Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Thanks

Hi thanks for the invite i hope im not too late. and this is great i definitely need help lol i was so lost because i used other wikias but this once you need to know a lot of codes but im learning and grinding out by looking at the edits and reading some articles. but my question would be how do you add infoboxes and such? for example when you add ana rticle about a living person and you need to add some information about when they starting working or what position they play etc. can anybody help with that? Arimamba (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for stopping in at the Teahouse. Wikipedia has a lot of infoboxes—in fact, we have so many that there is a project entirely about them, WikiProject Infoboxes. There is also a category, Category:Infobox templates, to contain all the infoboxes on Wikipedia. It is broken up into a number of sub-categories to make it easy to find the infobox you're looking for. If you're handy with infoboxes, WikiProject Infoboxes could use people to help them create new infoboxes, and to add infoboxes to pages that are missing them.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!! I'll check it out :P Arimamba (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

On date articles, should death events ever be listed under "events"?

I've seen a few of these. February 14 for example has "James Cook is killed by Native Hawaiians near Kealakekua on the Island of Hawaii." listed under "Events". But shouldn't that be under "Deaths"? Or does it count as an event if the death was under special circumstances? Knight of Truth (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Knight of Truth! James Cook is listed under deaths (

1779 – James Cook, British naval captain and explorer (b. 1728)

), but the event in which he was killed is mentioned under events. If you look closely you will find that is the case for a number of others. benzband (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My First Article

Hi Folks,

I have written my first article and would love some feedback. Also advice on how to publish it. I am currently working in sandbox . How do you publish form there? Not sure if I need to Handel the references differently? Is this sufficient info for you to take a look? CathyL007/sandbox

Any help would be most appreciated.

ciao

CathyCathyL007 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cathy. Welcome to the teahouse. Yes we can find the article from your user contributions link on your talk page. There is a lot of work to be done I am afraid to reach wikipedia standards. The text is full of embedded external links which are not allowed- they have to be converted to inline citations if they are reliable independent sources or put in the external links section at the bottom. Take time to read through Citing sources. The subject appears notable and your work is worth persevering with. It takes a while to learn our policies and style of doing things.--Charles (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cathy. I took a look at your Geofffrey Brown (director) article. Unfortunately, I also need to give you bad news. First, I see you have a conflict of interest in that you are co-owner of Mr. Brown's production company. That does not preclude you contributing to Wikipedia but please read the conflict of interest guide. Next, a biography of a living person must meet very strict standards. The article cannot be promotional; your current draft reads like a promotional biography to sell Mr. Brown's services rather than an encyclopedic biography. To establish Wikipedia notability, requires citation of independent reliable sources to support the content. IMDB is not a reliable source. Last, biographies of filmmakers should generally comply with the guidelines of the Wikiproject Actors and Filmmakers. A good way to get the format and style right is to look at existing Featured and Good articles. It will take a lot of work to get your article ready for inclusion in Wikipedia. Take care, DocTree (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Folks for the input - I'll check out what you suggest

CathyL007 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting that you should never use ALL-CAPS. Even titles should be in sentence case. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 04:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, it is copied entirely from his on line biography on the production company's website. Unless he or the production company has released his biography into the public domain or through a Wikipedia appropriate license it should probably be removed from user space. You might be able to get help writing it by creating just a stub, if the production company owns the copyright on the online biography. Eau (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Review?

Hi guys! Thanks so much for the invitation here, I was so happy to get it! This really seems like a kind space and I was getting told slightly different things in the live chat so I'm not sure if my article is reliable. I would love for any feedback! Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Schaefer SO appreciated! Princetondt (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Princetondt, hi and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I see your article has been declined once for a lack of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and if I were to review it now I would decline it on the basis that the references didn't help to establish his Notability. It's not that the references aren't real but they are only telling us factual information, for example, details of his books. That's fine because it is information that needs to be verified but it doesn't tell us why he is "out of the ordinary", what is needed are references like reviews of his books that indicate why they are top of their class. There are quite a lot of subjective points that could do with referencing. Examples:

• Things like Forbes naming him in a top 50 list need referencing
• The Tao of Twitter being a #1 bestseller needs referencing
• Who "acclaims" his blog or its sense of humour?

I would also suggest that you tone down some of the cv like content in the article, for example, the other graduate level education paragraph as it makes the whole article read a bit like a promotional article not a neutral encylopedia article. NtheP (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Inserting references

My article includes numbered, in-line citations. I entered edit mode to add a reference (reflist), then pressed Save Page. The result includes the citation numbers, as before, but the entities to which the numbers refer --- previously listed below the text --- have disappeared.

I am in despair. Pottle beanie (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! Thanks for asking a relatively easy question. It gives me an opportunity to look smart. Your problem was that you deleted (probably inadvertently) one of the "}"s from the end of your reflist tag. I re-inserted it, and now I think everything looks fine, format-wise. Please check it to make sure. Oh, and by the way, I have only made this mistake two or three thousand times... Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested close

Is there a proper procdure to ask the community to review an RM close? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Yaniv, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! There is a pace called move review, which is I think what you're looking for. However, you should keep in mind that it says:

"Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion."

