Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Newbie in need of assistance

Hi, im new to the whole editing and adding to wikipedia and as part of my university course I have been asked to add to this article my question is my tutor has warned our group that in many cases we may find our work being removed from the article and was wondering if this occurred to me would I end up getting feedback as to why it has been removed or when adding again would I have to fight blindly to find and fix the problem.

Thanks Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kate, welcome to Wikipedia! As far as getting feedback, it really depends on the kinds of edits you make. You might not always get it, especially if there's nothing *seriously* wrong. But what you can do is ask anyone who does undo your work for advice. What you'll want to do is, if your work does get undone, go to the "View history" tab and see which editor undid your work. You can tell which entries in the history tab are what by clicking on the "prev" links next to any of the entries; this will give you a page highlighting the changes in that particular entry. Once you find the person who undid your work, you can go to their talk page by clicking the "talk" link next to their name. Once you're there, you can add a new section with the "New section" tab and ask them for advice on why they reverted you, and what you can do to improve. Hope this helps! Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks alot thats really help :) Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Is your tutor aware of the Teahouse? Depending on the timescale of your assignment/project, it might be worth suggesting to them that half the students come here for advice and half don't. Some interesting observations could be made and potentially shared with the project organisers here. -- Trevj (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe. Looks like I've 'turned' Trevj to the research dark side. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 16:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, my tutor is aware of the Teahouse. He was the one that pointed me towards the Teahouse if I had any questions as well as going to him but i felt the teahouse would probably give me a faster response. As to your research, we are not the first students from my university to do this so there could be some discussion made as to doing this in the future. Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Music Notability Requirements

Hi there. I am a musician and there has been a wikipedia page for me for some time that was created and is updated every now and then by a small number of people who for some reason think that my work is notable enough to warrant it. I certainly don't think that my work (being a hired touring musician for a major artist) warrants a page and wish there wasn't one. I was looking at the notability requirements for music and sure enough, it seems like I don't meet the requirements of notability! I would like my page to be deleted -- hopefully one day I'll meet those requirements but as of yet I don't -- there are musicians far more accomplished than me who don't have wikipedia pages and it's silly for there to be one for me. How can I delete my page and plead a case that I don't meet these requirements? This is the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Bernstein_%28musician%29

I checked the notability quidelines 1-12 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Others - the answer is a resounding NO to all of them. Please help! thanks. Tacomailman (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Tacomailman. For people of questionable or borderline notability, Wikipedia tends to grant self-requests for deletion of articles. Certainly, if someone like Eric Clapton or Itzhak Perlman requested deletion, it wouldn't likely happen, but when a person is of borderline notability (I hope you don't mind if I use such terms to describe you... you seem to be indicating the same thing yourself), then usually such articles get deleted. In order to delete the article, you need to request a deletion via the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. I'll let you peruse that and see if you feel confident enough to file a request for deletion. Just explain there what you explained to us here, and it is likely your article will be deleted. If you are not, let us know, and I or someone else can help you file the correct paperwork... Was this helpful? --Jayron32 04:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, the information here may be helpful as well. --Jayron32 04:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tacomailman, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to pursue deletion of the article on Max Bernstein (musician) and you are actually Max Bernstein, then I suggest that you review WP:OTRS, which is a process where you can have it verified that you are who you really say you are. That will give your request for deletion additional credibility. According to the article, Max Bernstein has two very famous parents, so you should remind editors in the deletion debate that notability is not inherited. On the other hand, you should be prepared for the possibility that a consensus of editors may determine that you actually are notable by Wikipedia's standards, and that the article about you should stay. Although your preferences will certainly be given consideration, our goal here is to make Wikipedia the best possible encyclopedia. And maybe it would be a better encyclopedia with an article about you than without an article about you. If you think that there are more notable musicians than you who don't have Wikipedia articles, maybe you can help us create those articles? Many of us think that it is better to create new articles than to delete existing articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both! Very helpful. I will go forward accordingly. Thanks. Tacomailman (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Info boxes

I've been tying to do an info box on my user page, but I can't manage to do it. I've managed to get a picture on,as you can see if you go to my page, but not an infobox (I want the picture in the infobox) Could you guys help me out with this one? YodaFan67 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, YodaFan! All you have to do is put "{{infobox" before the "|image=..." and "}}" after it. It'll end up looking like this in the edit window:

{{infobox|image=[[File:CGIYoda.jpg]]}}

. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you need Template:Infobox user. There is a documentation page there (in the green box lower down) that says which code to put in. You can add images and information. Rcsprinter (lecture) 17:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Joining Wiki Projects

I am required to join a Wiki Project for a class of mine, but I am having trouble finding one of my interest. Is there a way I can search them based on particular topics. Also, when I find one, how do I join?

