Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 240

Archive 235

←

Archive 238

Archive 239

Archive 240

Archive 241

Archive 242

→

Archive 245

Can't find my created file and it never went live

Hi Guys, I'm a newbie, I admit. But I'm trying to learn. About two weeks ago, I created a page for a living author/illustrator. From reading the instructions, it sounded like it might take a while to go live. But I questioned there not being an obvious "submit" button of some sort, and honestly, I wonder if I ever truly made it official. Of course, now I can't even find it in my account anywhere. So, I have two questions: 1) How do I find a page I was building; and 2) How do I 'submit' it for official review? Thanks so much! I adore Wikipedia and hope to add some valuable content. ElizabethDulemba (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth, I can not see the article either, I am sure an administrator will be along presently to confirm whether it can be found. I would just ask if you might have changed your account name at any time? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC).

Hello Elizabeth, it seems like you tried to create your article at WP:Sandbox with this edit. However, that sandbox is a page designed to be used for test editing, and it is regularly cleared. If you want to create a new article, I would suggest the article wizard. Making a draft with the wizard should automatically add a submit button. If it does not, you can submit the page by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Change article title

Should the article Tallest buildings in Little Rock be changed to tallest buildings in Arkansas since there is no other major metropolitan area with skyscrapers in Arkansas?Goonsy (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonsy (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Goonsy, and welcome! Do you have any reliable source to prove that the tallest buildings in Little Rock are also the tallest buildings in Arkansas? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response so soon Vanjagenije. I looked on the reliable source page and this is iffy so I wanted to check. Here is the link. http://www.emporis.com/building/the-lofts-at-underwood-plaza-fayetteville-ar-usa Goonsy (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you are sure, you can propose the move of the article to new title. See here how to propose a move: WP:REQMOVE. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I use a password protected source?

Hi. There is an article I am doing research on and have found a reliable source which is on the website of a organization(NASSCOM foundation). The organization requires one to be a member in order to access this particular information. I am a member and therefore have access. Is it alright to use this reference? It can be verified by any other member. (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi PankajVer and welcome to the Teahouse. Protected sources may be used even though they aren't easily accessed by some editors, see WP:PAYWALL Flat Out let's discuss it 12:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. Thanks! PankajVer (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Good day, PankajVer. Do keep in mind that the source behind the password still has to be an actual publication. For example, an article in the organization's edited newsletter or journal is a good source, as is approved content placed on the organization's official website; however, information contributed informally by any member, such as a posting on the organization's facebook page, message forum, twitter feed, or other social media wouldn't be considered reliable whether or not a password is needed to access it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The fact that the source is password protected should be OK, so long as it can be checked by Wikipedia editors at large. I don't know what NASSCOM membership is, but if it is something that anyone can pay for, that should be fine. If it is a private thing (e.g. a club or something for employees of a firm), then that is probably not OK. Formerip (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anne Delong and Formerip, it is not informal publication, it's a company profile which has been approved and edited by the group. I thought that's a better place to get information as compared to the company website. As for NASSCOM,it is a global trade body of IT and ITeS firms.PankajVer (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of control editor: How do we report him?

There is a new editor at the Magdalene asylum page who virulently attacks any editor who edits or even suggests changes to what he has written. His attacks include reverting edits with cruel comments in the edit summary and insults on the talk page. How do we get somebody wiser and with more authority to shut this guy down to just look at the page so free discussion can flow among the editors again? He has already removed NPOV tags (some new and some long standing) saying that there is no problem with POV on the page in his opinion (especially what he has written) and so placement of the tag was a violation of some sort. Today he insulted another editor and then wrote that summarizing lengthy info in the article because [WP:DETAIL] is being violated is akin to censorship. Some of the info that would have been summarized includes his lengthy inut from previous weeks. Thank you for any help you can give. Taram (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide the username? As I have a good idea who it is, but I would like to confirm it. I presume that you are referring to User:Signedzzz? I'll look into the history and get back to you! Jab843 (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jab843 (talk)you are correct. The editor using the name Signedzzz is the person posting angry comments about other editors and removing NPO tag without any time for discussion. Thank you! Taram (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Taram I am following the page, please allow me to handle the tag issues as I don't want you to get caught up in an edit war or violate the 3RR rule. In the mean time, please continue working on the article on both the article page and talk page, I am following the situation. Jab843 (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Jab843 Will do. Thank you! Taram (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Taram the general consensus that I have gotten is to ignore the tagging reversions, and focus on improving the section to what you feel is appropriate. I will keep you updated on how this progresses. Jab843 (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jab843. I left more of a reply on your page so as not to clutter up this page. Taram (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I use a vernacular source?

