Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

References/Sources for Television Shows and Books

Hello All, I was wondering the best way to go about looking up references and sources that would be considered credible in updating and editing articles on television shows and books. Any thoughts on where to start since I do not want to try and end up doing something wrong on my first attempt? Thanks.Kdeorne1 (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Of course, you want to follow Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. Also, you should consider posting your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, and also think about joining that project, working with other editors with similar interests. (There is also a similar one for books, Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, but it appears to be much less active, so you may not have as much success posting your question on that Wikiproject's talk page. Still probably worth doing.

Which doesn't directly answer your question - perhaps others here will want to do that. In any case, it's great that you're planning to start with sources, to improve articles, rather than just taking information wherever you find it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kdeorne1! I hope your Wikipedia experience is going well. The most reliable sources are usually trade journals, which unlike the "popular press", tend to focus more on the business and less on rumors and celebrity gossip. In other words, for the entertainment industry, you'll probably want to use more of journals like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and less of magazines like Us Weekly. I know that the Nielsen Company publishes a range of entertainment industry publications as well, I've used Nielsen's website for information; they have lots of good stuff on ratings and trends in TV viewership. Unless you live in either New York or Los Angeles, you may have trouble finding such journals on newstands, however most major libraries should have access to them, and many of them also publish online. The above specific advise assumes you are in the U.S. Of course, if you are in another country (like the UK or Australia or Canada), then you'll need to seek other Journals of similar reliability and reputation. Libraries in those countries should still be able to help you locate such sources. --Jayron32 14:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Locating places in Wikipedia map.

Hi All; I have been editing few places within Bhutan lately; how ever i didn't know how to located the map. can any one of you please enlighten me with the knowledge ?..

Thanking you Tshewang Tgyeltshen (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tgyeltshen, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a little confused on what you're looking for. If you need a list of image file relating to maps of Bhutan, you can view the list at the Wikimedia Commons category, located at commons:Category:Maps of Bhutan. -- Luke (Talk) 03:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of was how you can geolocate a location on a map, for example: Thimphu - when you look in the infobox the map has a pin in it showing the location of the town. I have to admit, even I don't know how to do that! :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tgyeltshen! One great resource for anything map-related is Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Lots of Wikipedian-cartographers work with that Wikiproject, and I have used people who work there to help me make maps for articles I have worked on. If you have specific questions about how some function related to maps or geography works at Wikipedia, they are a great resource! --Jayron32 04:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its a fairly complex piece of coding. As part of {{Infobox settlement}} a few things need to be included for the map to show up:

|coordinates_region     = BT
|subdivision_type       = Country
|subdivision_name       = {{flag|Bhutan}}
|subdivision_type1      = District
|subdivision_name1      = <DISTRICT OF BHUTAN>
|latd= <DEGREE> |latm= <MINUTE> |lats= <SECOND> |latNS=S
|longd= <DEGREE> |longm= <MINUTE> |longs= <SECOND> |longEW=E

Just replace the <X> with the required variables. lat is short of latitude and long is short for latitude. This *should* work. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, but just one more suggestion. If you would like to add a map to an article of an organisation, you can do this using location map. For example, in the case of the National Institute of Traditional Medicine (Bhutan), you could add to your article:

{{Location map | Bhutan

| lat_deg = 27 | lat_min = 28 | lat_sec = 57 | lat_dir = N

| lon_deg = 89 | lon_min = 37 | lon_sec = 56 | lon_dir = E

}}

This would create a map of Bhutan with a pin showing the location of the Institute.

class=notpageimage|

National Institute of Traditional Medicine

As an aside, it is great to see improved coverage of Bhutan. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Tgyeltshen, I'm so glad that you stopped by the Teahouse! Did we give you the information you need? Thank you.--Rosiestep (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How to write citations from newspapers

I would like to cite information on people and places that were only available from mentions in newspapers and not books. I would like to see an example of how it would read in Edit form. Information I use a here is a defunct English newspaper with which I am familiar and is not available digitally (so cannot create online link).