danni1125 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Danielle! Check out either this directory or this category; they should give you a listing of the WikiProjects, with some subcategories based on topics (e.g. "Humanities"). Once you find one, all you need to do is edit the member list that's somewhere on their page; just add your name to the end of the list. You can do a three-tilde signature as a shortcut to write your name (~~~). That's it! Hope this helps. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Or, you can check the talk pages of articles that are on subjects you like, where you should find banners describing any affiliated WikiProjects. For example, I like roller coasters, so when I look at an article on one, such as Georgia Scorcher (this is the ride shown in my host pic), I see that it's covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters. --McDoob AU 93 14:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Jeter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgotten song

I have been wanting to hear a song I heard about 20 years ago. The chorus goes something like this: "Teach me, Lord, in the ways of the wise; teach me, Lord, in the ways -- oh, oh -- in the ways of the wise." Someone mentioned that it might be Tony Melendez. I looked him up. He did perform a song called "Ways of the Wise", but I can't seem to listen to it online. How do I find it? I don't want to download it unless it is the correct song. Allen (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Morriswa, this is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia not a place to get general information. If I was you, I would try entering snippets of the lyric into Google, and perhaps you can find performances on YouTube. Maybe the performer's website might have more information. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I want to apologize for that. I didn't know where to ask. Do you know a more appropriate page to ask this?

Second, I was searching Google, using the chorus, name, and artist, but to no avail. YouTube doesn't have the clip. Tony Melendez's site doen't have any clips (as far as I could easily see). Allen (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you try Wikipedia's reference desk where volunteers help with general questions about any topic. Good luck in finding the song. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Preferred citation styles?

Hello Teahouse members! I am a new Wikipedian (joined about 5 days or so :). I have written my first article and I am currently working on few edits in other pages. I have one question regarding the preferred citation style that should be used when citing references in an article. There are several systems (APA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Bluebook, ALWD Citation Manual, ASA style, Harvard referencing, and Vancouver system, among others). For example: "APA style": Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. doi:10.1037/h0040957 "Vancouver style": Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 1955:52:281-302. doi:10.1037/h0040957 "MLA style": Lee J. CronbachPeter E Meehl. "Construct validity in psychological tests". Psychological Bulletin 52 (1955) 281-302

Is there a uniform police for citations of scientific material? Sorry in advance if the question is irrelevant or too picky! Thank you :) Atizinha (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! Wikipedia actually has templates that help you cite scholarly journals and books that follow a given format, meaning you don't have to decide which one. For books, use the template found here. For journals and magazines, use the template found here. Both have good documentation telling you what goes in each field, as well as what fields are required (it's usually only a small number of the many that are available). Hope that helps you out! --McDoob AU 93 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you McDoob :) Atizinha (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

If I joined a wiki project should I contact the collaborators even if there hasn't been any activity? Dre4life90 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, and welcome to the Teahouse! It might be a good idea to do so. Your interest might either spur them back to life or, at a minimum, point you in the right direction on where you could contribute your talents and interests. --McDoob AU 93 00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comic Sans font

Can Comic Sans font be used anywhere on Wikipedia? I've tried, but it doesn't render as that font. Thanks. Allen (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Allen! I'm personally not a fan of changing the font in an article, since one of the intents of the project is to make its features available to everyone, including those using rudimentary browsers that may not have such fonts installed. However, there could be very specific uses for it that I'm not aware of. Where did you have in mind? --McDoob AU 93 00:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to import an OpenOffice.org Calc spreadsheet into Wikipedia, while preserving as much of its formatting as possible. This includes the fonts (Comic Sans, Modern, Arial Black, Courier New). I have been posting the question just about everywhere on Wikipedia that makes sense, but no one is giving me a decent answer. I could upload the file for others to see the formatting to be able to help, but I don't know how, seeing as it is not an image file. If you could help, that would be great. Allen (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Remember that use of Comic Sans is controversial even outside of Wikipedia! For importing your data, it's worth considering whether other formatting options would achieve the same result, e.g. those listed at {{Yes}}. The Manual of Style refers to usability issues, which could be important. Perhaps you could upload a screengrab of the spreadsheet somewhere. It sounds like the import could entail a significant amount of work, so might be worth discussing with others before you proceed with it. -- Trevj (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is Comic Sans controversial? I don't plan to move my spreadsheet (the original Microsoft Excel version, plus subsequent edits and tweaks, is located at User:Morriswa/Highways) into the Wikipedia namespace.

I would be willing to upload the entire spreadsheet, so that other users could look at it and assist me, but I don't know how, since it is not an image file. Thank you for trying to help me. Allen (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps controversial is too strong a term, but the font certainly has its opponents. Anyway, if you're planning to keep it out of the Wikipedia namespace (and more importantly Main namespace) then it's less important. It might be worth considering whether the 'Notes' column would benefit from a sortable table, allowing the contents to be dynamically reordered by column contents. I don't think that uploading the spreadsheet in its current file format would be possible. -- Trevj (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you are talking about normal wikitext (i.e. your spreadsheet contents transformed into a wiki syntax table), you can style its contents with CSS attributes put into the table parts (for the gory details see Help:Table).