Hi. There is an article I am doing research on and have found a verifiable newspaper source which is in Hindi (An Indian language). Is it ok to use this reference? PankajVer (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi PankajVer - Yes, the English Wikipedia accepts sources in any language - as long as they comply with the requirements of WP:RS - which mainstream newspapers generally do. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a Lot Roger (Dodger67)! PankajVer (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the answer, PankajVer, it is OK to cite a reliable source published in any language, especially if sources are scant. But if there are plenty of high quality sources available in many languages including English, then English language sources are preferred. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks PankajVer (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Hi,

When creating a new page, is there a way you can preview it before publishing to check for all your errors as with a sandbox?

Possibly a very basic question but I think I should find out! Thanks Teahouse!

GraceDurie (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi GraceDurie, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's very simple: when you look at the "save page" button, right beside it there should be a "show preview" button, like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

This is a minor edit Watch this page

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Publish changes Show preview Show changes Cancel

You can find more information at Help:Editing. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the previous answer, it is best to create a draft article in a sandbox page or a draft page. Every editor has at least one sandbox page, but you can create as many as you need. Please read WP:ABOUTSAND and WP:DRAFTS for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both, that was really helpful :) look forward to going and putting it into practice!

GraceDurie (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Singles sales on discographies

I have seen that a discography page had a sales column in the singles table with reliably sourced claims, but was removed by a user, saying that I couldn't do that for very easily debunkable and vague reasons that I have since refuted, but is he right to say it goes against Wikipedia's policy on discography articles? Please help! Keshasbyotch (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It is my understanding that generally, the sale figures of individual records are not considered of encyclopedic value, not least because they change all the time. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Does WP:Eventualism count regarding people in a movement?

There are incredibly unreliable sources on Radical Feminism (opinion pieces, online advocacy groups) that 2 members in particular keep re-adding before we've reached consensus, can I use WP:Eventualism as a reason why the links need to be removed until consensus is reached?Bridenh (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bridenh, and welcome. As I understand, WP:Eventualism (actually, Meta:Eventualism) is an essay about views of certain Wikipedia editors. What does it have to do with Radical feminism or with adding unreliable sources to Wikipedia articles? Adding statements based on unreliable partisan sources is, of course, bad practice and such a content should be removed or discussed on the talk page per WP:RELY. Any content disputes should be discussed according to WP:DISPUTE. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

One specific user reverts before discussing (or even reading, it appears) what other editors have said, and then replies vaguely while not addressing any of the points. This is the same user who, a while ago, kept reverting and therefore re-adding material they claimed to have a problem with and somehow not realizing it was not me who kept doing it, i had to explain to them what they were doing in detail so they'd understand. As a newcomer, I'm not quite sure how to address this so I was hoping for some help because i doubt they even fully read the responses. I was hoping for a warning from someone more experienced so they'd actually discuss instead of frantically reverting and adding unreliable material without having reached consensus or even attempted to address it at all. Not to mention they usually point out small problems and then revert an entire section (or page) and continuously edit war. It is impossible to have a civil discussion with them. And regarding WP:Eventualism this is what I was thinking about: "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." - in order to stop the user from edit warring. Even if it doesn't apply, the user continues disrupting and its quite frustrating to deal with. Bridenh (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh - I know I am one of the editors involved on Radical feminism, but I hope I can set that aside for a moment and talk (though we may disagree on things, pages are not battlegrounds and there's no "winning", just building an encyclopedia). I understand you are new and that Wikipedia is frustrating (trust me, I know). But you really need to stop assuming bad faith of other users. Assuming good faith is part of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Tutelary is a very experienced editor and has gained enough community trust to be a rollbacker and reviewer. I would honestly suggest that you take citation/source concerns to the reliable source noticeboard for discussion. That's what Carol did with the TransAdvocate article. To answer your question regarding WP:EVENTUALISM, Radical feminism is not a BLP and unless the sentence is specifically about a living person, BLP does not apply. Carol and I may disagree on things, but we both think you have potential as an editor (which is why she invited you to WP:GGTF). I know how terribly frustrating Wikipedia can be and multiple times I've had to WP:DISENGAGE for a day just to clear my head. But I do hope you stick with it! I hope my comments help too (I know I might not be the person you want to hear from at the moment, but I'd rather talk with you than template your talk page or something unconstructive like that). Best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware this isn't about "winning", I was frustrated that unreliable sources (opinion pieces that had no sources for their claims, see: the HuffPost article) repeatedly kept being added before even discussing whether they're reliable. I still hold that as such they should be kept off the page while discussion is had as to not misinform anyone in the meantime, which is why I asked about WP:Eventualism. Regarding "assuming bad faith" I still assume good faith despite misunderstandings, at some point I just had to ask about my suspicions, having them does not mean I don't assume good faith.Bridenh (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

