Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Creating userpages

Sorry to ask yet another question on here. I wanted to know how to create my own user pages for various articles that I'm working on so I don't have to have them all combined in the sandbox. And then when there finished I can just copy/paste them to start a new article. ThanksDounai (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dounai, ask away, that's what we are here for. To create a new page in your own user space search for User:Dounai/new page name where new page name is the name you want to use. The search will come back with the message "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or edit this page" Click on edit this page and you're away. NtheP (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked. How do I add the page to my top right preferences (or drop down list) so I don't have to search for it or remember the name each time I want to edit it? Dounai (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dounai, you can go to your contributions page, located on the top-right hand corner or the page, next to "Log out" and "My watchlist". After that, you can scroll all the way down to a link bar, starting with your username. Next to your name you should see "Subpages". That link redirects you to all of your userspace subpages. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 15:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Another problem. I just got a notification that my own newly created userpage was up for "speedy deletion". Why would this happen if it is my own userpage? I thought this was my personal space that I could create new articles on. If I'm wrong is there a way to have multiple personal sandboxes, one for each article I'm working on? Also when I look under contributions and then subpages my newly created userpage isn't visible. Does it take a while for it to be logged and added or why would this be not present? Thanks Dounai (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The tag was completely unacceptable. I will be discussing this with the editor who added it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Woops, the tag actually was correct. You created it at Dounai/Western Corporate contributions to Chinese censorship rather than User:Dounai/Western Corporate contributions to Chinese censorship. I have moved the article for you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch..Didn't realize I posted it to the real wiki!!! How do I review your help? I tried to go to the link but it just had your contributions.Dounai (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't actually a way to review other editors. (Unless I was under editor review, but I'm not currently). If you wanted to you could leave a message on my talk page or use the wikilove button. I have the review me button on my signature so other editors can review my contributions and see what I am doing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dounai, if you don't mind be butting into this conversation, I'd really like to suggest something. Edit your user space and create the article you want and make it as awesome as you can, but when you this it is decent enough to be on main wiki...don't just copy-paste it, or move the article. Rather, when your done, I'd highly recommend you just put up this code, {{subst:afc submission/submit}} on top of your userspace, i.e. the article you created in your userspace. What that does, it lets your userspace gets reviewed by a committee of volunteers, known as the Articles for Creation. Then not only do they review your article but they give you a rating also. The upside to this way is, if your article isn't that good on wiki, and you just move it directly, it might get deleted, however through this method, not only will you find out the areas you need to improve upon but also, you'll get the chance to improve upon then, without having to worry about it getting deleted before you get a chance to fix it. --Debastein (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

citing

if a line on wikipedia is cited, how do you add more info onto the line that is not from the cited website? HuntHello (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, HuntHello, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you want to add a second reference to the information or expand the information given but it's not supported by the existing reference? If it's the first then you can add a second reference in the same way that the first is added so it would look something like "this is the text.<ref>reference text</ref><ref>and this is the second reference</ref>" If it's the second case then you might need to re-order the text to ensure that it's clear which part of the text the reference supports. So it might go from "The moon is made of green cheese.<ref>Tall Tales book of moon myths</ref>" to "Although it is acknowledged that the moon is made of cheese, there is dispute about whether it's green cheese,<ref>Tall Tales book of moon myths</ref> or cream cheese.<ref>The bumper book of things made up about the Moon</ref>" NtheP (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi HuntHello, and sorry for the confusion. What I think you are trying to say is this: A line says something, say "I have a dog (CITATION)", and that line is cited. You are attempting to add more information, say "...and a cat". In this case, you would leave the citation after dog, type in "and a cat" (or whatever you are trying to type) and put in another citation after the last word. Hope this helps. Buggie111 (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It is a slightly tricky question. Adding stuff after the citation is fine. But it can get complicated.

Johnson went to Abadare and Aberdeen as part of his training.

I want to add Arbroath from my own extensive personal knowledge of the subject as the second place he visited. The only way that makes sense is:

Johnson went to Abadare, Arbroath and Aberdeen as part of his training.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Pendleton Whisky page

Thanks for the invite to this group! I have updated the Pendleton Whisky page which can be seen here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pendleton_Whisky. Could someone please review this article and perhaps give me any pointers on what I should remove/add to get rid of the Wikipedia flags?

Thanks in advance! Cvargas1129 (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Cvargas and welcome to the Teahouse! I've looked over your article and I've spotted some areas in which you could work on. First off, your article needs more reliable sources, which are independent from the subject of article. Second, the article sounds like an advertisement. All articles need to have a neutral point of view, which means the article has an un-biased view on the subject. Lastly, the article might not pass the general notability guideline, which says the article has significant coverage and it has reliable sources not related to the subject. To sum it up, try looking for more independent, reliable sources to add to the article to get rid of the tags. Good luck! -- Luke (Talk) 21:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Cvargas1129 - and welcome to the Teahouse - the last chance saloon for new Wiki editors. P^) You are getting hit by the old reliable sources block. It happens to all of us. It's one of the biases that comes from the net. Pendelton has lots on note - but figuring out if it's "notable" - independent - and verifiable is the issue. Also there are a great many links to Cowboys and Rodea, which are not noted for high level net content. I see that there is no Wiki page for "Hood River Distillers" - and there you find lots on note. It may be an idea to look at creating that page and then the Whisky fits in there. Links to rodeo - charity links to "Justin Cowboy Crisis Fund" and all linked to Pendelton Whisky - the round up. I've left some links and ideas over on your talk page. Hope they help. Sometimes you need to look at things sideways to get a better view! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Persondata for user pages