{|
|-
|style="font-family:whatever;"|Cell content
|-
|}

However, keep in mind that the effect of any "font-family" attributes you put in will be dependent on what fonts are installed on the reader's local system, so there will be no guarantee every reader will see the same thing. Non-Windows users typically don't have Comic Sans, for instance.

If you had a pressing need to keep fine control over the styling details, you could export your spreadsheet table into PDF format and upload that. Another theoretical alternative would be an SVG graphic; in this case, however, the useability of fonts depends not on the local user's system but on which fonts are installed on the Wikipedia server, because the server has to transform the SVG code into .png graphics on the fly.

About the aesthetic choice of Comic Sans, there is of course a widespread opinion that Comic Sans is not suitable for presentation of "serious" work, so using it in a table would probably detract from the presentation of its contents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I chose the fonts I did was two-fold: 1. Originally (when the spreadsheet was still being used on Excel), I tried to choose fonts that are in common use (and thus, on most computers). However, 2. when I started using Calc, most (if not all) of the original fonts weren't there anymore. So, I chose the closest approximations.

Other than bold, italics, underline, and different fonts, I don't know how to differentiate between the different types of roads in the table.

If I could convert the table into a typical table of roads, that would be neat. I would need help. Thank you. Allen (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

New Editor - A few questions

Hi there! I am a new editor for a university project and I am currently working on the page for Leo Burnett, hoping to add more reliable sources. There are few questions and I wondering if someone could help me.

If I were to obtain permission to upload a picture, like some of his work. How do I display I have permission to use that image? Also, what is the processes that will have to go through to be able to be used on the article?

Also, I have a few 'reliable' resources such as academic books, what are the rules on how much text that I can quote? Finally, are there any basic rules on or any advice on citing texts?

Thank you in advance Bossplw (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bossplw and welcome to Wikipedia. For your question regarding permission to use an image, it depends if you are the copyright holder or you have permission from the copyright holder to re-use the image. You can visit Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials is you are the copyright holder, or visit Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission if you are not the copyright holder. You can visit Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit for more information about re-using copyright images. For your question regarding how much text you can quote, it depends on what you're quoting. If you're quoting a definition from a dictionary, it's fine to use the direct quote if you can't rephrase yourself. You just need to cite it with the appropriate citation template. Usually, you should rephrase the text yourself in order to comply with copyright rules. You can read Wikipedia:Quotations for more information on quoting. Hope this helps. -- Luke (Talk) 21:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

How do I had a picture to my user page?

)- Slim hady 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimhady (talk • contribs)

Hi there, Slimhady. To upload a picture, click the 'Upload file' button which you should find under the toolbox on the left hand side. From there, follow the instructions to upload. Make sure that the image you want to upload is free and not under copyright - if it is, you shouldn't upload it for use on your talk page. Once you have uploaded, the image, you can add it to your userpage by adding [[File:IMAGENAME|thumb|]] to your userpage. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Slimhady. You can also go to Wikimedia.org (an affiliated project) and find millions of free images that you can add to your user page. Just edit your page, and add the file name as ItsZippy explained above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Do I get notified if I did something incorrectly?

I am new to editing Wikipedia articles, and I just completed my first edit. I decided to add content to one article, citing one source. Later on, I found two other sources that helped accompany the content. However, as I was saving the second one, I noticed that there was an edit conflict, and it seemed like someone was editing what I had just written. If I didn't do this second edit, I would have no idea that this was happening!

My question is basically the following: is there a way to get notified if someone is editing the work that you had done besides going back and checking it yourself?Juliusmagsino (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict means, someone was editing the same section of the article at the same time (in other words, the content of the section was changed after you started editing). I have noticed your recent edit. It seems a good and helpful edit to me! Most of regular editors in Wikipedia add the pages they edit to their watchlist, it can be done automatically or you can change preference here! Also you can check page history of each article (click on View History) at upper right corner of any article! You have told you are new to Wikipedia, I have placed a Welcome template in your talk page, you'll get some good information there too!
Hope this makes sense. If you have any question, you can ask!
--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Juliusmagsino, and welcome. You can add any Wikipedia page to your watchlist, whether or not you edit the page, by clicking the white star at the top of the page, a little to the left of the search box. When the white star turns blue, that page is on your watchlist. Whenever you check your watchlist, the most recent change to that page will show up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gettings signed out suddenly?

I have browser cookies enabled.. I am not clearing cookies or cache.. But, I am getting signed out automatically. The worst part is since it is not mandatory to have an account to use Wikipedia, you don't understand you are actually signed out. See this edit revision in this Teahouse, I posted a question here, but right after that, I made a small correction, later found my IP address has been recorded, as I got signed out. Any idea? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about your original question, but would you like an admin to delete your IP for you? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot/config Messed Up iin Talk page and sandbox!

