Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 155

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 150

←

Archive 153

→

Should I use American or British English on "British" Articles

On articles about British subjects would it be proper to use British spellings throughout in order to make the article internally consistent in it's labelling of uniquely British objects or phrases?

American spelling doesn't gel much with British articles, and it makes the articles look like a heap of S-H-one-T.

Please advise.Ananagram (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved from WT:TH Ross Hill (talk) 00:53, 5 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia tries to use the relevent language variation. For British related articles, we should use British english. See WP:LANGVAR for more info. Ross Hill (talk) 01:03, 5 Nov 2013 (UTC) 01:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

My company's page was deleted and I can't figure out why.

Hi. Yodle had a page on Wikipedia and now it's gone. I looked at reasons that a page might get deleted, but I can't find where there was a violation in this case. How can I do that so the page can come back online?207.10.176.35 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the redlink Yodle you will see the deletion log that says that it has been deleted 3 times for advertising or promotion. The most recent reference to a deletion, talking about a redirect, suggests that an unacceptable version may have been moved elsewhere but then deleted. Also the redlink Yodle, Inc shows another deletion as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The fact that you referred to "My company's page", may give us a clue. If you are trying to write an article about a subject with which you are closely involved, it is very difficult to write with a WP:neutral point of view. You will find advice at WP:conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I now see from the Google cache that apparently the redirect to which I referred above, from the most recently deleted version of Yodle, was to Yodle, Inc. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David. I didn't write the page, but I do reference it a lot. Do you know what the next step is for trying to get it back? I'm not sure what wording was considered an advertisement. Can that specific information be found somewhere?207.10.176.35 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that the subject does actually seem notable; I will probably start writing it in my sandbox; but be warned; it can take some time! Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, you can request a copy of the old article from an admin. See Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Not sure if there will be much salvageable, but I'll try. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Matty.007: The entire first paragraph (but AFAICT not the material below it) of the deleted content was a copyright violation of the "About Yodle" section of this press release and the rest reads as the height of corporate buzzword ad-speak, so if you're going to take this on, I would just start from scratch.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I decided to only use the refs, and remove all the existing prose. Thanks, Mat ty.007 20:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Great!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

meaning of tejas

meaning of tejas117.200.106.224 (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to the Wikipedia page Tejas, you will find that there are several meanings which have Wikipedia articles. Did you have a specific question? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, you may want to see the reference desk, a place designed for questions unrelated to editing Wikipedia. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Appealing Protection of an Article

The article "Hapa" has been put under semi-protection for one month today. There is no reason for this protection. In fact, all it does is shut down discussion and prevents an actual consensus to develop. The editor who put in the request (Polyglottz) claimed that I was engaging in edit warring, but it takes two to tango. Furthermore, he may actually be a sockpuppet. Polyglottz and a few other casual editors have not been actually engaging in substantive discussion, but rather continue to insist on their way of writing the article's lead.

What are the appropriate actions to take at this point, both in terms of appealing the article's protection and handling the lack of consensus regarding the article's lead?74.108.84.132 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You could take the protection issue up with the admin who protected the article, User:Mark_Arsten, and discuss the article's lead on the article's Talk page. But the fact that the article is protected does not shut down discussion or consensus forming, and as far as I can tell people have already started. Judging by the article's history, I assume it was protected to stop an edit war from erupting. Kind regards, Yintan 00:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have written to Mark, but he hasn't responded yet. As for the discussion, the edits and constant reversions have been going on for the past months. It's been about the same issue for the past 4 months. Polyglottz (and his sockpuppet TAG speakers) both requested protection for the article, but he seems to be doing it in order to enforce his version of the article's lead. I don't mind continuing the discussion, but I'm disappointed that he keeps trying to bring in the Wikipedia authorities instead of engaging in the normal Wikipedia consensus-building process. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.84.132 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"he keeps trying to bring in the Wikipedia authorities instead of engaging in the normal Wikipedia consensus-building process." This is always very frustrating. Many editors are quick to the noticeboards. But if there's been an edit-war for the past FOUR MONTHS then you obviously need to bring in some kind of external assistance -- should have done it waaaay sooner, prolly. Wikipedia has no authorities per se (except WP:IAR), but there are some groups that are better-suited to solving the problems surrounding contentious articles than others. First step, visit WP:RETENTION, and pick somebody at random from the member-list, and ask one of them to visit the article. Do not ask them to come 'stop the trouble that so-and-so the sockpuppet is causing' because you are barking up the Very Wrong Tree. Just explain that there was a several-month edit-war, in which you were a shameful participant, and that you are now trying to find the Better Pathway Forward. (Feel free to copy my jeffersonian capitalizations if you wish. :-) This should go without saying, but pick one member at a time, and check their userpage to make sure they aren't on wikiBreak or whatever, then post a personal message on their talkpage; do not spam all 152 people. After WP:RETENTION, your next best bet is to try WP:3 for a third opinion. One group of WikiAuthorities that is *extremely* nice, and not at all authoritarian, is the fine folks of WP:DRN, who will help resolve troubles exactly like the ones you seem to be describing. Plus, you can always ask for somebody to come help, here at the WP:TEAHOUSE. This is really more Q&A, but once a week or so, it doesn't hurt to post a request saying "can somebody objective and neutral please come help us on article $foo today?" You'd have asked this question 15 times, the past four months, if you started early.