Are user pages supposed to have persondata? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back AutomaticStrikeout! I don't think so, because I think the template puts users into a category. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Persondata they should have a better answer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi - this is an absolutely brilliant question, the best yet on Teahouse. The idea behind the {{Persondata}} template is to provide metadata to other computers or programs. Therefore having one on your userpage (if you want it) will provide that information about you. Most users I suspect will not want to provide their date of birth etc. for reasons of identity theft but they are at liberty I think, to use the template if they wish and add as much data as they wish. The only categories it uses are those which report empty fields, it would be easy to suppress them for user pages. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

I also think this is a great suggestion but I would suggest we not use persondata. I think it would be better to create a separate template, maybe Userdata, instead. Kumioko (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Problem with Original Research and Interpretation

Thanks, Heather, for the invitation to Teahouse. I've been editing an article about Robert C. O'Brien's 1974 novel Z for Zachariah, and the rule against "original research" threatens to make the project pointless. The issue seems to me a quagmire with potentially farcical consequences. An article is supposed to be based on "reliable" sources, and I've read on this page that what is important is "verifiability, not truth." But what does this mean for articles about fiction? The text of the story itself is the most reliable source of information about it.

In Z for Zachariah, a first-person narrator provides all the information about herself and her antagonist, so possible narrative bias is an important issue. Yet most readers and reviewers accept the reliability of the narrator's viewpoint uncritically--even to the point of ignoring and misrepresenting facts of the story. For years, Wikipedia had only a highly biased and factually inaccurate plot summary, and I think there were no notices questioning verifiability. These inaccuracies at times were ridiculous. There was also no citation in earlier summaries of either the novel or other sources apart from a link to a site with collected reviews. When I recently revised the entire summary to make it scrupulously accurate, a note was rightly posted that the new summary was too long. So I shortened it to a length similar to that of some other novel summaries. So far, the notice about it being "excessively detailed" remains.

On my talk page, I explained that I intended to write a strictly factual summary and make separate sections about interpretation, including notes about the narrator's possibile unreliability. An editor then politely warned me of the problem of including original research, stressing the need for reliable third-party sources. But what if the third-party sources are wrong? Shouldn't it be more important that statements in the article are verifiable with reference to the story rather than with reference to reviews about it? If a published review states that the protagonist acts from pity but the actual text describes a self-interested motive, what should the article say? If the answer is that published reviews carry more weight than the story itself, the result is likely to be garbage--a confused mix of unsupported and maybe inconsistent interpretations rather than facts. Also, any article about fiction surely has to be written by someone who actually knows a story enough to distinguish facts from interpretation and explain how interpretations relate to the text. Judging from what's been written, though, it wouldn't surprise me if many people just read reviews and guess what the story is about, or just skim through it and look to reviews for interpretation.

Another thing is that any article about a story is going to reflect something of the writer's personal understanding of it (or lack thereof). But writers are not equally objective, self-critical, and honest. Some are aware of the distinction between facts and their own interpretation. Others confuse the two and assume their own interpretation is a fact. The previous summaries on Wikipedia were flawed in this way, blithely confusing interpretations with facts of the text. I am trying to write an objective article with a factual summary and separate sections on interpretation, including conventional views and an unconventional one supported by the text. Readers of the article can distinguish fact from interpretation and refer to the story or other sources (e.g., Millay's poem) to verify facts and claims.

Yet, if a claim about interpretation is my idea and more accurate than what is stated in reviews, it seems I'm not supposed to include it. Rather, it's more acceptable to write blatant falsehoods in reviews that are unsupported by the novel itself. Perhaps the only recourse is to try publishing my views separately first and then pretending to be someone else in Wikipedia so I can quote myself as a "reliable" third party. Some ideas about what makes an interpretation reliable might be what's unreliable. I think people who write short reviews of novels for newspapers or magazines do not usually study a novel with great care or refer to scholarship. They seem to read quickly and write mostly superficial impressions with very little specific reference to a text. Or there might be one quote taken out of context and given whatever interpreation the writer pleases. Are these sources deemed "reliable"? Well, they are all that's easily available online, so I've had to refer to them also in writing about characters and the theme--at least until I have time for better research.

Sorry about the length of this post. I'm just not sure what to think about the editing process and if it is a worthwhile effort. Cheers. --Seoulseeker (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Seoulseeker, welcome to the Teahouse. That's quite a question; I'm gonna try to address a few points that stood out to me individually, but I may have missed some in your question, so please let me know.

For the plot summary section of an article about a work of fiction, you would indeed be able to use the work itself as the source. After all, there's no real way to get around it.

