Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Help with formatting!

(I was BOLD and moved this from the bottom of the page to the top. Hope that's OK.)Tlqk56 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am trying to edit a page called "Time's Up!", but I am first writing my draft on the talk page. There was some writing already listed on the talk page so I scrolled down to the bottom and started from there. However, the first few sentences of my work are not showing up on the talk page after I save the page. Does anyone know why? I have tried everything and I cannot get it to appear on the actual talk page. If I edit it however, the missing text shows up there. Why is this happening? Palderoty (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, Palderoty, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm moving your question to the top of the page so it will get noticed, I hope you don't mind. (Teahouse is the exception to the rule that at Wikipedia you add new material to the bottom of the page. That's because so many of us new people haven't figured that rule out yet -- but you have. Congrats.) If you click on "Ask a question >>" which is in the top section on the Teahouse page, it will put your question in the right place for you automatically, next time. I'm new , too, and I can't really explain what's happening to you, but I can tell you that the best place to work on a new draft of an article -- or an entirely new article -- is your sandbox. The Talk page of an article is really just for discussing the editing of the article for other editors to see. Give me a minute and I, or someone who knows more than me, will tell you how to start a sandbox for the article. (My visiting grandson just woke up.)Tlqk56 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Howdy, Palderoty! All content on Talk:Time's Up! seems to be showing up. Please clear your cache and try again. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Howdy again! As Tlqk56 said above, you should make edits in your sandbox, which you can create at this page. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It looks as if Talk:Time's Up! could do with some tidying up. This can be done (see WP:REFACTOR) but content should generally not be removed unless it's totally irrelevant to improving the article in some way. You should find a "New section" tab at the top next to "Edit". Using that will include your edits in a new section at the bottom of the talk page, without affecting the existing discussions. -- Trevj (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have created a draft from the content on the articles talk page at User:Palderoty/sandbox1 Mdann52 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your advice! I will try my best to follow your instructions. If I have any more questions, I will write on this post. Palderoty (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I have been editing my newest version of the draft on User talk:Palderoty/sandbox1 with the help of your advice. If you see any problems that could potentially cause me issues in the future please let me know. What is the next step for me? How do I get this posted on the actual Time's Up! page? Palderoty (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over married and pen names, Japanese contacts

Hi there. I'm working on two articles, one about an author who was married and used her married name in her personal life and for her adult books, Elizabeth Gray Vining But her children's books were published under her maiden name. When I work on the article about the kids' book, Adam of the Road, should I use the maiden last name, as that's what's on the book, or should I explain that she was really married and then refer to her by her married name?

Also, she tutored Emperor Akihito for four years when he was the crown prince. I've found a couple of sources from Japan, but I'd love to have more. Is there a way to find out if anyone on WP who speaks/reads Japanese and has access to their sources would like to help out a bit? Thanks for sharing your know-how. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I can help you find a Japanese user. User:Tomo suzuki is a great option. He may not respond right away, but you could leave a message on his Japanese Wikipedia talk page and ask him to comment here. If you find navigating your way around the Japanese wiki difficult, here is a link to his edit window. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, Tlqk56. There is a self-organising group of editors interested in Japanese topics over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan who may include someone with the skills you need. I suggest that you post a message to their talk page. I used Wikipedia:WikiProject China in this manner when I recently wrote Trial of Xiao Zhen. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I second Stuart about contacting the Japan Wikiproject and from personal experience, when I was writing Masako Katsura, I received wonderful help after posting there—especially from User:Oda Mari. Regarding the name issue, how about a footnote (not an inline citation but a note with its own section before the references). You would set it up like so: right next to her name type {{Cref2|note 1}} (with no preceding space). Then you would create a section, right above the references section called ==Notes==, and place there the following code, with note text like:

{{Cnote2 Begin|liststyle=upper-alpha}}

{{Cnote2|note 1|Although this books bears the author's maiden name, Gray was married at the time of its publication, and she used her married name, ''Vining'', in her personal life and for her adult books.<ref>source</ref>}}

{{Cnote2 End}}

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. I'm sure the Japanese Wikiproject will be helpful, I'll definitely contact them. And thanks Ryan, for the English link. I lived in Japan for several years and barely learned to recognize Tokyo on the signs. :) Fuhghettaboutit, I like your wording for the note. Would you put it right after her name in the first paragraph, maybe, to avoid a notation in the lead? And how does your notation differ from {{Reflist|group=lower-alpha}}? Are they interchangeable? Thanks again to each of you. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the name issue, I would explain early in the article that she used two names as an author. The best known name should be the name of the article. The other name should be a redirect to the article, so if someone searches under the less known name, they will end up at the proper article. That's my recommendation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

voting news

A few days ago I found a page on Wikipedia to vote the candidates for news. But unfortunately now I cannot find it since I did not add it to my watch list. Can someone write me the page? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Egeymi! Maybe you are looking for Wikipedia:In the news, a section of the main page (which you can nominate articles for)? Or Wikipedia:News, which deals with news about Wikipedia and Wikimedia? benzband (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Benzband for both your answer and reminding me the exact terms. Egeymi (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting an article