I take it that you're talking about the closed request for pink slime? Just taking a quick glance at the thing, I don't see anything wrong with the closure; consensus there seems pretty clear. That doesn't mean that you can never put in another move request again, but another one so soon might be a bit...unseemly. Anyway, hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. No, the pink slime close was fine, the contested close is for global financial crisis. Please let me know if you see any fault with putting it up for review. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, sorry about the mixup. I still don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that close, although of course "no consensus" closures are always unsatisfying. It looks to me like each person who participated had their own preferred title (which isn't really surprising, given the subject and how it spans years); since people didn't come together and suggest a single, satisfying new title, no single new title gained consensus, and the default in such cases is to leave it like it is. See, the trick is that it's not enough to just get consensus that it needs to move; there also needs to be consensus on what to move it to. I think that what I'd do in this situation is, before anything else, I'd ask the closing admin, User:RegentsPark, about posting it at move review/requested moves and get his opinion on it. Then, I would post my case on the requested moves noticeboard, probably after some more discussion with other people who participated. I'm sure other hosts will have their own suggestions; anyone else have any advice? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quite helpful. I followed your advice and posted a message on User talk:RegentsPark#RM close review seeking his or her feedback. If you feel like stepping in to that debate, please feel welcome. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

need to delete one of the same articles

Hi, thank you for inviting me to join the forum. I was advised to delete one of the same articles submitted for creation. I don't know how to delete this. The article is "Summa Metaphysica". I only need one article (the one without #2). Please help me deleting one of the articles or walk me through the process. I couldn't where to remove it. I need to improve the article and add more references. Thank you for your help. DavidBirnbaum (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, David, welcome to the Teahouse! Only admins can actually perform the page deletion, but there is an easy way to notify them; just put {{db-g7}} at the top of your page. This will flag the page with a deletion request that refers to the G7 criterion of speedy deletion, which is for articles where the sole author requests deletion. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that these are articles about books you wrote, I've given you a notification on your talk page about the enormous problems you have here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Upload a new version of this file

Hello again, sorry to have taken so long to get back but work has been hectic! In fact it's been so long I could not find the answer to my question asked back in July. Ok, let's start again. I have edited a image (off the request page) and followed instructions to re-load it on its correct page. Trouble was after finding the image host page I couldn't see the link "Upload a new version of this file" (yes I even tried Ctrl+F to search for it). Can't help feeling I'm being more of a hindrance than a help at the moment. Perhaps I could be put in touch with an experienced wiki photo editor to help guide me along? Ceepin1826 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I clicked "What links here" at your user page User:Ceepin1826 to see where the posts with your signature had been archived. The previous answers are at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 33#Volunteering and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 July 31#Lost. Your account is not autoconfirmed yet so you cannot upload a new version of a file yet. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK in the real world I volunteer in a number of areas, I've been Criminal record checked twice (a UK requirement), interviewed, tested, reviewed, poked and prodded. But this all pales in comparison to the bureaucratic run around I've received because I just want to use my talents as a photo editor for Wikipedia. So here's my plan, I'll stay away for 48 hours then return for one last try to get my head around what should be a simple procedural exercise. Remember I just want to help by editing a few snaps not have Jimmy Wales job! --Ceepin1826 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As hinted by the name, "autoconfirmation" is automatic and does not involve a review. Special:Contributions/Ceepin1826 shows your account is old enough (at least 4 days) but you have only made 6 of the 10 required edits for autoconfirmation. Make 4 more edits anywhere at http://en.wikipedia.org and you will be autoconfirmed here and able to upload new versions of files. You are already autoconfirmed at http://commons.wikimedia.org which doesn't require edits. Lots of files used in Wikipedia are stored there. Which image have you edited? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does my article keep getting declined?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Wayman I have included independent references now yet the article has once again been declined. What's going on here??

The following artist page has far less references included and yet has been aproved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Stark

Poacher64 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Poacher64, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like your submission because your submission does not include enough reliable sources. All articles need to include reliable sources that are independent from the subject. An independent source is like a news article or a book, for example. You can also read Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Poacher64, and thanks for starting to write for Wikipedia. Most experienced editors have heard the general type of reasoning many times that goes something like this: "Why are you criticizing the article I wrote when there is another article on Wikipedia that is just as bad if not worse!" We even have an essay on this line of thinking, called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Well, we all agree that there are other bad articles on Wikipedia. Every day, we work to improve them, or if they are hopeless, to delete them. Oliver Stark has been tagged for lacking references, and clearly has problems. It is far better to try to write excellent articles that comply with our policies and guidelines, than to try to defend a draft article with problems by pointing out the shortcomings in other similar articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue here with publishing articles about current artists - plenty of online journalism exists for both individuals in question, indeed I have cited such independent articles on mine. How can one get something like this past what I can't help but consider to be over-zealous moderation? Short of waiting for the individual to become deceased then referencing obituaries, very little in print media exists for such artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poacher64 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Poacher, the problem is that the sources you're using aren't considered either reliable, e.g. IMDB, or independent of Wayman. Just because someone is an actor doesn't make them necessarily notable in Wikipedia terms. The types of sources you need to cite are things like reviews of his performances. For example you say he appeared as Benedick in the RSC Fringe Festival - surely there are reviews of his performance in that role that can be used to say whether he is notable or not? Instead the reference you use is an alumni page from the drama school he attended which is not independent. You say there is plenty of online journalism about him, there may be but that's not what you are presenting, you are more showing press releases, cast lists not journalistic content. NtheP (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Poacher, we are certainly not biased against online journalism here: but we are pretty choosy about what we class as "journalism", and I'm afraid many of the sources you've tried to cite do not hold to traditional journalistic standards, and thus cannot be used, any more than some of the less reliable traditional print sources (gossip magazines and the like) could be used. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Article question