But for other sections that aren't stating plain facts about the book, particularly an interpretation section, you will need independent, reliable sources. The question that arises from your desires about the interpretation of the author is: how do you know what his interpretations are? If you've read about his interpretation somewhere, then that's the source you use, but if it just came from your reading of the book, then I'm afraid that is original research, and thus not allowed.

You don't have to use a source that you think is incorrect. Verifiability is a necessary component of any article content, but it's not a sufficient component; just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it has to be in the article. Furthermore, any source that does take quotes out-of-context would probably not be considered reliable. After all, not everything that's online is a reliable source (including Wikipedia!). If you think you're more correct about the article than the other sources, and you're in a position to get something scholarly about it published, then by all means, go for it; we can then use your paper as a reliable source (and you don't even have to pretend that it came from someone else, as long as you're not using it for self-promotion or self-aggrandizement). But without your interpretation backed by independent, reliable sources, then yes, I'm afraid it would be OR to include them.

If the sources are already used in the article, you can take them to a place like the reliable sources noticeboard to get outside comments on whether the articles are reliable or not. But again, be prepared to explain why they're wrong, and arguments without any support from other reliable sources aren't likely to go far.

I'm sorry to give you what might be a disappointing answer, but the content of Wikipedia can only be as good as the reliable sources that support it. One of the reasons for this is that we can't tell who's behind the usernames for certain; we don't know if people are an authority on the subject matter they're editing or some average joe with some crazy ideas, so we just can't take their word for it. The only way we can be at all confident of our material is if we can show people a reliable source and say, "Here. See for yourself." It's the nature of the beast for any tertiary source (like encyclopedias) in general, and Wikipedia in particular. I hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Writ_Keeper for your thoughtful explanation. Not wanting to be a Randy, I'll try to give interpretations reliable sources. Still, it is quite challenging to write about this story factually by limiting descriptions of characters and themes to what corresponds with customary views, which almost universally go against obvious facts of the text. I think people's almost universal misinterpretation is mainly due to a great underestimation of the novel's complexity and a moralistic reaction against the antagonist's behavior later in the story. Maybe further research can uncover a more rational analysis. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoulseeker (talk • contribs) 07:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Seoulseeker - nice to meet you. I was a bit surprised when I saw mention of Z for Zachariah because I remember it well. In many ways it was ground breaking when it was released. It became a standard school text in the UK for age groups 13-16. It introduced so many ideas of literary criticism in an accessible way. There was great debate about it in the teaching professions. That is why the TV film was made by the BBC no less. Sadly quality writing for teenagers has been lacking for a long time. In researching sources you may find looking at Teaching Practice and theory a good hunting ground. You may need to bias that to UK sources too. I know there was great debate and much writing of guides and additional material. There was quite a debate about three writers as suitable for kids - Zindel - Cormier - and O'Brien - and O'Brien won out. The Chocolate War series are great, but were restricted access even in the UK. I Am the Cheese was not an issue, but a little too cerebral. Zindel was fascinating, but the cultural references rather heavy. Zachariah won out, as it had cultural and social references that did not get in the way. Literally every UK secondary school student was reading the book in the 80's. That valley could be anywhere on the planet and the events would still fit. All the best and I have to say well done for taking on one hell of a challenge! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Media-hound-'D 3rd P^. I'm pleased to meet you, too. Thanks very much for the load of information about reception of the story in the UK and useful resources. If there was much debate, I hope it included recognition of Ann's fallibility. I noted of the BBC drama that it interprets her as completely innocent and sensible despite the story's portrayal of her as small-minded, self-centered, hysterical, paranoid, and delusional--to say the least. One telling detail is that only Loomis carries a gun in the drama, whereas Ann does so before him and more often in the text. I'd like to hear more of your views on a Talk page if you're interested. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoulseeker (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Wiki-Link in Sidebar (english/german)

Hello, i wrote an article, which now is in draft. I searched, but didn´t find an answer to my question: how do i make the link in the sidebar to the adequate wiki-article in another language (german)? Thanks, Kommerz (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kommerz, welcome to the Teahouse! Infomration about interwiki links can be found here; the quick answer is that you'd write [[de:(german wiki article title)]]. So, the help page I linked has a [[de:Hilfe:Interwiki-Links]], which creates a link in the sidebar to the German version of the help page. You can put this interwikilink anywhere in the article and it'll still work, but the convention is to put it at the bottom of the article. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your welcome and your very fast answer. I tried this one, but it writes the Link at the bottom of the page (not in the sidebar). Don´t know if i explain myself, here´s the article. (Can it be, that this doesn´t work for arctiles which are in creation?) --Kommerz (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because it doesn't work on talk pages. AfC works by putting the draft article in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace (which is why your draft has "Wikipedia talk:" at the front of it), so the software thinks it's a talk page and doesn't make the sidebar normally. When your article submission is accepted (i.e. moved into mianspace as a real article), it should work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help! --Kommerz (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to look at {{Expand German}} and {{Equivalent}}. Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Bots

Where can I learn about all the bots on wikimedia? Vibhabamba (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Vibhabamba. The page Wikipedia:Bots will give you a good launching place to find anything you'd want to know about bots, including a link where you can find a list of all 1500 or so approved bots. Does that help? --Jayron32 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

....WOW. 1500 BOTS? Sarah (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, there's 2,721 "bot approved tasks", but only 296 bots currently carrying them out. Some tasks aren't being carried out at all, some bots carry about a number of tasks. By the way, do you like the sneaky use of the NUMBERINGROUP and PAGESINCATEGORY magic words there? For instance I can safely say there are currently 852 admins... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment here is a link to a page on magic words, in case you don't know what they are. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Some tasks are one-offs, so they get done and are never needed again. Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Collapsible Menu Thingies

I keep finding collapsible menus at the bottom of pages - example {{Social issues in India}}.