reason for rejection more detailed please? what I do wrong? Help please

Dear experienced users/reviewers. I have a second rejection on my first article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tigran_Tsitoghdzyan with the reason of not using inline citations properly using the footnotes. I have only one citation and it is referenced suing a footnote so I'm a bit puzzled what should I do. Could you please help? Thank you in advance Hamik.m (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Hamik, welcome to the teahouse. What that rejection is saying is that the facts in your article are not well supported and don't meet Wikipedia's standards. Every significant claim in an article should be backed up by an inline citation. An inline citation is a reference that goes right in the text and creates a number in the text which is then included as a footnote at the end of the article with all the reference info. As of now you have only one inline citation for your article, the reference that comes at the very end and has the number 1, the reference for Killman, Rebecca. "Tigran Tsitoghdzyan: Reflections in the Age of Technology" that is an example of an inline citation. You need more of those and you need to place them next to the text that they support. For example, in the article you say "Tsitoghdzyan grew up surrounded by intellectuals. " You need to support that fact with a reference. Which of the references you currently have right now under External Links explicitly supports that statement? You need to turn that reference from an external link into an appropriate inline citation. Here is an article that says more about them: wp:inline citation A few more points on the article as it currently stands: it is currently wp:promotional Text like this "Tsitoghdzyan found himself set apart from the crowd at an early age in Armenia. " is not objective language, it reads like a press release for the artist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so it should present information wp:objectively, not attacking or promoting any topic or person. Also, you have far too many wp:external links External links are not references. See that article I linked to in the previous sentence, external links need to match certain guidelines and most of what you currently have are not appropriate. One last thing: personal blogs are for the most part not considered valid references. I think you have at least one of those right now in the external links section. Hope that made sense, let us know if it didn't and you still have further questions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

help me

I HAVE TO DO AN EXPERIMENT. COULD YOU HELP ME? I CAN ONLY PROVIDE SOME EQUIPMENTS THAT CAN BE BOUGHT AT KOLLAM AT AVERY LOW PRICE. I WANT TO GET FIRST THIS TIME. I ALSO TO HELP MY OTHER TWO FRIENDS. WE WANT TO GET THE PRIZES. EXCEPT WE THREE ALL THE OTHER STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROGRAM GOT THE PRIZES. WE HAVE TRIED ALL THE TIME. WE HAVE GOT SO MUCH IDEAS BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE EQUIPMENTS. I HOPE YOU COULD HELP ME. DURYODANAN (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello DURYODANAN, welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is only supposed to be used to answer questions about editing Wikipedia. You may have better luck finding an answer to your question at the Reference Desk, where Wikipedians can act as librarians and answer any questions you may have. However, you may want to clarify your question a bit more if you plan to approach the Reference Desk (i.e. what kind of experiment? what kind of equipment?). Also, when on Wikipedia discussion pages, please do not use all caps, as this looks like you are shouting and is not in accordance with our talk page guidelines. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to stop by the Teahouse at any time. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello DURYODANAN, it seems to me like you are on some sort of teambuilding quest for a company or a stag party with your friends. I'm sorry, but the Teahouse is not a place for such things. You have to figure these things out for yourselves. Best, w.carter-Talk 15:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a link

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

How do I add a website link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eg224 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Eg224. Your question is not very clear. I'm guessing that you are asking how to add an external link to a Wikipedia page. The answer is that you can either simply include the full URL, so for example

http://bbc.co.uk

displays as

http://bbc.co.uk.

Alternatively, you can get it to display something different, by including the URL in single square brackets ([ ]) and putting the display text after the url and a space, so

[http://bbc.co.uk The BBC]

displays as

The BBC.

But please be aware that are tight restrictions on what external links may be placed in an article: see external links for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Performing Arts organization article template

Hi,

Is there a template for articles about performing arts organizations?

I have authored an individual artist's biography and, prior to the article's final approval, received a nice dust-off with a standard artist's info box. Hoping something similar in terms of formatting exists for organizations.

Cheers, VinylheroVinylhero (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vinylhero: Hey Vinylhero. There are multiple but they're rather specific, rather than covering performing arts as a whole. See Category:Arts and culture infobox templates and subcategories found therein, such as Category:Performing arts infobox templates. After glancing at your contributions, you may be looking for {{Infobox ballet company}}.

By the way, the best way I know of to locate the specific template one's looking for (and to get other useful and targeted prompts for other aspects of an article in the works, such as possible categories the page should have, how to organize, and much more) is to find a well developed article that is on a similarly situated topic. For a dance company, I'd think of another one I was aware of, navigate to its article, then see what's in it. Also, even if that article is not well developed, look to its categories – click on one that is likely to have many articles on similar subjects and then you can look at a selection of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the response. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what I did and I found the ballet company infobox template I needed.

With that said, are template infoboxes editable? Is subject to review before going "live"?

