way to do this. Thanks in advance.PeaceofHistory (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeaceofHistory. In all honesty, the meaning of "fond" I am familiar with is the caramelized bits of food sticking to the bottom of a frying pan. So, it would be helpful to know more about what you mean. If your archive owns copyright to some images and wants to release them under a Creative Commons license for free use by anyone, then please upload to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. You can require that your archive be credited as the copyright owner, and listing your website is fine, connected to each image. Linking to the archive in individual Wikipedia articles may present problems in some cases. If you tell us more the archive and the articles in question, we can be much more specific. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Fonds if that helps cullen? Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Theroadislong. I still think it would be useful to have an example of what a possible photo would show, and how it might be used in the article. And also whether the archive holds the copyright to the images in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, PeaceofHistory. This is my understanding of the subject; other editors may correct me: Wikipedia references should be to individual published documents. Citing a collection would be like citing a shelf in the public library, rather than a specific book. If the document has been published, then the references should indicate where it was published. If it was never published, it wouldn't be considered to be a reliable source. That said, if a copy of a published document were to be in one of the fonds, a note at the end of the standard citation as to where the copy is located may be appropriate if the document is rare and hard to find. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone -

I have been working hard and am looking to get feedback regarding my article before I submit. If you have time, I would love to hear your thoughts on what I can do to improve my article before submission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox

Thanks

JohnKnox77 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, JohnKnox77. Your well-documented article illustrates the classic conundrum in describing a business on Wikipedia--the products are exciting and cutting-edge, and you describe them thoroughly. Therein lies the problem. I think sometimes editors give advice to change the tone ("reads like an advertisement") when the real issue is content. The focus of the article needs to be on the company, rather than product description. Product descriptions tend to sound promotional no matter how neutral you try to be, and mentions of where the product is used will always sound like endorsements. If you refocus the article on the company (the history, development, acquisitions, company leadership, bottom line, etc.) it is less likely to sound like an ad, and more likely to be neutral in point of view. There is no doubt in my mind that this company is noteworthy and deserves an article on Wikipedia, but it should only mention the product line in passing. All the best, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a log of sense. I will re-purpose the article. Thank you so much for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKnox77 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting the following text box floating over my screen when I edit my sandbox:

"AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "MadScientistX11" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there."

To my knowledge, I'm not involved in creating any new articles right now. A long time ago as a result of trying to help some new user requesting help at the tea house I tried doing some of the work to move their article along from their sandbox to an article for creation. Not sure if that is what caused this or what but it's getting annoying to see that box all the time. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MadScientistX11. If you don't review articles at AfC then you can disable "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was easy. Thanks!. I must have checked that box by mistake a while ago when I edited my options to add Twinkle and other things I do use. thanks for the prompt response. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I'm sorry for being a host with lots and piles of chunks of questions! We should start now!

1. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I hate vulgarities in my talk page. Can I censor them?
2. I do not understand why a user deleted my pages, mainly User:NN4 and User talk:NN4. Is it because short forms are not allowed? Then, in this case, why can User: I dream of horses use User:IDoH to redirect to her page but I can't use mine?
3. What should I do if I have a feeling that a user is wikihounding me?
4. Can I put shortcuts like User talk:Nahnah4/A to User talk:Nahnah4/Archives?
5. How can I create a bot if I can't read programming language?

To answer, please ping me and specify which (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) are you answering. Thanks! --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Nahnah4, Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's a answer to Question 1: If you hate those vulgarities on your talk page, you can request that an Administrator grant your page semi-protection; see WP:RFP. Hope this helps :) Cheers, Z10987 (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Z10987: Nope, it is not a vandalism nor an IP, it is a host who just, I don't know. It was a song title. I'm quite sensitive. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: I see. Let's wait for someone more experienced to respond, then Z10987 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nahnah4:, some answers for you:

• 1. Although it is not encouraged (archiving is preferred), per this guideline you can remove whatever you want from your own talk page except declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See this guideline for more details.
• 2. I'll look at the deletions and get back to you.
• 3. It depends on what the Wikihounding involves. You should first try engaging with the editor in question and if that fails raise it at the administrators' noticeboard.
• 4. I'm not sure of the rules on User talk space redirects, which is what this would involve.
• 5. If you don't understand programming languages then I would advise you to stay away from creating bots as they can do more harm than good. Based on your short time as an editor on Wikipedia, it is unlikely that you would received bot approval at this stage.