I also keep finding pages that should have them but don't.

What is the correct name for these wiki elements. I would like to find out more about them and the criteria for using them.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

They're called navboxes and they come in a template, like {{social issues in India}}, which I see you found. You can make them the same was as any other template or box, then transclude it at the bottom of an article related to the contents of the navigation box. Rcsprinter (lecture) 14:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh "Thank" You! Easy when you know the Lingo and what to search for! Much appreciated.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcoming new editors

I'm not sure how your project works but I wonder if you could help this new user User:Lakshmi2510. She created an article and another editor immediately Prodded it. I tried removing the Prod tag to allow time to discuss the article with her and then the other editor immediately took the article to AfD. It's probably not an article that would survive an AfD but this does not seem to be a good way to treat a new Wikipedia editor. Do you have a welcome banner that can be added to a page? Dahliarose (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dahliarose, i just added {{welcome}} and a Teahouse invite. Would suggest familiarizing her with WP:NOTABILITY and finding reliable third party sources to support the article. benzband (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've discussed the article with her on the talk page so I'll wait for her to reply. Dahliarose (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There's an almost automatic response that primary schools are non notable. Unless there really is something exceptional about it, chalking this one up to experience might be the best way to go. NtheP (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say, best thing to do is move it to the userspace if the article seems notable. The good thing about articles related to schools is that they are exempt from speedy deletion, so even now this article can't be deleted without consensus. --Debastein (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though this school will merit a standalone article, but school articles normally get redirected rather than deleted so if anyone does wish to develop in the future it can always be restored. Even though school articles are supposedly exempt from speedy deletion, there still seem to be a few that turn up as Prods. Dahliarose (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Official press releases as references

Hey All, In my current article I find that many of the facts relating to a career progression can be verified by various press releases by institutions such as universities and granting agencies. I feel as though these fall into the 3rd party, somewhat objective source category. I would very much appreciate your thoughts, especially if you disagree. This my last point to verify before submitting the article. Thanks for you help in advance! Onamir88 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Onamir, welcome to the Teahouse. The use of press releases tends to be frowned upon because anyone can do it, but it doesn't indicate notability just that an organisation felt like saying something. Perhaps what you should be looking for is reporting of those press releases in the press i.e. that someone else is taking an interest in the subject of the press release. You should also steer clear of most blogs, I see you have a reference to jewishsightseeing.com but that is reciting an article from the San Diego Jewish Times, you would be better by citing the newspaper direct.

Having looked at your draft article I think it reads too much like a résumé with too many bullet pointed lists and not enough prose. And that the lead paragraph refers to an as yet to be published book suggests that the article is trying to promote Lobel not present a neutral picture of her. Sentences like "For more information and access to papers see Lobel's SSRN page" also suggest promotion rather than the more neutral "Lobel is the author or co-author of over 20 published papers".<ref>link to SSRN page</ref>

Have a look at some of the articles in Category:American legal scholars to see how they are laid out, how they are referenced and what information they do and don't contain. NtheP (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! These are helpful points. One point to note with respect to press releases - it seems like your response confounds verifiability and public interest. If a non-profit organization announces their list of grantees, that is pretty much the best source to verify a statement of grant reception. It tells us nothing about whether the readers care about this particular point. Conversely, if a newspaper reporter thinks a topic is interesting to the readers, she or he may do a very poor job conveying the actual facts... (having been on the interviewee end of things, I have some annacdotes about this, even with careful papers such as the NY Times... :-) ). Thanks again, as I did find all of your comments extremely helpful in improving the article and its tone. Onamir88 (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Onamir88 - Glad to see you have been working so hard. I was surprised that your work keeps being turned down, but then again I have seen quite a tightening of Wiki standards all round. In many ways It's a good thing. I have been looking at your references and saw that there are a few gaps in the body of work published by Prof Orly Lobel - it's there and "SO" much of it referenced over at Google Scholar - in fact she is so well known and published she has her own User Profile - and that is notable! I would explore where her work has been cited and for what reasons. Her work seems to get cited and quoted often in a number of academic fields - Law and Economics - Behavioral Research - Intellectual Property - Employment Law - Regulatory Theory . By exploring that web you may find some further interesting references. It's hard work - but someone has to do it! ... oh and remember the source does not need to be on the web. Are there any journals - magazines - other none digital sources that have been talking about her and her body of work? They are just as valuable as web content - and possibly even more so! You may find a few leads by exploring http://www.issuu.com . She gets mentioned in magazines and publications they cover. I aint done the reading so I don't know why. Over to you and All the best. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Will do. Onamir88 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

NtheP - I have been looking for info on using press releases and can find very little. I do agree that press releases can be unreliable and even filled with purple prose. One thing struck me as I was fiddling with my Wiki edit options under User - Preferences - Gadgets. I activated The "ProveIt" gadget, whilst looking for easier referencing and citation tool, and it has a template for "Press Releases". Then I went digging and found the template listed under Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Oh boy! I then went digging under Verifiability where there is a foot note about press releases which points to Self published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Does this indicate that if you use a press release to establish a fact, such as starting a job/taking a position - maybe a person dying and it being announced - maybe someone holding a particular title - then a press release is acceptable? It does seem that press releases can be very valuable in establishing certain facts on a time line. I'm thinking about Onamir88's point on non-profits and other under represented sources/groups. As a Wiki novice me self, I keep wondering if this hound is barking up the wrong trees!