Recently, I have used the same my Talk page User:MiszaBot/config in my Sandbox too! I think at that time I had messed up something.. Talks are not archiving.. Specially in sandbox, the page is too long there. I have checked settings, but, it looks fine for me! Can someone help? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Titodutta. I'm sorry to hear you are having trouble with MiszaBot. I've not used MiszaBot before, but with some searching I did find User:MiszaBot/Archive FAQ. There's some tips there to help you. If you can't find what you are looking for, the bot operator can be contacted at User talk:Misza13. Was this helpful for you? --Jayron32 03:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Assistance Required - I am New member @ Wikipedia

I am working on an article about Indian entrepreneur -Hradyesh , After reading through the guidelines have ensured no promotional language , reliable references , properly citied , still in the evening the page was Speedy deleted.

Request seniors to assist me correct this I would like to learn n contribute to the subject. This individuals work impressed me who have taken a brave step and started a new league altogether in Indian automobile industry which was missing before.

Appreciate your assistance to successfully post the article.

Thanks in advance :) Aaanshu (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Aaanshu. Thank you for coming by here. You may find it helpful to look at other biography articles to see how they are done. You can click the edit button to look at the formatting and you can copy and paste useful bits, then cancel instead of saving afterwards. You will need to put inline references in the text instead of having just a list. You can see how this is done in similar articles.--Charles (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Charles , I did that in the article posted with 6 inline cite reference and few of the listed version. as stated earlier the reference are from globally respectable news sources. I am unable to check the page I posted but if you have the access request to help me learn . I had also replied back why the page should not be deleted but seems of no use . "ll be glad to receive your assistance on the same. Thanks again

15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaanshu (talk • contribs)

Is this the article you mean? There do seem to be references to establish notability but more of them need to be inline in the text so that we can see which references support which facts. You can read about this here. You will need to find more about the person instead of just this one event which looks like advertising. Where was he born and educated? What else has he done? Make sure that the text says what the references say.--Charles (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Aaanshu, and welcome to Wikipedia. It can be hard for new contributors to learn how to write from the neutral point of view. When I read the article, it is words and phrases like "magnate", "entrepeneur vision", "exclusive global trends", "next level of motoring experience", and "your own dream car turned into reality" that raise concerns. This is the type of language that is more appropriate for a company website than for an encyclopedia article. Wikpedia's voice should be neutral and not promotional. You can include a few quotes from reliable sources that praise the person's work, but be aware that other editors may add critical quotes from reliable sources. If any of this is unclear, please feel free to ask more questions. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Which vital articles should I work on?

I was looking at someone's user page recently, and I found a link to a big PDF document which said that the articles which are best to work on are the 1,000 "vital" articles which are listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles. So I went there and started looking through the ones with orange circles ("Start Class"), but they are all huge and very detailed. I think the class ratings are out of date. Take Corporation for example -- how can that be "Start Class"? Is there any way to list the vital articles by kilobytes so I can find the shortest? Is that a good idea to try? Is there any way to automate such a process? I know how to program and I understand wikis, so I guess I really need a way to get the length of an article. I could just use curl. Any guidance would be appreciated. Npmay (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at Corporation. The criteria for such an article to be assessed this way: "The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted." The article does have a substantial amount of information, but it has large tracts that are not cited, though it has some. It is missing information in key areas. The article is rather long and feels a bit disorganised. Length is not a criteria for class assessment. You can have a long article that still lacks a lot of information. The suggestion for getting an article from Start to the next level is "Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation." If you see an article with start class, that would be the area to start fixing it with.--LauraHale (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Npmay. I agree with LauraHale that the length of an article is not necessarily a good indicator of quality or of which articles most need work. More important is selecting one or more articles that truly interest you, so that you will be motivated to work on referencing and improving the article. Don't limit yourself to the Level 3 list of 1000 vital articles. There is also the Level 4 list of 10,000 vital articles, and you may find something there that grabs your interest. Good luck, and thank you for your work to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I've spent most of the day going through the longer list of 10,000 vital articles. I used the API to get article sizes in bytes, and the JSON interface at http://stats.grok.se to get pageviews over the past 60 days. Although it is clear you are right, size is not necessarily a good indicator of article quality, it is fairly well correlated with it. So I am going through the articles in the region indicated on the orange box to the right and looking for opportunities for improvement. I'm going to make a list of those (and exclude the ones which look good even though they are fairly short) and share it somewhere before I start in, as I can tell I will only have expertise in a fraction of the highly popular vital articles which clearly need improvement.

If anyone is interested in this, I used the API to get article sizes and eliminate almost all the {{disambiguation}} pages, which are most of the very very short vital articles, and I eliminated articles which were rated B-Class or above on their talk pages. I am struggling with some redirects however, and once I get those worked out and sort the list using both pageviews and size, then I will start in on the ones I can improve. Npmay (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am very happy with how Wikipedia:Short popular vital articles turned out. I'm going to start going through it now. I told the person who runs Suggestbot about it, and put short notes about it on the Village Pump and Community Portal too. Npmay (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Most impressive work, Npmay. You've taken a list of 10,000 articles and boiled it down to 1000 that are probably the most promising candidates for improvement. This is way beyond my date analysis skills, and I commend you. I am going to select a few articles from your list and work on them myself. Keep up the good work! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How to Determine Subject Worthiness?