Many thanks again, Vinylhero (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vinylhero: You're most welcome. Yes this infobox template is directly editable and new parameters can be added (but note that some high use ones may be fully-protected [thus requiring an {{edit protected}} request]). Two matters come to mind: i) it may be prudent to seek consensus first on the template's talk page for a change to an infobox that affects many articles; and ii) performing the change may require technical skills that many users do not possess, so the feature you want added may have to be requested from a more tech savvy person (I have no idea if that's the case with you). You could ask back here if you need help with the technical aspects.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

how do i challenge a fact on wikipedia

how do i challenge a fact on wikipedia 66.241.132.116 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello person editing from 66.241.132.116. Is the fact you wish to challenge cited to a published source using a inline citation? And if so, is the source that's cited to a reliable source? And if so (and if you can access it), does that reliable source actually corroborate the fact its cited for? These are important questions for any answer, though it always makes it vastly easier to tailor an answer if you don't ask your question in the abstract but tell us what article and what fact you are here about. The reason I've asked these questions is because they are important if you're going to invoke WP:BURDEN. As you'll learn at that section of the verification policy, if the fact is unsourced, you can challenge it, most commonly by adding next to it a {{Citation needed}} tag (the full text of the template is {{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=August 2014}}). Again, it's hard to tell if this advice is really applicable without the specifics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you add variables to an infobox?

If so, can it be changed on the transcluded infobox appearing on pages?Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not completely sure myself, but I believe the answer to your question lies either in Help:Infobox or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes).   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Previewing in Uploading to commons.wikimedia

I got the chance to preview the picture I intended to upload. When I did, the pic appeared cropped at the rims in the preview, so I nominated an other file, revised the description and tried to preview again - nope, no reaction. What did I wrong, please? Or are you not in charge for Wikimedia? Purgy (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Purgy. I'm not too familiar with Wikimedia Commons so unfortunately I can't help, but you should be able to get an answer to your question at the Commons help desk. Sam Walton (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,Samwalton9, thanks, I turned there. Purgy (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Reason for large backlog in review?

I noticed there's a considerable backlog in the article review process right now (2334 submitted articles), is there any particular reason for that? I've had an article submitted for review for about a month now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Logic_Supply) and every time I check the backlog just gets bigger. I've looked around the site for an indication of how long to expect a review to take and the answers seem to be all over the board. Just curious of there's a way to get feedback on the current version of my page, even if it isn't an "official" review I'd be interested to know what I can improve. I'd hate to wait all this long only to see it get rejected and then wait another month+ for it to be reviewed again once I've made adjustments. Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide. Mobydickulous (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mobydickulous, although there is no definite reason as to why the AfC is backlogged, the reason probably is that all the reviewers are volunteers and are unable to keep up with the influx of new Articles. Hope this helped, Dathus (Talk | Contribs) 20:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think there is an important question here. Is the current process that Wikipedia uses sustainable? I'm a fairly new editor but the more I see things the more I think it's not. We have a culture that dates back to the earliest days of the Internet. But where we are now is radically different. We encourage people to do unsustainable things. We encourage new editors to create "their" first page when we should be encouraging them to fix the zillions of existing pages. We tell people that red links are a matter of opinion when anyone with basic knowledge of HCI would say they are a terrible idea,... --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the AfC process could be improved so that it is easier and more clear when an article is up for review. Otherwise, yes, many of the existing articles need help as well.... Jab843 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the AfC process is optional. We steer new editors there, and make it seem like new articles have to go through it, but all autoconfirmed users have the technical ability, and the absolute right, to create an article from scratch right in the main article space, so long as the article meets basic Wikipedia standards of notability and referencing and is free from copyright violations and the like. For any editor who grows weary of waiting for a review, they can just put the article in the main space themselves. Of course, if it isn't up to minimum standards, it can be just as quickly deleted, which is why we steer new editors to AfC in the first place, to educate them on the standards so the articles don't get summarily deleted. But, if you want to take your chances, ultimately, there's no one stopping you from just creating an article. --Jayron32 01:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

All processes are imperfect. WP:AFC is intended to help, not to be the sole route to article creation. What is required is a larger pool of folk who will take, say, three articles per day and review them. Most folk try to run before they can walk and create tosh, or COI stuff, or adverts, or autobiographies, clogging the process with their unmitigated self aggrandising drivel. This obscures the meat. The problem is that all who submit deserve a fair review. This takes time. We hope they will learn. Apart from that we have lives. With Wikipedia's ever growing popularity there is an ever growing population who wish to add articles. Some even write the biography of their pet! The backlog is just a backlog. So learn your trade, and, once learned, come and help. Fiddle Faddle 09:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Accurate vs. Concise