Hello,

I am writing an article about a topic that doesn't exist yet. For example - If a person is trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records and the contest is still going on - can I still write about it? Saying something like "On August 14, 2012, John Doe attempted to break the world record for holding his breath. The longest time is 4 minutes 20 seconds, currently held by Jane Doe."

Then eventually edit to say that John Doe didn't gain the world record but plans on attempting it again on October 14, 2012?

--Ash 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ash, possibly but... probably not. A threshold for a topic's inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article is that it be a notable subject. "Notable/Notability" does not have precisely its vernacular meaning here. Generally, it means that the topic has been the subject of substantive treatment in multiple secondary sources that are considered reliable. For example, the topic has been written about in some detail in published books, magazine stories, newspaper articles and so on. Another policy, verifiability goes hand in hand. While notability is about reliable sources covering the topic, verifiability is about reliable sources covering the information content in the article, such that information should be able to be verified by looking at reliable sources that the article cites. So, if this attempt at a world record has been written about extensively, it may be a proper target for an article. But the very nature of a not-yet-successful attempt at setting a world record, is that it is not likely to yet have that coverage. That's why I said possible but probably not at the start. I hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Ash. In all likelyhood the answer is probably no, but if the subject of the article is already notable then an article about the subject is possible without the future event part which comes under WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If the articles subject is entirely about a future event then almost certinaly no. Major future events have been deleted because they don't meet WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It all depends on how much press the attempt is getting, how much people are talking about it. As Fughettaboutit and Sun Creator mentioned, it's all about how notable it is. For instance, if your high school wants to set the new world record for the longest "Subway" sandwich ever (if it was as long as the football field, 100 yards, it would definitely be a new world record), then you'd want to get nearby newspapers to talk about it, inviting people out, you'd want the local news stations to cover it, etc. If the world record was completed one night by 5 people and nobody else ever saw it or talked about it, then no, even completing the world record wouldn't be enough. Get your school and community involved, get enough people there and enough people talking about it in different (verifiable) places that the event becomes notable. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do about a completely inappropriate edit on an article talk page?

A few weeks ago, I came across an edit that removed all the redirects from the DAB page Article and inserted a new article that the editor wanted to put into Wikipedia. It took several reverts and finally a block before the editor finally quit doing it. Today, I find on Talk:Article a piece of soapboxing about how the Indian government is messed up because they didn't put a bigger effort into the recently ended Olympics.

1. Can I revert the above talk page entry and message the editor about AfC?
2. Can a template be placed on the edit screen of both the talk and the article at Article warning editors that "this ain't da place for your new article"? Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for stopping by at the Teahouse. I've gone ahead and reverted the Olympic soapboxing, as promotion of any kind, be it for a business, idea, point of view, whatever, is not what Wikipedia is for. I've also left the user a user warning message; anyone can use these to warn other editors that they are breaking / have broken the rules, and contain various standard messages for things like vandalism, promotion, adding spam links, and engaging in an edit war. Thanks for pointing this out!  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52! Just as a couple of quick comments, given that Dalahäst took care of it so quickly. :) In this case there would be absolutely no problem with removing the comment, but my general rule is to err on the side of caution. There are a number of reasons why you might have to remove a talk page message, but it is one of those things where you need to be very confident that there won't be an issue. When I do remove something, I try and say why by pointing to the issue in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that explains why I made the call I did. And generally it has to either be completely off topic (as this one was) and not related to the encyclopedia, (again, as in this case), or a clear attack on a user or the subject.

With the article's talk page if this is an ongoing problem you can add Template:Not a forum or Template:Off topic warning, but I tend to wait until there's an ongoing problem before I add them, as they always feel a tad confrontational. There isn't anything that can be added to the article itself, though, as the only tags which can be placed there are related to content rather than behaviour. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the help, but in the case of preventing this in the future (and if you look at the history, you will see that this page being mistaken for AfC is an ongoing problem), I have seen pages where when you click the edit button, there is a boxed bold message that appears at the top of the edit box with a warning particular to that page. I am sorry but I cannot recall an example at the moment. That is what I am looking for. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages can be protected, which is possibly what you're thinking of, but in general pages aren't protected unless there's an ongoing concern that protection will be needed. In general, it's considered better (and easier) to block an individual than to block an article. Regarding things on talk pages, I tend to not delete them, but to instead put them inside a collapsed table, like this: (by the way, this reply continues after the following table) Banaticus (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This text has been censored.
This is the text that is now auto-collapsed. You can't see it unless you go looking for it.