Hope that helps.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: Thanks. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Nahnah4: (e/c) You may remove posts from your talk page, but you should not change the text of another user's post;
2. You created a user page and a user talk page of a nonexistent user, which is why they were deleted under section U2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You can create user and user talk subpages but they should be subpages of your actual account name. If you want to use "NN4" as a nickname, for example, in your signature, you can pipe a link from your actual username, to that alternate text → [[User:Nahnah4|NN4]] will produce NN4. The fact that someone else has done something does not mean it was correct, or ever noticed, or not a bad practice or is not grandfathered in at this point;
3. It's hard to say without specifics. Have you tried discussing it with the person at their talk page? Doing so in a non-accusatory and civil manner is probably a good idea;
4. Use the pipe trick, as linked above: [[User talk:Nahnah4/Archives|User talk:Nahnah4/A]] will appear as User talk:Nahnah4/A;
5. I don't think that's possible (and if it is, say, through someone else writing it for you, it's probably not prudent). Note also that for bots to run they need to be approved. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: On #2: But why does User:I dream of horses allowed to use User:IDoH to redirect to her user page? and on #4: I did not use the pipe link, just User talk:Nahnah4/A into a redirect to User talk:Nahnah4/Archives. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nahnah4. You redacted my comment on your talk page over ten days ago, and I didn't revert you, so I am unsure why you are bringing up the issue again. I do not object to you removing the whole section if you want. But please note that if you start a discussion about explicit song titles on an album cover, then some explicit song titles may well be mentioned in the discussions that follow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page history [3] of User:IDoH shows it was created with the edit summary "This is my IRC chatroom screen name, so I am redirecting this userpage to my userpage. If anyone creates an account under my name, revert me." That seems sensible to me but you can try to nominate it for deletion if you want. I don't see a good reason to create User:NN4, especially when your username is only 7 characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone :)

I just created an article about a blogger in Singapore, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Ngerng_(blogger)

Even though I added the reflist template at the end of the page, an error still shows up saying that there is no reflist template on the page. How do I correct this error?

Many thanks! 05:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Z10987: Hey, high-five! I'm a Singaporean too! (LOL) I think that it did not show up because you put the title before the url and please make the accessdate in dmy dates (since it's SG). Please try. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Z10987:  Done. I fixed it. It was a missing close </ref>. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: High-five! It's nice to see Singaporeans here in Wikipedia :) Thanks so much for helping to fix that one! Cheers, Z10987 (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Z10987: No problem. :) Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for keep asking questions even though I'm a host. Just want to ask, how to move a file page? --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 04:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nahnah4. Ask as many questions as you like, that's what the Teahouse is for! You can move a file in exactly the same way you would move an article. That is usually done from the task bar at the top right, but it depends on how you have your preferences configured as to where the option actually appears.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: But not all file pages have that black arrow. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: Hmm ... Odd. Can you tell me the specific filename so that I can take a look? Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: File:Don't Tap the White Tile screenshot.png. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: I get the option to move it but I see that it is also tagged for "move to commons". Is that what you are trying to do? If so, cross-wiki moves are handled slightly differently. You need a tool like For the Common Good. If you want it moved to commons I'll do it for you.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: Nope, the picture was just requested to be moved to Commons by random users. I want to change the name, from Don't Tap the White Tile screenshot to Piano Tiles screenshot. It applies to the app icon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_in_need_of_updating_from_January_2013

In the above page, for example, we see 'HIV' listed as one of the articles in need of updating, but there is not update template to be found on the page.

This is normal? How did this occur?