Newspaper Name - "Wellington Journal and Shrewsbury News" Date - 15 February 1921 Page - 6

Cloptonson (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The easiest method is to use the "Cite" option in the edit window. When you edit a page, in the bar at the top of the edit box (where it has "B", "I" and various other options) you should see an option called "Cite". If you click on that you can select "Cite news" from the "Templates" option which will appear, and this will open a small window with boxes for the information you might add. Just ignore the URL or Access Date - the system will just leave them out if you don't add them to the options.

If you don't wish to take that path, or if the advanced toolbar isn't visible in your browser, you can always use the cite template directly. In this case it will look like:

<ref>{{cite news | author = | date = 15 February 1921 | title = | work = Wellington Journal and Shrewsbury News | page = 6 }}</ref>

That will display in the references section of the page as:

Wellington Journal and Shrewsbury News: p. 6. 15 February 1921.

I left the author and title blank in the example, as you didn't include them, but if you know them just drop the information into the right spots and all should be good. - Bilby (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I Cite an Interview I Performed?

Wikipedians, I need your wisdom. For an encyclopeadic article, is it okay to cite an interview that I performed myself? If so, how would I do that?

Arashi-Ai (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, how are you going? :-) It's not really advisable to cite an interview you created performed yourself would fall under original research, which essentially means it's something you discovered yourself (like an interview you did yourself). If it's a news item, however. you may be able to do a news report on Wikinews, as they allow this sort of material. Hope that helps. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. If your interview has been published in a reliable source (i.e. preferably a news outlet or journal) independent of you, and with editorial oversight, I would say that yes you can use it. If unpublished, it'd be "original research", so the answer would be no as Steven Zhang says. Depending on the nature of the interview and planned use, it may be appropriate to declare a conflict of interest in conjunction with its inclusion. In any case, an editor citing their own work should be careful that they're not placing undue weight on its contents, i.e. ask yourself whether its inclusion adds something of value to readers seeking content of a neutral (i.e. unbiased) nature. -- Trevj (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations aren't showing up properly

Hello, I am a new user of Wikipedia and I'm wondering why my reflist on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Lake_Elementary_School is showing up so strangely. Shouldn't the links at the bottom go to the sources, not the Wikipedia page? I think I'm following convention but I could be wrong. Googlypoo (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reflist should go just above External links. It seems to be working OK though. A word of warning. Elementary schools are not normally given their own page but are instead merged into their local community page so the page may be put up for deletion or merge. You can read more about citing sources at WP:Citing sources.--Charles (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You may want to try using ProveIt, accessible via "my preferences"->gadgets. Enter the details in the various boxes, place the cursor in the correct place in the main edit window, then click 'insert into edit form'. -- Trevj (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Voceditenore's response:

The description of the url's destination should go inside the brackets with a single space between the end of the url and the decriptive word of phrase. For example:

<ref name=NCES>[http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=Martha+Lake+elementary&SchoolType=1&SchoolType=2&SchoolType=3&SchoolType=4&SpecificSchlTypes=all&IncGrade=-1&LoGrade=-1&HiGrade=-1&ID=530240002089 Martha Lake Elementary]. [[National Center for Education Statistics]]. Accessed January 22, 2011.</ref>

produces

Martha Lake Elementary. National Center for Education Statistics. Accessed January 22, 2011

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! I just removed my previous response and we'll keep this. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Subject need writing?

Please show me a list of articles that need updating or reorganizing.32cllou (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this the best place to come for help editing?32cllou (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for coming to the Teahouse. A list of articles that need updating or reorganizing is a bit vague. However, I think articles that have the {{Wikify}} and {{Update}} templates would be of help to you. If you have any other questions, feel free to post another message. -- Luke (Talk) 03:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. 32cllou, on Luke's suggestion take a look at articles in these categories. Just simply click on any of the links you see here (the that are organized by date) and you'll find plenty of articles that can use help!