Hello IP user 74.108.84.132, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article has been protected for an excellent reason - it has been subject to slow motion edit warring. You have been a participant in the edit warring, which simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. So, the first step for you is to stop edit warring and agree never to do it again. The appropriate place to discuss your concerns is the article's talk page, and if that doesn't work, we have a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms available. Please be aware that if you continue to edit war, your editing privileges may be blocked. As for your accusations of sock puppetry, you can file a complaint if you have solid, persuasive evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

One suggestion: don't attack other editors. Polyglottz is not a sock puppet, so let's assume good faith. Consensus is build on the Talk page, not by edit warring in article space. If I were you I'd answer the 5 points Polyglottz has put to you on the article's Talk. People are trying to discuss your views with you there. Yintan 01:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cullen: Edit warring involves more than one party. If I am going to be accused of edit warring, then Polyglottz has been engaging in edit warring. If you look at the revision history of the article, he has been continually undoing my edits. Discussion on the talk page has not been working for months. What are these dispute resolution mechanisms? As for the sock puppetry, I did file a complaint. The case was recently closed because Polyglottz (and his sockpuppets TAG speakers, etc.) had not edited recently. Since he's back, does that mean I should reopen the case? If so, how? And yes, there is solid, persuasive evidence. Here's the link to the sockpuppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TAG_speakers/Archive

Yintan: I did not attack other editors. When did I do that? How do you know that Polyglottz is not a sock puppet? I already did my investigations into the sock puppets, which is why I filed my original complaint. If you look on the article's talk page, points 29 and higher all involve discussions that I've responded to. So yes, I've been trying to build consensus on the talk page for months. As for Polyglottz's last 5 points, they've already been addressed in previous sections to the talk page, but yes, I will go back and address them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.84.132 (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been edit warring, IP editor 74. Other editor's bad behavior does not justify your own bad behavior. Please cease your bad behavior and stop trying to rationalize it by pointing to other editor's behavior. You and only you are responsible for your behavior. A sockpuppet investigation by those authorized to investigate found no socking by the other editor. The closing administrator wrote "Polyglottz is almost surely unrelated based on behavioral differences." Continuing to repeat the unproven accusation is a personal attack. Please read WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said that my behavior is justified by the other person's bad behavior. What I don't appreciate is being singled out. Polyglottz is trying to bully me into submission, despite my valid points on the talk page. I just would like the Wikipedia authorities to be objective. As for the sock puppetry, saying "Polyglottz is almost surely unrelated based on behavioral differences" doesn't mean that we know for sure. It's just the closing administrator's best guess. Cross-referencing the various usernames' edits with the one IP address that's connected at least shows that there is a good probability of sock puppetry. In any case, sockpuppet investigations are an inexact art. The future will show whether these multiple accounts will further indicate a pattern. As Mark suggested on his talk page, I'll proceed with a RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.79.83 (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cullen, methinks the point you are missing that 74.108 is trying to make (which btw is some other humanoid than my own 74.192 address) which is that Mark has *semi* protected mainspace. That is the perceived unfairness. 74.108 knows they were edit-warring. Now, as a result, they cannot make any mainspace edits. But they also know that Polyglottz was edit-warring. Yet because it was a semi-protect, not only does Polyglottz get to force mainspace to reflect *their* preference for whatever-the-content-dispute-is-about, Polyglottz can *continue* to make any changes they see fit, and 74.108 cannot participate in WP:BRD at all. That is why they feel singled out for punishment: because they *are* being singled out for punishment. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the puppet-thing, 74.108, Cullen is correct: this is not grudge-o-pedia, and just because *you* are convinced that Polyglottz was behaving badly in the past, does not mean you can rubberize pillar four. I understand tempers have been high. But when Pollyglottz was cleared of any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, continued accusations and assertions that You Are Right And The Closing Admin Was Just Guessing ... why, that's poison. Cleanse your mind of this poison. Cleanse your comments of unfounded attacks and unreasonable accusations. Nothing prevents you from observing what happens in the future: see WP:ROPE. But pillar four aka WP:NICE, and WP:WITCHHUNT, and WP:NPA, and WP:HA, all positively absolutely without a doubt prevent you from holding a grudge, and planning your vendetta, and turning the article into WP:BATTLEGROUND. If your implied complaints have merit, the Polyglottz is doing the WP:OWN dance, and that some WP:TE is going on... well you are going to have to WP:PROVEIT, with diffs, and along the way you better do your best to maintain the high moral ground, from here on out. But maybe, just maybe, Polyglottz is not some horrible wikiOgre, out to ruin your life, with User:Mark_Arsten secretly conspiring to support their evil scheme. Read WP:IMAGINE, three times. It's short. Then cleanse your thoughts of revenge, take a cold shower, and return to the talkpage, where you must really really WP:AGF. Life is not always fair; but keep your chin up, and things will work out in the end. The wheels of WikiJustice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine, and they grind fair. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian stance on new, less documented topics