Z10987 (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Z10987, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! It's in the category for at least the fact that it has a {{Failed verification|date=April 2014}} tag in the Entry to the cell section. — 03:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}

@Z10987: (e/c) Hey Z10987. The category is placed by other templates, such as {{Update after}} and {{update inline}}. In the case of HIV, you can see the latter template in use in the last paragraph of HIV#Diagnosis, where it says ^{[needs update]}, which is what is placing it into the category. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your clarification on the use of these templates! Z10987 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this file File:Texas vs texas tech.jpg They said it was apparopite, but they already had an image but this is a horrible image File:2008 TTUvsTT Fans.jpg So they are deleting my photo which is better than the other one Cincao03 20:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cincao03 - the image you have uploaded is fully copyrighted and considered non-free. Wikipedia's goal is to provide free content whenever possible; however, there are times when copyrighted images have to be used under a claim of fair use, such as to illustrate a video game cover, a comic book character, or any other situation where a freely-licensed version will not do. In this case, using the non-free picture to illustrate a football game when we already have a freely-licensed picture that conveys the same thing is not accepted. Let us know if you need any more clarification! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am really having trouble with my article iw ant to make. I went to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and oyher people, its complecated, is there any kind user's that could fix it for me Cincao03 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cincao03 and welcome to the teahouse. I don't know much about basketball, but I do know sometimes basketball players are notable here on Wikipedia even if not by our normal rules. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000 (talk) Do you know anyone that know s about basketball that could fix the article.Cincao03 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cincao03! I had a look at the article, and unfortunately it looks like this freshman college player, as noted by the draft reviewer, is not notable enough for inclusion at this time. This is not a problem that can be "fixed", because it is not possible to make a subject more notable via editing. VQuakr (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr (talk) But this person needs a wiki article because its to good of a player. 1. you could fix it yourself. or 2. do resarch on him and see how good he is. or 3. Get someone else to do all this crap. Do one of them!!! Cincao03 20:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which newspapers mention him? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Cincao03 but that's not the way Wikipedia works. "Because its to good of a player" or "because I really like them" or "because she is so popular", are not enough. We require that at least a couple of major newspapers, or reputable book publishers, or websites with a reputation for fact checking, have already found the subject important enough to write about them: then there will be enough published information about the subject to write a good article. If he's as good as you say he is, then that will probably happen some time; but it may not be there yet.

The other point is that Wikipedia is entirely created by volunteers. I don't know about other people, but I know that when somebody comes along and tells me what I should do, I'm not inclined to help them. You want this article, you do the research Cincao03. And if you, caring about it, can't find the references, then they probably don't yet exist.

Alternatively, Demiurge's suggestion that you ask at WikiProject Basketball is a good one. But I recommend you have a go at inviting people to share your passion rather than telling them what to do. Cheers, --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cincao03 13:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse - I'm trying to figure out if this list of Dale Chihuly's works in permanent collections should be split out into it's own (list) article. I've been reading some MoS pages, particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, where it says "a separate article for a list of that person's works ... is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable." I think the list on Chihuly's page does seem long compared to the rest of the article, but I wanted to get your advice before I go ahead and split it out. Is there anything else I should take into account? Thanks in advance, rchopman (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extabulis (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hey rchopman - I could definitely see why you want to split the page. The best way to go about this is to propose the split on the article's talk page, and then mark the list section on the article with Template:Split section to let others know that you have have proposed splitting the list. I'd let the discussion run until there is a consensus (or, if no one contributes to the discussion and there are no objections after a couple weeks, I'd go ahead and split it). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - thanks! rchopman (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: Hello! Is a new page preferable to a "Wikitable collapsible collapsed" or a collapsible "sort table" in articles like this. I'm going to face a similar problem with a new article I'm working on, and had thought to use that option. - W.carter (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Yea, I'd say a new page is preferable. Concealing article content is typically a last resort. In addition to the MOS section Extabulis linked to that discusses splitting off long lists into new articles, MOS:COLLAPSE describes how article content typically shouldn't be collapsed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You SuperHamster, may nuts, sun flower seeds and dry cookies always be abundant to you. - W.carter (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