A few weeks ago, I was able to witness a conflict between accuracy and conciseness. Particular sections of a Wikipedia page (about a television show) was unclear and very inaccurate. Several people attempted to add to this page in order to make the page more clear and accurate (which it succeeded at very nicely). However, other users started an edit war and reverted back all of their work (in order to stay within the word limit); while this did keep the summaries within the word limit, it also returned the article to its sub-standard state. I eventually solved the issue by incorporating the added information with the necessary information and making it concise, but that took many hours of my time. So, as a general rule, which reigns supreme--Accuracy or Conciseness? Coulson Lives (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness is a prerequisite for conciseness. Removing vital information from an article to adhere to some tentative word-count guideline is counterproductive. I really need that username (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What is this "word limit" you are referring to? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there is a word limit of 200 words for summaries for television show episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulson Lives (talk • contribs) 03:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

200 was a bit strict, but the vital information was kept (not easy doing that though) the only information really dropped were minor parts of the plot. Also adding on a couple of new words to the summaries would have been fine, it was the fact that the person who made the initial edits that started the conflict added in trivial information and bulked the summaries up more than they needed be. Around 200 was the normal amount so from say just under 200 to around 250 words, any higher would have been to big.

And besides, the limit for a 2-3 hour film is 400-700 words (See WP:PLOTBLOAT) so for a 45 minute TV show, 200 actually makes sense.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How to use a talk page politely

Question from a brand-newbie. In the talk page for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant there is a discussion under the heading 'Isis is officially a terrorist organization'. I want to comment in that discussion, suggesting that a piece of the article which claims the UN Security Council officially designates ISIS/ISIL to be a terrorist organization be removed because the source used to justify it does not actually have the word terrorist anywhere in the text. My question is maybe more about Wiki manners... I know to indent my comment on the talk page so that it shows up as a comment, but there are so many indents in the discussion, and I'm not sure whether to follow in a thread with a lot of indents or to start a new comment thread. This may seem like a silly question but I don't want to seem rude. Would you mind going through the process of participating in a talk page conversation? Thanks! Zurose (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zurose, and welcome! The most important rules with engaging in talk page discussions are to stay on the topic of improving the article (not discussing the subject itself, as it is not a forum), assuming good-faith on behalf of your fellow contributors and remaining civil throughout. As to formatting, that's personal preference. If you believe that a conversation has too many indents, feel free to start a new outdent using the "outdent" template, especially if it's a new point and not following on someone else's. Feel free to ask for more clarification and we'll be glad to help you! --McDoobAU93 16:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, User:McDoobAU93! Zurose (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Zurose, I congratulate you on taking etiquette seriously - the more controversial the subject, the more important it becomes. Secondly, here is an example of using the "outdent" template when conversations get indented too far. Edit this page to see how it works in practice. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gronk Oz, and thanks for the help! I used an outdent on the above-mentioned talk page, although in retrospect I think I could have just started a new line. I also noticed after that edits aren't allowed on that page until December due to vandalism, so I guess I'll have to wait to change that one! Thanks again! Zurose (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Zurose, I'm not a senior editor but I guess I'm competent to chime in here on that last question. The article is semi-protected until December, as it says in the tooltip when you hover over the "lock" symbol at the top of the page. Semi-protected doesn't prevent all edits to the article; but it puts some restrictions on who can edit it. To edit a semi-protected article:

• You must be a registered user, and your account must be at least four days old.
• You must have performed at least ten previous edits while logged in to your account.
• You must be logged in.

These restrictions greatly reduce vandalism because many vandals either don't have an account or have just created one. Your account is about three days old, and you have about 65 edits, so you should be allowed to edit the article within about 24-36 hours.   Mandruss |talk  11:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Great tip, Mandruss! Thank you so much! Zurose (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi, I just joined Wikipedia a few days ago and I have been wanting to create an article. I have found many sources supporting the topics that I wanted to cover, but I am unsure of which sources are reliable enough for Wikipedia. Are there any specific requirements for a source to be acceptable? What type of sources are the best to use? Any help is greatly appreciated. Infinitely infinite (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Infinitely infinite, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best starting point is to read through the information at WP:SOURCE; it should answer most of your questions. It is also worth reading the following section, "Sources that are usually not reliable" to get a fuller picture. Then - if in doubt, ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I see which of my edits were deleted?