Hello Teahouse. I have a question about splitting an article, and want to know how to do it by myself or ask someone to do it. I proposed a split at Talk:Japan-Korea relations, and think I have enough support for my proposal. Could anyone tell me what to do next?? Many thanks! --PBJT (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to TeaHouse PBJT. Start by checking you've read Wikipedia:Splitting. On the talk page where you alreayd have a discussion, you need to propose (A) the two new names and (B) where the current page name should point (either to one of the new pages or to a disambiguation page). Personally I like disambiguation pages, but it's a matter of taste and judgement. Then you following the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, and do a lot of editting to get the pages into shape and fixing all the links. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Need help with resubmitting new article (notability)

This is my first time submitting a new article, so I could use some help. It's on Infinity Cat Recordings and was denied because "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." I added about 5 new references, but I'm not sure if they're good enough. Any advice or pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Madelgado45 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Madelgado. The concern of the person who declined your article is that most of the citations just mention the label but don't talk really about the label - but talk about perhaps the bands on the label. For example, the lede states that the label was voted top 10 indie by Billboard, but the citation you have for it is a press release (which isn't a reliable source and it doesn't mention that fact at all. Or, others just say "oh JEFF the Brotherhood is on the label" but it doesn't talk about the label. While I have no doubt that the label is regionally notable, for the article to be accepted it needs to have what we call 'depth of coverage" in reliable sources. For example: secondary sources (like newspapers, magazines, etc) talking about the label specifically, not bands on the label. You might even have to remove all of the "barely mentioned" source material, except citations stating that a specific band is/was on the label. It might make the article shorter, but, without quality reliable in depth coverage the article will be shortened by someone else or nominated for deletion. I know this is a little rambly, but I hope it helps! Sarah (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I could only find one article that seemed to have indepth coverage (and it's not enough to warrant them notable): [1]. It looks like the bands are more notable than the label, right now. Keep in mind blogs (unless very reliable major blogs like the New York Times or something) don't count. I'm sorry :( You just might have to wait at this time. Sarah (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm a bit of a newby too but thought I'd maybe chip in here as I've been doing a bit of reviewing for AFC so am starting to get the hang of all the policies. There's just a few things I'd add to what Sarah has said already. The first thing is that there aren't any specific criteria (yet) for the notability of record labels, but there has (by the looks of things) been a lot of discussion and debate about it, so it might be worth asking your question on the WikiProject Record Labels talk page as someone there might be able to give you some expert advice. The second thing is that I looked up that 'Top 10 Billboard' reference too (before I saw you'd already written, Sarah :)), as that did seem like a good basis for establishing notability. The reference you're looking for is here: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/indies/billboard-pro-s-d-i-y-50-indie-labels-part-1005317562.story. However, there are a couple of problems with it. Firstly it's for Billboard.biz (which is an extension of Billboard but not Billboard itself and therefore maybe not as notable - I'm not sure...). The second is that the article actually lists Infinity Cat as one of the best 50 indie record companies, not number 10 (the article specifically states that the listing is in no particular order). Still, top 50 still sounds pretty good to me (!) though that's not necessarily to say it's enough for notability. I can't figure out the relationship between Billboard and Billboard.biz and that seems the crucial determining factor really... The third thing is that - if you do decide to have a go at re-submitting the article, now or later, it would probably be wise to rework it in a couple of ways. The first thing is that your lead (first paragraph) sounds quite a lot like advertising, especially as it is taken from a non-neutral press release. Really you want to keep your writing to neutral, plain, statements of reported fact as much as you can. Rough Trade's article is actually a pretty good example in this respect. And the other thing is that, as a general rule of thumb, you don't want to write anything that can't be verified, so in some ways, the the shorter the better, or at least the-less-superfluous-information-that-you-can't cite, the better! And my last thought was - it seems like you've turned up quite a few good sources of info on JEFF the Brotherhood, so maybe you could have a go at improving their article with the research you've done if this one doesn't work out?

Hope that's helpful,

Loriski (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

can someone fix the incorrect dates for the article on Owsley County Ky?

The citation says an individual was a judge from 1782-1862, as well as being Governor in the 1840's. Clearly the dates were entered incorrectly. I have no expertise on the subject, but it looks quirky.166.67.66.8 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm kind of new myself, but I'll try to help you out. Thanks for spotting the error in that article and not just shrugging it off. The way Wikipedia works, if you have a source that shows the right dates, you can just change it and note you source. If you don't have a source, you can go to the article's talk page by clicking TALK in the top left, and leave a note like you did here, for someone to fix it. Since you brought the problem here, I'll do some research and try and fix it. If I can't find anything, I'll leave a note on the article's talk page for you. I hope that helps. If you decide you want to learn how to edit articles yourself and run into any questions, please come back here and ask for help, OK? Tlqk56 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Turned out it was his birth and death years, just put in the wrong spot. An easy fix. Tlqk56 (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User unfriendly site after first edit attempt