I'm interested in editing articles about transgenderism and gender variance. I'm agender so I have a personal investment in these topics, but I understand the rules about not using original research, maintaining neutrality, etc. However, I've noticed that a lot of trans* articles are written with a visible slant against the people they describe, and it's pretty obvious that many editors and sources consider trans* people to be some kind of illegitimate modern trend. I'd like to edit articles to eliminate transphobia and cissexism, but I also naturally want to avoid injecting a personal bias or pov. I also don't want to rely on personal or anecdotal evidence to add information, but trans* issues are not really well documented and most sources I'm familiar with dismiss them altogether (especially in the case of nonbinary identities). I want to write objective and fair articles, but there aren't any objective and fair sources. So it's a weird situation... Is there a good rule of thumb on how to "neutralize" articles on topics that are socially rather than scientifically based? Quamobrem (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Quamobrem, and welcome. A few things come to mind when reading your message. First, if you think the wiki articles on transgender issues "are written with a visible slant", I would suggest you edit them before writing new articles. Even if it's just to get the hang of things, and make yourself familiar with citations, tone, etcetera. I can't judge if your claim that "there aren't any objective and fair sources" is correct, I guess that depends on what it is you want to source. As a rule of thumb I'd say that anything that is obviously slanted and not neutral can be removed anyway, but do keep in mind that it's generally a good idea to discuss major changes to articles on their Talk pages first. Hope this helps. Cheers, Yintan 22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly, Yintan. I do intend to edit rather than write new articles; sorry that it wasn't so clear. And as far as objective sources, I mean that a lot of scientific sources on the topic have a very strict bias towards viewing trans issues as medical anomalies (GID or similar diagnoses), while materials written by and for trans people aren't technically objective either. I just wanted to check and make certain that there were no hard and fast rules on editing these kinds of topics; I've checked out the Talk pages but a lot of them are quite dead, so it seemed like a better idea to ask here first. On that note, though, if nobody's posted or edited an article in several months or years, will someone out there be notified when I change something or post on the Talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quamobrem (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Quamobrem: Many editors have pages that they are interested in on their watchlists, so even if no one has edited that page for a long time, there may be people who will be notified. However, it depends totally on each editor which articles he or she decides to watch, so the answer to your question is maybe. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks!