does "last name" and "first name" refer to the citation author or my name? Also not clear on "Ref" ("ID for anchor"), is that a nickname, so to speak, for the reference? I looked around some but did not find a guide for these questions. Thank you. Chauncey (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chaunceyiv. The name fields refer to the author of the work that you are citing. If you are using the reference only once, you simply designate it as "ref". If you are planning to use the same reference several times in the same article, then you use "ref name=X", with X being a simple memory device to help you to keep track of it. Yes, it is a nickname. A distinctive word from the title or the author's last name are possible choices, and this is not displayed to readers of the article. I recommend Referencing for beginners for a good overview. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Teahouse, I am a relatively new editor and I don't think that I have enough experience for being a Teahouse host. Is there any way I can resign. I have really enjoyed working with you other host. But I think I should resign until I am experienced enough. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you were on the list of hosts, I think that's fine. There isn't any problem with you answering questions you know the answer to though, you don't have to be a host to answer queries. Thanks, Matty.007 15:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has added their name to the list of hosts can remove it at any time. Schoolskater, you are always welcome to ask questions here, or to answer them if you are reasonably sure you know the correct answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The best part Schoolskater, is that you don't even have to remove your name from the list! If you become inactive on this page, then HostBot will remove your name for you! Since everything on Wikipedia is volunteer based, you can come and go as you please, there is no "resigning" per-say. Experience comes from making mistakes, or at least being accused of making mistakes. Many of our hosts here don't know the answer to a majority of the questions asked. What we do know, is where me might go to find an answer for many of them, and if you don't know, or don't have time to research an answer, it's okay to leave it for the next helper! Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Schoolskater, one of the important parts of the teahouse is that it's an, umm, teahouse. What I mean is, if someone gave you advice two weeks ago, then someone else asks for advice here today, and you are sure the advice is relevant, you can help that person! That has always been part of the teahouse ideal and ethos - and I can say this even though I am not a Teahouse Host but in fact I am only a Junior Wrangler here.

It has made me very proud that some of the people I have helped at the teahouse have gone on to be great editors themselves, and some of them have also gone on to help other people who asked for help here. I may be slightly biased, but there isn't really an Approved and Unapproved. Just sometimes take it very slowly - but your input is always welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am too new to sort this tangle out, and I hope somebody can help. The article Canadian Rockies is a mess - basically the whole article is repeated twice. And there is a complex chain of people undoing one another's changes to try and fix it, which all seem to be digging it into a deeper hole. Could some kind person who knows what he/she is doing please take a look at it?