Is it just me, or does anyone else find that having placed a rejected first edit, and receiving 3 e-mails with links to an encyclopedia of information, which may or may not have eventually helped me to place an acceptable edit, I then try to ask a question on Teahouse, and cannot find any way of "submitting the question" or posting it. I assume that I need to type in my name then the 4 tildes, or is my signature automatically identified from my having "signed in" ? I'll try adding my sig - Ah - by trial and error I see the pop-up has appeared "ask my question" I can now get back to my initial problem. I tried to edit the Concentration Camp Inspectorate page, para "Inspectorate from 1935 to 1945" to add that According to "The SS. A New History" by Adrian Weale, pages 106/107, the CCI moved to Oranienburg in May 1934 (not 1938 as stated in Para 2) and that Sachsenhausen Camp started in September 1936. It would have been more helpful if I had been told where I had gone wrong, rather than pointing me at the possible solution to every possible problem. Any guidance please, how to do that edit ? Will give it another go. THanks StanPS StanPS (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, StanPS, I apologise for your negative experience. Learning the ropes on wikipedia is a steep learning curve, not helped by some editors being less than optimally helpful and friendly. We have a policy about it at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, but it tends to get overlooked. Holocaust-related pages unfortauntely attract trolls and vandals like flies to a midden, which tends to lead to lead to an even more adverseral atmosphere than usual. Now to your question: to how to make the edit. In this case I suggest that you add the material to the talk page (start a new section using the + sign in the top right corner). You'll probably want an ISBN number for the book too (if it's a modern one). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You should cite wp:DNB right back at them. I agree with Stuartyeates, you chose a difficult article for your first edit. It gets better, like learning a new language - after a while you become more literate regarding the various policies and procedures. ʝunglejill 09:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replies !! After some more reading/time I seem to have added my "new information", but will go back and add the isbn #. Once again I find (my) ignorance is not bliss ! :( StanPS (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

images from findagrave

Can I upload images from findagrave, are they in the public domain? (Libby995 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Libby! It doesn't look like images from Find A Grave are in the public domain, according to the disclaimer. All of the images belong to their respected copyright holders. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 02:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (Libby995 (talk) 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your right they are not, in fact many of the images and content in Find a grave is a copyright violation. If there is a certain image you are wanting to use and wouldn't mind providing a link to it we might already haev it or one like it or we might be able to get it somewhere else. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is my change to Roaring Twenties: Simple English page okay?

hi again! Just checking that the changes I have made to the Roaring Twenties simple english page is okay? Thanks LilkidCC (talk|TB|) 23:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding Lilkid CC's question back. heather walls (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Kinda confused. What is this about? Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

simple:Roaring Twenties I'm sure you found it Gtwfan52, linking for anyone following along. heather walls (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the Simple English Wikipedia though I have dabbled there a bit and I think the sentences you added may be a little too complex. It is suggested on the main page to use shorter sentences and basic vocabulary. For example. I might change the first sentence you added as follow:

(Original) The term 'Roaring' applies here, as art, society and culture were rapidly improving and therefore 'Roaring'.

(Changed) The term 'Roaring' applies here. This is because art, society and culture were rapidly improving. They could therefore be described as 'Roaring'.

For the second sentence:

(Original) Products were being produced on a huge scale throughout North America, one example of these products is the 'Model T Ford', a car that was seen in every state of the USA.

(Changed) Products were being produced on a huge scale throughout North America. One example of these products is the 'Model T Ford'. It was a car that was seen in every state of the USA.

Note that for the second sentence, I think you needed a period where the first comma was placed, regardless of whether this was text placed here or there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse LilkidCC! I hope your question was answered. Good luck with your editing. heather walls (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How to edit a page, to add a language for the page. i.e: Simple English

hi, wanted to edit the roaring twenties page so that simple english is available as in some UK exam boards, the roaring twenties is a topic for GCSE students. please help?

LilkidCC (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi LilkidCC! Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. If you take a look at the left hand menu and scroll down you will now see the Simple English version of the article Roaring Twenties. We actually have a robot that goes around and plugs those links into articles, but for some reason the bot didn't add simple. The Simple English article sure can use some expansion, however. I hope this helps! Sarah (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I got deleted

I was trying to post an article for my boss and it got speedily deleted. Not only did the article get deleted but so did our user page. And if I'm not mistaken, now I can't post on a talk page because I don't have a usetr page anymore.

I don't even know why it got deleted as there are other similar articles on Wikipedia. My page was called Barry Stuppler. The person's page that is similar to ours is called Michael R. Fuljenz. He's in the same business as we are and has many of the same links and references. Help! What can we do/change to keep it from being deleted?? BarryStuppler (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Barry. One thing about Wikipedia is that it isn't intended as a means by which to promote your business, or that of your boss or the like. Wikipedia isn't a directory of businesses or a place to post a resume, it is an encyclopedia, and contains encyclopedia articles. Encyclopedia articles need to be based on reliable and independent sources. That means the information you write at Wikipedia needs to have been published elsewhere first, and be published by someone other than who it is about. Also, Wikipedia has rules against editing under a "conflict of interest", which means that you should not write about articles where your interest (in promoting yourself, your associates, or your business) may be in conflict with the interest of Wikipedia (which is to be an encyclopedia, and not a place to post advertisements). Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you have any further questions about how Wikipedia works, please feel free to ask. --Jayron32 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have a lot of references of TV and radio shows that Barry has appeared on, published articles that he's written. Are those not considered reliable sources? BarryStuppler (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the information about his life needs to come from independent and reliable sources. That is, him talking or writing about himself isn't really independent. For example, the article on George Washington isn't written by George Washington, or any of his friends or associates, nor is it based primarily on Washington's own writing. It is based on books written about Washington by people who researched him and who are considered well-respected historians and journalists. If Barry is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then people will have done similar writing about Barry. If only Barry has written about Barry, then we have nothing to use to help us write a Wikipedia article about him from. --Jayron32 23:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. But I have hundreds of numismatic articles referencing Barry (that were not written by him, obvs.) that I can list. Like this: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1948&dat=19891112&id=HEsjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=T88FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2965,442940 and this: http://www.coinlink.com/News/gold-silver-bullion/gold-silver-political-action-committee-pac-formed-to-support-rare-coin-precious-metal-community/.