I keep poking about and finding some great things - such as the way to point to references on google scholar {{Google scholar cite|keywords=orly lobel}} which just gives you the link orly lobel .. so much nicer than go look it up. (It does say that it should not be used in articles - only on discussion pages). I have to say that I have been exasperated looking for information and have even lookup up "Wikipedia For Dummies" - and of course no page exists. P^O

Does that page "Wikipedia For Dummies" need to be created with a link to the Teahouse, and some other forms of disambiguation? (I'm Only "half" Joking by the way!)
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are looking for "Wikipedia for dummies", try Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. If you need information about a particular topic, it is always worth typing its name in the search box prefaced by "WP:" or "Help:" - for instance, if you want to know more about use of tables in articles, both Help:Table and WP:Table lead to useful information. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

John Thanks for the feed back - but I think you missed my use of "Irony". People who are at a loss of where to go in Wiki land would have to know that Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers exists. Maybe that needs to be on a page headed "Wikipedia for dummies" to help direct people using Web Based Irony to find the help they need? I can think of so many expressions of frustration and desperation that new editors could, would and even have used (me included) when looking for information in the wiki Labyrinth. It seems daft to let frustration grow when it's easy to make it work in the favour of Wikipedia. It may even prompt some publishers to write the book. I raised the point over at Host's lounge - talk page. It may be better to feedback there so that this doesn't end up hijacking Onamir88's question and the help on their specific question. Cheers. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

PS - Onamir88 - if you have any observations or suggestions, do join in!

Change of username

Hello,

I recently changed my name from whoisgalt to dounai and on wikipedia everything turned out fine. But now I can't log into the commons to upload pictures and post them to articles and I would like to see a list of my contributions on commons so I can find some of the pictures I already uploaded. Could someone help me figure out what went wrong and why I can't log in? Also to transfer over my old username info of whoisgalt to dounai on the commons Much appreciatedDounai (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dounai. I suspect that you need to move the account separately on Commons. I'll investigate. Once that is done you should go to "my preferences" and check the global account status. Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Yep: Here's the commons page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Changing_username .

Your contribs are still there http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whoisgalt

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Listing References - What am I doing wrong?

I really can't seem to list references - when I press save the page is littered with error messages. I've tried my best to follow help Help:Cite Errors page but to no avail; this is the page I am trying to write up: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mieza - can anyone help?

Jrussell0208 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Voceditenore, obviously a Wikignome, seems to have fixed your problem. What it looks like you did wrong has to do with "<ref name="www.pothos.or...>". Only use <ref name=again>{{cite web...etc}}</ref> when you're going to cite the same reference in several places. After the first time, you can use <ref name=again /> to add the same reference without typing it all out again. If you're only using the reference once, just put the information between the <ref> and </ref> tags. Did that help? DocTree (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! My first ever edit, didn't go too well, clearly, but hopefully I'll be able to provide more useful edits in future. Still not 100% sure I understand the referencing but I'll read into it properly before I try it next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrussell0208 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Jrussell0208 and welcome to the Teahouse. I was a bit confused when I first looked at the page you were referring too. It all looked fine - and then it changed in front of my eyes. I did a quick check of the page history and saw that another editor was editing the page - and they have added references and changed the content so it now works. It's annoying because it makes it hard for us to help and sort out the problem "You" were having. I can see where the problems were, and it looks like you have been trying to use ideas from HTML in setting up the references. It makes sense, but Wiki language works in a different way. Not to worry!

One way we can still help is, if you find a reference you believe should be included - I did a bit of poking about in "Google Books" and found quite a few. If you can find one - then we can help you get that reference in place the right way. We can also help you set up a sandbox page so you can use that as a place to experiment and figure out the whole reference thing. Glad to see that you are not put off by the oddity of wikipedia. We have all been there and we all know how it feels. All the best
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Jrussell0208. For me, the easiest way to cite just about anything and everything is to use citation templates. Just cut-and-paste the most appropriate template between the <ref> and </ref> and fill in the blanks, deleting any elements that aren't used. My earliest edits were all reverted because I didn't add proper citations. Take care, DocTree (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor note, some people do like to name references even when they are only used once. Nothing wrong if you want to do that. Rich Farmbrough, 03:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

assessment of articles

Hello, can any editor wrote an article assess this? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Egeymi. To request assessment of any of your biographical articles, go to Request an Assessment and edit the list, adding your article at the bottom. An editor who is a member of Wikiproject Biography will review your article and usually assign a new Class above stub or unassessed. Most assessors will also add comments on what would be needed to move up to the next level. The highest class that can be assigned in this manner is B. Good article (GA), A and Featured Article (FA) status requires more, starting with a nomination and then a thorough review and comments.