This makes it clear that the text has been censored and if it becomes a back and forth cross-sniping thing with each person censoring the other person and days or weeks go by between replies because people are busy in their lives, then when it finally escalates and goes to arbitration or something, it's a seriously annoying pain to go back through all the other edits that have happened and to see what was really said and who really did what and when everything really happened, etc. It's a heck of a lot easier if the offending text is still there, but somehow rendered invisible. Another option for offending talk page text is to put it into an HTML comment so that it's only seen when editing that section (another way to "hide" things without actually hiding them, so that the record of what happened and how and when it happened is really clear to someone coming by to review it well after things happened). Banaticus (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Gtwfan52 is referring to an editnotice, a feature which allows a message to be displayed at the top of a page when editing it. These are made by creating a subpage called "Editnotice", which will then appear on the parent page's edit page. All users can place edit notices on their own user (and user talk) pages, e.g. I could make User:Dalahäst/Editnotice if I wanted one for my userpage, and Gtwfan52 could just as easily have User:Gtwfan52/Editnotice. For other pages, these can only be put in place by admins. We do have the {{Talk header}} template, which has various redirects that are easy to remember like {{Talk page}}. Anyone can place this on a talk page, and it usually gets placed at some point or another on the more frequently-edited talk pages. It contains a message at the top that it is for discussing improvements to articles, ostensibly to prevent people from thinking that it is there to voice their opinion of it (which they can now do through Article Feedback, hey).  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you edit the lead section?

Hey. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia; I've only edited a few articles before, but I was wondering how you edit the lead section of a Wikipedia article. I mean, there's no edit button there, like there is for all of the other sections in a Wikipedia article. Thanks!

71.181.157.156 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for dropping by the Teahouse! You can edit the entire page by clicking the edit button that occurs at the top of the article (next to the search bar and view history tab). If you create an account, you can turn on an edit link for the lead section by going to My preferences→Gadgets→Appearance Section→Click "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" then click save at the bottom. You can find some more reasons to create an account here. Ryan Vesey 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How to credit other language Wikipedia

I copied an article in part from another Wikipedia, es.Wikipedia. I have seen articles in en.Wikipedia that have notes on the pages saying they have been translated from another Wikipedia. Is there a template for this? Thanks. Eau (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Eau, I think the template you're looking for is {{Translated page}}. NtheP (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried, but I got this hidden category at the bottom: "Pages with incorrect translated page tag." Can anyone check to see what I did wrong? Eau (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Which page is this? Ryan Vesey 21:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pseudomyrmex triplarinus. Eau (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pseudomyrmex triplarinus hajatvrc @ 22:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Translated page}} is used on article talk pages, not in the articles themselves. Moving the template to the talk page solves the issue. NtheP (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, and I figured out what the insert version is. Thanks. Eau (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is My Article Good Enough?

Hey there!

I have a class assignment to make a wikipedia page and my teacher thought my article may do better as an add-on rather than its own entry. He suggested I put my question in the teahouse.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginagiac/sandbox

What do you think?

Thanks! Ginagiac (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ginagiac. Welcome to the tea house. Well you have made a page in your sandbox which is great. I am afraid it will not be accepted as an article in the main encyclopedia because a school band does not meet Wikipedia standards of Notability. There are plenty of existing articles you could work on improving though.--Charles (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you guys think if Ginagiac added some of that information to the article for their school? heather walls (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

SOME of that would be good in the school article, I think, but much of it would just be trivial. This is not an exact quote, but the guideline on school articles is achievement as champions at contests at a state or national level is notable. Regional or local events, no. Seconds or silvers, no. The different bands would be acceptable as a list without the details, I think. But all the detail on the bands, including the directors, would be too trivial for a school article. I do have to applaud both the student and the teacher for making an appropriate contribution to Wikipedia a class priority. Bravo!!! Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing about Wikipedia. It's all about notability. It's a tertiary overview of outside secondary sources which discuss primary sources/content. In other words, Wikipedia is a synopsis of what other people have said when talking about something. Let's say that a fire breaks out. News crews film the fire and the fire gets mentioned in the newspapers. Someone could then start an article on the fire, using information from the newspapers and the TV. If you were involved in the fire personally, like if your house burned down, unless one of the news people mentioned your house burning down, you couldn't talk about it. Wikipedia is all about Notability. So, what you'd want to do is to find newspaper articles, etc. that talk about your band. Perhaps there's a band historian who's responsible for keeping a band scrapbook of the times that the band gets mentioned in the news? If not, perhaps you could become the first. Keep up the good work. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Density of articles

As a reader I find that that many articles are very dense with unnecessary information that doesn't always flow well. What can a new editor do to alleviate the density? Vibhabamba (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are large amounts of material reproduced from primary source databases, otherwise known as cruft, this can be removed per WP:Primary which says this should be avoided. There may not be any secondary reliable sources for it. Obsessive types who like to add this sort of material may be upset but they have to be able to justify putting it there. Be bold and if it gets reverted discuss it.--Charles (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite the article or split it up into smaller articles. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding references to the Mars 3 article

I have a question about referencing and citations. On WP:Citing, it says to put footnotes in a separate "Notes" section. However, in many other articles (such as the evolution article), there isn't a notes section and they are all put into the references section.

Should references and citations/footnotes be put in a separate section, or together?