I mentioned the article titled Michael J. Fuljenz. He's a friend and colleague and basically does the same thing Barry does. Why is his page listed and ours isn't? Most of his links under references don't even work. Thanks for your help on this! BarryStuppler (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source I think there might be a chance of notability here. There aren't a ton of sources, but they exist. I particularly like the piece about the bid for the Berlin Wall. Since you have a conflict of interest, and your name should probably be changed before you do any more editing, I might start an article at User:Ryan Vesey/Barry Stuppler and you can give some suggestions and sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, it would be great if you could find biographical information that can be verified. It doesn't need to be available on the web as long as it is in print somewhere. If you have assistance, it would be great if you can add them to User talk:Ryan Vesey/Barry Stuppler. In addition, since you cannot use a username that is an actual name that isn't you, I suggest that you go to this page to request a username change. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done pretty much all I can do for today and actually moved it to Barry Stuppler. You have quite an interesting boss. It would be great if you could take a picture of him and upload it to commons so it can be used in the article. (Please note that pictures taken by a professional photographer are not eligible). Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As a note to other hosts, it would be great if someone could review the article and then remove the tag. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work Ryan! Sarah (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I took care of it for you. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. I actually might nominate it for DYK. I'd need to review another DYK first and I would like to have some biographical information and possibly a picture by then. I would mark it for shared credit with you, User:BarryStuppler, however, I think a name change will be necessary before that happens so it would be great if you could try to do that within the next day or two :) How does "...that Barry Stuppler served as President of the American Numismatic Association and helped make the California State Quarter?" sound? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. You guys are blowing my mind right now. I have no idea what happened overnight as I find this Wikipedia stuff to be super confusing, but YAY! WE HAVE A PAGE!! So, I can go in and add all of the stuff I was going to originally put on his page? THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ON THIS!! BarryStuppler (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, your first step should be to have a username change using the link I provided earlier. The second thing is since you have a conflict of interest it would be great if you made your requests on the talk page and then I could include them for you. Every addition to the article should have a supporting link. This is for your own interest too. I plan to get your boss featured on the main page in a week or so which will only happen if we edit the article in this manner. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying about the supporting links. I'll try to figure our the user name change thing right now. Thanks again!BarryStuppler (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) I think I did the username change thing right. The new username is MintStateGold. Now, could you help me out with uploading the photo? Thanks again for all of your help!BarryStuppler (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! There is one issue with your username and I left a note on your talk page. I can certainly help you with uploading a photo, but I would like to remind you that you can only upload this photo if you own the rights. If someone else took the picture you should't upload it. If you do own the rights, follow this link and it should walk you through the steps. Once you have done this, I can help you add it to the page. If you are unsure of whether or not you own the rights, let me know and I can help you find out. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So, I changed my username, but now I don't know how to log in so that I can upload that picture. I tried logging in with the old Barry Stuppler info, I tried logging in with my new username but old password. Nothing worked. BarryStuppler (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation

Is it possible to change a disambiguation if it is seen at incorrect or misleading?Oldfirehall (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oldfirehall! Absolutely! Just be bold and fix the wikilink for the DAB (disambiguation in lazy wikispeak) that you think is wrong and hit save! Also, if you enjoy doing that, you might enjoying playing with DAB solver. It's one of my favorite ways to help clean up the immense backlog of DAB's! Sarah (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

i changed the link but the disabmiguation is still in the page title. in other words the DAB is now correct but i don't want to have to create a new article, i could redirect. but that is ugly. can you change the nae of an aritcle (at least the DAB part of it?)Oldfirehall (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oldfirehall! Is it this article: Thomas Harding (writer)? A redirect is usually the better option as far as I know instead of requesting a rename. It's so rare that articles get renamed, and you'd have to go through a process to request that (and have community input, etc). Is the current title okay? If not, what do you want it to be? Sarah (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Oldfirehall. I have moved Thomas Harding (publisher) (now a redirect) to Thomas Harding (writer). Does that solve the issue? I agree with you that based on the content, writer is a better parenthetical disambiguator. The move tab is one of the commands that is hidden in the current default Vector skin: it's under the little arrow down tab next to the search box at the upper right of the page. You can boldly move pages though it's a good idea to take a look at our article titling policies. For future reference, if you try to move a page and it won't let you (normally because the target of the move exists and has more than one edit to it), if you think the move is uncontroversial (as I would deem this one to have been) you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves. If you think it might be controversial, then follow the instructions to make a formal move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That tooltip template is cool, I never noticed it before. heather walls (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Neat, huh? It's pretty rare. You do see it in articles but mostly wrapped inside a pronunciation template to explain IPA (see the start of Copenhagen), or used to spell out what an abbreviation stands for e.g. c. in an infobox. I had to resist the temptation to pepper this post with them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

nice work! Oldfirehall (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help to analyse the article, find what is wrong

Hello, I started to work on the article about "Swiss International Hotels & Resorts" a long time ago. The article was declined several times. Nevertheless I made improvements and got rid of the comment "considered as an advertisement". Links for the coverage in media around the globe are all there. But still something is wrong. Swiss International is undergoing big developments around the world and the info should be available for wikipedia readers.