I just looked at my stats in Edit Count, and something concerned me. A surprisingly high percentage of my edits were counted as being deleted. I would like to find out what these deleted edits were, in case I am doing something wrong. Is there a way to "drill down" on that figure, to see which edits were counted in it? Gronk Oz (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNever mind - I kept looking and found the answer I needed. The glossary explains that a "deleted edit" means something different from what I assumed: it is "an edit that is no longer listed in an editor's contributions because the page has subsequently been deleted." That makes sense, because I wrote some articles in User pages so all their edits would be classed as "deleted edits". I'll stop worrying now, and get back to work! --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about the {{under construction}} tag

Is placing this tag on articles in the draftspace acceptable? Reason I ask is that I am currently working on a draftspace article (current status is declined), and wanted to let others know that it is currently undergoing revision.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ArcAngel. You don't need to put such a tag on a draft article. After it has been rejected for article creation, it will generally be allowed to remain in draft space for six months until it is deleted (see G13. Abandoned Articles for creation submissions) - unless it meets one of the other reasons for deleting a draft. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've only started working in the draftspace recently, so wasn't sure exactly how that worked.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A small expansion/clarification on the point made by RockMagnetist above: those six months apply after the most recent edit; that is, it takes six months without edit to count as a stale draft/abandoned AfC submission. So long as you keep working on the draft, it won't count as stale (but can indeed, as mentioned above, still be deleted if one of the other reasons for deleting a draft applies). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I do understand that rule, but the only time that I really tag drafts is if they are obvios copyvios, or if it exists in mainspace.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

ArcAngel: You're welcome. Good luck with the draft! If you need some help on it, just let me know and I'll see what, if anything, I can do. Yeah, those (and obvious vandalism (including hoaxes and attack pages), as well as blatant advertisement) are probably the bulk of non-G13 draft deletions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

how can I upload image

I had taken a image of a place in my mobile.Then how can I upload it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshay B Deokar (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Akshay B Deokar:, and welcome to the teahouse. First, you have to decide if the picture is free-use which it probably is since you said you took it. You can go to Wikimedia Commons and upload it with this link. If you are using mobile. You can download the Wikimedia Commons App and upload it from there. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 18:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

user page?

How can I edit my user page?Keslerdo (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keslerdo, you can edit your user page by clicking here or on your username in the top right of any Wikipedia window, then clicking the Edit button in the top right. For guidance on what to include on your userpage and how see this page. Sam Walton (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!Keslerdo (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How do people start a wikiproject?

How do people start a wikiproject? Keslerdo (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I will point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject which should give you the basics for them.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keslerdo, and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't think there's any sort of procedure. Just a group of editors with a common interest. What would this WikiProject be supporting? There may be a similar WikiProject that covers it, or a task force of an existing one that does. Then again, there isn't a WikiProject for every single article, either! --McDoobAU93 19:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting talk advice

Hi again. Could I get some experienced eyes on this talk section? Have I presented a strong case, do you think? How would you improve it? Thanks,   Mandruss |talk  10:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a strong case to me, but what is the issue, are other's warring over this? Jab843 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was a special situation that warranted talking first. It involves a move with a ton of affected links. And I wanted some feedback on whether my reasoning was sound in the first place. But you're right, I'll try the normal WP:BRD approach.   Mandruss |talk  19:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

problems regarding a page i made. $unny çheema (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I made this page called Sunny Cheema on wikipedia. It is a biography of an artist. But wikipedia says This article appears to be written like an advertisement. And also that Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help me clear this. I can't understand what's wrong. ? $unny çheema (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, $unny çheema, welcome to the Teahouse. Statements like "Sunny always aimed to be a successful artist, a playback singer and actor who loves to live in heart of his audiences" are considered promotional or "advertising" because there is no independent source that says this. (An interview doesn't count as independent.) There don't seem to be a lot of independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability, so this article will likely be deleted. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

$unny çheema, you may want to consider changing your username. You are not allowed to use a name that is the same name as that of another person. You might be able to add something to your name that would get around that rule, but I don't know that $ and ç would qualify.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

capsular warning syndrome

This subject is a sub-set of the medical condition known as transient ischaemic attack. It is important because people with this diagnosis have a high risk of developing stroke. I would like an expert to create a wikipedia article on this topic.

Bedserfan (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bedserfan, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has an option called "Requested articles" (here: WP:REQ). You can go there, find the appropriate sub-section (apparently Medicine --> Diseases; conditions; signs; symptoms) and add your request. It would be helpful if you also provide some reliable sources (links to internet sites, books, newspaper articles) about the subject. But you should understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer service, so it is always better to write the article yourself, even if you are not an expert. See here how to write an article: WP:FIRST. If you make a mistake, don't wary, some more experienced editor will notice it and help you. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I must repectfully disagree with your advice. Bedserfan, if you are indeed new to Wikipedia, welcome, and it is not always better to write the article yourself, because new editors are not experienced. But if you makes a real effort to follow the directions, it is possible to create an acceptable article. Using WP:AFC and writing the article in draft space will be helpful so the article can be brought up to standard before going to mainspace, where new editors' work is frequently deleted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How to Create pages

Hi! Its DisneyGirl13.