P.S. If this is not the proper place to ask, then I ask whether you can find it in your hearts to forgive me, and perhaps even to point me in the right direction. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. As far as I can see, the last good version was the one at 11:33, 3 May 2014‎ by Der Golem. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks to Fylbecatulous, who fixed it! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oftentimes, I research Wikipedia to get information on various folks. however, today I happened to research many of my friends who are athletes and did not see certain names of some very inspirational local individuals who were not on the list. My name is Mr. Zatiti Moody and I am the Principal at the famed Eastside HS in Paterson NJ. I happen to know many of the names on the list that was hoping to help add to this site by submitting some valuable names to this site. Myself, I am an esteemed graduate Eastside high School(1992) in Paterson, NJ who was an all-state football player and honor student who went on to start for 3 years as a defensive end at the University of Pittsburgh. I went on to secure my Masters degree and came back to Paterson as a School Social Worker and in only 3 short years became a building administrator equivalent to a Principal at the age of 26yrs old. Now currently the Principal of one of the most famous schools in America. Through, this journey I have many, many friends and family members who are depicted on this wonderful site. However, I also have some folks who definitely deserve to be depicted as well. Just this past week our current Basketball coach Mr. Juan Griles who is regarded as one of the best HS coaches in NJ was recently inducted into his college Hall of Fame. Coach Griles who had his Team ranked as high as #1in NJ and #38 in the USA today Polls beat the legendary Bob Hurley this year and received some national acclaim for having our Public School Team reach heights that have not been reached in over 70 years. Coach Griles was a standout basketball player at CW Post (now LIU Post) and was inducted into the Hall of Fame there last week. Coach Juan went on to have a 17 yr professional career in Puerto Rico. I would really like to have Coach Griles along with notable others submitted to be added to your site to represent our great City of Paterson. Eastsidehs1992 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eastsidehs1992. I recommend that you read an essay called A Primer for newcomers, and also Your first article. Please be aware that some athletic figures may be considered famous locally, but may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the relevant sports. I encourage you to read up on the relevant guidelines as well, at WP:ATH. If you conclude that they meet our guidelines, then start the articles. Return to the Teahouse any time for specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eastsidehs1992, and welcome to the teahouse. Your request is quite a tricky project, for reasons that I will try to explain. Wikipedia has a concept of "notability", and treats it somewhat differently from how normal people use that word. So for example, after some lengthy and quite bitter arguments, Wikipedia has a general understanding that all high schools are notable, and thus that there can be a separate article about each high school. The same general understanding indicates that almost all primary schools are not notable, and thus there should not be a separate article about each one, unless certain exceptions apply.

Now, it is our practice that an article about a high school would normally list the principal, but it would not list the basketball coach (or the Head of Science) unless that person were notable in their own right. Thus Wikipedia's article Shrewsbury School lists its current headmaster (and, curiously, the current head of the governing body), and later in that same article it also lists Anthony Chenevix-Trench, who was not notable (by Wikipedia's standards) while he was merely a teacher and head of house there, but later went on to become notable by other things he did. But it does not list the Head of Science or Head of English or indeed whoever is in charge of Sport(s) education there currently.

Even being mentioned or listed (by name) in the article about a school, does not make one notable and therefore does not mean there is an article about the person. So, using that example, Wikipedia lists Mark Turner as the current headmaster of Shrewsbury School, but does not have an article about him. (I recently invented a rule of thumb that there are some very few secondary schools, for example Eton College, where having been head master there means a person is almost certain to be notable, but neither Shrewsbury School nor Eastside High School would be included in this very small category of schools.) Curiously, if you click the wikilink Mark Turner, you find that there are six Mike Turners about whom Wikipedia does have articles, and that four of them are sportspeople.

And that's where you may be on to a winner, because Wikipedia's notability requirements for sportspeople are considerably more lax (as far as I can see) than those for educators and military leaders and have-a-go heroes and minor local politicians and many other categories of people. So for example, if someone spent seventeen years as a professional basketball player, then there is a possibility that he might meet the notability guideline WP:NBASKETBALL. It's worth reading the top part of that page as well just to understand what it is saying.

Sadly I am rather ignorant about basketball, and about U.S. sports in general, so it would be well worth your asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football about the likely notability of the people you mention. (Or alternatively, perhaps people more knowledgeable than I can reply here - User:Go Phightins!, for example?)

Notwithstanding the notability guideline above, Wikipedia puts a great deal of emphasis on reliable sources that talk about the person - for example newspaper articles. Cullen is right that local fame does not translate to notability by Wikipedia's standards. But another rule of thumb I have is that if seven different local or regional newspapers talk about a person in some detail, that person may well be notable; by contrast if the The Times, The New York Times and the Washington Post (for example) all talk about the person in some detail, that's certainly enough on its own.

Your best approach might be to decide which of the people you mention would most easily meet some of these requirements, and then ask at the Wikiproject talkpages I mention above. Ultimately you will need to draft the article yourself - it's easier than you think! But do feel free to ask further questions here if you prefer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

As you seem to have noticed, my page submission was rejected twice. Most recently, I was advised that the discography is 'not referenced at all'. This is not exactly true, as far as I am aware. I did add references to that section and every other one possible.