Thanks, Preb34 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Preb34, Proper Editing etiquette is to put footnotes in a separate section.Vibhabamba (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Preb, welcome to the Teahouse, there isn't one clear answer to this. A lot depends on how you add footnotes and also about the terminology. Words like notes, footnotes, references are quite often used to describe the same thing but at others refer to different specific elements of citing sources.

Looking at layout first, if like in the Evolution article the full citation is given in each citation then there is no need to separate out the various elements and this is more than fine.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

If I am using explanatory notes as well i.e. those little bits of information that aren't citations but expand on bits of the text I use

== References ==

;Notes
{{reflist}}

;Sources
* Source 1
* Source 2

If however you use one of the Shortened footnotes templates where the footnotes are in-text cites that link to a shortened reference in a list and a separate full reference list then you do need two lists. I should declare now that I am a fan of the shortened footnotes system and use if where I can, especially if an article is going to have a long list of notes and/or sources. My normal format in this case is

== References ==

;Explanatory Notes
{{reflist|group="nb"}}

;Notes
{{reflist}}

;Sources
* Source 1
* Source 2

As an example of this in use see Federation of Stoke-on-Trent. The use of the semicolon at the start of a line makes all the text in that line bold like a heading but means that line doesn't appear in the table of contents.

On language it's pretty much down to you whether you use notes/footnotes, sources/references but there is some guidance at WP:FNNR in the manual of style. NtheP (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your replies. For now, I'll just put the footnotes in a Reference section, since that seems to be the widely accepted norm. Preb34 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get Lamboo, Inc, and Lambinated Veneer Bamboo (LVB) approved on wikipedia

Hello,

I am trying to get Lamboo, Inc. and Laminated Veneer Bamboo (LVB) approved on Wikipedia, but am not having much luck and I am not sure what the problem is since all information provided is factual with references to back it up.

Any help would be much appreciated!!

Jscarto (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jscarto, this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article

Since this is an encyclopedia certain types of articles are disallowed. These are:

• Pages about yourself/ your company/ your band or your friends
• Pages that advertise, personal essays or other articles you would not find in an encyclopedia.
  

HTH, Vibhabamba (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jscarto! Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you so much for wanting to contribute. Here are some issues with your article, please take them into consideration and please DO NOT take them personal!!!:

1. The references used are not reliable. Wikipedia articles need to use reliable sources and your article uses three sources: one from the company website and two from companies that work with Lamboo. After doing some research, I am having a very hard time finding reliable sources, which means that Lamboo might not be "notable" enough at this time.
2. Notability in Wikipedia basically means this: an organization has to have extensive coverage in reliable sources (i.e. newspapers, magazines - press releases do not count) to be considered notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It looks like, at this time, Lamboo does not merit that inclusion :( I'm sorry! But, perhaps in the near future it will.
3. I did notice in the article there are some uncited non-neutral things - such as "high performance" and claims of the percentages of energy that Lamboo uses to create it's products, etc. That content would have to be removed unless there is appropriate coverage from say, news outlets, that state and confirm it.

I wish I had more uplifting news about your article, but, it looks like, at this time, Lamboo might have to wait a bit longer before it can have it's on Wikipedia page. What other subjects do you have interest in editing about? Thank you so much! SarahStierch (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just list "laminated veneer bamboo" as one of the many, many, possible types of laminated veneer lumber. We probably don't need a separate article on "laminated veneer [insert every possible variety of wood here]", especially if a company is trying to trademark one or more of those types of laminated veneer lumber. Was Lamboo created before Plyboo and Actionboo? bamboo OSB is not that uncommon of a flooring material, especially in some parts of the world. Banaticus (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Count for New Editors

Hello, I was curious to see if other editors care about their edit count. As a new editor once I got past 10 edits I find myself going to my preferences page to view my edit count. Do folks care about their edit counts? Vibhabamba (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Vibhabamba! Yes, many people do care about their edit counts; frequently checking your edit count is the first sign of a disease called editcountitis. ;) In all seriousness, though, a lot of people do keep track of their edit counts, but I find that it's not all that important. It's just a number; it'll grow over time, and I just don't worry about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I created Daniyal alghazzawi article and each time someone requested a speedy deletion for the article claiming I am promoting him. I read the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29#Criteria and Daniyal met the two criteria: (5) because he was the chairman of a department in a well known university. King Abdulaziz University (8) because I was the Co-president of 13th International Congress on Human Computer Intercation (2012). He also was a program Committee and Reviewer at IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (WCCI2012). and I added reliable sources to support my opinions

Could you please tell me what I did wrong?? N maram (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I've had a look at your article and can't see any evidence of 'speedy deletion' nomination. Are you saying your article was deleted and you created another one? You are correct to say that if an acadamic has been awarded a senior Chair position at a university, they may be considered a notable academic. However, because Alghazzawi is only an Associate Professor at the college, I have my doubts he is a senior academic. The claim he is 'chairperson' of a Department is not proven by the source you give. If he is a very important academic, it will be a good idea if you can find better proof if this. If anyone else nominates your article for deletion, you will have the opportunity to make your counter-argument. Sionk (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I've looked on your Talk page - it seems the article has been deleted (in its various forms) several times. In that case, you need to act quickly! Unless you make a very clear claim about why you think Daniyal alghazzawi is notable, it could be speedy deleted again. Sionk (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thanx for your response I changed the link that proof his position as chairperson. This is the link from the University itself is it enough?? N maram (talk)

Hi there. Regretfully I don't believe it passes general notability guidelines. All of the sources you included are not reliable secondary sources. I also had salted this from being created for a number of days, since you have created it twice after it has been speedily deleted. It was created under a different page, with a lower case A for his last name, bypassing the salting. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, I really do not believe at this time he passes our notability guidelines - sources that are related to him and his organization(s) don't meet those guidelines. I have nominated it for deletion, perhaps the community can make a better decision than I. It just might not be the right time for his article until he's more cited and notable. SarahStierch (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I provided more sources that proof his position as a Chairman of IS at King Abulaziz University. N maram (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Time of day Main page change.