• Articles that need to be wikified - these articles need clean up!
• Articles needing updated - these articles are often out of date and need some attention, too :) (You will have to scroll down a bit on that page).

There are a ton of other places too. Let us know if that helps and if you're still not finding something that interests you we can help you find something else :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also mention the Missing encyclopedic articles project, which may be of some use. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also check out Category:Wikipedia backlog. -- Trevj (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all your your suggestions, which I will use. First, I saw research on modern sleeping pills finding a 5x increase in risk of death (from all causes) that needs to be in Wikipedia.32cllou (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. There is a specific Manual of Style entry for medicine, which can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. It might be worth reading this, as medical articles do have quite a high quality standard. If you are still looking for places to help out, WikiProjects are a nice place to start, as they will give you all the resources you need, as well as a support group of people who are interested and knowledgeable about the subject. If there is anything you are specifically interested in, someone here can probably point you towards the right project. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox policy

I am editing a Wikipedia article as part of a class assignment. I like gathering evidence and data and direct quotes first before I write any research assignment, so what I usually do is create a document that has direct paragraphs and quotes that I've copied from other sources (like relevant books) - which I'll later go through, filter, and paraphrase or cite as appropriate in the actual research report. Is it okay for me to use the Wikipedia sandboxes to collect these direct paragraphs and quotes? AlienInn (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The best place would be in your own userspace. If you type your username into the search box followed by a slash then the name you want to call the page it will be ceated for you. See WP:Userpage Charles (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Great question! I don't know the answer if we're allowed to house that type of content on our sandbox either. Charles, are you saying that AlienInn should not use their sandbox? (Like the sandbox button that is located in the upper right corner with our user buttons?) Just curious if that is an option too. That Userpage link is pretty overwhelming! SarahStierch (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 That's perfectly fine, and I would strongly suggest that you use a private sandbox, rather then the public one that is widely advertised. Since the public sandbox is...public, your work is not likely to stay untouched for long. Instead, you can create your own at a place like User:AlienInn/Sandbox. This is within your own personal userspace, so it wouldn't be deleted or modified unless you were hosting bad material. From what you've said, you shouldn't have to worry about that. Cheers, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Nole, that answers my (edit conflicting!) question above! Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting issue - we've just started here and already the questions are challenging. :) As a general rule, the copyright policy doesn't distinguish between userspace, sandboxes and the encyclopaedia proper. So if you create your own sandbox, even if you do so in userspace, you can't add content there if you can't add it into a normal article. (In fact it is more restrictive in some ways - you can't add any non-free images outside of Wikipedia articles at all).

However, properly attributed quotes don't become a copyright concern until they become a substantial amount of the original work, so there is a bit of room to move. I had asked the Foundation about this once, and while I didn't get the clear answer I wanted, there was certainly some leeway for lists of quotations. Personally, though, I just gather those quotes offline, as it makes things a bit harder but also stays unquestionably in policy, but I have kept a small number of attributed quotes in my userspace when I really needed them online. So I agree fully with Charles and Nolelover that userspace is the best bet, but if there are going to be a lot of them, or they are substantial, keeping them offline is safer.

As an aside, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a list of references to sections of articles that you want to use, so maybe that would be an option too. - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping the student folks! But I'm confused what the difference is between "userspace" and "sandboxes." I thought sandboxes are part of userspace? Maybe I'm mistaken? Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The speed of response to User:AlienInn's question is really impressive, by the way! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your userspace would be everything east of the slash in User:Alin (WMF)/????. Hypothetically, every single page you make could be a sandbox, although that rarely happens in practice. So yes, sandboxes are part of userspace (except of course for the main sandbox), but not all userspace pages will be sandboxes. Examples of non-sandbox user pages would be the common award/userboxen pages. As a side note, I hope we haven't overwhelmed AlienInn :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks Nolelover! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

would like to know more

would like to know more regarding Tea House (Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