How do you create a page. I found out about a movie so I was wondering how to do that. This movie doesn't have a page so can you tell the steps of making a page?

It would be very helpful.

DisneyGirl13DisneyGirl13 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi DisneyGirl. There are a couple of different ways to create an article. The first is to go straight ahead and create it - to do that you would just attempt to navigate to the page (either with the search bar or by going directly there by changing the web address) and you will be asked if you want to start the page. For example if I wanted to write an article about myself (I don't) I might go to Sam Walton (Wikipedian) and click the link to start the article. An article created directly into article space is at risk of deletion if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability though. Alternatively, you can go through the Articles for Creation process in which another editor will look over your article and make sure it's ok before moving it to article space. Whichever you choose be sure to have a read through the tutorial and how to cite references before starting, and feel free to ask for help here or on my talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyGirl13. The only thing I'd add to what Sam said is that not everything in the world merits a Wikipedia article. Sam touched on the issue of notability: if at the moment nobody has written any articles about the movie in reliable places like major newspapers (not fansites or blogs!) then the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and no article on it will be acceptable no matter how you write it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Thats all I needed to know. Is there anything else that I need to know?

DisneyGirl13DisneyGirl13 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page: Keep references on their section

Hello. I have written a section on a Wikipedia Talk page and added some references to it. The references are shown on the bottom edge of the Talk page, just after the last added –new– section, which deals with a completely different subject. For me, this is confusing, I think it would be better if the references remain stuck to their section. Please, is that possible? Thank you.--EnekoGotzon (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there's two ways of doing this. The first is not to use <ref> </ref> on the talk page and just leave your citations in brackets. The other is to add {{reflist}} or {{reflist-talk}} at the end of the section you're referring to on the talk page rather than let it default to the bottom of the page. Nthep (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Now references are where they should. Thank you very much!--EnekoGotzon (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How to get back a blocked article

Hi.. I tried creating an article about the Nigerian rapper Johncongo but i can't why? i think is blocked ? Latertinsna 00:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latertinsna (talk • contribs)

Yes, according to the page logs, this article has "protection" against it from being recreated, due to it being "repeatedly recreated". BTW, trouting a bureaucrat is never a good idea.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to try creating this article at Draft:Johncongo. If a suitable article can be made, it will be copied to the main encyclopaedia. If not, at least a significant amount of time will be allowed to try. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

@Latertinsna: Unfortunately, newly created articles about people can be speedily deleted from Wikipedia if they do not credibly indicate why the person is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article for Johncongo was repeatedly created and repeatedly deleted because each time it was recreated, the author did not indicate a claim to notability. As a result of this persistent cycle of recreation/deletion, the page has been, as what us Wikipedians say, "salted"—or protected against creation. If you still wish to write an article about Johncongo, I recommend using the Article Wizard. It will guide you in deciding if your topic is suitable for Wikipedia and if it is, the style your article should be written in. If you reach the end of the Wizard, use the articles for creation process, which will place a draft of your article for review by an experienced editor, who will then publish the draft if there are no glaring issues. Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Good articles and featured articles

Hello, I'm back again. I was nominating Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 as a good article, but it would not get reviewed, and it is pissing me off. After a while, I thought, "hey, why don't I nominate Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 a featured article instead of a good?" So I was wondering, can featured articles get nominated if they are not good articles yet? I nominated Taylor Swift as a featured article too, and the MH370 thing went to my mind. I hope you will answer, and help to review too. Please ping me if you have replied. Yours sincerely, DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Nahnah4, and welcome to the Teahouse! FAs do not have to be GAs first. However, in this case I'd recommend that you hold off on nominating. There are numerous sentences with five or six citations after them (a problem), and the prose is rough in places. I don't think this would be successful. Furthermore, you are not a major editor of the article, and as such may not be familiar with what the main writers consider lacking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Which article? MH370 or TS? DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• MH370. I didn't look at Swift's article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

why my article remove from wikipedia again and again.

why my article remove from wikipedia again and again.Tanzeel Khokhar (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tanzeel Khokhar! Are you referring to the article JazbaWelfare? It was first deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JazbaWelfare, and the latest incarnation was deleted again because it didn't make a "credible claim of significance" (see CSD#A7). I cannot see what the article looked like prior to deletion (only administrators can do that), but feel free to ask any specific questions you have as to its content to one of the deleting admins (Jac16888, FreeRangeFrog and Alexf).

Also, you might be interested in checking out the following essay: Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. Cheers, benzband (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Page formatting

Hi there. First question in the teahouse. I have just made an edit to a page about Beijing's twin cities, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities_in_China, but I think my editing (inclusion of Dublin as a new twin city in 2011, plus the reference) may have nudged the formatting out of line. I've tried to see how this happened, but just can't figure it out. Help! And thanks Marlow marlow (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marlow Marlow! When you edited the page you removed the following bit of code: {{col-end}}. I have reinserted it now. Cheers, benzband (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ben! I really appreciate that - I just couldn't figure how what I had done :) Gratefully Marlow marlow (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with DYK?