Please help me to finalise the article.Thank you in advance! EkaterinaTerentyeva (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ekaterina, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. As you say Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Swiss International Hotels & Resorts has been reviewed several times and the reviews always seem to say the same thing - that the notability of the company isn't established. If it is a notable company then there is an expectation that other people will have written about the company. That evidence in the form of reliable sources is absent here. Most of the references are either from the company itself or are based upon press releases issued by the company so they aren't independent. You need to find some references that are genuinely independent and do more that rehash press releases. If you can't then maybe we have to wait until Swiss International has undergone it's expansion and is recognised as notable. NtheP (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ekaterina. When you say "and the info should be available for Wikipedia readers", I think you are perhaps misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Information should be in Wikipedia only if reliable media have already written about it. If reliable media (such as newspapers) have written about what a company is doing, then there will be no difficulty finding reliable references for it; but if they have not then it may not be put into Wikipedia. "Getting the message out" (whether the message is commercial, religious, philanthropic or anything else) is specifically not a purpose of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a question along this line. Is notice in trade publications specific to the industry sufficient to establish notability? Hotel management companies, such as the one in question here, are almost by definition, hidden from view of the general public. All the general public (and this includes newspapers) are to know is the franchise name and possibly the owner. But in many if not most hotels, there is a third player. Most hotels contract with a management company to actually operate the property, and the only people who are generally aware of this are people in the industry. Gtwfan52 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally not, particularly if it is simply a routine listing (of which there are many in business publications). You are absolutely right when you say there are many substantial companies which are quite invisible to the wider public. Unfortunately this means that, if people generally don't know about the company, it isn't 'notable' (as Wikipedia defines it). Wikipedia should only include articles about things that are already widely known. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi, Thanks to everyone who has been involved in helping me with this. Can you edit this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rising_Sun_Lodge_29) to meet the miminmum requirements of a submitted article? I'd just like to get it approved. I added a lot of info that came from archives of our lodge but not able to be substantuated. It's perfectly OK to just obliterate anything that is unnecessary since I can't "verify" alot of it. Cnhudson (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Cnhudson. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm pretty new here myself, but I looked at your article and I think you have a basic problem with establishing notability. You have a lot of sources, but the ones that come from the lodge itself don't count. Notability requires you to show that non-lodge related newspapers, books or magazines have written about it. It seems that unless a lodge is in an historical building, there generally won't be the right kind of references to get an article made. But you can try to find those references. On the other hand, if someone has been helping you, maybe they can give you some more ideas. Sorry I can't be more help, I've never worked on an article about an organization. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

how long for a nomination deletion to be resolved?

Hello there! How long does it take for a deletion nomination to be resolved either way? I have an article that has been proposd/nominated for about a month now, and i'm wondering how to please speed up the process? Thanks! Noeline1984 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A deletion nomination usually carries on until a clear consensus regarding the fate of the article is clear. The deletion discussion regarding your article does not seem to have reached a clear consensus yet. The only way to speed this up would be to have more editors to become involved in the discussion. Cheers, Hallows ^{Aktiengesellschaft} (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They are closed one week (seven days) after nomination. If consensus is not clear by then, it is relisted for another week. After another 7 days it will be assessed again and either closed or relisted. This process may continue for a number of months. However, most discussions are closed in the first week. Rcsprinter (message) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Noeline, I would like to point out that you can improve the article while deletion is being debated. You can add more references, including those brought forward by other editors during the debate. It is not at all uncommon for an article to be significantly improved during this process - so much so that editors who started out recommending "delete" change their minds and switch to "keep". If there is no consensus, the article will be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are at WP:RELIST. At (or approaching) the end of the current round of 7 days, such discussions may be closed or relisted again. -- Trevj (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

When is an author "notable"

I submitted an article on an author that was rejected because she was not deemed notable, despite that fact that her book won multiple awards, was an account of a Titanic survivor and was published 45 years after she died, all of which seem to me to indicate some level of notability. Other authors with articles on Wikipedia seem to be "notable" just because they're authors. cf Paul Cleave, e.g.

Who decides these things?

Thanks. John Burlinson. Jburlinson (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You've taken the wrong end of the stick, so to speak. Being a minister of WP:AFC myself, you just need more sources to verify the information. Mdann52 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello John. Sorry you've run into a patch of trouble. Just to expand a bit on what Mdann52 is trying to say: Wikipedia wishes that its articles contain only trustworthy information. As such, all information should be based on sources which are both reliable and independent. That ensures that we can trust the information in articles at Wikipedia. If, outside of Wikipedia, there doesn't exist extensive sources about the subject of an article, then there isn't any way to write a trustworthy article about that subject, so the article shouldn't be written. That is what is meant by "notable enough". The idea is that something is notable enough if enough people have noted (i.e. written about) it in reliable sources. It is expected that people who write new articles for Wikipedia are able to provide extensive, reliable, and independent sources: we need to ensure that there's enough good reliable writing out there in the world, so we can base the Wikipedia articles from that good, reliable writing. Without it, we can't write the article in the first place. There's more information at Wikipedia:Notability. If you are trying to establish that a new article is about a notable subject, you need to provide substantial sources which show it: books about it, magazine articles or journal articles about it, stuff like that. If no one has written about the subject, or if all of the writing is short, trivial, or only has a passing mention, or if all of the writting is self-published or dubious, then there can't be an article. Does that help explain what notable means? --Jayron32 20:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, Jburlinson. The notability criteria for auhtors is at WP:AUTHOR. The notability criteria for books is at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. The essense of both is that reliable independent third parties need to have written about them in detail. The references that Mdann52 refers to are the evidence that this writing has occurred. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As I was the person who turned down your article at AfC, I thought I'd better chip in! As others have said, if an author's work receives significant critical attention, in reliable publications such as newspapers, it usually means they are notable too. I suppose some people would consider that winning a couple of awards might be sufficient evidence. But because Spedden is a very unusual case, having died 45 years beforehand, I felt I needed more convincing before I accepted the article. Wikipedia is not an exact science, you see. It would certainly help your case if you can place more emphasis in your article about her book and cite a few reviews of the book if possible. I realise this is more difficult for events that happened in the 1990's, but wish you luck with the next review! Sionk (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks for your feedback. I think I'll try to re-do the article focusing on the book instead of the author. I've had an offer of help from Tlqk56, for which I'm very grateful. I'm very much in learning mode, so all guidance and correction is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburlinson (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jburlinson, Welcome to the Teahouse. I write articles on children's books and authors, and I'd be glad to help you. I've run the book title through my "usual suspects" and found several good sources already, ones that should help out no question. Give me some more time and I'll contact you on your talk page with more information. Hope it helps. Following up, we can definitely get the book in. Major reviews and references and uses in Canada, US and England. I'm not so sure about the woman, I've never worked with establishing notability for an author before, the one's I write about are shoe-ins due to awards won. I'll read up. Any suggestions welcome. I will be out tomorrow, though. :( Tlqk56 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. Maybe the book would make for a better article than the author, with some of the author information included as part of the book article. I'll wait for your guidance -- I'm such a total newbie I don't even think I qualify for full newbie status. Is there a category of "probationary newbie"? Thanks for your help.Jburlinson (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new wiki/ the need for a wiki solutions/problems

I was wondering if there is any initiative among editors to create a wiki for page for educational problems and solutions. I'm wondering if anyone is already working on a wiki that provides problems and solutions to students- I know there is a wiki proofs and a wiki books, but I am wondering if there are any wiki resources that are devoted to problems with known solutions(also I doubt wiki proofs includes general proofs for chemistry problems[PV=nRT for example]). Is there wiki for proofs, problems and solutions? Is there any initiative to start one? TheKaramanukian (talk) 11 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKaramanukian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, TheKaramanukian. I don't know of any specific wiki for "proofs, problems and solutions," but some wikipedia articles contain proofs and many contain links to proofs and calculators. For example the Ideal gas law example you use contains links (right at the bottom) to a very useful-looking calcuator and a page of alternative derivations as well as links to the orginial articles with the proofs. If you're looking for explicitly educational content, you may be better off starting at Wikiversity. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, TheKaramanukian. Perhaps Wikiversity] might be suitable. That wiki is somewhat neglected. Wikipedia is of higher importance to the foundation but the other wikis are available. Take care, DocTree (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Stuartyeates (talk) and DocTree (talk). I saw wikiversity for the first time today. Although wikiversity and wikibooks provide the conceptual material, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to provide practice resources. For example, what if practice problems and solutions were provided along with the conceptual material? Although this is usually beyond what wikis provide, I believe it could be very helpful. What do you think? I know that to provide resources for every subject would be an enormous undertaking. It would also be difficult to adjust the design of the wiki to accommodate resources. What if we were to provide released AP or SAT test prep material or similarly formatted practice material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKaramanukian (talk • contribs) 07:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Referencing one book that I read in another?

I'm afraid I just can't find how to do this, though I'm sure I've seen it go by. I need to use a quote from an out-of-print book that I can't get my hands on. The quote is in a second book I can read online. How do I write that ref? Thank you! Tlqk56 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tlqk! Have you tried searching on [books.google.com Google Books] for the out-of-print book? Sometimes they have citation information for books regardless of whether or not they're in print. Then you can just cite it with the citation templates per usual; if you need help with that then please do ask! If you can't find it on Google Books, then you could theoretically cite the second book and put in a note (the parameter is |note=) to state where the quote was originally from. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! In addition to the above, you might want to consider asking for some help at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Someone there might have access to teh book you want. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, Bilby. Thanks. If I have to, is it like this:<ref>All the usual stuff about the book I can't find|note=All the usual stuff about the book I saw on Google including url</ref>? Does that require a separate section labelled notes? Tlqk56 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the style I normally use, it would be something like <ref>Gordon, Peter quoted in Smith, John (2008) "The Usefulness of References", Something Press, London, p266</ref>. You will need to refer to it having been quoted in the second work, as sometimes the quote is not quite accurate, but from your question I figure you already know that. :) (I've encountered this in some academic publications where authors rely on secondary sources for quotes, but the secondary source got it wrong). It is much easier if you use Harvard inline, but we don't tend to do that here. :) I'm not sure that there is a hard rule here, due to WP's habit of allowing multiple citation styles. - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

two totally unrelated questions

Is there an ibidum function in Wikipedia where you can input a code in order to have a reflist entry refer to a previously cited reference again?