Hello, What time of day does the home page change. I see today it has an artical on Carlos the Jackle and it is under this day in history but it states in the artical on him he was causght tomorrow, the 14th. Is this because the home page is updated GMT? I am in Boston on the East Coast. 24.60.44.188 (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi 24., and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia's clock runs on UTC time, which is similar to GMT except it does not have daylight savings time. As such, it is already the fourteenth in half the world (it's a little past 8 a.m. here, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you create a user account, you can have it save your time zone and then any dynamic times shown will be recalculated and displayed as appropriate for your time zone. For instance, when you click the "View history" link at the top of a page and look at page edits, those times/dates will be translated into whatever is appropriate for your time zone. The Main Page, though, is a static page and so will always show time based on whatever time it is in Greenwhich, England (ignoring daylight savings time). Hope this helps. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RM backlog escape

The editors on 2007–2012 global financial crisis have an RM that is stuck in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog limbo for almost a week. The page is kind of a high profile one so some favoritism seems in order. Can you refer me to an admin who can close this in a timely manner? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv, thanks for stopping by, the place to raise requests like this is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. NtheP (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that putting up a notice on the admin board does not help. What I need is a name. An admin who is likly to respond to a message on his or her talk page and get the job done. Any ideas how I would go about finding the right admin to approach? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv, please remember that admins are volunteers too and do not work 24/7. You'll just have to be patient and eventually it will be resolved. It might be important to you but it's not urgent, so please just wait calmly. Making comments such as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard isn't going to win you many friends. NtheP (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It you want an individual admin to help you put {{Admin help}} on your user talk page and explain the problem in the text afterwards. Someone will respond and from my experience normally within the hour. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Notifications

Any idea how I can turn notifications on? Vibhabamba (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "notifications"?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Place to ask for help on an article?

I'm working on improving the Mars 3 article, as I think it could use some substantial editing. Where would I be able to ask for people to help collaborate? Is their a space wikiproject/space-robotics wikiproject I could ask? Thanks, 3er40 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes there is, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight which I think will the one to help you out. NtheP (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

reliable source

What are the criteria of reliable source?? N maram (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey! We've got a whole page about reliable sources here for you, which goes into detail about different ways to distinguish what sources are reliable. Self-published sources, for example, are usually not considered reliable. Some sources may be questionable because they are not edited very carefully (or at all), and may be known to grossly exaggerate details or even make them up; newspapers that engage in tabloid journalism may do this, for example.

It's important to consider not just the source itself, but also who wrote/created it, and where it was published. It is safe to say that a YouTube video your neighbour made, for example, is probably not a reliable source, regardless of the topic (though if he had recorded footage of an important event, he could upload it to Wikipedia for the article). In another example, a book may appear to be reliable at first, until you find out that it was published using a vanity press, and the author, who claims to be an expert in their field, doesn't even have the slightest bit of education in it.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you N maram (talk)

No problem. If you've got any other questions, don't hesitate to ask, hm?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Assistance

I have an arbitration request I need assistance submitting. I need an editor that can assist me in edting the arbitration request submission page.

New Media 21:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media (talk • contribs)

Hey, New Media! I noticed that another editor on your talk page recommended that you try Wikipedia:Third opinion before going to the Arbitration Committee. Have you tried this? The Arbitration Committee is usually the last resort after you have exhausted all other options. It will be much easier for a new editor to use Third Opinion than the Arbitration process. hajatvrc @ 22:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. It is my understanding that Third Opinion only applies when it involves two editors. It is my understanding if more editors are involved in the content dispute, as is the case for the article in question, then Third Opinion should not be used to settle a content dispute. Based on this, arbitration is my next stop to get this content dispute resolved. New Media 02:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media (talk • contribs)

Hi New Media! Arbitration wouldn't be the next stop just yet. :) Before going that far you have a few options, and if I understand things correctly, Arbitration may not be suitable for the problem you have. Arbitration is focused on people's behaviour rather than article content, so in this case, the question of whether or not the article should exist would be outside of the Arbitration Committee's scope. If it does go to Arbitration now, the commitee will, I'm afraid, turn it down.