My question is, basically, what can I do to make the page acceptable? The subject of my page already has Wikipedia articles in both Dutch and French (he is a Belgian DJ). I wonder, therefore, why an English one is not allowed because 'subject notability' isn't sufficiently proved?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Nikify (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikify. I'm not going to express an opinion as to whether notability is established, but the French and Dutch articles do not directly establish notability, for two reasons: first, each Wikipedia has its own rules, and so the criteria may be different; and secondly, even within English Wikipedia it is a well established principle that other stuff exists is not a strong argument.

As for the Discography: as far as I can see, there are seven references for a discography of about eighty items. While this is no longer "not referenced at all", it is still not adequately referenced. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Teahousers! This user sent me something about filling in "Grammy Award nominations" here and I'm wondering if it is because I nominated this article for deletion. Also, it appears from this page that he only sent me messages about The "Grammy Awards". Was he assuming good faith or just telling me something I don't really have interest in? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 13:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome back to the Teahouse, WoohHoo. I am not sure I understand what the problem is. Could you be more specific please? Schoolskater (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Schoolskater:! By the way, my username is User:BrandonWu, not WooHoo, as that's just my signature ;). I was on patrolling new pages, and I found Cheryholmes III: Don't Believe. I tagged it for CSD and then the author, Dfrr, sent me a message on my talk page about Grammy Awards. I believe that it could've been because I nominated his page or it could be spam? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse. There are two separate bio articles that I would like to link with some kind of page to their shared pen name. Currently, it doesn't appear this pseudonym needs a bio of 'his' own. I don't see an actual redirect working as this needs to go to two separate places. Would a short page with a brief bio and explanation work with wikilinks to the two 'real' people? Or is some other solution better? Thanks, Oldbeeg (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Oldbeeg! I'm assuming by link you mean merge so here is what you should do. Other hosts may also help you out, as I not 100% clear on what you mean. You can seek consensus of both talk pages to merge both articles into one pseudonymous name or you could probably even put redirects on both pages to the name with both articles' information in that pseudonymous name article. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 13:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WooHoo. I found that a redirect from Sam Cabot (the pen name) to Carlos Dews (one of the writers, a newly created page) was created by the reviewer who accepted the Dews page. The problem shouldn't be solved by merging the two (S. J. Rozan is the other writer) pages, though, because they are separate people, each of whom is more noteworthy than Sam Cabot. But for those who look for Sam Cabot, I'd like to see a way for them to easily find both Dews and Rozan information. By linking, I had meant to use wikilinks to the two writers separate pages. Best, Oldbeeg (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created a template that included an image (Template:Albert Einstein World Award of Science Laureates), and the image was flagged in the past related to not having a good source. I changed the source, however it is not clear to me whether this is enough for auditors to be happy. I have expressed permission from the owner(i.e. World Cultural Council) of the image to use it in Wikipedia. Is it ok to start using the image again? Thanks in advance!

Healing Mandala (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Healing Mandala, and welcome to the Teahouse. As of right now, the image is fully copyrighted and considered non-free. Wikipedia's goal is to provide free content whenever possible; however, there are times when copyrighted images have to be used under a claim of fair use, such as to illustrate a video game cover, a comic book character, or any other situation where a freely-licensed version will not do. In this case, using the non-free picture of the medal to illustrate a navigation template is not necessary for the sake of illustrating the template. It is, however, necessary to illustrate the Albert Einstein World Award of Science article. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the permission from the owner to use the image on Wikipedia, that's only useful is the owner has agreed to freely license the image with a free license accepted by Wikipedia. If that's the case, the owner will have to forward their expressed permission to Wikipedia using Wikipedia's OTRS process. Let us know if you have any more questions! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse, Healing Mandala. Fair use is a legimate legal concept, but Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects strive to provide completely free content wherever possible. Accordingly, our standards for use of Non-free images are much more restrictive, and in general, we use a non-free image only when it is not possible to substitute a free image.