You can assess new and newly improved articles for others. No special qualification is required to raise a class from stub to Start or B Class. Read the detailed article class criteria and read example(s) of articles in each class. Then go to the same place, Request an Assessment, and choose an article from the list to assess. Assessing someone else's article when you request an assessment of yours is courteous but not required. Changing the class of your own article is considered improper but it not specifically prohibited. Hope this answers your question. DocTree (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doctree for your clear answer. Egeymi (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have another question. In the talk page of Sevim Tekeli, there is a statement that the article has been rated as a stub class article, but on the article page there is a remark that it is an unassessed article. Can someone explain why there is inconsistency between the pages? ThanksEgeymi (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Egeymi. The 'Unassessed' is gone now from my viewing the page a minute ago. The inconsistency that you saw may be because the 'Unassessed' was saved in your browser's cache. Sometimes a bot assigns a preliminary assessment based on the length of the article and how many citations are listed. Good editing to you! DocTree (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

DocTree, thank you so much for your very very comprehensive and also easy-to-understand replies. Glad to meet you. Egeymi (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Web search indexing

Does anyone know how long it takes for google or bing to index a new wiki page? Are wiki pages given some automatic preference in terms of being at the top of search results or is it totally based on clicks? I noticed a certain article was number 1 on bing but only number 7 or 8 on google does this mean bing gives preference or is it just based on clicks? ThanksDounai (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/] 12:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Dounai - I was wondering what you were referring too, so I had to go digging. I take it you are talking about the China Pabst Blue Ribbon article? I see when you Google for that there are a number of news sources above it. The workings of Google are a closely guarded secret - and a mystery too. I do know from experience that new web content gets ranked lower than existing news content - but over a period of days the news content moves down the page and the specific content rises up to the top. It can some times take a few weeks. Seen the same issues with web based projects I have been involved with in the past. It seems the ranking is Domain Name - News - Reference Content(Wikipedia) - the rest based upon traffic. ... and it differs too between google domains. The wiki page doesn't feature on google.co.uk as Pabst is not a UK brand. All the best! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Bing, but Google indexes new Wikipedia pages within minutes. When I suspect a new page in CAT:CSD of being a copyright violation and feed a sentence or two into Google, the new WP page almost invariably shows up. JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No I was talking about Gutter oil the article I just created. Sorry about not listing the site but I didn't want to be too forward..hehe..I already plugged an article once so that was my freebie. But thanks for helping explain..Just strange that Pabst article comes up 1st on Bing. The Gutter oil article doesn't show up yet on either. I'm trying to not be that vain but just curious if anyone will read it or not.Dounai (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there again Dounai . I have been looking again at your question. It does get interesting. First I see that there are over 60,000,000 unique references to Gutter+Oil and over 250,000 for "Gutter Oil" as a unique pharse on Google in English. When you search in Chinese scripts you add at least another 40,000,000 "Unique References". I suspect that Google is also counting translations from Chinese script into English, and as it is such a hot topic in China that is skewing the whole search engine model globally. I have even done a double search combining English and Chinese scripts and that gets a result of about 2500 pages. Ah Ha! I think that your expert diligence in using languages is confusing the search engine bots and making them rank the page lower. It will rise, but there is global resistance that no-one can overcome. Hope that helps.... and you just keep up the excellent work and let's see what the next page does! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help media hound, you sound like a SEO expert! I agree there are just so many stories about gutter oil on the net both in China and in the West that it will be tough and a long wait to get to the top of the list. Oh well, life goes onDounai (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Dounai. I can confirm from experience that Google generally indexes new WP articles within seconds. For some reason you page is not being put in the position I would expect even when doing "Gutter oil" Wikipedia. So I doubted that it was being indexed at all, and a search for "researching ways to test and identify gutter oil" confirms that it isn't. I presume if a page is somehow missed Google will pick it up at some time in the future. Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Search "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gutter_oil" and you will get this page (Teahouse)! Rich Farmbrough, 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