I nominated an article for DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/List of hazing deaths in the United States. An editor commented that I needed to fix an issue: "the article do not have enough citations" a couple days ago then hasn't gotten back to me about what exactly that meant. I'd like to fix whatever problems it has today as I'm not going to have enough time in the next few days. Does anyone have any idea what he's talking about? The article looks fully sourced to me. Bali88 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bali88, and welcome! I've worked with DYK a bit the last couple of months, and I took a look at the article and the proposed hook. There's plenty of citations, and each incident is cited, in my opinion. Have you tried reaching out directly to the editor who made the comment? --McDoobAU93 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Like on his talk page? No I haven't, I'll do that.Bali88 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, @Bali88:, and thanks for your question. I have a lot of experience with DYK and my recommendation would be to keep all the comments related to the DYK nomination on the nom page itself, rather than on an individual editor's talkpage. This bodes well for transparency and allows other editors to participate in the conversation, if need be (for example, if the original reviewer is away for a few days). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

want some guide.

Plz guide. How can I link a site in reference. and what is reliable source and how can I link them to the changes I have made. And also what does it mean "Sign your posts on talk pages: Akshay Deokar (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Cite your sources: <ref></ref>".

Hi @Akshay Deokar:, and welcome to the Teahouse. For the question you asked. The first question to put a site in the <ref></ref> tags, simply just put the site you want to link to inside them and put [] around. so if you were linking to google. You would put <ref>[www.google.com]</ref>. . An alternate way is, in the edit box, at the top right corner, there is a button named cite. Press the button, and select template. Then select cite web. Just fill in the fields and press insert.

Signing your posts on Talk Pages aks you to identify who you are after you write a message. You can do this by putting ~~~~ at the end of your messages. But never sign the stuff you write in articles. cheers, and signing my post, TheQ Editor (Talk) 15:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I write an article that has the same content on a Wikipedia account I created, but was blocked only because of the username?

I opened a Wikipedia account, but it got blocked, because of the username. The content I put on the article about a company was very neutral. I asked for help and I was told I had two options to create and article myself or request an article to be made for me. I decided to create my own article, but I wanted to put the same information as I did on the account that got blocked because of the username. The information was very neutral and non promotional at all. Can I do that? Or no, because it is already in the Wikipedia system? But the account was blocked just because of the username.71.43.45.218 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Regardless of your username, you would still have a conflict of interest since you're affiliated with the subject. If you wish to go ahead and try to recreate the article, use this process instead and (as required by our Terms of Use) declare your affiliation on your userpage or on your article draft or in your initial edit summary when creating the article draft. --Jakob (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing name of article title (office name has changed)

Hello, I am trying to change the name for the page below, which has changed its name from the Global Partnership Initiative to the Office of Global Partnerships. So the new title should be "Secretary of State's Office of Global Partnerships" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_State_Global_Partnership_Initiative

I am new to Wikipedia editing, so based on my research, I think I have to move the page, but I am a little nervous about getting everything right to do that (as well as correct all the links to the page from other pages).

Any advice would be appreciated!

Onlyonenat (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you're a pretty new editor, I was bold and moved the page for you.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you just need one more edit until you become autoconfirmed. Meaning that you can move pages. All you need to do is click the more button with the little arrow beside the edit button. Select move and select a new name. Don't worry about it. Just be bold. Everything on Wikipedia is reversible. TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!! 169.253.194.1 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Article rejection

I can't figure out why my article was rejected so I don't know what to change about it. I can't figure out how to use the live help feature. I am totally frustrated with Wiki. Help! (Kellyelle (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kellyelle, welcome to the teahouse! Check out the links provided in your draft article Draft:T-Stylez to see what needs changing. If there are not independent reliable sources that talk in detail about the person, for example published music magazines, then maybe Wikipedia does not need an article about them yet? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Creating articles

How do I create an article. And what is all the code above this? Why doesn't "You may want to enter your question using the "Ask a Question" button on the question page. If you would like to ask your question manually, please type it directly underneath the dotted line below. Thanks! - Teahouse Hosts " show on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy on Boxes (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Billy on Boxes: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Your first article provides a nice starting guide for creating your first article. Anyone can create an article, provided that the article meets notability guidelines. If you have any questions as you glance over the page, feel free to ask!

As for the code you mention, that's an invisible comment. You'll see that the text is wrapped around <!-- and -->. This causes the text to be invisible on the page itself, but visible for anyone editing the page. This is useful for any notes that anyone editing the page might want to see, but don't want to be visible to readers. Hope this helps, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks. BILL (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)