If I'm correct in assuming that the problem is with the deletion of Geocode, in this case you could potentially take it to WP:Deletion review, but you won't get the outcome you are looking for without expanding the article and adding some independent references. (They will look at the decision, rather than the merits of the article, and the decision was the correct one based on the discussion). So what I would normally recommend is that the article is transferred as it was before it was turned into a redirect into your userspace, where you can develop it and add independent references. Then, once it is ready, you can have someone have a look, and you can either take it to Deletion Review then (as you would have a better case once you have references) or see if the administrator who closed the discussion thinks that it is enough of an improvement to directly transfer into Wikipedia. The tricky part will be referencing, but there is nothing stopping you from developing the article in your own space. - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing about Wikipedia. It's all about notability. It's a tertiary overview of outside secondary sources which discuss primary sources/content. In other words, Wikipedia is a synopsis of what other people have said when talking about something. Let's say that a fire breaks out. News crews film the fire and the fire gets mentioned in the newspapers. Someone could then start an article on the fire, using information from the newspapers and the TV. If you were involved in the fire personally, like if your house burned down, unless one of the news people mentioned your house burning down, you couldn't talk about it. Wikipedia is all about Notability. So, what you'd want to do is to find other things that talk about geocodes and geocoding. That'll be pretty easy, since lots of books talk about that -- there's even a Boy Scout merit badge on geocaching. Then cite the books. It looks like you're already doing that, which is great! Keep up the good work. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The matter I indent to petition to the Arbitration Committee for resolution is the restoration of the Geocode article due to notability. I have been unable to overcome the objections of editors on two separate mediation actions to have the Geocode article reestablished due to the issue of notability. But the issue of notability is a two prong issue. One is what is notable, and the other is if a government publication can be used as a reliable secondary source. These are policy matters that are not well defined and in order to overcome the objections of the editors, a policy decision must be provided.

Issue 1 – Notability

The Geocode article has been replaced by redirection to the Geocoding article. The rationale used by editors and reviewers is that the Geocode article was recommended for deletion due to lack of notability. It was therefore redirected to the geocoding page due to lack of references cited to support the material presented in the Geocode article. In my request for un-deletion of the Geocode article, I provide links to references for the material presented to provide notability.

The references I provided are: U.S. government publications, registrations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for the Geocode trademark, and the recognition and publication of the Geocode algorithm as an essential claim for an international standard promogulated by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE).

One editor, Sussexonian (talk), in the initial discussion regarding deletion and the reviewer, The Bushranger One ping only, who redirect the Geocode article to the Geocoding article, stated that lack of notability was the only reason why the page should not be reestablished.

According to the Wikipedia article on Notability in the English Wikipedia, the policy states: “In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has ‘gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time’ [1] as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.”

The issue of notability therefore rests on being able to provide “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic” that can be used to provide notability of the Geocode article. According to the Wikipedia guideline regarding reliable sources, this guideline is the key determining factor used by an editor and reviewer to establish notability. Therefore, the matter and definition of “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic” as it is applied to government publications is the central issue to be resolved to support, or not support, the issue of notability.

The Wikipedia article on secondary sources states: “In scholarship, a secondary source [1] [2] is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.”

The U.S. government publications I submitted to support reliable secondary sources are a Registered Federal Copyright created and issued by the Library of Congress, an agency of the U.S. Government. The other documents are a Registered Federal Trademark and a U.S. Patent Registration created and issued by the Department of Commerce, also an agency of the U.S. Government. Finally, the registration of the Geocode trademark at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) should also be regarded as a reliable source.

However, according to the Wikipedia articles regarding primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, all articles are silent as to if a government publication is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source. As a result, the issue of notability and the reliance on the use of government publications as a source has not been specified by Wikipedia. Additionally, there is also the issue as to which type of source a government publication is? Is it a primary, secondary, or tertiary source?

Issue 2 – Government publications as a source.

In most cases the use of a government publication is generally used as a primary source of information. This is the case with most government documents providing basic research.

However, government documents that provide for the publication of registration of intellectual property are never the primary source of the original intellectual property material to establish the intellectual property right. The primary intellectual property source material regarding intellectual property rights are provided by the initiator of the request for registration of the intellectual property. Publication of the registration, in the form of a registration document by a governmental entity, for a copyright, patent, or trademark, is a secondary source of the topic that is independent of the original source material provided by the initiator of the registration.

Therefore, governmental publication of the registration of the intellectual property should be accepted as a reliable secondary source for the original intellectual property being registered. The U.S. Federal Government registration also provides for wide circulation of the secondary intellectual property source material. Publication by the U.S. Federal Government in the Federal Register provides for significant coverage of the registered intellectual property to the largest potential groups that are affected by the registration of intellectual property. Also, publication by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of the registration of a trademark also provides global circulation of the secondary intellectual property material and should be accepted as a reliable secondary source that is independent of the original source material.

A registration document by a government agency or an equivalent government agency, like a standard group or an industry body, should also be allowed as a reliable secondary source that is independent of the original source material to support notability of a subject. Failure to recognize government documents as a reliable secondary source that is independent of the original source material is in direct contravention to legal conventions governing intellectual property rights afforded under common law. Rejection of this legal premise regarding notability weakens the very foundation of all intellectual property rights, to include the intellectual property rights of Wikipedia, and the laws supporting intellectual property rights globally.