Also, what is the proper template when a page doesn't really need Wikification but could use some cleanup in terms of its English (mostly because the author and editors aren't as proficient in English as they might be in other languages)? And does using that template automatically notify a project team?

Guyovski (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Sure, you can name a reference. See here wp:Citing sources#Repeated citations. 2) There is such a template - see Wikipedia:Template messages for a list of all template messages. The one you're looking for is probably under Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. ʝunglejill 18:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding a template doesn't automatically notify other editors, but it will list the page under the appropriate category. For example, if you put the {{copy edit}} template, we won't get notified at the wp:Guild of copy editors, but the page will be listed so that a bored copy editor can find it there. ʝunglejill 18:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought of something else - if the page is important, there are some Wikipedia groups that take requests. The Guild of copy editors is one such group, although we currently have a backlog. :) In other cases, if you want other editors to get involved, you can look for groups who are interested in the article's subject. I recently wanted more help with an article about an ongoing protest, so I put a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. A few days later someone came around and made a few improvements to the page. ʝunglejill 18:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jill, and thanks. The repeated citations paragraph confused me until I realized that the reference's name is inside the angle brackets containing "ref." (I don't know how to type that into an edit window without activating the reference function.) But now I understand it and it's simple enough for me to remember. As for the templates, the one I wanted was "copy edit" (again I don't want to type in the whole thing in case I accidentally put a copy edit template on this page :D ). But if I do put a copy edit template on an article, does that automatically alert the copy editing project or do I still have to go somewhere else and manually get them involved? Guyovski (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help - please don't be shy to ask for more clarification. Here's a tip - if you don't want the template to be rendered, put this tag: <nowiki></nowiki> around it. That's what I did so I could show you the tag. :D This will work for any other wiki markup. To answer your question - once you put the {{copy edit}} template on the page, it will get listed somewhere, but no particular editor will be alerted. If you want to request a copyedit, put it on the Guild of copy editors requests page. You can also request a copyedit for articles that don't have any glaring problems, if you want to make them really good. But of course, if you are able to improve the article yourself, go ahead! Again, don't hesitate to ask further questions. ʝunglejill 21:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If the article you want copyedited is a short one, and you don't feel confident copyediting it yourself, put the link here and I'll do it. ʝunglejill 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the link on your talk page. Thanks. Guyovski (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

why was my edit a vandalism?

I added myanmar wikipedia link my:သေဆုံးခြင်း in quotes on Death , and it was reverted by OrenBochman. I tested on my sandbox, but I found no problem. Am I wrong or is he wrong?

Nyaminthar (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

He's wrong in this case, and I've restored the edit. I suspect that Oren doesn't have the right things installed on his computer to render the myanmar alphabet, so to him it will have looked like you were just adding a link of boxes.--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you so much Jac16888.

Nyaminthar (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I get an article reviewed?

Hi Heather

Many thanks for the invite I am about to put up an article on wiki, I have all the references and spent a long time doing it. I think its ready but want it reviewed. How do I do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryofMod (talk • contribs) 05:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mary. I have completely reworked your "homemade" citations to turn them into inline citations and made many other formatting changes. For future reference, please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. As you can probably see, all of the citations you tried to link through urls at newsstore.fairfax.com are nonworking. You do not always need to supply a URL (citations do not have to be to online sources), but I cannot convert the citations into pure news citations, because what you are actually trying to cite are newspaper articles you accessed through that site, but you did not supply the names of the stories or other attribution information so I can't go to the website, find the article and convert because I don't know which articles were accessed through the broken search urls. So if you can retrace your steps and tell us, for example, that the 6th citation was to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled X, date X, at Page X, by author X, we can fix those citations (maybe even find alternative, stable URLs to supply). By the way, are you familiar with the National Library of Australia's Trove website? You can find tons of material there for Australian (and other) topics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How to add an artists album artwork to a page?

I need to add 2 different pictures for 2 different albums for a band. How do I do that? The pictures are not mine, but can be use to describe the albums. NxOhMissFriedxD9 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MissFried! You can upload these images as Fair Use (#Images section). To do this, go to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard then start the upload form:

• Step 1: choose the file from your computer;
• Step 2: provide a name and description for your file;
• Step 3: select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use", specify the article in which it shall be used; then select the rationale "This is the official cover art of a work" and fill in the drop-down form with the appropriate information.

Hope this helps, benzband (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Any way to accelerate the Articles for Creation Review Process?

Hi, I created a new article through the sandbox option but once I clicked submit, it seems to have gone into this black hole called Articles for Creation for a review. AfC seems to be severely backlogged so is there any way to get my article out of there and into article space? The article presently resides here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/M.S._Rajan I know it can be done through the move dropdown but I don't know if it's allowed plus I don't want to break anything in the process... Thanks

Sesamevoila (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sesamevoila! You're right that Articles for Creation is unfortunately backlogged. I took a really quick look at your article and thought it was fine, so I accepted your submission. Congratulations! Just so you know, you're always welcome to create articles straight away, without going through Articles for Creation. If you have a question about a draft or anything, please feel free to ask. Happy editing! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

referencing sources

Helloo and thanks in advance for any help.