Hi Jeevanjoseph! I'm so happy you stopped by the Teahouse :) Welcome!! The Teahouse is a support space - it's here to help new editors feel comfortable with Wikipedia and to get in the game of editing with ease and support of experienced editors and fellow new editors! So ask away if you have a question; we will do our best to help out! You are also encouraged to reply to other new and experienced editors as well. You can learn a few more things about the Teahouse by clicking here to view our FAQ. I hope this helps you understand what the Teahouse is about. Feel free to respond if we can explain more, or ask a new question. Thanks for coming by! SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles about punk bands

I like writing about punk bands, is there anyplace where other people who like that also hang out? SarahStierch 05:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the Punk music WikiProject. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I left you our new newsletter on your talk page. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Very cool, thank you to you both! I'll check out the project. SarahStierch (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PDF References

Hello Teahouse!

I have been working on article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gmhayes4/April_Masini for several weeks, and a few editors have told me that reliable sources are needed in order to move the page. After reading the requirements, I feel confident that I have enough information but it is in PDF form. Two of the reliable sources are from magazines, and are not linked to an online source.

I do not know how to cite this properly. Can any of you help? Thank you!

GMHayes (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! That's great work with the new article. With sources, there is no requirement that they be available online - you are welcome to use offline sources. If this wasn't the case, I'd be in trouble, as I enjoy researching historical documents too much. What is important, though, is that the sources are publicly accessible, (the original documents, rather than your PDFs), and that you provide enough information so that someone sufficiently motivated could do so.

Magazine articles are great, because they are generally reliable and other people can access back issues if they need to. I'd use the cite journal template for a magazine, so it would take the form:

{{cite journal | author = Some Person | date = 5 March 2000 | title = An article | journal = A magazine | issue = 1 | number = 1 | pages = 20–22 }}

That would provide you with (although you would need to fill in fields better):

Some Person (5 March 2000). "An article". A magazine. 1 (1): 20–22.

Full details are at Template:Cite journal, or you could use the generic equivalent at Template:Cite. You also don't need to fill out all the fields (there may be no volume or issue, or no author's byline). Anyway, I hope that helps! - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, Bilby! That is exactly what I needed to move forward. Sarah Stierch has been helping me wrap my head around staying objective in tone and helping me edit along the way, so sufficient praise is due to her willingness to ROCK! Thanks again! ---GMHayes (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

More referencing

So, I wasn't sure if I should have made my question below or start a new one. If this belongs with the other question (Referencing Topo Maps?), feel free to move it there.

I'm trying to reference some legal suvey data - specifically a pipeline right of way. I can see where it is using the Canada Land Survey System overlay (.kmz) in Google Earth. I got the kmz file from the CLSS website. Is this a referencable source? I can't find anything decent that is on their website (I imagine because they have this overlay, but I don't really know).

Sorry for all these questions, but I've read some crazy talk pages about citations etc. Don't want to get into that. Thanks! --JonGDixon (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by JonGDixon. That is a very technical question for us. You may be better off trying the reference desk. Perhaps someone will come by later who knows more than I do.--Charles (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles, I've posted my question there. Thanks a lot for your help.--JonGDixon (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving an article to a different name.

I have been working on an article with a few other editors and we are waiting to move it to another name until we have enough info and sources for it to be accepted. We are going to move it out of the userspace that it is currently in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Brocotv/gabriel_caste)

My question is, at what point should I move the article to a "main page" called Gabriel Caste, an actor in the New M. Night Shyamalan film "After Earth." Caste and another actor, are listed and both red tagged because there is no article. I want to work on Gabriel Caste and than the other actor, "Kristoffer Hivju".

Both are established actors and have works listed on IMDB. I came across these guys when research the AFTER EARTH movie, and thought, hey, why not start my wiki editor adventure with these guys?

Thanks for the help! ChrisNate2 ChrisNate2 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, I would like to thank you for helping out Wikipedia. It looks like you did a good job on User:Brocotv/gabriel caste. The only problem I see is that you use IMDb and YouTube as references. Generally, you are not supposed to use those websites as reliable sources. So, I would suggest that you find more independent, reliable sources to back up your work. Other than that, the article looks like it is on its way for the main namespace. -- Luke (Talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad that you contacted us for help. As far as the article, keep in mind that it has already been deleted once, due to failure to credibly indicate how and/or why the subject is significant and/or important. You might also find the notability guidelines for actors helpful. If you need help or have more questions, please feel free to check back with us. Happy editing! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks alot Lukep913! I will get working on researching other sites. If you have any suggestions on where to look, let me know! Thanks again, ChrisNate2 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Starting one-on-one comparison articles on Wikipedia

Hi folks.. I would like to create an article comparing the pros and cons of Renewable energy with Thorium. Is such one-on-one comparisons allowed on Wikipedia. I did not see anything against it in the short reference material I went through, but I can't help notice that I do not recollect seeing such comparisons earlier on Wikipedia. Seems almost conspicuous by its absence. Would there be any policy against creating comparison articles. Thanks for your help. Nashtam (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There's not an absolute rule against them, but our policies do make them rare. One to one comparison articles are generally acceptable if the same one to one comparison is commonly made in reliable sources - basically, if you can find at least four or so articles in mainstream media outlets, academic journals, or academic presses that directly compare the same topic, an article about them is probably okay. But even then, since Wikipedia is limited to repeating what has been said in reliable sources, and we can't conduct original research or synthesis, articles must be limited to simply relaying the things about the comparison that are stated in reliable sources. So it'd be okay to mention "Author X writing in academic journal Y states that factor Z is why thorium energy is totally the bomb, dawg," but it wouldn't be okay for you to independently go out and collect a bunch of information about both thorium and renewable energy and then make the comparisons yourself - even if that information seems like totally reasonable points to make a comparison from. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL.. Gotcha! Reliable sources only and no original research or synthesis. Think it should be doable given those constraints. Will get back with some follow up queries on this line later on. Thanks a ton. Nashtam (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Referencing Topo Maps?

Hey everyone,

So, I am trying to reference a topo map (specifically mapsheet NTS 105D) and I'm having a hard time. I can find it on the web at canmaps.com, but the map is actually published by Natural Resources Canada. I have used the canmaps.com site to gather the information as you can preview a map. I used it to get some location names around the Ibex Valley.

I'm trying to cite the source, but I'm not sure what to do. I can't find a location on the NRCan website that has the topo maps, but I know that they are the publishers and canmaps is just a retailer. What I'd like to do is just reference the topo map, but I'm not really sure how to do that, properly (style etc.)

Suggestions? Help? Please?

JonGDixon (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My experience searching Canada gov. sites is about as fruitful as yours! Canmaps does provide the map identifier number, i.e. "011K" for the 1:250000 map of BC here: [1]. As for formatting, use the "map" cite template: WP:CITET. Publisher would be National Topographic System of Canada. Hope this helps, The Interior (Talk) 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!! That's exactly what I was looking for! When I used the "cite" button in the editor, it only came up with four options (which are likely the four most commonly used) but I thought that was it for templates. I appreciate the help! --JonGDixon (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I have a new one. I'm trying to reference a technical report that was submitted to the Yukon Government regarding the land use in the Ibex Valley. Now, a couple of things:

• It isn't a journal paper (or peer reivewed now that I think about it) but it is public information that is being used in land planning. Does that make it a reliable source?
  • Am I better off looking at their references and trying to track down the reports that they based their information from?
• If it is reliable, is there a way to cite it? I would normally cite the author (although no other names on this report, just the name of the company), date, who it was submitted to, etc. The people that prepared it are professionals in their field, I have no doubt about that.

I'd appreciate some insight.

JonGDixon (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link or PDF of the report, or is it print only? Has the territorial government published it under their aegis, or is it something still in planning stages? Need a bit more info before I could say definitively. The Interior (Talk) 02:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The report is published, on the gov website, as a pdf. http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/lands/pdf/lap_ibex.pdf. There is a letter at the beginning of the report, stating that it is approved as an advisory document. --JonGDixon (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd interpret the letter as a form of peer-review, the gov. obviously trusts the data. Although the corporate authorship might turn off some, a consultancy like that could be generally expected to provide quality information. Unless someone tells you otherwise, go ahead and use it. You can always use its references if another editor objects. As for templates, just use a big one that has the fields you have data for, like "cite journal" or "citation". Or old-fashioned citation style of your choice, we don't really have a mandated cite style across the wiki. I like the templates because I'm lazy :). The Interior (Talk) 03:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For the authorship I'd go with: "UMA Engineering Ltd., with David Hedmann & Associates, Burnaby, B.C." The Interior (Talk) 03:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking, but couldn't find much wording around technical reports. I already have the citation template open. You have been a big help, much appreciated.--JonGDixon (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me test my Rollback feature inside my Sandbox?

I recently have acquired rollback rights. I would like to test them out appropriately, so that I will not make a mistake in the future. Would anyone be willing to help me test it out in a controlled environment, like my sandbox? I am also using Twinkle to let you know. Thanks. WheresTristan (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So you would like an editor to make some edits in your sandbox? I must add that it is great that you are testing your new tools out like this (many people just jump in with no idea of how exactly everything works), although I think you'll find they're pretty easy :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to rollback your own edits, as well. I'm looking at my talk page, where I made the last edit, and the "rollback" link is available. And I agree with Nolelover, congrats on taking these important rights so seriously and wanting to take 'em for a test drive first! --McDoobAU93 00:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For closure's sake. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:Rollback feature#Requesting rollback links to a test page. I was very recently assigned rollback myself but have yet to test it out. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Re editing

Have found the site fantastic.

I have only updated my fathers' details as I wanted to keep his memory alive for persons interested and am extremely grateful for having the opportunity to do this on Wikipedia.

Many thanks

Robert Robinson

Robrw (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you are enjoying the site. As you have such a close connection to the subject it would be good to disclose this on the article talk page to counter any accusations of conflict of interest. You also need to find reference sources for any facts you add to the article such as newspaper reports from the time or citations from any biographies that may have been published. I hope you will be inspired to edit other articles as well.--Charles (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be cautious about editing an article that you are connected to. Let another editor edit the article so you don't get accused of conflict of interest or not adhering to a neutral point of view. -- Luke (Talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Great points by both CHarles and Luke. Robert, Hi! I'd just leave comments on the talk page perhaps suggesting changes or any news articles about your dad. It's easier to allow others to add the content, then you. (I'd have to do that for organizations I'm involved in!) SarahStierch (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

dihybrid cross

what is a dihybrid crossLightning monty (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Monty! Glad you stopped by. It looks like there is a Wikipedia article about that: dihybrid cross. I had no clue what it was until you mentioned it here :) This space is more for help with editing and contributing to Wikipedia, regardless, I'm glad you're here! :) SarahStierch (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Monty! A great place to get help answering factual questions is the Wikipedia Reference desk. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science for a question like this. Good luck! --Jayron32 13:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

DOH! Great call on the ref desk suggestion :) They are like the ever knowing knowledge within the ever knowing knowledge of Wikipedia :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

my article is being redirected to another of completely different topics.

Hi all; Thank you all for clearing my doubts about map location it was great. and now i know it how to. I have had created two articles; "Khamdang Gewog" and "Tsenkharla Middle Secondary School". The first one is village block; while the later is a middle school; however; from yesterday when accessing TSenkharla Middle Secondary School; readers are being redirected to Khamdang Gewog. Can any one of you know how to solve this please?.

Thanking you TshewangTgyeltshen (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings ... I looked at the second article on Tsenkharla Middle Secondary School and another editor appears to have a concern about where the material for the article came from. The editor feels that it might have been copied directly from another source without proper attribution. They have removed much of the information and created a redirect to the first article on Khamdang Gewog. Where did you get the information that was posted in the article for the school? --McDoobAU93 04:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Tgyeltshen! Sorry again that you seem to be running into so much trouble. One of the things which is difficult about Wikipedia is that we cannot write about every subject merely because it exists. In order to keep Wikipedia accurate and reliable, we need to ensure that the writing we have about all subjects meets high standards, especially that all information is verifiable, and all of the information in Wikipedia was previously published in a reliable source. Not every subject has enough reliable information about it to base a Wikipedia article on, in other words, outside of Wikipedia there isn't enough good sources of information about that subject that we can trust well enough to include that information about Wikipedia. Because of this, some subjects are covered in short detail in larger articles. For example, a small neighborhood or village block may not have a lot of source material to work with, so instead Wikipedia tends to cover information about that neighborhood in the article about the larger municipality, city, or geographic division instead. In many cases, having lots of little, tiny articles with no hope of expansion isn't a great situation, so instead it is preferred to cover those small bits of information in a larger article instead. Generally, this idea at Wikipedia is called "notability", and subjects need to be notable enough to merit having a stand-alone article about them. If you wish to have a stand-alone article about a subject, you first need to make clear that there is enough source material (i.e. lots of good writing in good reliable sources) about it. If there isn't, and the source material is short, of dubious reliability, or sketchy, it is best to cover what is reliable in another article. Does this explanation help? --Jayron32 04:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tgyeltshen - I am so glad you've returned with another question. I have worked on articles about schools, too, and found that articles on high schools (for example, grades 9-12) are usually considered notable enough to have their own wikipedia article, while elementary and middle school articles are commonly not considered sufficiently notable for their own article. We actually have an editor group that works together on school articles; you can find them at WP:WPSCHOOLS, in case you'd like a bit more familiarity with writing articles on schools. I hope this was helpful, and I wish you happy editing! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Request an article merge

I'm currently working on wikifying the article on the Feekes scale, a numerical tool used to grade the growth and development of cereal crops like wheat. Even though I've added some citations and a little more detail, it seems like the article itself will never be particularly long. Likewise, articles on similar metrics (e.g. BBCH-scale (cereals) and Zadoks scale are generally just a table of the scale and a one-line introduction. Is there a proper way to perhaps just make a new article called something like "Growth Scales for Cereal Crops" or the like that could combine these issues (along with more general information (e.g. why you would scale them)? Am I in way over my head? Thanks! Pusillanimous 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. It looks an excellent idea. The first step is to propose the merge by adding tags which can be found here to the articles. You will need to decide which page to make the main one and the other(s) will becomes redirect pages. The page can be moved to a new name while retaining its history. Then leave some time, ten days at least to see if anybody objects. Meanwhile you could work on the merged article in your sandbox or make a user subpage for it such as User:Fred/merged cereals article. Copy and paste what you need from the existing articles to work on and when it is ready to go copy and paste it back into the new article.--Charles (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can always say I learn something new everyday on Wikipedia...Feekes, Zadoks, BBCH...Oh my! :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Something to bear in mind when considering article merges is the inbound links (accessed via "What links here"). If the term is useful to have in its own right (i.e. not beneath a subheading in a longer article) then it may be more useful to readers as a separate article. In some cases (although not this specific one) a subject may not be notable in its own right and should therefore normally be merged uncontroversially. There's nothing wrong with short articles, except that higher article numbers require higher levels of policing against vandalism. -- Trevj (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pusillanimous! Another idea is to follow what is called at Wikipedia, "summary style". Basically, that just means that there is an overview article, something like "cereal grading" or something similar, which discusses the concept in general, and then you have individual articles that deal with the details. See Wikipedia:Summary style for how this is supposed to work. --Jayron32 04:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As search terms each of the scales would still have a redirect page so that should not be a problem. I am personally involved in cereal growing and will be interested to see how this turns out. Good luck with it.--Charles (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions! Have a good day everyone! Pusillanimous 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)