I'm new to working on Wikipedia and one question I have is how to determine if a topic, person, or event are worthy of a Wikipedia article. I've tried creating one in the past but it was quickly deleted because the content wasn't important. Are there any tips on choosing topics for articles? Thank you. CValencia23 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello CValencia, and welcome to Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia follow a general notability procedure. If the subject of the article is covered by independent reliable sources, then it is considered an acceptable subject to warrant its own article. For more specific topics, like current events and actors, there are specific guidelines for that specific subject. You can look at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines for a list of notability guidelines for specific topics. You can also visit Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard to see if something is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Hope this helps. -- Luke (Talk) 03:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Luke, that is exactly the type of answer I was looking for. Thank you very much for taking the time to help me and providing me with some direction for future articles. CValencia23 (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving an Article to Main Page

I have received several notices in the past week that I no longer have to submit my articles for approval for them to go "live." Instead, I have been instructed to put them on the "main page." How does one go about that? Right now I have an article on an aviator that I've been working on for a few days. There is a submit option to obtain approval, but I don't see where I bypass the approval process. Thank you. Anne (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Anne! What we mean is that, instead of putting your articles through articles for creation, which is what happens when you click on the "Submit" link on the top of your draft page, just go ahead and create the article directly. The way you do this is to search for the exact title of the article you want to create. I'm assuming you're going to submit your draft article about Valentine Collins? In that case, you'd type in "Valentine Collins" (capitalization counts!) into the search box.

For the Valentine Collins example, the search results will look like this. You'll see a message on top that reads: "You may create the page "Valentine Collins", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." Just click on the part of this message that's in red (which, in this case, would be "Valentine Collins"), and that'll take you to the page you want to create. Then, all you have to do is copy all the text from your draft, paste it into the editing box, save the page, and you're good to go! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Anne. When I started writing new articles, I used to "cut and paste" my drafts the way that Writ Keeper suggests, and that is OK. Now, I think that a better way is to "move" the draft. There is a little triangle to the left of the search box on every Wikipedia page when you are logged in. When you click it, you will activate the "move" function. Type in the new title, and proofread it carefully. You can find our policy on how to choose the best title at WP:TITLE. Then add a reason, such as "draft article completed" or something similar. When you click the "Move page" box, it will be done. This method preserves the entire edit history, going back to when you first began the draft. The process of writing the article is therefore more transparent, and other editors can learn from your work if they wish. Good luck, and thanks for writing new articles on notable topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the instructions. I was able to successfully move my article on Valentine Collins to the "main page." However, when I then searched for "Valentine Collins" several times, I was unable to find it. On a hunch, I then typed in "Wikipedia: Valentine Collins" and it popped up! How do I eliminate the word "Wikipedia:?" When I did the move, I had to type in "Valentine Collins." But just before that box, there was another with the word "User." I assumed that my article wasn't supposed to be on a user page anymore, and so I selected Wikipedia, so it would be on a Wikipedia page, never dreaming that "Wikipedia" would then end up in the title. Thank you. Anne (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, I can see how that would be confusing. See, what you did is move it to the Wikipedia namespace, which is what that "Wikipedia:" prefix means. It's for things that aren't articles, like policies, guidelines, etc. (including this page!) It's separate from what is called "article space," "main namespace," or "mainspace," which is where the actual articles are. Mainspace has no prefix at all. When you move an article, instead of choosing "Wikipedia" in that list, choose "(Article)" instead; that'll put it in the right place. Someone's already done it for you for Valentine Collins, so you should be fine now. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Large changes to an article

If I want to make really big changes to an article (like adding a few thousand words of prose, or completely restructuring it) can I just go ahead, or is there somewhere else I should create my version and get it reviewed by a more experienced editor ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmifyc (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Cmifyc. One of the main 'rules' of Wikipedia is to be bold! We encourage you to make any edit, as long as you feel it will improve the encyclopedia. Now obviously there are other rules and newer editors may not know or understand all of them, so posting on the talk page of the article you want to edit is always a good idea. Explain yourself and the general concept of your edits, and if your work is undone let others explain themselves too. There's also the ability to create sandboxes in your own userspace where you can work on articles as much as you want, and ask other editors to look at your work as well before it goes 'live'. I hope this helps, Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's also {{Rewriting}} or {{In use}} that you can place at the top of the main article during your editing. If the edits include citations and/or are rewordings then they shouldn't be controversial with others. But for some articles it may be worth discussing on the talk page first. Also, perhaps begin on just one section and see how it goes down before spending hours only for someone to undo your contributions. Have fun! -- Trevj (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing category lists

How do you:

Add name to a category list, and delete from one. I would like to be able to link one person to a list who is not yet on one, having discovered he went to a school with alumni already listed, and to unlink a person from a list which, in the light of facts discovered, transpires to be irrelevant. (I have been able to delete the link category name on the article page.)217.39.70.132 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for dropping by. When you delete the category template from the bottom of the article the page will disappear from the list. To put in new categories you type [[Category:Name of category]] which will add it to that category list.--Charles (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki pictures

How can I access the recently uploaded pictures from the Wikipedia File Upload Wizard?1Q84 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi 1Q84. If you click on the "my contributions" link at the very top of the page you will find all your edits including uploads.--Charles (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh, it's not showing up. Does anyone know the link for where the most recently uploaded pictures are stored? 1Q84 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi 1Q84, is this Gallery of new files what you mean? heather walls (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving an Article to Main Page

I have received several notices in the past week that I no longer have to submit my articles for approval for them to go "live." Instead, I have been instructed to put them on the "main page." How does one go about that? Right now I have an article on an aviator that I've been working on for a few days. There is a submit option to obtain approval, but I don't see where I bypass the approval process. Thank you. Anne (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anne. Congratulations on the super work you are producing. That would be "main space" not "main page". Main space means the actual encyclopedia instead of user work space. What will be appearing on the front page in due course is your submission for Did you know?. I am not sure if you can use the move button at the top of the page for moves between user and main space. Worth a try. The way I do it is to create a blank new article from the search box and then copy and paste the article in. Type the article name into the search box and click go. This will produce a notice saying the page does not exist and a red link to create it.--Charles (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sure articles can be moved from user space like that. But if you want to save on including numerous lines of edit history, then copy/pasting as Charles states may be preferable. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining a complete edit history is generally considered a good thing, in my opinion, and is also an important part of the free licensing of our content. It provides strong readily-available evidence that the content was developed here on Wikipedia, and not "cut and pasted" from somewhere else, which could present copyright concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Welcome to Wikipedia, where you'll encounter plenty of differences in opinion! I can see that's a valid point. -- Trevj (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates needing citation?

Hi, I've been trying to add sources to articles and I have found that a lot of articles will contain facts such as "X opened in 1992" and not cite where that information came from. I seem to remember learning in high school that general knowledge doesn't need to be cited, but something that is considered general knowledge to one person might not be for another.

How is this typically handled in wikipedia? Schirmek (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very common GK does not need to be cited. But, it depends on point of view too. For example, what is the postal code of Jadavpur, Kolkata area. The answer is 700032. It is an easy question for me, since I live in this place. But, most probably it is going to be a very very difficult question for you.

I suggest you to check this article: Wikipedia:Verifiability

And, you can also give 2-3 examples, what kind of information you think "general knowledge doesn't need to be cited"

Thanks!

--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! That was a great example, exactly what I meant. Schirmek (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

when putting access dates in citatons

Hello, can anyone explain to me why some citations has a date and an accessdate, do I need to put both of them, or just the accessdate?Monkelese (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Access date is the date when you access the article.. Generally current date. And date is publication date..

For clarification, an online article published on January 01, 2012 (that is date), and for a reference I used some information from the article on March 09, 2012 (that is access date)! Makes sense, I hope! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The access date is used for online sources because the page might change. So you are letting people know that the version on such-and-such a date supported what you added to the article, even though it might not support it now. I always add an access date when I reference something online. :) Whether or not I also add a date depends on whether or not it is included on the web page - if you can find a "last updated" or "created on" date then I would use it, but if I can't find one I just use the access date, as it is all I have. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, now I understand Monkelese (talk) 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome.. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How to produce a stub

I am fairly new to editing and have just edited a few existing articles so far. I would like to suggest new articles, initially about a couple of academics whose work is notable but surprisingly not in Wikipedia. I would like to start with a stub and add to it over time, hopefully along with other editors. Is there a simple way to do this? Cognizanti (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is your Sandbox, Sandbox means, where you can test edits, draft articles etc. Start the article there, I have left a message in your Talk Page with basic information on how to write article, how to edit etc.. follow those links! And if you have any other question, please ask! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cognizant. I want to include some links about biographies as these type of articles (even as a stub) have their own standards on wikipedia, especially if the person is living and/or if the person is an academic. Please feel free to ask any follow-on questions! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird Entries In Film Box Office

Resolved

In multiple articles, I have seen, some people come and change the box office earning in every 2-3 days and without any reference. For example see Paglu article. In last month the box office record has been changed at least 5-6 times... every time without citation... Finally in this edit I added a note in that section. This is not the only article, I have seen some more articles with same problem. Do you think deleting the unverified entry will solve the problem? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tito, and thanks for your question. All additions to Wikipedia articles should be backed up by reliable sources. If someone questions any edit in a Wikipedia article, they should check reliable sources to see if the edit is verifiable. This is especially true for biographies of living people. Any entry that is not supported by reliable sources should be removed. Hope this helps. -- Luke (Talk) 01:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it really helps! Adding a resolved template! Is there any consensus or rule for box office earning for newly released films, you know? Since for newly released films, BO earning changes in every two three days! Do we have any such rule that- wait at least one month or so after release to add BO earning! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is no really "rule" or "policy" on when the revenue should get updated for newly released films. Usually, for myself at least, I will update the revenue for the film after the first weekend of the movie's release. After that, I will just update the revenue weekly. But that's just me.