I have 2 main questions at this point, if you wouldn't mind helping me:

(1) I can't find the sequencing for a newspaper reference. Is this correct?: e.g. Steel, Judy (May 21, 1982). "The big shakers at the corp". Globe & Mail, P. 10.

I am used to APA format where every period and comma and space matters.

Somewhere I say that the publication name needs to go first and started to change everything but then stopped to ask you.

(2) I have some newspaper references that I have marked with [2] They also can be found as an http so I have used ... with those right after the ref so that readers can just click into the article and read it on the spot. Is this correct?

Sofiabrampton Sofiabrampton (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sofiabrampton. I would suggest always using the templates described on Wikipedia:Citation_templates. It has some templates for different types of citations (including URLs). These go inside the <ref></ref> pair and automatically provide formatting per Wikipedia standards. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 02:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sofiabrampton!

(1) There are a number of citation templates available for properly formatting references ({{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, etc). In the case you mention, one would cite as {{cite news|last=Steel|first=Judy|date=May 21, 1982|title=The big shakers at the corp|newspaper=[[Globe & Mail]]|page=10}}, which produces:

Steel, Judy (May 21, 1982). "The big shakers at the corp". Globe & Mail. p. 10.

(2) For inline citations, you can surround the citation in <ref> </ref> tags. This will produce a superscript note ^{[1] [2]} which once clicked will take the reader down the page and highlight the corresponding reference. You can also surround the citation templates mentioned above in ref tags. benzband (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice about a content dispute

Hey. After the brilliant move of choosing a current political event as my first commitment, I've involved myself in a content dispute in 2011 Egyptian revolution. I'm not making any of the edits - I just have an opinion. I tried to discuss it on the talk page - other than stating positions, no meaningful discussion took place. Put it up for RFC, then figured response might take a long time. The issue became an edit war, and I became concerned that this was hindering progress of the article, so I put this up at dispute resolution. I didn't realize that if the RFC remained open, the discussion at dispute resolution would be closed. Obviously, I would've closed the RFC beforehand if I'd known. Now I'm even more motivated to get this resolved, because lots of material about current events is being added to an already huge article. I really think this material should go in a new article, see on the talk page/dispute resolution discussion if you're interested. So I have a few questions:
1) Does anyone know how long RFCs take? The admin who closed the dispute said 30 days. That really wouldn't be helpful. I also wonder if it would even matter, since editors don't seem that interested in discussion.
2) Am I totally overreacting about this? Should I give up and let the other editors do as they please? I'm in the minority opinion, but I feel that a third opinion could change that, for content reasons but also because the article really needs to be split off.
3) I think it wasn't really cool of the admin to close the discussion and refer me to the RFC, when I stated clearly why I put this on the noticeboard despite the RFC. He could've bothered to let me know that I have to choose between the two. Should I say anything, or am I off the mark?
4) If anyone has an opinion about the issue, or suggestions for handling it, I'd love to hear. If you tell me I'm wrong and convince me to leave this alone, I might even thank you (kidding I guess.) ʝunglejill 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My thought is that it makes little sense to get into disputes about the naming of articles pertaining to rapidly changing events. In time, these things will settle out, and redirects can always be created for alternate names. Clearly, the events in Egypt of the past couple of years require a single overview article, with perhaps an increasing number of other articles describing narrower aspects of the revolution. I speak as an editor who rarely spends much time working on articles about current events, so please take my comments with a grain of salt.

I believe that English Wikipedia articles should be titled with the name most commonly used in reliable English language sources to describe the topic, rather than translations of Arabic (in this case) names less often used in English.

It can be tough to navigate debates about contentious current political topics. You have chosen to work in this area, so my advice is to tread lightly and work toward consensus whenever possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for the reply, but I think you misunderstood the issue. ʝunglejill 00:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain the issue more clearly. I can't get to the discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, since it has been closed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm always getting into these kinds of debates myself, and in the minority. It's good to frequently look at WP:Dispute to see what the most appropriate remedy is for any situation. And to let each remedy run its course on the same issue. If the main issue is naming, the above advice is good. When is a "revolution over"? First there's the rising up and throwing out of the bums. But when do new elections, constitution making, power grabs, etc just become part of the ongoing history?? Just one of those things you all have to consense upon. The main thing is to be patient and learn from your mistakes. The system usually works if you work it, even for a minority of one. It just takes a lot of time and patience. CarolMooreDC 04:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read Wikipedia:Recentism. --Greenmaven (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Greenmaven, thanks for the link. Cullen328, the article's name is a side issue. The main problem as I see it, is that the article is at 190,000 bytes and has material about new developments added every day. The result is an unreadable, difficult to edit article, that mixes current events with events that concluded a year ago; if you only want to read about current developments, Wikipedia has no readable content. Carol, thanks for the encouragement. I've decided that because I am unable to fix the situation by myself, and because no one else is interested, I'll leave this alone and let the edit war about what date should appear in the infobox continue. Thanks for the replies. ʝunglejill 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)