So you see, the policy of using government publications for notability is what has to be determined by the arbitration committee. Once the issue of use of government publications as secondary sources is decided, then a decision can be made as to the notability of the article. (talk) New Media 09:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that the Arbitration Committee does not rule on purely content disputes; they're strictly user-conduct only. Nor do they make policy by fiat. See Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration for more information on this. They cannot help you get this article restored, no matter how worthy or unworthy it may be, and they can't help you get the definition of notability or reliable sources changed. The correct place to try to get your article restored is deletion review, as the other hosts have said. There are also content-dispute resolution avenues other than 3O that you can try if you really want, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard. The final stop on the content-dispute resolution ladder is called the Mediation Committee, but even then, you shouldn't go there without trying the other options like deletion review first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper I thank you for your recommendations. I have already submitted this to Deletion Review providing the reliable secondary source I listed above to make the article notable. Deletion review rejected my request. I then submitted it to the Mediation Committee. The Mediation Committee also rejected my request. The reason cited was, “Notability is a matter of Wikipedia policy, and decisions about whether a subject is notable enough for inclusion in any way cannot be made in Mediation Proceedings.”

Based on these results, I am left with the final level of dispute resolution - the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee has acted on “policy level” decisions before. I am looking for an editor who can help me post my request to get a policy decision on if a government publication or similar entity can be used as a reliable secondary source to provide notability.

Again, any assistance as to where I should go in the dispute resolution process is welcomed. However, if the final level is the Arbitration Committee, I need an editor who can assist me in submitting a request. New Media 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media (talk • contribs)

The Arbitration Committee is the final level of user-conduct dispute resolution; the Mediation Committee is the final level of content dispute resolution. They're on separate tracks. To my knowledge, ArbCom has never accepted a case and/or ruled on a content policy; if they did, I'm pretty sure that the rest of the community would jump on them like howler monkeys and tear them apart, since it's outside their scope. (There seems to be some ill-will towards ArbCom in the community at the moment.) Anyway, the point is that there is absolutely no value in submitting a case to ArbCom; I will eat my hat if they accept this case. It's a nice hat, too. At this point, if you've exhausted the dispute resolution steps (and you appear to have done so), perhaps it's time to just accept the outcome? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper - Again, I thank you for your comments. However, if a rejection by the Arbitration Committee is what I will get, then that’s ok. I need to get a decision by the highest Wikipedia body involved in dispute resolution. So, I need an editor that can help me submit a properly formatted request to the Arbitration Committee. --New Media 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* All right then, if you insist. But before you do, may I ask why you consider it so important that this go to arbitration? This seems like much ado about nothing; what are you specifically trying to accomplish by putting it before the Arbitration Committee? I don't want to sound dismissive or hostile or anything, I really don't, but Arbcom cases take up a lot of time and stir up a lot of drama, and it's really best to avoid them whenever possible, IMO. (By the way, I asked a Committee member, User:Newyorkbrad, to take a look at this; he quite rightly declined to comment specifically on an issue that might formally come before the committee, but he did leave a general note of agreement with what I've been saying.)

To place a request for arbitration, go to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration Page (that is, the "Requests for arbitration" section of the "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests" page) and follow the instructions in the red box. The way it works is that you'll edit the page multiple times; the first edit will create the generic template on the page, and you'll fill in the specific details in the second edit. If there are any other editors whom you consider to be part of the dispute, you should notify them, as well (there are instructions for this in the red box, too). I'll answer any questions you have about the purely technical process of posting this request (again, I am 100% convinced it will be declined out of hand, but no big deal, I guess, I don't mind spending time on it if it makes you feel better). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

New Media, I really think you are tilting at a windmill here. This is about the notability of Geocode not about whether government sources are primary, secondary or tertiary sources. The latter wasn't tested during the deletion debate as the article didn't have any citations in it, just unverified claims. I'm not doubting they are true but they need to be cited. The second point is does a copyright registration, a trademark registration and a US patent constitute notability?

You quoted the test of notability and the deletion discussion seems to say that there weren't any other sources helping Geocode to "gain(ed) sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Find some additional sources in the world at large and the notability issues goes away. It's not even as if the topic was deleted, just considered not to be notable enough at the moment to justify a separate article, and so merged. Root out other sources and the redirect can be undone and the article stand alone. NtheP (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Searching by taxobox taxon

I keep running across Cyanobacteria articles that are not categorized as a Cyanobacterium. Is there a way to search by the character trait in a taxobox? Thanks, Eau (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Eau, welcome back! I'm not sure there's a super-easy way to do this, unfortunately; that's what the category is supposed to be for. Since it seems that the taxoboxen all link to the Cyanobacteria page, you could try the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left of the page; it'll have a lot of false positives, of course, but it will probably be reasonably comprehensive. Another option would be to do a basic search for the string "divisio Cyanobacteria"; that's how the search engine will see the line in the taxobox, so it might be a little more specific (although it'll miss things like pages using the Cyanobacterium redirect). Any other hosts have a better idea? There might be some kind of toolserver trick that I don't know about. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the problem is they are not in the right category, that makes category searches difficult. I did find some and made corrections using the searches you suggested. Thanks. Eau (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe of help is to use the search and exclude the category. So search "Cyanobacteria" -incategory:"Cyanobacteria" for example like this. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This was a useful search method that I have not used before, thank for taking the time to offer a suggestion. Eau (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)