If the copyright holder, the World Cultural Council, wishes to release the image under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then they must do so formally in writing. This will release the image to be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose including commercial purposes, as long as the owner/creator is credited properly. Please refer to WP:OTRS for instructions about how to communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation about the licensing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SuperHamster! I saw a template from the Nobel Prize and thought that I could use it in a similar way. I just realized the Nobel Prize medal design is considered public domain in the US. Thanks again!

Healing Mandala (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen! I'll have to read and document myself more on this. The WCC may need to review all legalities first. Thanks! Healing Mandala (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, tell me how to link to Wiki articles in another language. I tried using the template Languagecode:Title, as explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking, but I can't make it work. The link in the saved page appears as Languagecode:Title. The part of Languagecode shouldn't be visible. Thanks in advance.

Bramblebough 00:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Bramblebough Bramblebough 00:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblebough (talk • contribs)

@Bramblebough: Hi Bramblebough. to link to another language Wikipedia's article (not "wiki" btw) Just type inside of doubled brackets a colon, followed by a language code and another colon followed by the name of the article at that Wikipedia. So for example, if you wanted to link to the French Wikipedia article on Bertrand Russell, you'd type [[:fr:Bertrand Russell]]. For a list of language codes, see List of ISO 639-1 codes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it not to look like fr:Bertrand Russell, but Bertrand Russell, you can use a "pipe" symbol thus: [[:fr:Bertrand Russell|Bertrand Russell]]. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bramblebough and thanks for the question. Having looked over your draft on Manuel João Ramos, where I assume you want to use inter-wiki links, I think that you need to read Wikipedia's linking guidelines to understand what should be linked to what and how to do that. For example, you have included inter-wiki links to Portuguese Wikipedia in the article body without giving any indication that the target article is in a foreign language. If you want to link to Portuguese Wikipedia you should use the {{ill}} template to alert readers that the target page is not in English. Similarly, you have also linked words directly to external sources (inline URLS), which is not how Wikipedia works. If you want your article to be accepted then you will need to ensure that it meets the required guidelines. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. Have I done something wrong? Again. Since I translate from the Swedish Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia I have to write these exact words a number of times when talking about articles with other users and here at the Teahouse. To save time (not being disrespectful) I usually use the short SweWiki and EngWiki. Am I considered rude when I do this? If so I will cease it this instant, it was never my intention to be rude. Btw, is it ok "to Wiki"? Or is Wikipedia fighting a similar battle as Google did when they tried to get people not "to Google" but "to use the Google search engine"? Unfortunately, there are so many ways to "be rude" without knowing it when entering into a new community. Best, - W.carter (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey W.carter. It would never be considered "rude" (the linked page is intended to be a lighthearted way of explaining the issue and uses hyperbole like "foul-mouthed"; that's not serious); it's just that it's tortured grammar when wiki is used as a proper noun because it's a generic term and there are thousands of wikis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit. Time for me to exhale... :) - W.carter (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this question was also asked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (where it was quickly removed by the original poster) and Wikipedia:Help desk#Interwiki linking help (where it received an answer by me and ColinFine). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have stumbled across several articles that use the color of a table to convey important information; articles such as List of supercentenarians who died in 2014 and pretty much every other list down in the navbox for that article. WP:COLOR recommends not to use color in this way because visually impaired people may not be able to see them. I am sensitive to this issue and would like to fix these articles but I have absolutely no clue on what symbol to use if any, or how to convey its meaning to the reader. I noticed they used a "pending" and "verified" labeling system at the top of the tables - I was thinking to maybe add an asterisk* but, again, I am stumped on how to integrate it into that area. Anything constructive is welcome! Thank you. 「dsprc」 ^{[ talk ]} 22:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsprc: Hmm...good question! That bright blue looks so bad. I imagine there's a number of acceptable ways to do this. What about adding a new "Verified?" column to the table, listing yes/no for each person? Example of a similar idea being executed can be seen here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The extra column is a great idea and should solve this problem. The example was also very helpful. Thank you so much. (: 「dsprc」 ^{[ talk ]} 07:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]