technical loops in sandbox, image troubles

I am having trouble figuring out the images as may be evident from my intro guest entry. My sandbox developed a loop template which got worse by removing things and trying to fix it myself. The problem began after changing the top line (namespace, I believe), I did not adhere to the bracketed instruction to edit below this line as I was attempting to create a user subpage. As a self-proclaimed autodydactic, I sometimes create my own dissappointments. Also I have requested to be adopted as an editor/article creator as can be seen from my user and user talk pages. Orschstaffer (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Orschstaffer, welcome to the Teahouse. The template loop is because you have this - {{User:Orschstaffer/sandbox}} at the top of the sandbox page. The curly brackets indicate to the software to look for a template called User:Orschstaffer/sandbox but that is the name of the page the template is on so it loops itself. Delete that line and the problem will go away. You can also delete the line that says <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->, the <!-- --> code just indicates hidden text that only shows up when the page is being edited. It's a message nothing more and in the case can be ignored. It's often used when a page might have quite complicated syntax used and an edit in the wrong place could really screw things up. Here it's just a suggestion and deleting it will do no harm at all. NtheP (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Orschstaffer. You put your draft article in your main user page but no foul, no harm. A fix is quick and easy. First, create a space for the draft. In the address box of your browser, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Orschstaffer add /OrschDraft or whatever you want to name your subpage and hit <ENTER>. You can also make your draft page a subpage of your /sandbox. A page will pop up telling you that there's no page with that exact name but the first option will be "Start the User:Orschstaffer/OrschDraft". Click on that and it'll create a blank page. Second, right-click on Orschstaffer at the top of the screen and choose "Open in New Tab" or "Open in New Window." Click the "Edit" tab to get the wiki formatted text and cut-and-paste everything from your main userpage over to the page you created for your draft including the template stuff like "{{Userspace draft}}". When you're done moving all of it, save your now blank userpage. Go back to the tab or window with your blank Userpage and click on "My Talk" at the top of the screen and click the "Edit" tab again. Cut-and-paste your notes for the article over to the new page you created for your draft or create a new subpage for your notes. Leave your request for help and such on your talk page. When you're done, save the page on each screen and you should be OK.

You are going to have to deal with some other issues like conflict of interest and notability but those can wait until after you get your Userpages organized. Post any further problems getting organized here. DocTree (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help NtheP and DocTree.
Conflict of Interest may perhaps be easy enough to remedy, the Notability though, should be covered, unless I misunderstand what is required. I have verified the notes and received approval from each source to use their respective references. I shall continue to research wiki policies and resources and will check back here for further input. Meanwhile I should improve my user page now that it is blank. How do I link the Teahouse on my userpage?
Orschstaffer (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the Userpages of a few others for ideas. Just click on their nickname. Click the 'Edit' tab to see how they made their userpage look that way. You can also check out Fun Stuff for ideas about decorating your Userpage. Finally, to answer your question about a link to the Teahouse, you can:

1. Type (or cut-and-paste) " [[WP:Teahouse|Teahouse]] " whenever you mention Teahouse and every time you mention it, there's a link.
2. Type (or cut-and-paste) the following which was shamelessly plagiarized from Heatherawalls userpage. In edit mode, paste it into your page and use the 'Show preview' button to see how it looks.

{{Userbox | border-c = #3fb6ff | border-s = 1 | id-c = #f4f3f0 | id-s = 14 | id-fc = #7d7b75 | info-c = #f4f3f0 | info-s = 10 | info-fc = #7d7b75 | id = [[File:WP_teahouse_logo 3.png|60 px|link=Wikipedia:Teahouse]] | info = Orschstaffer is a guest at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]] and would like to see you there.|float=right}}

Take care, DocTree (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

spam links?

I'm editing an article, and most of the external links seem to be to commercial (although related) sites. Is it proper to delete these links? Shandong44 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Shandong44. Wikipedia's policy on external links is located at Wikipedia:External links. In short, you are always allowed to make articles better, and if removing spam makes an article better, please do that. Do you have any more specific questions? --Jayron32 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Shandong, you can read Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided for links that shouldn't belong in the "External links" section. -- Luke (Talk) 01:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations: accessdate

What does the accessdate attribute, in cite / citations template, mean? Mindtubes (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Mindtubes, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! The "accessdate" parameter means the date at which you looked at the source. So, if you were citing a website, you'd put the date that you looked at the site for the information you used. This can be useful especially for things on the Internet which change frequently; it lets people have at least a rough idea of what version of the article was used for the article. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Mindtubes (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

stumped

I have edited this several times and still I get a denial. Can someone please point out (highlight) what I need to do to get this approved? This is urgent!

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/REBTECH

Jhowardco (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jhowardco, welcome to the Teahouse! First, I'd like to ask, if I may: why is this urgent? It sounds like you might want to read our guidelines on conflicts of interest; if it's true that you do have a conflict of interest, you should think long and hard about whether you really should be writing this article. Editing in an area for which you have a conflict of interest is not strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, but it's strongly discouraged, as it's very difficult to edit neutrally with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements or publicity; you should really keep this in mind if your goal is to spread the word about something, because there can be some significant unintended consequences of having a Wikipedia article. Chief among them is that, once an article is on Wikipedia, you have *no* special control over its content. Anyone can write anything they want on the article, and if some information that you'd rather not have there gets put up, and it's backed by reliable sources, you will have no right to request its removal.

That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw your post, so forgive me if I've misjudged you. As for the article itself, it keeps getting rejected because of the general promotional tone of the article. Phrases like "the next generation of lighting technology and night vision" and "Mr Borkowski has more than 40 years of extensive aviation experience" appear to violate our policy on neutral point-of-view, especially when they are unsourced. Overall, the article reads more like a press release from the company or something similar, rather than an encyclopedia article. Also, you need to be sure to establish the company's notability, which is what we call the minimum standard of significance that subjects must meet to have their own article. There's more specific guidance for notability of companies and organizations here. Finally, you need to make sure that what you're writing is verifiable. By verifiability, we mean that all the material in an article must be able to be confirmed by a reference to an independent, reliable source.