-- Luke (Talk) 01:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a list of Wikipedia articles that need photos or videos?

As as former TV journalist, I have an extensive collection of photos and videos that I would like to contribute to Wikipedia.

Is there a list of articles in need of multimedia content that I could check, to see if any of my photos or videos would fit in?

Are there any friendly online hangouts where I could meet other multimedia contributors who like me are just getting started? Also, I would be grateful for a link to best practices when uploading photos or videos.

In case you are curious, here are some of my recent photos on my Flickr account.

Thanks for any suggestions on whether or not this material would be useful to WIkipedia. Fabrice Florin (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Florin, it's great to see you here. I don't know if there is a list of articles needing images (though another host could correct me if I'm wrong). However, it might be worth having a look at the images you have and determining what kind of article they would be best suited to and searching for those. I know it's not perfect, but I'm not sure that there's an easier way. If you want to use your pictures from Flickr, you will have to make sure that the only licences they have are Share and Share Alike and Attribution - if you want to reserve any more rights, they can't be used on Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys! Actually, I'm pretty active in doing my best to provide images for articles. You can find a list of articles needing images here: Photographs requested by subject as categories. It looks a bit overwhelming, but once you find an area to work in, it can be fun. I always suggest (as someone who is a hobby photographer and also has her own Flickr!) just searching for subjects that fit your images and see if images are needed. But, regardless, I always upload all of my CC BY A images to Commons regardless of them being on Flickr. (The only images I don't CCBYA are of friends or family, generally). I hope this helps and inspires you to look around and explore those categories! Sarah (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fabrice. Some of the photos in your Romania set on Flickr could be valuable if the matching articles were located. The shots of buildings, landmarks and artworks are the ones most likely to be usable. To facilitate this use, it would be most helpful if your Flickr set would include captions giving the names and locations of these landmarks, and if the image licenses were changed on Flickr to CC-BY-SA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy, Sarah and EdJohnston, thanks so much for your helpful responses to my question. Wow, this Tea House project really works! I feel so much more empowered to act on this idea than when I first asked for guidance ;o) To get started, I have changed the settings on all my 16,000 Flickr photos to be Share and Share Alike and Attribution, as you all recommended. Next, I will follow Ed's suggestion to look for articles that could use landmarks from Romania (which is my family's homeland, so it seems really appropriate to start with that). Sarah, I love your photos and added you to my contacts on Flickr. Much appreciated, everyone! Fabrice Florin (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Beginner tips.

Hi all, as part of a university module we are tasked to work on Wikipedia. Specifically we are to work on a Wikipedia entry for psychologist Dr Kimberly Young.

Can anyone provide a short and concise list of rookie mistakes to avoid when starting out on Wikipedia building a page from scratch?

Thanks! Nick Bushell working with Tom Catterall (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject must have significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. These can be online or offline. Each fact in the article should have an inline citation supporting it. You can read the details at WP:Citing sources. If there is an image it must be in the public domain or under a creative commons licence. If you get those things right there should not be any serious problems.--Charles (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the quick reply Charles. Do you have any tips for finding images that are in the public domain or under a creative commons licence? --Tom (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone else would like to contribute more tips to this we would be very grateful. --NickBushell (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Most probably you have not started the article still, start the article! I suggest to name the article Kimberly Young and not Dr Kimberly Young. About Kimberly Young I could not find lots of information in internet (Google search) I have found some pages like - Dr. Kimberly Young's Biography,

Anyway, after starting the article, you can leave me a message in my talk page, most probably I'll not contribute a lot in that article, I'll put the page in my watch list. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom and Nick. :) A couple of small things, I guess. The first is that when you first create an article it will be checked over by new page patrollers. They come by fairly quickly, and what they're looking for is evidence that Kimberly Young is a viable subject for an article. For that they need to see examples in the references of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. A common error is to start an article and add sources later - if you do that, it may be deleted before you can establish the sourcing. Thus we generally suggest that you work on it outside of the main Wikipedia space, at, for example, User:NickBushell/Kimberly Young. You are given more time to develop there, so you can establish that the article meets all of the requirements before moving it to Wikipedia proper. Some people like to use the article wizard, and that looks good, although I can't speak from personal experience.

The good news is that a quick search of Google News shows some excellent articles that will show that we need an article on Dr Young, such as the "Cyber Junkies" article in the LA Times. So that side should be easy enough. - Bilby (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Basically, if something is notable, other people will be talking about it. If nobody is talking about something (or someone), then it may very well be important, but it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, you can't use a person's own website or a company's own website. Anyone can say anything that they want to on their own website, so you need to find other people who say the same thing (secondary sources). For instance, the Kimberly Young Biography that was linked earlier says that it was written by Dr. Kimberly Young. There doesn't appear to be any editorial oversight for biographies like that, so it's not necessarily accurate -- as a biography it is a primary source, so we can't use it as a reference. You can, however, use it as a tool for finding better references. For instance, she's written a few books (such as [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0471191590 Caught in the Net) and several articles. Each of those books could probably have a short article made about them as well, since they come from a reputable publisher (a book published by a university or otherwise "self published" may be like her biography -- basically a primary source and not a good reference). If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for all your help, hopefully in the coming weeks we will have built a successful entry on Kimberly Young and you can check it out to see how we've done. --NickBushell (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed, the info has been very helpful. We are starting to gather material so fingers crossed we will meet the requirements. --Tom (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Making a new article

I'm interested in creating a page/article for a subject the English Wikipedia doesn't have any information on. However, I'm fairly new to the community and to editing. How long should I wait before diving in and making a page? I don't want the article to be declared "irrelevant" simply because I haven't been involved long enough. Pistachio13 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard limit that you need to wait - an article shouldn't be deleted simply because you're a new editor. We do have inclusion policies though, that mostly revolve around the idea of notability, especially as expressed in the general notability guideline. The policies are kind of long and messy, but as a first order approximation: as long as there isn't already an article about a subject and you can find at least three reliable sources (usually news articles, journal articles, or books) that discuss the subject in detail, then an article is probably appropriate. If you'd like, if you drop me a note with your idea for an article topic here or on my talk page, I'll look over it for you and let you know if I think it will work. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pistachio13. Thanks for dropping by. You may wish to consider working up the article in your own user space, your sandbox or another special page, before releasing it into the wild. If it is notable and meets some minimum requirements you can then get it shown on the front page in the "Did you know?" section and get a credit posted on your talk page for creating it.--Charles (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, I wanted to know where to go once there is enough relevant information for an article to be, as Pistachio13 put it, "released into the wild". I would like to have my article reviewed by other editors, to double check it and let me know if the 3 reliable sources are valid. I've visited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review but kind of got discouraged because my article does not seem to fit into the categories that many of the copyeditors handle. I'm not sure what to do at this point. Any tips? Thanks!--GMHayes (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for creation? -- Trevj (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Trevj! I did not see that page, but thank you for directing me. I'm taking a look at it now.---GMHayes (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Gmhayes4, are you talking about User:Gmhayes4/April Masini? And yes, Peer Review tends to be for more advanced articles, not for newer submissions. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Nolelover. That is the article. Thank you for the information about Peer Review (maybe down the road I will be able to jump into the deep end).--GMHayes (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all so very much for the help and quick responses! Pistachio13 (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How to ban a Steward, Administrators, and editors who collude and severely violate Conflict of Interest rules with their POV

Please read User:Healthnet11/dispute to understand this issue, and the violating Steward, Administrators, and editor. All anyone could want to learn about conflict of interests that now infects much of Wikipedia. How can such violations be stopped?

I tried to file a complaint on the dispute resolution noticeboard, and look how quickly the cited Steward, Administrators, and editor collude to shut down the resolution.Healthnet11 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that this editor has also posted this request on Jimbo's talk page. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 21:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not the kind of problem that the teahouse can help you with. If you haven't found help elsewhere, WP:ANI would be a better bet than here. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It looks to me like the discussion you tried to start at the dispute resolution noticeboard was closed because you had not previously discussed the matter elsewhere. That's normal, because that noticeboard is a place for escalating a dispute which is already being discussed but can't be resolved. You should start instead with the talkpage of the article. There, you should concentrate on what you think is wrong with the article, not on the behaviour of other editors. You should prepare yourself by familiarising yourself with some Wikipedia policies (in particular, I would suggest WP:V and WP:NPOV) and reading what is already on the talkpage to see if your concerns have already been raised. FormerIP (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the talkpage is currently locked to new users until June. That means you need to meet the requirements set out at WP:AUTOC before you can edit there. --FormerIP (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Assistance on the Talk Article before posting

Hi,

Request the seniors to please comment about my first article on the Subject "Hradyesh" I have reworked as per the suggestions received from senior members on the talk page.

"ll be happy to know your views before I create the article. Do let me know if any correction required especially in the language to ensure Neutral view point.

Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hradyesh#cite_note-0

Aaanshu (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Aaanshu, and thanks for your work. :) First of all, the article looks far better than it did a few months ago - I see you've rewritten must of it. There submission still sounds a little promotional, but that's easily fixable. I do have one concern: most of your references are actually the same report published on different sites. It would help your cause a lot if you could replace those with unique sources. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, just in case you weren't sure, just add {{subst:submit}} to the top when you are done and your submission will be reviewed. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)