Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 174

Archive 170

←

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

→

Archive 180

Is there any one who can look over my citations?

Hey guys! I'm new to wikipedia and have created a page in my sandbox waiting for submission. Is anyone able to look over my citations? I want to make sure I've done them correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bali88/sandbox Bali88 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I made several changes to your article. Your references look OK to me. Checkingfax (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey there! If a page is deleted, is it possible to at least have a history or a log of the page as it was previously? I don't want to recreate it, I just want to adapt its content to put to its source page. Thanks. I'm not there. Message me! 05:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, only admins can view deleted content. Ordinary users can see the reason a page was deleted, but more than that would sort of defeat the point of deleting it in the first place :). Maybe if you posted a link to the page here and a more detailed explanation of what you wanted to do, you might find an admin who's willing to help out. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 06:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Making proper Citation

Hi, I have the references to my article in URL format. How do i go about changing them? How may I improve citation of the article "African Leadership Network"? Rotich Giddie (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rotich Giddie. I think that if you read our handy and useful Referencing for beginners, everything will be clear to you. Bare URLs are unpopular here, and it is very satisfying (at least for me) to transform them into fully dressed references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

An editor of our organization's page is falsely posing as a staff member. Can I do anything?

My organization, an independent school been working on branding and imaging and as part of this process, one of the things we need to do is fully update and expand our Wikipedia page. I started working on this today and noticed that a user has made changes to the page using the full name of our principal. The principal has never edited the Wikipedia page. The user has made some edits which are largely without basis in fact and in some cases, negative and/or damaging (though hardly into libel territory, just negative editorializing). I am in the process of correcting the inaccurate statements and removing the editorial bias shown in a number of statements, but I am trying to find out if there is any way to prevent this user from making further changes to the page and, if possible, flagging the account, since it is using our principal's name fraudulently to make incorrect statements about the school. Should I post to the user's talk page? I'm not even sure what the appropriate thing to post there would be, aside from noting their incorrect statements. Should I contact an administrator?

Thanks in advance for your assistance Smcs.archives (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Smcs.archives: Welcome to the Teahouse. Can you link to the article/user in question? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Michael%27s_Choir_School and the user in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Barry.white.smcs&action=edit&redlink=1

Our principal, Barry White, has no knowledge of this username, nor has he ever edited a Wikipedia page. Please let me know if he should contact you directly. Smcs.archives (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The username is probably in breach of Wikipedia policy, as explained at Wikipedia:REALNAME. You could report it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur goes shopping, thanks for your response. That is exactly the policy I was looking for. Since it hasn't been active in the last 2-3 weeks, I won't be able to report it under the rules in your second link, however I will personally be keeping an eye on it as I make corrections on the Wikipedia page, and will leave a Talk message for the user.

Smcs.archives (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I agree it's not okay to pretend to be somebody else. Best of luck resolving that problem! But bear in mind that if all contributions and additions are well-sourced then it makes it easy to decide what is true and what isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "branding and imaging" tool, so hopefully any future additions will be cited to reliable sources, to make editing disputes less likely. Sionk (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The article in question St. Michael's Choir School was VERY poorly referenced, I have started to add some reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly, since you said "My organization ... [has] been working on branding and imaging and ... one of the things we need to do is fully update and expand our Wikipedia page" no-one has pointed out that you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article at all. Please make any suggestions for changes on the talk page. Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Arjayay, I did consider saying this, but went looking, and found that Smcs.archives had already had that conversation: see Talk:Theroadislong. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I need to do more digging, but never think it is harmful to put that on a very public page like this (PS I think you mean User talk:Theroadislong) Arjayay (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

reference

how to add reference to my page, which i dont know to do and wikipedia is saying that my page would be deleted if its not done, how to do it??Wingchunachu (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking about Sifu Liv? There are many useful links in the box at the top of the page, but a good one to start with is WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also for an easy referencing platform you can try ProveIt. Go to your preferences --> gadgets, check ProveIt gadget and then save. Next time when you edit any page, it will have an interface for referencing in the bottom right corner of your screen. Mr RD 15:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

One person nominating all the created articles by another one for deletion.

Hello, I have a concern. While going through the articles nominated for deletion today I saw that the nominator Raykyogrou0 posted all the created articles by Sky Harbor to deletion without even seeing any sign of notability of any article. The same happened yesterday too. Seems like a war is going on between the two. This is not an healthy symptom. What should be done for it? Rafaelgriffin (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rafaelgriffin. Like you, I am dumbfounded as to how I got myself into this situation, as I was caught completely off guard. Note that prior to this, I've had minimal interaction with Raykyogrou0, if any, so while I don't think he/she has a grudge with me and I must assume good faith with respect to his/her motive, I still think this could have been handled better rather than just wantonly nominating articles for deletion. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is my user space created?

Hi. I created my account. I think I have my user space created along with my sandbox. However I am not sure. Is there away for someone to double check this? I want to start my first article but I want to have it in my sandbox first, then ask for help on the editing. Can anyone help me?

Musiccamping Musiccamping (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have started your sandbox at User:Musiccamping/sandbox, and if you want to you can start other user subpages at User:Musiccamping/whatever you want the title to be. I have put a few useful links in a welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Musiccamping. You have started a sandbox page, although there isn't much there. You have not yet created a user page, which you can do by clicking the red link with your name. Once you add anything there and save it, the link will turn blue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Next question. Lets see of this works.....I created an article in my user space to work on, but I don't know how to get back to it to work on it. Can someone help me?

MusiccampingMusiccamping (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You can see your own contributions by clicking the Contributions button in the top right, which will take you to this page. There you can see the pages you've edited :) Samwalton9 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I leave a message for Benzband

Hello, I would like to leave a message for Benzband and have forgotten how to do that. Please help me. Many thanks. Sofiabrampton Sofiabrampton (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you need to go to that user's talkpage, located at User talk:Benzband, you can leave your message there :) Samwalton9 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Samwalton9. I did that, supplying info on what I need to do (add a line and ref). Then I supplied the line to be inserted and the reference but these didn't show up on the message to Benzband that I sent yesterday. I thought that I'd done something incorrectly!?

I'll try to paste the line & ref again here to see if they are visible: <ref> He has also been sited for making the distinction between the documentary genre and reality-based entertainment http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/a-new-er-pulls-back-the-curtain-on-public-health-care/article16177576/ <ref> Many thanks,

Sofia Brampton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiabrampton (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sofia, the problem here is you are using double-opening-tags. Here is what you *want* to be doing, instead.

He has also been sited for making the distinction between the documentary genre and reality-based entertainment.

which will produce this at the bottom of an actual article:

Your mistake is that you are pasting <ref> ... <ref> when what you want is <ref> ... </ref> note the / in the tag#2. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: there is a handy-dandy template for references in talk pages; see: {{reflist-talk}} ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How often is WP:IAR used as a (counter)argument and how often does it actually succeed in a debate?

Remsense (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Remsense! That's actually a very tricky question, and the answer will depend on who you ask. In my opinion, the answer to your first question is "more than it should be" and the answer to the second is "not often". The reason for this, in my mind, is that if someone is disputing an action for which you would invoke IAR, you're probably not using IAR correctly. IAR is not a synonym for "I can do whatever I want and forget the rules". Rather, it's about not having to worry about whether an action that is plainly okay might be technically against the rules. Employed correctly, (and again this is just my opinion), you should never really have to invoke IAR to defend your actions, because an action within the spirit of IAR should never need to be challenged in the first place. It should be clear to everyone that it's right, even though the rules might, strictly speaking, say otherwise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you so much for the quick response! Follow-up question, if I may.

It seems that the wording of WP:IAR is worded too vaguely, either for aesthetics or for flexibility, not really sure which. What exactly defines 'improving or maintaining Wikipedia'?

Remsense (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and does anyone have a case example for where WP:IAR was used successfully? I'd like to see a legitimate use.Remsense (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

IAR is worded vaguely on purpose - it's one of the fundamental cores of Wikipedia editing, which is why it's so generalized. IAR in a nutshell is "use common sense", and that applies to anything done on Wikipedia, whether it be discussions, edits, etc.

If you want an example of a case where it was used successfully, that's also a tricky question. As Writ Keeper said, if IAR is being used correctly, there is no reason to invoke it to defend ones actions. It's not so much a rule as it is a principle to follow when editing, that allows for guidelines to be flexible and to prevent the mess that can be bureaucracy. If you see an editor doing something that's not conventional, but is still common sense, then you're looking at the principle of IAR in action. It could be argued that many of the policies today are the result of editors using common sense in certain situations, which eventually went to discussion and got implemented into policy. For example, I'm sure that some of the exemptions to the 3-revert-rule are the result of an editor reverting the edits of another editor 3+ times for reasons that were obviously warranted, but not listed under the exemptions at the time.

I think reading the following essays will better explain IAR and what it means:

• Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules – a beginner's guide
• Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means

Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Remsense: I don't do it often but I will speedy a page invoking IAR where I deem it proper. Here's some examples: A public domain upload of an adolescent girl with the uploader asking people at the help desk how he can find out her name. It met the letter of no criterion directly. A patent serial copyright violator posts articles that screams copyvio, but for that one, where it was taken from couldn't be found. Or the run of the mill, absolutely blatant inappropriate article, that meets no criterion but wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD so we don't elevate process over substance. For example, an article about a person's pet rabbit that they bought yesterday and what they should name it. Note that some of these examples would meet policy in existence now that did not when they occurred. Numerous blatant articles are speedied every day but often (and in my opinion every poorly), people do not invoke IAR but rather invoke a criterion that does not fit (especially abused is vandalism (G3) and tests (G2)). Anyway: [1].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Remsense, hello and welcome to the teahouse. As for your request for an example of its successful use. You may wish to consider this instance where an administrator choose to IAR. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remsense, your question is wise beyond your editcountitis.  :-)   What folks have said above was in response to your literal question, but I'm going to take a different tack, and respond to the question you did not quite ask. To me, the interesting question is not how often WP:IAR is used in debate... it is rather, how often WP:IAR is used without there being a need for debate. The answer is reasonably shocking: 99% of editors, when they first began editing, were operating purely under WP:IAR. There are a few editors who read a good chunk of the five bazillion WP:ALPHABETSOUP rules we have nowadays, before making their first edit, but these are few and far between. Most people are just members of the readership, who notice something missing or incorrect or unclear or otherwise needing attention, click the edit button up top, and then click save. They didn't need any rules. They hadn't even read any rules. They just saw something that needed improving or maintaining, and made it happen. *That* is the reason that WP:IAR is important: so that beginning editors, without registering for an account, without reading any helpdocs, can click edit, make an improvement, and click save. See also WP:UIAR, especially the two corollaries up at the top. Use of WP:IAR in debates between two *experienced* wikipedians is relatively rare, but I personally see it (not counting my own arguments :-)   at least once a month or thereabouts. Win-to-loss ratio is above 50% anecdotally. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

helping

How do i take part in an online helpline on wiki? Pixiepup (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pixiepup and welcome to the teahouse. Places like here, the help desk, and the IRC channel you were in earlier are good places to help other editors. You don't appear to have any experience editing Wikipedia however, are these your first edits? If so it will be best for you to edit more and learn about the various policies and guidelines before helping others :) Samwalton9 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

find a satellite-map for an article

I'm trying to add some satellite-mapping-images to an existing article (about a school), for illustrative purposes. I don't have such a satellite map... because well, you know how it is, my own personal spysat is in the shop.  :-)   How does one go about this task, please? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi 74 and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I'm aware, Google Earth imagery is copyrighted by Google Inc. I'm not aware of any way it could meet fair use criteria. There's one possibility that comes to mind. If works of the government of India are in public domain and there is a government agency that makes maps (like the USGS in the United States), then such images could probably be used. I don't really know if there is a similar agency in India, but it's probably your best shot. --Jakob (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jakob, thanks for the answer... I think GoogEarth stuff that Pratham attempted to upload is copyright navsat, and google just sub-licenses, but same difference.  :-)   That's not my question though... I know better than to use WP:GOOG proprietary stuff... my question is, where *do* I get a satellite map, sans encumbrances?

  In particular, are there not already U.S. government-provided, public domain, satellite-maps-of-the-world? See NGIA/NRO (or maybe ISR), plus of course NASA. I've never added one to an article, but Pratham is definitely thinking we must have one. <grin> If not satmap, then I'll fall back to a streetmap, or preferably, a topomap, but I've never added one of those either.

  So I guess that means I have two questions. There is an article which explains why to use or not use maps: WP:Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_wikipedia_articles. I'm looking for the article that says, WP:So you have decided an illustrative map will help and are trying to get one for free. Is there such a helpdoc? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. On many articles about places, you will see Coordinates in the upper-right corner. Click on the associated icon to bring up WikiMiniAtlas (map) where you can select Settings and Satellite. If the article doesn't have that, and you want to add a 'coordinates' template -- then somebody else will have to assist you (sorry). ~I hope this helps, ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC):[modified:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)]

Ahh, cool. The article has the coords, and there is a mini-map inside it. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiMiniAtlas/en — this has the details, the satmap data is originally from NASA. So that answers my first question. Now that I have a datasource, my second question is, can I have an inline static WikiMiniAtlas map, as an "imagefile" in the prose of the article? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any reason why you can't. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive creation on user talk page.

Hello again, I want help on archive creation for my user talk page as it has gone too lengthy and I don't want to delete old discussions and notifications. Please help me with the creation for the archive. I have tried earlier but have not succeeded so far. Mr RD 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am at work and something just came up, and only have a couple of seconds; I just set up archiving for the talk page. Someone else please explain. Thank you!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mr RD! Creating user talk page archives is very simple. You just create a page where you want to archive old posts (for example User talk:Mr RD/Archive 1). Then you cut old discussion from your talk page and paste them to the newly created archive page. That's it. When that archive is too long, you can crate User talk:Mr RD/Archive 2 and so on. You may add {{talkarchive}} template to the archive page(s), and {{archive box}} template to the talk page to make navigation easier. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr RD. Alternatively, you can ask MiszaBot to do it for you. Please have a look at User:MiszaBot. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mr RD: Okay, Sorry about my half-assed post above with a botched signature; I was literally running. So what I set up was archiving through User:MiszaBot/config (the actual archiving will be done by Lowercase sigmabot) with a maximum archive size of 70 KB (if it hits 70 it will created archive 2); it archives threads after they are 31 days old; except that the bot will always leave the page with at least 4 threads (even if they are older than that). You can change the value supplied in the template to something else to tweak its function. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing the message about an article needing translation, after the translation is done.

I translated an article from French to English. This article in English Wikipedia still bears this message: "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia". Can this message now be removed?Phormium (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phormium, good job expanding that, thanks! I removed the template. It's perfectly ok to remove task templates after doing what they say needs to be done. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Now that you've finished, you should add a template on the talk page to "give information about content imported into the English Wikipedia from a non-English-language Wikipedia". Please see: Template:Translated page. It seems somewhat complicated; perhaps one of the helpful Teahouse hosts could assist (I'm just a Teahouse busboy). ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I drafted a new article, is it ok?

I read a lot of helpful articles about writing your first article, notability, citations and how to start out on Wikipedia. I think I got the basics down and created a draft article in my sandbox. I'd like to now ask for advice, review or help to make it more appropriate. I read that asking for help is the best way to learn and I don't want to get blocked again for not knowing the guidelines. Emlass Emlass (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emlass to Teahouse! I've read the sandbox draft on your userpage, it seems like a good start for an article. I would recommend playing The Wikipedia Adventure, it is an interactive tutorial and helpful guide for beginners, you'll learn many features and how to start an article! ///EuroCarGT 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Answered my own question

Hi again. Right after posting my question, I saw a link on the right margin for notability standards for writers. I'm going there right now. Byron Laursen (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

One more woops.

Okay, now I figured out that it wasn't a link, just a summary of the question I'd just posted. I'll sit still a few minutes and hope to learn. Byron Laursen (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

notability standards for writers

Hi. Can you please help me access information on what standards a writer must meet to be considered notable, and thereby worth of a Wikipedia entry? Byron Laursen (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Byron, the basics are at WP:AUTHOR. Fundamentally, the key is getting reviews in wikiReliable Sources like newspapers/magazines/teevee/academia (can be online or offline && can be English or non-English... but must be fact-checked-by-professional-editorial-board and/or peer-reviewed-by-independent-professional-academics). See also, WP:GNG. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

created to article with same name now dont know what to do.

hi, I have created two articles by the muazzam beg, This is living person biographies. one article created directly on page. i don't know on which page i have to do work.Vikassingh0111 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have made 3 attempts:

• Muazzam beg was tagged for deletion for a variety of reasons, and has now been redirected to Muazzam Beg.
• Muazzam Beg has been tagged for deletion as it includes no references.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Muazzam Beg is the sensible place for you to work. You need to take account of the advice you have already received, particularly regarding referencing, and you will receive further advice until it is ready to be published.

--David Biddulph (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem adding references in new article

I have created the BS 8878 article. This contains a reference to a British Standard. However when saving the page I get a message saying:

There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist

But I have included the reflist tag.

Can anybody tell me what I'm doing wrong.

Thanks

BrianKelly (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem sorted - missing end ref tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisbk (talk • contribs) 09:14, 15 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Glad you've sorted it. I've taken the liberty of changing your single brackets to double brackets, as that makes it a wikilink to the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Article as master degree for an MD

Hello I am working in a specialized laboratory about a certain disease (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura - TTP). We found that an article about it already exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrombotic_thrombocytopenic_purpura). This disaese has a hereditary form that is aslo mentioned in it - "Upshaw-Schülman syndrome" (correct would be Upshaw-Schulman synsdrome). As our local swiss enducational system demands a short scientific work to graduate from medical school we thought about writing an articel about this rare disease form. The scietific work is called "master" but comes nowhere near a master degree work in other scientific fields like biology or similar regarding its size. However we are often approached by patients and their family members all over the world who want to know more about especially due to an international study we are doing about it. As my student would write this work together under my supervision and the supervision of the labs superior we asked ourselfes if such an article goes along with the Wikipedia policies and if an authorship consiting of more than one pearson is possible. There is no money involved and no new theories about this disease, just a review of what is already known. Magnus Mansouri (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Magnus, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that Wikipedia emphatically does not publish original research - before an article about the syndrome could be created, it would need to have been covered in multiple reliable sources (and those sources would also have to meet the more stringent demands of the medical sourcing policy). Put simply, you need to get your research published elsewhere (ideally in a reputable medical journal) before it can be written about here. What you propose is certainly an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work on Wikipedia - you might want to consider publishing at Wikiversity, though. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui

we would not like to publish any original research. We would like to give an overview from a neutral point of view about this disaese with using references from original research works from peer-reviewed journals in a way a peer reviewed work has to be presented in the scientific field. We won't add anything we can't find already in literature and won't include anything new facts we find out with our study. This certainly belongs in a reputable medical journal. 130.92.244.173 (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I clearly misunderstood your question. What you propose sounds fine. With regards to authorship, the relevant policy states that accounts cannot be shared - if you and your student both want to work on the article, your student will also need their own Wikipedia account. There is, however, no prohibition against editors working together on articles; it is in fact, encouraged - you may therefore find that other users will edit and amend your work. I don't know what implications that would have for your student's qualification - whilst each individual edit can be attributed, the eventual article might easily end up being the work of several authors who are not involved with your real-life work. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. We are looking forward to contribute to Wikipedia with this article. The more reviews we get the better it'll be and it would still qualify for our student. Thanks again you for the consideration.

130.92.244.173 (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Idea: List of Performers by Activity by Year of Debut

Hi, I've noticed lately that it has been possible to automate list-making; presumably someone comes up with an idea for a useful list, (1938 Births, Musical groups by Year of Establishment) and if the data is on wikipedia in the correct format, the list can be assembled by a bot or script. A bit over my head, though it gave me an idea. Most articles for sportspersons and entertainers include Year of Debut in the formatted data inset at the top right of the page. A list could be assembled so that you could select by year, say, musical groups categorized as blues first active in 1970 or pro wrestlers who debuted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of what was happening that year in that sport or genre, such lists could also help point out by exclusion performers who merit an article but don't have one.

I had the idea that perhaps Google could be harnessed to perform this categorization as a search, but this fails because while syntax is consistent within an activity, it varies from one activity to another, and does not narrow down results to that activity. 75.187.45.179 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, person with an IP, and welcome to The Teahouse. If it can be done, ask at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia need help?

Hi all, at some point I noticed there were lists of WP articles that need editing for various specific reasons (a list of articles that need grammar help, a list that need citation help, etc.) Can someone give me a pointer to these lists? I realize I can edit any article, but some days I'm in the mood to just do grammar. Thanks in advance! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

To GuineaPigC77, SuggestBot can "mail" you a list on a periodic basis. You set the period. To set up this service, go to your talk page and "Edit source" ... drop this tag in to your edit screen:
{{User:SuggestBot/config |frequency = weekly }}
This will set up a weekly interval. Hope this helps. Checkingfax (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi GuineaPig, welcome to the TEAHOUSE! There is also WP:BACKLOG which has some lists similar to what you describe. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your help! Found WP:BACKLOG and was able to knock off an article from that list. I'll check out the other resources as well. Thanks! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Flagging Problems

How do I flag problems on certain articles? For example, I was reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Grimaud and noticed most of it was unsourced (there were also a lot of grammar issues). If I don't have time to make the changes myself, is there a way to "flag" the page for clean up? Is that helpful? Thanks!Tino1994 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You can click on the talk link at the top of the page and enter your comments there. You can also place a {{cleanup}} tag at the top of the page. I agree with your assessment, by the way.--agr (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Tino1994, and welcome to the Teahouse!

Articles are commonly flagged to indicate problems that need attention. This is done by editing the article and placing a template at the very top. Templates are defined by using double "curly brackets", such as {{cleanup}}. It is good practice to add details, for example — regarding grammar issues: {{Cleanup|reason=grammar needs improvement|date=January 2014}} results in the following tag:

Although some tags are self-evident, it's useful to describe the issue on the talk page, and perhaps suggest an approach to fixing it. Many tags can also be specified for individual sections, and inline tags can be added to specific text. Regarding the need to improve references, {{Refimprove}} could be used for the entire article, or {{Refimprove-section}} for a section, or {{citation needed}} can be added after the specific text in question. Note: adding |date=January 2014 parameter is optional (a bot will add it later). If you need more detailed information, just ask; or see:   Wikipedia: Tagging pages for problems  &  Wikipedia: Template messages (index of templates). ~Cheers, ~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)