There are some other, less serious issues with the article, like having links to sites outside of Wikipedia within the body of the article, but we should really straighten out the major concerns first, to make sure that there's an article worth having. Thanks, and despite my message possibly being disappointing or (yikes) foreboding, good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate the concern of any type of ad--that was not the intent. But I have a problem with seeing Press releases used in Wiki pages like Eaton Corporation, for example, and similar "notable" types of sources are not allowed in any of my articles.

I can easily substantiate the credibility and the experience of the people mentioned. I just need to know what exactly the acceptable tone when I craft material based upon other pages already in use.

Can you explain this comparison and why press releases in other pages are apparently okay but not mine?

Jhowardco (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the real answer to that is that it's not okay in those other pages, either; the relevant link here is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia's not perfect (indeed, far from it); sometimes things slip through the cracks, and promotional language that should be rejected gets through. At the end of the day, we have to judge each article on its own merit, not how it compares to other articles. The articles you mention should also be fixed, and their promotional tone changed or removed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

What happened to the common edit summaries feature? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

don't know all the detail but it looks like there was change last night that disabled, temporarily, this and several other features eg Twinkle. NtheP (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The summaries are back now anyway. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Template modification assistance

Hi, I'm looking for a modification of the Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events template so that it links to the previuos and next event similar to the Infobox tennis event template. It seems the creator of both these templates is not active anymore and while I can do some simple template editing I don't have the skills for this modification. Is there a helpdesk for templates or a pool of experienced template editors that I can call on to help out? Thx! --Wolbo (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You could create a copy of {{Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events}} at Template:Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events/sandbox and try out your changes. Include (transclude) that in your own sandbox, using previews if necessary. Then copy the final version back in place of the original when you're happy with it. Assuming there are no potentially controversial changes, include a relevant edit summary and you should be done. If in doubt, summarise your changes at Template talk:Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events too. -- Trevj (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My new messages

Where do I find my new messages? Is this a link that appears only when I have new messages? I stumbled upon it before but cannot find it again to see if I have any new messages. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tattoodwaitress! Welcome to the Teahouse. Yup, that message (the big orange one) only pops up when another Wikipedian leaves a fresh comment on your talk page. To find your talk page, just click here: User talk:Tattoodwaitress. You can also see it in the top right menu (when you are logged in) next to your username as "My talk." That is where your messages will be or any comments on your talk page :) I hope this helped! Sarah (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proper way to redirect

Apologies but I goofed up trying to redirect: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Warid_Congo Exactly where should I put the redirect so that it goes straight to Warid Telecom as the page should not exist anyway? Truealpha (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that with this. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it Stuart, and welcome Truealpha! I'll explain how you can redirect it properly, per your request! The nice thing about redirects is that you can just redirect it to another page - so, if you redirected it to the wrong place (a misspelling or wrong word, whatever) you can just redirect it to the correct name - Warid Telecom. You probably don't need to nominate the wrong redirect for deletion, since perhaps it is related to the correct name, but if you do, and forgive me for linking to policy, you can pick the right deletion tag here: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects. I hope this helps :) Sarah (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both and thanks also for clarifying. Appreciate it! Truealpha (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why Can't I Find "Good" References?

I have an article for a rather notable local band (they meet some of the notability requirements) but Wikipedia won't accept it because of my "uneliable" sources. The problem is, I can't find any "reliable" sources. Any suggestions?Cabooseofteworld (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you're having a hard time with your article. If you're unable to find any reliable sources - that means independent sources that aren't related to the band (i.e. newsletters from the band or their label, YouTube, Amazon, the band websites are all unreliable sources) - then perhaps the band isn't able to be included yet in Wikipedia. In your article for creation I didn't see any weblinks to the sources you used, which is a problem. While we like to assume good faith with all contributions, if no sources exist online then that makes many editors a bit nervous about if the subject is notable. I hate to say that the band might not be able to be included yet - usually if they are notable they have healthy coverage in the media (regionally and beyond), so, you might just have to wait until they get more coverage. I hope this helps and perhaps there are other bands you have interest in writing about who might be a bit more notable? Or perhaps you know where those reliable sources are hiding out online? :) Sarah (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'll work on the referances. In the mean time, I'll try to work on other articles. (For example, on some of the band pages, I've noticed pretty big gaps) Cabooseofteworld (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

article denial

Can someone please highlight or point specifically to exactly what is unacceptable in the article I last submitted?

I have many citations and referrals and edited the article so as not to sound like an advertisement, but I fail to see what is wrong with it.

75.134.104.188 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not logged in, so we have no idea which article you're asking about. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello possible stranger! Like Stuartyeates says, we can't see what you've worked on as it's not connected to the IP address you are using right now and you didn't provide a link. We'd love to help if you can give us more information. heather walls (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A user with the same IP as you posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phyllis Zagano. Are you referring to that article or another one? -- Trevj (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the most recent link that I know of: Articles_for_creation/Airway_Management,_Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhowardco (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I presume you represent http://www.jhowardco.com/ ? Some people will have issues with that.

As far as the article goes, I suggest that Airway Management Inc is unlikely to be notable. Possibly either the good doctor or his invention might be. Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC).