Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Finding copyright information

Are there any tricks or central locations where one can find the protection of a specific book or magazine? Watchwolf49z (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Inline citation edit not displaying

Hi there, I've edited the Barometer on Change page to include inline citations. I can see these appearing on my user page after I have saved the changes. However on the main page that Wikipedia readers see these changes don't show up. I.e if I log out of my wikipedia account and search for the page, the changes don't appear on that page. I'm not sure what I have done wrong - can anyone advise what I need to amend?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Moormktg (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moormktg; welcome to the Teahouse. You were so close - you've created the citation templates perfectly, and with this edit, you almost created an inline citation successfully as well. The only reason it didn't display properly is that you need to put <ref> and </ref> tags on either side of the citation, like this:

<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.pmi.org.uk/en/communications/news.cfm/moorhouse_research |title = Rising pressure for change |publisher = Project Management Institute |date = 12 May 2012 |accessdate= 21 November 2012 }}</ref>

If you go back to the article and place this and the other references in the text in this way, they will display correctly. Let us know if you need any further help. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui. I've used this throughout the text and the references are now displaying correctly. However, there are still now showing up once I'm logged out of Wikipedia. Could this be becasue the changes take time to filter through onto the published page? Or is this another problem? Thanks in advance for your help.

Moormktg (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

deleting files

I have uploaded two files that I now wish to delete. How do I do that? Reculet (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reculet, welcome to the Teahouse. In the case of the graphs that you've created yourself, you can tag them with {{db-g7}} (just paste that code to the top of the File page) and they'll be taken care of. For files where the original work is not your own I have to admit I'm uncertain as to whether we have a process for deleting them at your behest; if they are freely available under an appropriate licence then I'm not sure that we do. I will look into the matter and get back to you ASAP. May I ask which files you want deleted? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that may not be a problem - the only file you've uploaded which was not self-created was File:LHCb RICH Btoππ.jpg, which is actually up for deletion anyway (there's no evidence that the author has given permission for its use under an appropriate licence). So simply tag the pages you want removed with {{db-g7}} and a passing admin should delete them shortly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

screwed up map on Estes Kefauver article

I was going to correct the 1952 primary results on the Estes Kefauver article (He won 14, not 12 different preference primaries in 1952. And Yes, I have many references for this). However, there's a map graphic on the page showing that he won 12. This graphic has other problems, like not listing the DC primary, and saying Harriman won West Virginia(!). It also claims to be a list of all the primaries that year, but leaves out at least 2 states that held delegate primaries. Here's the big problem: I only know the identity of 13 of the Preference primaries Kefauver won in 1952, so I can't provide an accurate map. Finding this out isn't as simple as it seems; primaries were poorly covered and somewhat arbitrary in that era, and the state sites don't usually list records that far back. So what about the map? It's blatantly wrong, so do we just do without until I get the Identity of the 14th preference primary? It seems silly to leave an inaccurate map up there.Ezra c v mildew desire Jr (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question moved to top. Go Phightins! 02:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Side note to the question asked, but it's fascinating how screwed up this fact is across multiple really reliable sources. Some say 12 of 14 entered; others 12 of 15 entered (NYT article, 1972); 13 of 15 entered (1956 NYT article), some say 14 of 15 entered (the NYT, contradictorily again: "won all but one of the fifteen primaries he entered in 1952") and some say 14 of 16 entered, and I barely began to look.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing filmography section

I tried to edit the filmography section of Dominic Chianese to mimic the same for John Goodman. I seem to have botched something, as the filmography now shows below the external links, and the formatting is not quite right (year column is very wide, title is very narrow).

While I would be happy for someone to just fix it, I'd prefer to know where I went wrong.

Henroids (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Henroids, welcome to the Teahouse. You were so close to having this correct. All you had missed was to close the table by having the code |} after the last line, so instead the table was including all the text after it as well and as some of this was templates it distorted the width. As a rule when editing articles if there is a { to start some process then somewhere there needs to be a } to close it. NtheP (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability and Conflict of Interest

Hi, I recently drafted an article on ERG, a part of the UK Cabinet Office, in my userspace - and then requested to be confirmed, in order to add photos of the relevant people and publish it. The editor who handled my request said that he had some doubts over notability and COI. I wanted to ask your advice on what I should do to make sure it was an appropriate article, and how best to approach any COI problems? I think that on a notability point, there's good grounds for it to be a valid page, as there are pages for many other parts of Cabinet Office (such as the Office of Government Commerce and the Government Procurement Service) - and ERG is large part of the department (a parent organisation to GPS). What do you think - and what do you recommend I do? Thanks very much for your help! CabOffice01 (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Without having checked first, I would be inclined to agree with you that ERG is notable. But it does seem that you work for the Cabinet Office, which would be a violation of WP:COI if you write about aspects of the Cabinet Office in namespace. Not to worry! You can still be of great help in the development of such an article, and editors here do have community incentive to create new content. I would advise helping us by using your talk page to outline reliable sources talking about ERG and why it's important. Almost certainly this would have been discussed upon its creation. Thank you so much for engaging the community for help - not all folks who have been associated with the topic they wish to appear here have been as engaged in the process we use. Shall I watch your talk page for sources? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, ClaudeReigns! On the Wikipedia COI page it does mention that "editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously...and to request the views of other editors". Does this mean it might still be possible to share the article I've drafted, but request editors' views, to cut my existing article down to shape and make sure it is entirely neutral? Very keen to keep engaging and make sure I go about things the right way! Is it possible to supply the core material in my article (to be used as other editors deem best), or is it best only to provide sources and comments? Thanks again! CabOffice01 (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. I overreached with respect to WP:COI, probably based on how it works out in practice. Sorry. What I'm seeing at the draft of ERG is an article based primarily on self-published sources. What we're looking for is an article based primarily on secondary sources. It looks pretty in userspace, but then once it gets into circulation, editors may want to tag it for cleanup. Like this. Or this. Or this. If notability is not proven through reliable secondary sources, it could even meet this. What you need is much more of [this]. The Guardian is an award-winning secondary news source which publishes corrections and has served as a reliable source for even controversial articles. Its article clearly defines and rather peacocks your group; the article also gives your director tons of face time. Y u no use secondary source? :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful advice! For some reason thought it would be better to use primary sources as they were more direct - but can definitely see it makes a lot more sense to use secondary ones! I'll edit the citations and strip out the primary sources, and try and make it as neutral as possible. What would be the best thing to do after that - submit it through AFC and leave it to other editors to clean it up further as they think best? Thanks, you've been great. I use secondary source now! CabOffice01 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploading of an Image File

Pretty new here I am - am setting up a page for a local primary school. I want to upload a logo to the box on the right. I imagine I have to first save the image to Wikipedia somewhere and then point to it. Can someone help? FroggyPFroggyPeterson (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello FroggyPeterson, Welcome to Teahouse. You can upload images through Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Make sure you choose the appropriate non-free use rationale under the copyright information. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I will give it a try. FroggyFroggyPeterson (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Understanding reliable sources

Let me know if there is a better place on Wikipedia to ask this question- It has to do with this article I am working on/trying to create: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/826Chi The first reviewer of the article left a nice comment with very helpful feedback about why the article was declined which I tried to fix, but the second submission for creation received the same reason for being declined. Is there any obvious unreliable sources I am using? If an article for submission is declined twice is it best forgotten or is it typical to keep editing/submitting until approved? I apologize if the reason is obvious, I am very new and still trying to figure it all out. Thank you! Hcallas (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hcallas. I have to say, having looked at the current version of the article, that I don't understand why it was declined a second time - the sources, whilst far from perfect, are sufficient for a basic article. I'm not going to overturn another editor's decision unilaterally, but I will discuss the reviewer's reasoning with him, and ask him to explain why he thinks the sources are inadequate, since he hasn't left a comment at the AFC page. I'll get back to you on your user talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help! Hcallas (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

making a signature

hello i was wandering how to customize my signature Zeroro (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Zeroro, and welcome to the Teahouse. There's some basic information at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. The basic procedure is to go to "Preferences", and then put your modified signature in the "Signature" box. If you're reformatting your signature using Wiki markup, make sure to check the "Treat the above as wiki markup. " box. Does that help? --Jayron32 05:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

yes, thank you zeroro(talk)(cont) 05:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you make an article suggestion to an author?

How do you make an article suggestion to an author?Loverofmyoho (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Loverofmyoho, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are just looking to make a general suggestion for someone to create a new article about a specific topic, you can make suggestions at Wikipedia:Requested articles, just click the topic that the article fits under, and add the suggestion to that topic. You can also create new articles yourself, though it is recommended you read through something like Wikipedia:Your first article first. Does that help answer your question? --Jayron32 05:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse, Loverofmyoho. You can suggest a topic to a particular editor by leaving it on the editor's talk page. As Jron noted, a more general place is the requested articles page. Another good spot to suggest an article is on the talk page of a WikiProject related to the topic. You don't have much of an edit history but one of your posts indicates you might want to check out WikiProject Alternative Medicine. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 05:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing to note about Requested Articles is that most articles requested there never get created. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Loverofmyoho. I suspect that you are asking about changing an existing article rather than creating a new one. You can reach the authors of article on the article's talk page. (If the title of the article is TITLE, then the talk page is called Talk:TITLE.) Or if you have reliable source for the change you want to make, you can just change it yourself. —teb728 t c 05:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

hello

I need help in doing the article on Dj Maurizio Saez I not good in coding and want this page to stay LOL Please help he has allot of stuff on google

DjxMau (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, DjxMau! The good news is you don't need to know a lot about coding to edit Wikipedia. In fact, the page Maurizio Saez is formatted fine. The bad news is that you wrote an article about yourself, which is usually not appropriate. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.) A bigger problem is that Wikipedia doesn't let you write about anything, the subject needs to be notable. That doesn't just mean that the subject has to be important, but there has to be a few independent sources which talk about the subject. There's a lot of information on Google, but most of it was written by the subject, like his Facebook and Twitter page. If you find reliable sources, like news articles from national papers, other encyclopedias, and so on, you can include this article. Until then, I'm afraid it will be deleted. -- YPNYPN 04:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What does the spirit of the rule mean?

In the essay "What 'Ignore All Rules means" it states "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. What is meant by the spirit of the rule? (That1user (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, That1User, welcome to the Teahouse! That's a pretty tricky question (but a really good one!); the "spirit of the law" is an idiomatic expression, and it's a bit hard to explain. There's no one all-encompassing answer to it. The idea is that rules, especially on Wikipedia but also in most places in general, aren't just things that everyone has to arbitrarily follow. The rules have a reason. There's a goal behind them. So, for example: Wikipedia has rules about edit-warring. The reason we have rules against edit-warring is because constant reversion and arguing detracts from the article, as the article keeps getting changed needlessly. The goal here is a better, more stable article. But sometimes, the rule as it is written might interfere with its goal. So, if a vandal keeps blanking an article and replacing it with the word "poop", the rules about edit-warring might appear to say that we can't just keep reverting him and restoring the article, because that would be edit-warring. But, in this obvious situation, we can allow ourselves to ignore the rule about edit warring and keep reverting the vandal. While it might be against the specific language of the rules (proverbially, the "letter of the law"), it actually supports the reason and the goal of the law (proverbially, the "spirit of the law").

Now, in that specific example, we don't actually have to ignore the rules on edit warring, because the rules on edit warring have built-in, written exceptions for reverting vandalism. By definition, reverting vandalism doesn't count as edit-warring. But we can't think of every exception we'll ever need and write them into the rules, so instead, we have "Ignore all rules", which lets us improvise and gives us wiggle room, so that we're not hamstrung by our own rules. Of course, one must also be careful, though: remember that the rules are there for a reason, which means you need a really good reason to ignore them. "Just because you want to" doesn't cut it. "Ignoring all rules" isn't about just doing what you want without respect to the rules, it's more about keeping the rules from tripping over themselves. Does that make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Elaboration: See Letter and spirit of the law, wikt:spirit of the law. ⁓ Hello71 03:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on a draft article

Re: User:IRScholar/Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies

Hello. I am drafting a new article that I would like some feedback on. What are the next steps? I'm still very new at this! Thanks in advance for your help and suggestions... IRScholar IRScholar (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:AFC where experienced users can review, give tips and help you through the creation process. If the article is in your sandbox you'll need to do some copy/pasting but if you need help, just ask here or on my talk page. §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 23:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that AFC is the right way to go; I believe you just hit the "submit" button in the "user sandbox" template at the top of your article to submit it for review. To clarify, don't copy-paste articles to move them; once the article is submitted the "Submit" box will have a little link for you to move the draft to the correct title for the reviewers, so just follow that link. Generally speaking, don't ever copy-paste entire articles on Wikipedia, as there are move functions to do that, and copy-pasting obscures the entire history of the article since it makes it look like a "fresh start". That is, let's say there's an article "John Foofleson" that's been steadily improved over four years by various editors, and I conclude that the title should include his middle initial since he's usually referred to with it. If I copy the whole article and paste it at a new page "John Q. Foofleson", now the whole article just has "MV created this article on 12 December", as though I created it out of nothing. So now nobody can see how the article developed over time, who worked on it, etc. But if instead I just hit the "Move" button (in the drop-down menu just to the left of your Search box at top of page), then I can move the article to the new title, and its whole page history and Talk page move with it. Not to fill you with detail, I just get nervous when someone mentions "copy-paste", because that shouldn't be done with whole articles.

In any case, I left you some comments and suggested changes at the article. That said, the overarching issue you need to address is that the article currently reads like an "About Us" page for the Institute, vice an actual examination of it. It's just mission statement, founding date, and a lot of what, frankly, comes across as name-dropping of people who've spoken at their lectures. There are a few footnotes, but almost all WP:Primary sources, not third-party independent perspective on the Institute. Also, the footnote about Bunche's career shouldn't be there; footnotes specific to Bunche, and not involving the Institute at all, should be in Bunche's own article. If folks want to see proof of Bunche's career they can click on the link to read his page. Every footnote should specifically mention the Institute and its work somehow; having footnotes that don't involve the subject comes across as "fluffing" up the footnote count to no real utility.

What you want to find is mention of the Institute in academic journals or news articles. Ideally not just passing mention ("there was a lecture at RBINS last Wednesday"), but more things like, say, the NYT commenting on the impact the Institute has had in its first few years, controversies, commendations from prominent people, assessments of its role in developing issues, etc. Does that give a starting idea? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback! It is *very* helpful. I will make some changes, tidy things up a little more and look to get more critique and feedback at WP:AFC. Thanks again! IRScholar

I deleted vandalism on an article?

Hi, I'm JHUbal27 and I found vandalism on Template:Cite pmid/12135908. This template was a reference for Giant panda, number 74 I believe. I deleted the vandalism, but should I have reported it? I provided a link to the history page here. Can someone please help me? Thank y

No need to report vandalism to anyone. It's a common enough event. However, you should let the user know on their talk page with {{Uw-vandalism1}} (use the curly brackets). If you see the same editor doing that again in the same month, use Template:Uw-vandalism2, and keep going upwards. öBrambleberry_{_ meow _ watch me in action} 22:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC) edited to use {{tl}} ⁓ Hello71 03:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You can see Help:Reverting for an easier method to remove vandalism in this and many other cases: Revert to a pre-vandalism page version. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are looking for an easier way for undoing vandalism, try WP:Twinkle and if you want to learn more about it and want help from more experienced users, try WP:CVUA §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 00:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! This coding is so complicated! JHUbal27 talk

Who to ask to create a widget

Hi, I often find myself looking at a table in Wikipedia (or elsewhere) and thinking to myself: "I'd like to download that data into Excel and rearrange it or merge it with data from elsewhere." But if I just copy the table and paste it, I usually get a long string of information. Instead of tabs between fields and a carriage return at the end of the line, there are just spaces between each of the entries. Using tools like BBedit, Tex-Edit Plus, Word, and lots of perseverance, I can usually recreate the table in a form that I can upload to Excel from this data stream, but it is often a difficult process (especially if the cells of the table have textual data with spaces).

So I would really like someone to create a widget that would make this task easy. What I envision: at the top of each table in Wikipedia there would be an icon. If you clicked on the icon, it would automatically download the table in .csv (comma-separated values) format which could then be easily imported into Excel or another spreadsheet program. I assume it would be relatively easy to create such a widget since tables have a regular and simple markup language (though text that extends over two or more cells might be a bit tricky). There are already widgets for converting spreadsheets into Wiki's markup language, but as far as I can tell, no way to go the other direction.

I was going to suggest this idea of writing a widget and making it available at the top of every Wikipedia table to someone at Wikipedia, but I don't know who or how to do this. Any suggestions who I should write to? Randy Schutt (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Randy. It's not so much who to ask as where - the Village Pump's technical board is the best place to post requests like this. It's frequented by Wikipedia's finest technical gurus, more than one of whom would surely jump at the chance to implement what is, I have to say, a jolly good idea. Some of them pop by the Teahouse from time to time (I'm sure I've seen Writ Keeper skulking around here more than once...), but the Pump is the place where your suggestion will get most exposure to the appropriate folk. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tools#Export: Conversion to other formats mentions a command line tool called wiki2csv. I haven't tried it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll visit the Village Pump's technical board. I looked at the command line tool wiki2csv. This requires using Python and other tools which are beyond me (and way beyond most users). So I still think creating a simple widget would be best. Thanks again for steering me in the right direction. Randy Schutt (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: I've made a script for this at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/tableConverter.js; comments are welcome at the thread at the village pump. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Merely speak his name, and he appears like some sort of coding genie to answer your wishes... Yunshui 雲‍水 09:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Bot that removes stuff for no reason

I'm a native Chinese speaker, and I'm 101 percent sure that zh:大佳河滨公园 is the same as en:Dajia Riverside Park, so I added a link to zh wiki entry on the Dajia Riverside Park article here. But a bot named User:JackieBot has removed it twice. In order not to be engaged in an edit war, I have decided to seek advice here. Why would a bot do that? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the bot isn't sentient, it doesn't know to be afraid of clowns. I've left a message for the bot owner on their talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha... Nice one there. Thanks! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

May be reason in the wrong chinese letters? diff. Bot not seen article with the previouse version of zh-interwiki. I just go via "old" link and put new page name from zh-wiki instead wrong interwiki. — Jack 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. at the next time just put message on the bot's talk page or on the my personal talk page. — Jack 16:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDb

Hi guys, I was always under the impression that IMDb was NOT a reliable source, but then just today I realized that the Michael Jackson article (which is a featured article) cites a bio on IMDb as a source. Many other good articles use IMDb as sources too. On a scale of 49-70, how reliable would IMDb be? (Okay, 0-10, if you wish) Personally, I find it quite useful and reliable. Thanks! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDB should never be used as a reliable source but it may be used as an external link. See WP:IMDB.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Understand, but is everything user generated? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Some is, some isn't. Some is produced by experts, some is scraped from other sources and some comes from volunteers. AFAIK there's no simple way to know which is which. -Rushyo ^Talk 17:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I once asked why a movie I wanted to review hadn't been put on there and they said I could do it myself. Not knowing how, I made a complete mess of the credits because I didn't know they would take my information just the way I submitted it, or order it according to some pattern I wasn't expecting, which wasn't quite in the order that it would usually be done. Normally, I would think, this part would be done by professionals.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Citing a Pamphlet

Hello

I am writing an article and I am trying to cite a pamphlet where I got some my info and was wondering how to do? I can't seem to find anyway to do it. Any help on this would be very much appreciated. Anonymouswhovian (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey and welcome to Wikipedia. What kind of pamphlet is this you're talking about? Who published it? Go Phightins! 03:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It was made by the Scott County Public Library and is being used to help with their article I am creating for them. Anonymouswhovian (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CITE for the main citation methods and see WP:CITEX for examples.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(partial copy of my response below) You can also use ProveIt which is easily enabled under Preferences ==> Gadgets (Editing section). I believe that should help you and it is very easy to use.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, here's an essay that has useful information about sourcing articles: Wikipedia:Verification methods. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Signing problems

When I try to join a project I put my name down but sometimes it comes up with template:(something) when I preview. I'm pretty sure I follow the format everyone else uses. Other times when just my username comes up it doesn't link to my user page like the other names do. Can anyone explain this?

Quintus Petronius Augustus 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus (talk • contribs)

Hi! The software will automatically insert your name and a timestamp wherever you type in 4 tildes ((Like this: ~~~~). Doing this will also make your username link to your userpage. You could do this manually, but it really is a pain.

Tazerdadog (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Look how others have put their name at the project. In [1] you only wrote Quintus Petronius Augustus instead of {{User0|Quintus Petronius Augustus}}. The easiest way to get your ~~~~ signature to work is to remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem with infobox

Hello I am writing an article and my infobox has a the following message in it between two of the pictures:[[Image:|230px]]. I know there is a way to remove but I can't get it removed. Can someone shed some light on the for me? Anonymouswhovian (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind after a little more poking around I was able to fix it. Thanks anyway. Anonymouswhovian (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing Semi-Protected Page

Do you have to have a reference if you edit a semi-protected page? Amy4947 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amy. Welcome to the teahouse. The only difference that semi protection makes is that unregistered editors or accounts less than four days old can not edit the page. This is done when a page is subject to frequent vandalism. Referencing is just the same as for any other page and protection is usually lifted quite quickly.--Charles (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Writing about your own papers on Wikipedia

I would like to know if there are any situations in which it is appropriate to cite my own work on Wikipedia. There have been discussions about this on my own talk page and on others, specifically about this, but I would like to get other people’s perspectives on this. For many of the topics that I wish to discuss on Wikipedia, only three or four labs worldwide work on these topics, including my own. And given that each lab sometimes supports a different hypothesis (and there is no consensus on most of these issues), it seems fair to expose all viewpoints, including my own. I have published about 100 papers on these topics, mostly in reputable, international, peer-reviewed journals. But each time I did, some editors removed my page (usually the same couple editors), while others put it back, realizing that this text was useful. I always try to put any paper I cite (whether or not it is my own) in the correct context, of course.

On a related topic, and this too has been evoked on my talk page, but I find the Wikipedia custom or guideline of emphasizing secondary literature at the expanse of primary literature inappropriate in natural sciences. In such fields, we are encouraged by editors and referees of peer-reviewed journals to consult the primary sources (mostly papers in peer-reviewed journals), which are considered far more reliable than review papers (and my experience fully supports this).

I thank you all in advance for the information that you may provide. I did not give much information about myself because you can find that easily on my Wikipedia biographical page (to which I did not contribute, nor did I initiate or suggest it) or on my Google Scholar profile. Nevertheless, it may perhaps be useful to point out here that despite the fact that I am fairly new at Wikipedia and have only elementary knowledge of html programming, I can be considered an experienced scientist and editor of scientific publications (I serve as Chief Editor of one journal and serve on several other editorial boards). This is why I felt compelled to share my insights about editing tradition in peer-reviewed journals. Michel Laurin (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed publications are held to be, generally, amongst the most reliable sources on Wikipedia. Some people aren't aware of this, since not all editors have worked in article spaces that revolve around scientific study. With regards to self publishing material, to quote WP:Reliable sources: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The problem you seem to be having stems from editors who deal with more general cases who aren't familiar with what peer-reviewed literature represents. It should be feasible to engage in discussion and correct this. Wikipolicy seems to be on your side. Still, I'll have a look through your contributions and see if there's anything more specific about your topic or behaviour I can put a finger on that might be causing you trouble. -Rushyo ^Talk 20:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and I would like to further note that consensus on what should go on Wikipedia is absolutely distinct from scientific consensus. Consensus is a very important part of Wikipedia editing. If a change is controversial and there is a dispute then all parties should attempt to reach consensus on the content rather than the actual subject. We have lots of ways of handling such disputes but generally you'll find that discussing them often works. If not, there are dispute resolution options (some of which you're familiar with) ranging from the wonderfully informal (WP:Third Opinion) to Serious Business (WP:ArbCom). They're not a nuclear option (well ArbCom is but you'll probably never invoke that), they're just part of editing in a consensus-driven environment. We can write about scientific disputes without ever needing a scientific consensus. That's why we can have such lengthy articles on pseudosciences. If somebody went through and systematically erased my work my response would be to clarify the policies and guidelines in my own head, discuss it with the person in question and then, failing all else, find an appropriate outlet for dispute resolution. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there's no need to worry about how long such a process can take. In the meantime, unless it's an article about a living person there's probably no need to take short term action. Anyone can erase your additions but anyone can restore them as well, at any time. -Rushyo ^Talk 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rushyo, that was very useful. So far, disputes I have been involved in seem to have been resolved by a third (and sometimes, a fourth) editor, although I was hoping to find a way to make that unnecessary, on a routine basis. But I suppose that this is probably not possible. You are probably correct that the editors that I had problems with seem unaware of what a peer-reviewed scientific paper is, and conversely, those who helped me seem to be well-aware of it. I suppose I will just have to keep arguing each case. It will take longer, but should do the job. Michel Laurin (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that peer review does not bestow independence in a paper, it bestows reliability. We look for both independence and reliability in sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cropping wiki commons photos - etiquette and procedure

For a page I have written, Stephen Waley-Cohen, I want a cropped version of the photo that I found on wiki commons, [2]. The photo has some redundant space on the left and right and is essentially 'landscape' when I would like a version that is basically 'portrait', so I'd like a version of the photo with the left and right parts cropped out.

I left a message for the photographer around 10 days ago, inviting him to upload a cropped version, but have had no response whatsoever.

The photo is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license(s).

Therefore I have edited the photo to produce a cropped version myself. I would like to upload my version, but a) what is the etiquette of doing that? b) in terms of licensing, should I just copy all the stuff from the existing photo page?

Thanks

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can upload it under the same license as the original image. But, in the summary box, mention the original author's name in the 'author' field. In the 'source' field, mention that the image is a derivative of the original image and provide a link to the original image. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)NoMatterTryAgain, great question. The way to do this is to upload the photo in its own right and leave the original photo as it is. When you licence it, the licence is yours but you should credit the original image. As an example have a look at the licencing and information on File:MartinScorsese(cannes).crop.jpg where the original editor is acknowledged and the differences noted. There is more information on this topic at Commons:Overwriting existing files. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. NtheP (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How do I move my article from sandbox?

hello everyone, I'd like to get an opinion on my article and be instructed on how to go live from sandbox. thank you Shomburg (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Another editor helped move your article to the right space, and I'm now looking it over and adding tags. I have a few concerns so far:

• So far your only category is Category:A&R Executive Producer Credits; that's not actually an existing category (which is why it's in red). To get an idea how categories work, read WP:CAT, or find a biography of a similar DJ/A&R person and take inspiration from what categories that article shows.
• You have one reference that's just a long Google link; you'll want to turn that into a proper citation.
• In the Discography, for no apparent reason you're CAPITALISING the names of all the musicians; there's no need to do that, just type them in standard caps.
• Those are the basic structural things, but the real issue is that it's not clear your subject meets WP:Notability. While you do provide a body of sourcing, I'm not seeing any of the coverage that describes him substantively. You have a variety of passing mentions where he speaks to a journalist on behalf of a record label (about some talent), and articles that briefly mention him in a list of people in the credits, and even a few articles that don't appear to mention his name. I'm not seeing anywhere you've given that has even a single paragraph explaining who he is and why he's important. "Notability is not inherited", so even if he has been tangentially associated with a large number of famous people, that does not necessarily make him Notable. I would take a look at that policy, and optionally the more specific Wikipedia:Notability (music). Does he have coverage meeting those guidelines, or is it all just bits and pieces of coverage that don't really discuss him and his career in depth? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew, I have made the changes you suggested. I found more ref material that focuses on him and I also changed the category to "music industry". I have read about him in magazines but I don't know how to use that as reference material. can you give it another look and let me know if this is sufficient? I'll keep editing as need be to keep this article up. thanx Shomburg (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the same question as here, for anyone who may not have noticed.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

City montage infobox

'm new to Wikipedia and I was just wondering if you could inform me how to make an info-box montage for a city? Is there any particular photo editing program required? 124.177.186.253 (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe a montage picture can be created even by using MS Paint (Open a picture, zoom out, expand the boundaries and add the other images). Any photo editing program would also do. Did you faced any particular problem in creating one? --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there is a bigger limitation for you as IP accounts cannot upload images to Wikipedia. You must have registered an account before this right is granted. NtheP (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hello IP 124.177.186.253. Check out Wikipedia:Why create an account? for comprehensive information about the benefits of creating an account on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'Multiple Issues' at top of article

Hi there, I am admin for this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Williamson

I would like to remove these issues, as I have edited the page and they no longer apply: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2012) This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. (April 2009) This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (March 2012)

How do I do this?

I would be so grateful for your help!

Very best,

Rosanna MWWorld (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rosanna, welcome to the Teahouse!

You can't remove that list of issues, because you have not fixed the problems they refer to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rosanna. First off, let me disabuse you of the notion that you are "an admin for the page". You are not - you have no administrative priviledges, you do not own the page and you have no more authority over the article than any other editor. I'm sorry to be harsh, but it's important that you understand this from the outset if your Wikipedia career is to be anything more than a brief edit-war and a block.

As far as the tags go:

• "This article needs additional citations for verification." It does. At present, it contains no reliable sources at all, making it a candidate for deletion under the Biography of living persons policy. If you add reliable, independent sources to the article to verify the information there, then this tag can be removed.
• "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject." It does. All of the links provided are to inappropriate primary sources (Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are not considered reliable sources or even appropriate external links, and Williams' own webpage is obviously a primary source).
• "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." As William's Head of Digital, are you claiming that you don't have a close connection to the subject?
• "This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information". Unsourced phrases like "world renowned", "highly recognisable signature aesthetic", "a master of print, embellishment, attention to detail and kaleidoscopic colour", "Matthew’s collections encapsulate a bohemian spirit and a laid back sense of glamour", "His luxury fashion house" (and that's just from the lead paragraph) are in complete violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and do indeed subjectively promote the subject without imparting any useful information.

Yunshui 雲‍水 11:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Note for anyone following this up: I have now edited the article to correct the issues raised, and removed the tags. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with sources

I have been criticized and told that I am showing a lack of respect for my fellow editors for using this sourcing URL converter: [3] My computer abilities are very limited and I have been unable to figure the more complicated ones out. Any suggestions? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. I think it might help us if you provided more context, so we can see view the criticism, examine the edits that were criticized and then give a more targeted answer. Can you provide links? If you don't know, a link can be created by enclosing the name of most pages in doubled brackets. For example, if I wanted to post somewhere a link to my talk page, I would type [[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit]], which would then appear when I saved as User talk:Fuhghettaboutit. I did look at your contributions a bit, and your talk page, but didn't see where this issue came up. Anyway, without that context, you might find some general help by looking at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. There are also other automated tools to be explored at Help:Citation tools. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the complaint: I would also like to repeat once more my humble request to respect fellow editors and to follow the existing citing style in this article by using citing templates instead of adding bare links and filling them with a bot. Beagel (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC) It is at the bottom of this page: [[4]]. I have been editing for some years now and mostly, in the early years, I learned how to edit by looking at the way that others did it, which won't work for some things... Over the years I tried several times to learn how to convert my sources but was never able to figure it out. So, I was overjoyed when a fellow editor recently shared her easy method with me (the one I linked to above) and for awhile, all was well. If the one that I am using is not acceptable, do you have another suggestion for one that is not too difficult? Thanks in advance and I want to say that this is the very first time in all of the years that I've asked for help that a helper did more than just refer me to a help page--they didn't seem to understand that I was aware of the help pages but couldn't figure them out.  :-) Gandydancer (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I use these?

• DOI Wikipedia reference generator: Converts a digital object identifier (DOI) into {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help).
• New York Times Wikipedia reference generator: Converts a NYT URL into a {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help).
• Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books: Converts a Google Books URL into {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help). Gandydancer (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You might use all three, but the problem comes up when you are inserting something you don't really understand, so you don't tailor it and thus you get these artifacts like "auto generated title" and the like. These programs can be very useful and time savers, but their output almost always requires tweaking because they can't pass a Turing test. I think helping you understand citing and citation templates would help, and so I am going to try to simplify and break it down below in short bites. Feel free to ask as many follow-up questions as you'd like:

• Many html tags work in this form: <some command> some text being formatted by that tag and then to end it, the same thing again but with a forward slash ("/") before it (</same command>)

• Example: if you want to make something boldface in html, the command is simply a "b" and so you would type <b>text you want boldfaced</b>. Remember that format < > then </ > with the command in between the code.

• For footnoted citations the command is "ref" and anything you want to appear in the References section at the bottom of a page is placed in the text between the ref tags, using the grammar <ref>text></ref>. So, if you wanted to say, cite to "Hamlet", Act 1, Scene 1, you would place in the text where you wanted to cite to it <ref>Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1</ref>

• Example: if you typed "Horatio's ghost says "Stay! speak, speak! I charge thee, speak!"<ref>Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1</ref>", when you save it will appear like this:

  Horatio's ghost says "Stay! speak, speak! I charge thee, speak!"^[1]

  ==References==

  1. ^ Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1.

• Citation templates just supply code to place between the ref tags so that citations format consistently; they supply punctuation, formatting like italics and the ordering of the information automatically. Again, they go between the ref tags (<ref> here </ref>), just like something as simple as "Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1."
• Templates are a piece of code that always start with {{ and end with }} The citation templates are just paint by numbers: go to the template page grab the text and fill in the parameters. Each part is separated by a pipe ("|") and is something to fill in after an equal sign. So, if you see for example the paramter |year=, you just need to supply the relevant year for your citation.

• Example: {{cite book}} (click on that to copy and paste the code) has many parameters one can use but most you won't need; just use what you want and delete or leave parameters you don't use blank. Typical information to supply is title, author's first name and last name, page number, publisher, maybe location, and isbn if there is one. So for Hamlet, you might use {{cite book|title=Hamlet|first=William|last=Shakespeare|publisher=Avon Press|location=Stratford|year=1609}} <--That's what you would place between the ref tags. That would format like this:

              Shakespeare, William (1609). Hamlet. Stratford: Avon Press.

  and if between ref tags, would appear in the references section.

• Example: {{cite news}} is the same thing. Click on the template, copy and paste the code between the ref tags, fill in the parameters you wish to use, delete or leave blank others, e.g., {{cite news|newspaper=The New York Times|title=Hamlet is a Great Play|last=Friedman|first=Thomas|date=December 10, 2012}} which formats like this:

              Friedman, Thomas (December 10, 2012). "Hamlet is a Great Play". The New York Times.

  and if placed between ref tags, would appear in the references section.

• Okay, let's put it all together. You want to use the citation template cite book for Hamlet and make that a reference. Add where you want the footnote to appear in the text:

  <ref>{{cite book|title=Hamlet|first=William|last=Shakespeare|publisher=Avon Press|location=Stratford|year=1609}}</ref>

Does that help at all?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, you can use ProveIt which is easily enabled under Preferences ==> Gadgets (Editing section). I believe that should help you also and it is very easy to use.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

first time on wikipedia

I am trying to create an article for the first time. I first incorrectly set it up as a live article which was tagged for speedy deletion. Then I read the section on your first article and set it up in my user space with a Template:Newuser tag and it was still deleted practically immeadiately from here too. What am I doing wrong. I just want an article is a place I can edit it until i want feedback on it? 194.125.111.194 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you created an account? If so, could you log in and post here so we can more easily find the page(s) in question? Thanks! gwickwire^talk_edits 02:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

how do i go live from sandbox

I have asked a couple question and can not find my responses. I would like to go live with my article and have it reviewed first. I dont know how to transfer the draft from sandbox. Shomburg (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is easily done in the following steps: 1. Copy what you have written in your sandbox that is your new article. 2. Search the name of your proposed article in Wikipedia. 3. It hopefully should say "The article '_______'(whatever you typed) does not exist. Click here to create it'. 4. Paste the text into the box and click save, your article will then go live Mikeo34 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Shomberg, and welcome to the Teahouse. It may be easy but it's not recommended. Let's say you want to call your article "Punch TV". You would create User:Shomberg/Punch TV (after clicking on the red link) and copy your content there. That would mean the article would get reviewed, though I understand there is a backlog and it would take several weeks. But the article would have less chance of being deleted this way.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you received further help here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it not showing that I am logged in?

I have an account and i am logged in and my user id is DNSD3 i not sure why it is not showing?

Susan 11:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

apologies responded to wrong discussion

Susan 11:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ihave an account and I am logged in now

Susan 11:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Susan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I took the liberty of moving your three responses to their own section so they would not confuse people. According to the history, you were signed in as DNSD3 all three times. Could you be more specific as to what your problem was? I'm not sure why your username didn't appear in your signature, unless you did not use the four tildes. Type the following: "~~~~" to make your signature appear. More information can be found here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Susan, A couple of things that could make your signature appear that way would be:

• On Special:Preferences in the Signature section (of the User profile tab) you may have entered "Susan" in the textbox and checked "Treat the above as wiki markup". Those features are for special rendering of your signature. If that is what happened, I would recomend clearing both the textbox and the checkbox at least until you learn how signatures work.
• Or you may have signed as "Susan ~~~~~" (with 5 tildes); 5 tildes is rendered as a date only with no signature. If that is what happened, be sure to sign with 4 tildes.

—teb728 t c 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference of other helpers, links to your account include User:DNSD3 talk contributions —teb728 t c 23:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Article rating

Hi! I've created an article (Snow Treasure) through the AFC method, and the reviewer who passed it rated it as a stub article. How was this determined, and what do I need to do to get it "upgraded"? Thanks, Jakob 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your article was rated as stub-class because it does not cover nearly as much about the novel as it could. However, (I have not read the novel, so I'm generalizing here, and maybe the reviewer thinks differently), I'm looking at it and thinking that it could be C-class, or start-class at the least. The simplest way to upgrade your rating is to add more content with citations. The different ratings are FA, GA, A, B+, B, C, start, and stub for most articles, in descending order. You can get a detailed explanation of what each rating involves at Template:Grading scheme. öBrambleberry_{_ meow _ watch me in action} 21:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry, I must sound stupid, but if I add more content, will it be automatically "upgraded", or does someone have to do that manually? Thanks again, Jakob 22:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is no, it will not be upgraded automatically, because it's really a personal opinion of a user what rating it receives, just like how I think it deserves higher than stub-class at the moment. The best that you can do is add more content with reliable sources and eventually someone will come along and change it. You can also ask for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review when you think that it's much better, and other editors will tell you what they think. I can give it a look after some changes if you wish. öBrambleberry_{_ meow _ watch me in action} 22:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to add the following: Ratings are provided by WikiProjects. WikiProjects are groups of editor who focus on particular subject areas or with particular goals in mind. Although articles for creation has its own WikiProject I'd recommend tagging your page as part of WikiProject Children's literature. They have focused reviewers who can provide more tailored advice and scoring. Check out their assessment page which explains how to add your book to their WikiProject's scope. Somebody will then come along and automatically review it without you needing to do anything (Note: Don't add your name at the bottom, that's only for submitting previously reviewed articles for re-review)! It also lets people interested in children's literature know your article exists. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)\

Thanks, both of you for the advise! Jakob 04:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - responded to wrong discussion - please ignore

Susan 11:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

New Article Confirmation Time

Hi,

I would like to know how long does it take an article to be confirmed, which is written by an autoconfirmed user?

Thanks Can.kilic1981 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Can.kilic1981. There is no new article "confirmation" process. Autoconformation is a an editing threshold for accounts (normally passed if one's account is at least four days old and has made ten or more edits) that must be reached in order to take certain actions, such as moving pages, editing semi-protected pages, and uploading files. It is not needed to create an article, which can be done as soon as an account is created.

I can tell you, however, some hurdles that articles may or may not have to pass through, that you might or might not have been thinking about or interested in when you used the word "confirmed". Initially, if an article is created through the articles for creation process rather than directly, it must be passed by a reviewer. There is no set length of time for this, and the process does get backlogged. If it is not passed it can be worked on to address any problems noted and resubmitted. If you submit an article directly, it will appear at Special:NewPages, where patrollers will (rather quickly normally) mark the page as patrolled and may take various actions including helping out in various ways, but they might also, if the article is problematic, tag it for maintenance, or even tag it for speedy deletion, propose it for deletion or take it to articles for deletion.

On the other end of the process, well-developed, fine articles may be peer reviewed for improvement, may be nominated to be listed as good articles or most stringently, nominated to be listed as featured articles, and thereafter, nominated to appear as Today's featured article on the main page of the site. Hope this overview helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much

You provide very good summary of the process :))) Can.kilic1981 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

is it true that wikipedia prefers sources from books rather than internet??

Its annoying for me to no end if people use books as a source to back up their data and facts. Because books are not online you cant rent them or buy them all the time as they sometimes dont exist anymore in the stores, and who has the money and time to do this to really check it out if they do exist. So is it true and if yes how can i change that? Is it possible to wrtite to admins or something?--Noelmantra (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

question moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. NtheP (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Noel, welcome to the Teahouse! In a way, it is true that Wikipedia usually prefers books to online sources, but probably not in the way that you're thinking. There's no policy anywhere that says that books are preferred over websites; in fact, no particular format is specifically preferred over any other. All we really care about is reliability. The problem with websites is that they're incredibly easy for anyone to just go ahead and write, whereas most authors have to convince at least their publishers to print them. We don't have an actual preference for books specifically; it just looks that way because of how many unreliable websites there are. If we could be said to have a preference for anything, it would be articles published in scholarly academic journals, since those are much more likely to be reliable due to the peer-review process. Even then though, it's not a specific preference; it's just that they're usually reliable. Reliability is king at Wikipedia, and not much else matters. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at a few article discussion pages, you’ll generally see self-published books, for example, being disparaged as sources; OTOH there are plenty of professionally created or curated websites that are considered highly reliable—but things like blogs and forums, where there is no independent fact-checking, are not among them.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One exception I learned is that for an organization to get a new article it must be "noted" by other published sources. I wrote an article about the Timber Framers Guild, a non-profit, educational, international organization and it was declined because I have no references from published sources. Apparently in this case reliability is not all that is needed, notability is also needed. Also, as a scholar I am well aware that information printed in books is not inherently reliable. Jim Derby (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Allowing printed books as sources does mean that hoaxes like the one deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bridgestock are harder to spot, but, let's keep in mind that hoax was spotted anyway, and someone who did own some of the books was able to check them out.

Verifiability does not require that sources are easy to verify, just that it's possible. Some books may indeed be long out of print, but they are still available in the biggest of libraries, and that's enough to satisfy the verifiability policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OFFLINE, an essay on offline sources. ⁓ Hello71 03:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploading images to Taxobox

Hello,

I have added two images to Wikimedia Commons: - one is a map found on another Wiki page that I modified (cropped) - the other is a new image. Both have Wiki Commons clearance.

My problem is in trying to add the Wiki link (i.e. [[ ]]) to the Taxobox - or in fact to the main content. Unfortunately, I've lost the file names for both files and cannot find them in the edit history or by searching the Wikimedia Commons site.

Any suggestions? Thanks, Ocococo (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ocococo, hi and welcome. As logins on all wiki accounts are global, you have the same username on Commons as you do here so if you go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ocococo you'll see all your edits including your uploads. NtheP (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, NtheP - found the file names and managed to add the images, although not within the Taxobox. Good enough! Ocococo (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hello. What is the advantage of being a Wikiproject member?Kuba.greenland (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kuba; welcome to the Teahouse. The benefits are, in all honesty, variable depending on which project you join; however in principle, being part of a WikiProject:

• puts you in touch with other editors who have similar interests
• gives you a variety of resources to help you create good content in that subject area
• gives you suggestions for articles you might like to edit, improve or create
• enables you to rate articles according to the WikiProject's rating scale
• alerts you to articles in that topic field which are listed for deletion at AFD

On a less project-related level, I find that being part of a WikiProject is great for increasing my own knowledge in that area; poking around can uncover all sorts of aspects to your field of interest that you were never even aware of. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Updates to product pages and being up to date.

I was looking over the VAIO article and it has a lot of information for some products and skips information about others. Also when describing a product it doesn't talk about differences in different regions. I was wondering what's the philosophy about out dated products and product evolutions. Do we keep information about old products or delete it? Is it wikipedia's role to try to provide specs and consumer information?

Which approach is better the Toshiba Satellite page with more timeless information or the VAIO page which tries to be up to date and with specific details, but a bit random.

7ragon5ly (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! That was a great question. The general rule is that notability is not temporary, so if information will probably be irrelevant in a few years, it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Therefore, articles should include some information about all products past and present, but shouldn't go into too much detail about stuff that will be outdated soon. So I would say that the Toshiba Satellite article is a good model for balance (although the article has other problems, especially a shortage of references. Unfortunately, most articles have a recentism bias, meaning they're slanted heavily towards recent events. This bias is very difficult to avoid, but it's still worth trying. -- YPNYPN 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

will my article be published

I have been working on my article for about a week now. I'd like to get an opinion on whether you guys think it will published before I post it. Shomburg (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:AFC where people can review your article and give tips on wether or not it would be deleted once it became and actual viewable article. Cheers! §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanx Shaun. My article is in Sandbox how do I transfer it to WP;AFC for review? Shomburg (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a Template you can add, I'll see if I can help §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 02:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to, since it already has, Good Luck! §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 02:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Musical Artist Information

Hey, I'm new here, and I tried to edit a page of a musical artist, which lacked a information bar at the side. I input information such as genre, name, etc. but it just appeared above the article. ClashFan2 03:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clashfan2 (talk • contribs)

Hi ClashFan2, welcome to the Teahouse. We call it an infobox. Another editor has made some fixes.[5] See Template:Infobox musical artist for the documentation and note that }} must come after all the parameters. This is the case for all templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Clashfan2, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse! Those nifty little sidebars that a lot of articles have are called infoboxes, and they are created on something called a template. The one you will need to use isTemplate:Infobox musical artist. Just follow the link to the page for it, copy it, paste it into the article on the top line (below any maintenance tags, tho) and fill out some of the information. Don't worry about what you don't have. If you leave a field blank, it just won't appear when you save it. Would you possibly let us know what article so we can stop by and see how it is going? Thanks for stopping by! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits that are more than minor

I am wondering what to do when I find an article that simply needs to be rewritten because it was poorly crafted. Should I go ahead and make the edits, or is there some protocol to follow so as not to offend the original contributor?

Thanks

Wordcraft (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that I am potentially rewriting one paragraph of a two paragraph article on a subject with which I am very familiar. thanks

Wordcraft (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wordcraft! Welcome to Wikipedia :-) As we like to say here, "BE BOLD" -- go ahead and make the edits. It can also be a good idea to leave a note on the article's talk page for the other editors working there. Make sure you've got good references for any facts that you add, and you should be just fine. Good luck! Siko (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And please fill in the edit summary field for each edit you make. Providing a brief explanation of what you're doing, and why, is helpful to anyone else who's watching that page. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BOLD and WP:OWNER. ⁓ Hello71 03:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting "published"

After discovering much information on Wikipedia about a wide variety of subjects I came across one of interest on which I had personal knowledge, the Train Collectors Association. I updated the information, only to be "deleted" within 48 hours. Now I'm feeling that I'm never going to get the article "up to snuff" in order to get it republished.

If the intent of Wikipedia is to make the articles editable, they certainly delete very quickly. It might be more user friendly to walk a new editor through a short training before allowing edits. That way a person knows what they are getting into and whether they are ready for the long haul.

New Editor, Carol McGinnisCarol.McGinnis (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carol! We do have an Adopt-a-user program for new users that guides them through the basics of Wikipedia. This course is entirely optional, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You can request adoption, if you'd like. If you post the article that you're trying to modify, perhaps someone could shed some light on why the content may have been removed. Thanks again! Go Phightins! 19:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Carol! I, too, apologize for your bad initial experience here at Wikipedia. Firstly, let me give some good news. Someone came along and rescued your article on the National Toy Train Museum. And the article you are working on at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Train Collectors Association isn't dead, it has just been declined for now. You can keep working on it, and many of us here will be glad to help! From the look of it, you have surmounted the reference problem. All that remains is some cleanup, which if you will allow me, I'll be happy to help with. On a related note, I would be very interested in hearing what we could do better to make things easier for new editors to succeed. If you have the time and inclination to help us make things easier, please feel free to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Thanks! BTW, I like my trains 1:1 scale! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, Carol! Wikipedia created standards of requiring verifiable information published in reliable sources not connected with an organization long ago. I see your Train Collectors Association article battling its way through the Articles for Creation. Nice work on the National Toy Train Museum article, by the way. Still there, just modified to correspond to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Back to the Train Collectors Association (TCA) article. You might try posting to the forums of the various TCA divisions around the country. Tell them that you're trying to develop an article on Wikipedia and ask that local groups email you about coverage of their events and displays published in local and regional newspapers, magazines, TV stations and such. Explain that it needs to be a feature, more than just announcements of meetings or swap meets. You need things like the article in http://tnhomeandfarm.com/tn-train-show-brings-locomotion-commotion but unfortunately, you can't use that article because the parent company, Journal Communications, tried to use Wikipedia to promote their sites and all of their sites are permanently blacklisted. You're likely to find what you need is out there but it doesn't show up in Google and Bing searches. Once you find a couple of those independent reliable sources about the TCA, your article will be approved. Then you'll have to put up with the Wiki Fairies quickly changing your article. Good luck and keep us informed of your progress, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Nat'l Toy Train Museum is close to my hometown; I've been there a few times. Go Phightins! 03:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Wordcraft (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

List of dog breeds by country

Hi,

There appears to be an IP continually making edits to the List of dog breeds by country. It's very difficult to keep track of what he/she is doing as no edit summaries are included, sometimes the edits appear good, while others are dubious/probably vandalism. This morning, the entire section for Germany was removed, which I have restored. I have put a notice about it on the IP's talkpage. However, I see there is a template about abuse reports because it's a 'Smart Broadband'.

I think some of the edits have now made a bit of a pigs ear of this list as some of the breeds added are red links (possibly made up? I've never heard of Zen Bulldog or Zoo Bulldog, Paris Hound etc but perhaps they do exist?). It may be the only way to ensure the accuracy of the list would be to go through each breed - a very onerous task for someone!

I guess my question for you is - should this be reported somewhere, and if so, where?

SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Phil, welcome to the Teahouse. If you are sure that the edits are vandalism the place to report the abuse is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. In cases like this it can be difficult to establish if it's all or some of their edits but you are doing the right thing by leaving warnings on their talk page. The notice on the talk page is a common heading for talk pages of IP accounts. Looking at the contribution history, it is 'troublesome' so at some point someone must has carried out a WhoIs check and found which ISP the IP address is registered to, then if there are issues an administrator can contact the company to report the abuse. That isn't something for you to become involved in though. NtheP (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NtheP. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Help regarding writing an article.

Greetings Teahouse Mates. I need guidance regarding writing an error free article which is really attractive. Help me please. Sugumar Senguttuvan (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Vanakkam Sugumar! For advice in general, Wikipedia:Your first article is a good introduction to the basics. In your case, are you thinking specifically of how to avoid deletion such as is proposed for your article Fear II: Tamil Short Film (2013)?

For your Fear article (which also should be entitled Fear (2013 film), but don't change it yet), have you read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear II: Tamil Short Film (2013) where editors explain exactly why the article should be deleted? A few of the issues with the article:

• The article uses non-Neutral language like An unique vibrant & epic compositions are expected from the debut music director for this final thriller blockbuster. You can imagine, someone reading that line would be inclined to suspect that the writer was either promoting the film, or a big fan who can't keep their personal enthusiasm separate from the need to give neutral, factual information.
• Your overall formatting is not the Wikipedia standard. You need to look at other, similar Wikipedia articles on well-developed topics, and see how they format sections, categories, WP:Infobox, etc. Wikipedia has a certain way of formatting articles for clarity, so it doesn't work to just write it in whatever style without following the standard.
• Your plot outline is very confusingly written; as someone who hasn't seen the film, I can't really look at the outline and get any idea for what goes on in the movie.
• All the above are just things to keep in mind while writing, but they aren't the reasons it's been proposed for deletion. If it were just those, the article would be marked as needing cleanup, but the reasons for deletion are that you've provided no evidence that this film has received substantive media coverage. Your only references are a YouTube trailer and a press-release; further, this film hasn't even come out yet, so you would need strong evidence of major media discussion before it even comes out.
• If you want to write a film article that won't be deleted, you must review Wikipedia:Notability (films) and ensure that any film you want to cover meets the standards set in that article.

Does this answer your question so far? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Is there a maximum number of times an article can be featured in the DYK section? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, it's once only. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, DYK is only for new or greatly expanded articles. See Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

So won't that make it possible for an article to appear twice on DYK? First time: Newly created, 1500 prose characters within past five days. Second time: Expanded fivefold Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 07:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the article says: "Items that have been on DYK before (pre-expansion, for example) are ineligible." PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploading new version of a file

Hi guys, how do you go about uploading a new version of a file? Thought it was easy, but displayed file is still the same as the old revision, despite the file upload history being different. The new image which I replaced the old one with, does not display. What happened? The file is File:The_Bourne_Legacy_Poster.jpg, if you wish to know. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Bonkers, the revised version you uploaded (twice) did appear but another user subsequently reverted the image back to the previous version. If you do change an image version, especially when like this one it's used under a non free rationale template then you must ensure that the non free rationale is valid. So if you've obtained your version from a different source or as appears to be the claim here your isn't a theatrical poster you need to update the information template as well so that it matches the image you have uploaded. NtheP (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

protecting a page

can anyone tell me how to protect a page?Anidemun (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anidemun, welcome to the teahouse! You can request semi-protection or protection of a page at WP:RFPP. Common reasons are if there is edit-warring happening, repeated violations of the biographies of living persons policy, or repeated insertion of copyright-infringing material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

thanx Demiurge1000 Anidemun (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

linking categories

Hi, I'm new. I tried linking Category:Construction terminology and Category:Glossary of Architecture but after several attempts I could not get the link to show up in the preview. Can categories be linked?

Thanks; Jim Derby (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Jim, welcome to the Teahouse. Categories can be linked but I'm not seeing why you'd want to link these two. Categories are a navigation aid and sit inside a hierarchical structure. So categories can be members of other categories. If you can explain in what way you want to link them, then I'm sure we can explain how. Incidentally Category:Glossary of Architecture doesn't exist, there is an article with the name Glossary of architecture but not a category. NtheP (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry from being a dweeb. I have been unable to link Category:Construction terminology to the article Glossary of Architecture. These two pages have many interchangeable entries and are closely related. People, such as myself, will benefit from a link between these areas. I just added Category:Construction terminology to the gloss of arch. and I now understand it might not show up for a while in the construction terminology page. I do not know how to make a link for people looking at the gloss or arch. to know their is a page of const. terminology. Thanks again; Jim Derby (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

[[Category:Construction terminology]] places the page in Category:Construction terminology and adds a link in a box at the bottom of the page after "Categories:". Such code can be placed anywhere but is nearly always placed at the end of an aritcle and not in a See also section. [[:Category:Construction terminology]] with a colon at the start makes the inline link Category:Construction terminology and doesn't place the page in the category. See more at Help:Category. Links to categories are rarely used in See also sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The glossary of architecture now shows up in the Category:Construction terminology, but I am not sure how to let people who are looking at the Glossary of Architecture how to get to Category:Construction terminology. I hope you see my logic in trying to link these pages. Also, people looking for definitions may not scroll to the bottom of a page so in all glossaries I suggest the "See also" section be put near the top of the page. Also I have other questions, should I start new sections for each topic or just fire away here? Thanks; Jim Derby (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Hotcat would help. §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 23:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources & Mugshot on convicted criminal page

After reviewing the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page, i have a few questions:

1) The restriction of reference to primary sources in wikipedia in general is understandable, but the restriction on the use of police reports as a primary source seems bizarre. e.g. I would like to clarify the number and types of weapons a convicted murderer used during their crime. The only reliable source of this would be the initial police report or perhaps the prosecutor’s indictment. Secondary sources such as newspaper or broadcast accounts notoriously get these details wrong. And in this case, the current wiki article states a “semi-automatic machine pistol” which is an oxymoron, and “numerous weapons”. The original police report lists only two specific guns, and later judicial document only discuss two guns. Wouldn’t these police/court records be the best sources and legitimate references for this?

2) Is inclusion of the booking or official prisoner mug shot for convicted criminals on the page a standard, or is it generally avoided? And as a follow-up: Can the mug shot from the publicly-available Department of Corrections prisoner locator site legitimately be uploaded to wiki commons and used on this criminal’s wiki page? BBODO (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

BBODO, welcome to the Teahouse.

1. I think your comment demonstrates why the primary source rule is there. Who says the police report is reliable or accurate? It's the officer's opinion of what they saw or found. If this officer's report was challenged in court and a judge ruled one way or another that ruling might just about be acceptable as a citation but only to the point of supporting the factual statement "the court ruled that . . ." Judges and courts are not infallible so it can't be taken as a definitive statement only one that was agreed in a certain forum. Admittedly a fairly important one but one that isn't fully independent of the subject.
2. Mug shots are subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other image used on Wikipedia - it must be a copyright free image or permission for it's use has been given. Being publicly available is not the same as being in the public domain. NtheP (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

1. These non-answers really didn't help. A judge doesn't rule on what what's in a police report or what a policeman did or didn't actually see or do or what was found, only it's admissibility in court. Very different things. The point is that the documentation about what evidence was found at a crime scene is going to be the most reliable (unless actually demonstrated to be factually incorrect) source available. The logic here is that “Splattered blood covering approx. 6” X 20” approx 24” from the ground on the south wall of the building” from a police report isn’t able to referenced according to this rule, but “Blood splatters were found at the scene” from a newspaper article which is only parroting the police report, (or more likely only reporting hearsay), is a valid reference. That’s just bad research and bad documentation. Wiki references primary sources all the time, e.g. medical literature regarding pharmacology or physiology. Many letters are found in Wiki. e,g, Einstein–Szilárd letter, and Roosevelt’s reply. Can’t get much more primary than that. Government documents are referenced all the time. “Rosaparks busdiagram.jpg” is a court document. Doesn’t seem to be any problem there. A police report is just another government document. Saying something like “Police reported blood stains were found at the scene”, and referencing the police report seems the best way to document something like this. “Who says the police report is reliable or accurate?” is a silly question. You can ask that about any document. Who says a newspaper article is reliable? Every periodical has an “Errata/Corrections” section. Relying on a newspaper writer’s biased interpretation of something, or a sensationalist book quote is pretty illogical. It would follow that quoting the National Enquirer as a solid reference for Bigfoot’s existence.

These larger questions aside, the simple question is: how do i document and reference what weapons a criminal used in a crime, knowing that the current comments are incorrect?

1. I understand a picture “[b]eing publicly available is not the same as being in the public domain.” That’s why I’m asking about its use here. Seems like a mug shot taken by a government agency falls under (17 USC 105) and is therefore not copyrightable, but the license i see used for mugs shots says that some are. My question is: are police or Dept. of Corrections mug shots generally considered useable at Wiki? I see lots of mug shots at Wiki, (File:Rosa Parks Booking.jpg, File:Steve McQueen.jpg, File:Jeffrey-dahmer.jpg, etc.) so this seemed true, but I wanted to verify that. Should I use the “{ {Non-free fair use in} }” license? BBODO (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

review my article before I go live

Re: User:Shomburg/sandbox (Sean C, American DJ)

Can you review my article and give me an opinion on whether it will be accepted? Shomburg (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse!

I just ran through your article and I'll have to say that it needs alot of improvement. First of all, it needs more sections and content (giving a lead and discography is not enough). Add sections like Personal Life, Career, Early Life etc. Why don't you see other articles on music producers for a general idea how to go about it? That will help. Secondly, you've not cited the article properly. Many of the refs are simply urls, which are seriously not good for an article. Use the CITE WEB template from the CITE tab in the editing page and fill out the necessary details. Thirdly, the article needs clean up. Some of the words are entirely capitalised and some are not. So overall the article needs a lot of improvement but I'm sure if you rectify them you'll succeed in making it an amazing article. Hope you succeed. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Declining a page at AFC

Do you have to be an official reviewer to decline a page at AFC if it is obvious garbage, like this? King jakob c (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi King jakob c. You don't have to be any sort of official to review new pages (there exists a Reviewer userright, but it's for reviewing pending changes, not new pages). As long as you have a basic grasp of Wikipedia's basic inclusion requirements, you are welcome to patrol new pages - there are some instructions to help you get started at this page. Your assistance would be appreciated, since AFC is nearly always backlogged these days. As for that particular page, I've deleted it as spurious vandalism, so no review required! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Its in preferences, under gadgets, theres a program called "Yet another AFC Helper Script" click the checkmark box next to it and save. Then, when on an AFC article, there is a little tab next to the search bar, roll over it and click "Review". Hope that helps you! §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

make a userbox?

how can i make my own userbox? Zeroro (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! There is a page at Wikipedia:Userboxes which gives you all the information you need about userboxes, do's and don'ts, and how to create them. Keri (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Welcome to the teahouse. Custom userboxes can be made by filling out the parameters for Template:Userbox. Or, more conveniently, by filling out Template:Userbox sample compact (example: {{subst:Userbox sample compact|id=UBX|id-c=red|info=This is a '''[[WP:UBX|Userbox]]'''.}}) which will automatically generate the Wiki markup for you.--xanchester (t) 00:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am still very confused after reading this and I read the wikipedia user box page a well. Can someone explain in a more simpler step by step way. Quintus Petronius Augustus 15:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus (talk • contribs)

Quintus, welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't an area I've much experience in, but I'd suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes (yes, there is a wikiproject dedicated to userboxes!) to see if they have a tutorial page. NtheP (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

HRH Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon Two Sicilies (b. 2003)- Notable for an article?

Re: User:PrincessAlice13/Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (b. 2003)

I have an article in my Sandbox about HRH Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon Two Sicilies (b. 2003) I know that she has been to the Danish Royal Twin's baptism as her father, The Duke of Castro, is their godfather. She has also performed another royal duty. There are a quite a few pictures of her online, but I'm just wondering whether she is notable enough for Wikipedia. Any advice? Thanks! PrincessAlice13 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Princess. Welcome to the teahouse. Notability depends on whether the subject has received "significant coverage" in third party reliable sources independent of the subject. I see you do not currently have any references on the page but if she has performed public duties there are likely to be newspaper reports about it. You may be able to find more details here although I cannot see a subsection on princesses!--Charles (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, there was some discussion a year or so ago about a child of similar age who was slightly further removed, in his case from the former Greek throne. From what I can remember, the conclusion was that he was not notable, and/or that there should not be an article about him. You may struggle to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an article, but (even as a committed BLP zealot) I believe there's no particular harm in trying. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and information! I have been reading more articles and have added more referenced information to my article. --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Are maintenance banners supposed to be added to the References section of an article?

Hi there, I'm in a bit of a dilemma- an IP user keeps on adding a Unclear Citation style banner and Lack of inline citations in the REFERENCES section of the Wonder Woman article. But the references section basically just lists all the refs and cites on the page, then why add these banner there. I removed it once, but the user added them again; is there really some issue that needs to be addresses? Thanks,WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Wonderboy, welcome to the Teahouse! In general, I believe it's okay to put maintenance tags at the tops of sections as opposed to the top of the page when the tag only applies to the content of that section. I see why the IP is putting the tags where they are; the tags are highlighting problems with the referencing, so they're being placed in the references section. The "lacks inline citations" tag doesn't need to be on the article at all; there is no shortage of them (which is a good thing!) The "unclear citation style" as a little bit more reasonable, and I could see placing it in the References section (because that's where one would see the citation styles used), the top of the article (because it needs to be fixed within the ref tags throughout the article, not in the references section), or removing it altogether (because who cares?). Maybe that's just me, though. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just bold and went ahead and removed both of them, actually. —Theopolisme 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys!

WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between images uploaded to Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia itself?

I am a new user and I still can't upload to Wikipedia directly but I can upload on Wikimedia commons. I am wondering whats the difference? Is it the same thing? Can I upload content that is not 'strictly' creative commons (eg. just found it on the net somewhere and the license is unclear)? ∞4 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Inifini4, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia and Commons are closely related, but they are separate sites that serve slightly different purposes. Commons is a free image repository; it can only store images that are available in the public domain or have been released under a free licence. Most of Wikipedia's images are drawn from Commons. If you created or photographed a picture yourself, or if you can prove that it is free to be reused, you should upload it to Commons.

It is also possible to upload images directly to Wikipedia. However, this is normally only done if the picture is not free or is otherwise unsuitable for Commons. Examples of such images would be company logos or screenshots of video games, which can be used under the fair-use guidelines (basically, where there is no possible free equivalent). Only autoconfirmed users (users with four days' presence and ten edits) can upload images to Wikipedia itself.

You cannot upload any image where the copyright is unclear, this goes for virtually anything you find on the web (Google images etc.).

I hope that helps clear things up! Yunshui 雲‍水 11:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks ∞4 (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Psssh!! Forgot to sign again! Still getting used to it... ∞4 (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• On a related note, can you confirm my account so I can upload to Wikipedia immediately and don't have to wait 4 days? ∞4 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If the image is free or you created it, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons right now, and it will become immediately available for use in Wikipedia. If it isn't free, but you believe it may be suitable for upload to Wikipedia, you can file a request at Files for upload. Either way, although it's unusual for an account to be granted confirmed status purely for an image upload, you should file a request at Requests for permissions if you want to be confirmed early. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. Actually the image is not strictly free, its a corporate logo. But, I guess, ill request confirmation anyway, cause I haven't recovered from my adrenaline rush that I got today for my first ever edit - I am all PUMPED and can't wait. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiniti4 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely go via Files for upload, then. When you get to the "Other" part of the Upload Wizard, make sure you fill in all the fields carefully, especially the "Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload" part. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(and have a read of the non-free content policy first; it's long, but it'll keep you legal!) Yunshui 雲‍水 11:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You are awesome. I gave you a kitten! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiniti4 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello ∞4, I'd like to follow up on your final question, about where to upload images whose license is unclear. The simple answer is—neither place. We need to have clarity on the license, so that it can be on commons,if it qualifies with a free license, or on Wikipedia is not free, but meets the Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines (sometimes, but not quite correctly, referred to as fair-use). Images where we cannot determine the license create all sorts of headaches, and will generally be deleted eventually, so best not to add them. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, and while people upload things they find on the net somewhere every day, we delete such images whenever we find them. On a more positive note, I'm glad you are here, I'm glad you are pumped, and I love your user name.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad you liked my username. I have a question - So what if the owner of the image gives me explicit permission to use his image on Wikipedia? Under what 'license' does that fall into? (The image is copyrighted.) With just his permission, can I then upload it to Wikipedia? ∞4 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 4! That puts you on kinda shaky ground. If the image is a photograph, the owner of the copyright will have to be willing to release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, the same license that all our writings are released under. It will then be free for anyone to use for any purpose, forever. If the image is a logo, you can upload it without a release for the limited purpose of illustrating an article about the organization that owns the copyright. That is called fair use. Hope this helps. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, have a look at WP:Donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)