If you click on 'Page Information' in the Toolbox menu (left column), you'll see how many people are watching that particular page. Yintan 08:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My first redirect

I made my first redirect, from AFC, can any-one check if it's acceptable. I found afc newsletters on some user's talk pages.TechnicalEngineerA3 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@TechnicalEngineerA3: Looks OK to me. Happy editing! --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So, what are the general guidelines for redirects?TechnicalEngineerA3 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TechnicalEngineerA3. It is all explained at WP:REDIRECT. As a general rule, you can type "WP:" in the search box, followed by a plausible keyword, to learn more about any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I need help with DAB solver. Am I doing it right?TechnicalEngineerA3 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

How do i add a picture to a article?

I have watched tutorial but i have still problems with adding a picture to a article. How do i do? Fix everything (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fix everything: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean adding an existing picture to an article or uploading a new one. If you want to insert an existing one, you type <code>[[File:Filename.jpg]]</code>, but it must be already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, you'll have to upload it yourself. If the image is copyrighted but meets certain criteria, you can use WP:Files for upload to request for the file to be uploaded (once your account is four days old, you can use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard or Special:Upload to upload files yourself. If the image is not copyrighted, then you can use commons:Special:UploadWizard to upload the file yourself to Wikimedia Commons. Does that answer your question? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fix everything (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Where in the edit section do i put this <code>[[File:Filename.jpg]]</code>? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fix everything (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fix everything: Sorry, I messed up the code you're supposed to type, first of all. It's actually [[File:Filename.jpg|thumb]]. You add that in wherever on the page you want the image to show up. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Hi, I have a couple of questions:

First, is Christine McGuiness notable? I wrote it at AFC after seeing it in mainspace (where it got deleted), and was wondering if it was worth trying to get it accepted

Second, (admin question; I'm afraid), was this notable, and should I have left it?

Thanks, Mat ty.007 12:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider her notable. Any mention of her belongs on Paddy McGuinness' page. (Also, none of the tabloid references used in the draft are considered suitable/reliable for BLP.) Blackberry Sorbet 13:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's what I thought. Mat ty.007 13:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How can I avoid someone else writing an article I am working on?

Recently I drafted an article on Ruth Amonette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ruth_Leach_Amonette). It was rejected because my sources did not show suitable notability. When I was getting back to it this week and started research again I saw that someone else had created a very similar article using very similar sources but this was published.

I would like avoid this again (it's pretty disappointing) so I am wondering what I should or could have done to avoid this?

Thanks - Suzie

204.15.2.181 23:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.2.181 (talk)

Hello Suzie, and welcome to the Teahouse. The current article Ruth Leach Amonette was created in September by SarahStierch, a highly experienced editor here who has created many biographies of women in technology. She is an administrator. Coincidentally, she was also a key person in establishing the Teahouse, and is a leading figure in recruiting women to edit Wikipedia. It is not surprising that the articles would be similar, since the reliable sources that you found are also readily available to her.

You tried to write the article in July, and didn't continue after the initial declines. What you could have done differently would have been to converse with the AFC reviewers, and continue working on the draft article. For what it's worth, I think that your draft should have been accepted back in July.

Instead, though, the draft sat untouched for many weeks. Sarah, being very experienced, was confident of notability, and moved her version of the article to main space herself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. Unfortunately, the simple answer to your question is: You can't. Wikipedia is an open environment. In other collaborative environments you can do things like lock a page or a topic as you make your specific changes. Except in unusual circumstances (e.g. a highly controversial topic) that never happens here. It's possible that your article was used by the person who wrote the article that got published as a starting point. That's a good thing though, it's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. No one person owns an article or topic and we all collaborate together. My suggestion for new editors is don't start by trying to create new articles, start by editing existing articles. Look for articles in topics that interest you that have tags on them that say things such as "this article requires better citations, you can improve it by..." After you have done some editing of existing articles I think you have a much better chance of understanding Wikipedia issues on notability and reference and when you do create a new article it has a better chance of getting published. RedDog (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. I regularly work at Articles for Creation and often see drafts that have been abandoned, after a lot of work expended by the author. Because the draft article hadn't been worked on for several months, it would be a fair assumption it had been abandoned. To be honest it was a bit harsh to decline your draft article in July, other reviewers may have been more sympathetic. But it has all worked out well in the end! Sionk (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

about new articles

Once I have an article for creation approved, should I submit my next article for review or can I use the "advanced user" path to post it? (I.e., is it always best to submit a new article for review?) Claudeb (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Claudeb ! That's a great question. The answer is, it depends on (1) how familiar you are with the reasons that articles are deleted on Wikipedia, and (2) whether you have a conflict of interest with the article you are writing. If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, having your article reviewed should be helpful and keep it from being deleted. If you have a close connection to the subject of the article, you really should have it reviewed to make sure that it is written neutrally. However, if you feel that you've gained some expertise in writing an article that complies with the policies, and you are writing about a subject which is not personally connected to you, using the "move" function to move the article into the encyclopedia is perfectly acceptable - but keep a copy of the text in case you turn out to be overly optimistic and the article is deleted. Be sure to have plenty of references to independent sources! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Anne. I think I will stay with the review path until I have more experience. Claudeb (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Anne Delong gave excellent advice here, and I agree completely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Interviewing people and using interviews as Wikipedia sources?

If I were to interview someone about a subject, could I find a way to include that information as a legitimate source in a Wikipedia article? For example, if I interviewed someone and created a YouTube video, could I then cite that video - or would that not be a proper source? Thanks for any help. Kseldman (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That would not be a reliable source. If a newspaper or magazine published your interview, it may be a reliable source.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent question, Kseldman. We are looking for sources that have professional editorial control and fact checking, and an established reputation for accuracy. Unscrupulous video editing can skew the meaning of a video. Though you might never engage in such tactics, that general principle means that self-produced videos are rarely accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. One exception would be the official YouTube channel for a notable celebrity or notable expert, which could be used as a source for that person's opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some way of highlighting unanswered questions to people who visit a talkpage, and to stop the bot archiving them?

Hi, this relates to WT:MED, which due to high traffic has posts archived after 5 pages, but it could apply to any similar talk page.

This has unfortunately resulted in many posts disappearing before they get answered.

Is there any way of automatically highlighting unanswered Qs to people who visit a talk page?

More importantly, how to stop the bot archiving them before they get answered?

Many thanks for any advice, and apologize if this is not the correct place to ask this. Lesion (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You could change the algorithm for archiving; theres a line in there which reads algo = old(5d) which is what the bot reads to determine what and when to archive. Changing it to eg (21d) would give 3 weeks before archiving. Blackberry Sorbet 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. A series of historic consensus decisions have been to progressively shorten the archive time, and even at 5 days the page gets a bit out of hand sometimes. I am looking for a middle way, if a question gets answered, then no further response, then it would get archived. If it went unanswered, it would not get archived unless someone manually told the bot to archive it. I appreciate this is probably asking more than what the archive bots are capable of, so whatever the answer is would have to work around them. My only idea is to manually move all unanswered questions to a special section at the bottom of the page. This would be all the same section, and a bot could auto-update it every day. Since the archive bots would treat this section as newly updated each day, it would never disappear. I am not sure if this is possible, as it is beyond my knowledge, but maybe someone might get ideas to work with from this suggestion. Thank you again, Lesion (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Biographical article - problem retrieving it by last name

There is an article about Nicolas Kitsikis. His son, Dimitri Kitsikis, also has an article about himself. If I type "Kitsikis" in the search box I only retrieve the article about Dimitri. What can I do to add/edit metadata on the Nicolas Kitsikis page to make it also retrievable when I type "Kitsikis"? As it is now, I must type the entire name "Nicolas Kitsikis" to get to it.

Thank you! Beata Beatapana (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beatapana, and welcome to the Teahouse! To find Nicolas Kitsikis, type in the name in the search bar and click 'containing... Kitsikis', which will link all articles which have that name in. As for the re-direct, I think it should be a disambiguation page, so will adjust it as such. However, if I'm wrong, I am sure I will be reverted. Thanks, Mat ty.007 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Matty-- that works. But if you don't know to add "containing" to your search, you wouldn't find it on the first try. That doesn't make sense. Why don't both persons come up when you simply search "Kitsikis"?

Beata 192.138.214.126 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want more information on how the search box works, try Help:Searching. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to aid in the technical aspects of Wikipedia

I have downloaded the Mediawiki source code (WOW, you actually use open source software). I have already began analysing the source code. However, I was wondering is there are any technical areas in Wikipedia that may require my assistance. I have also found that most of the templates are locked, so I cannot edit those.TechnicalEngineerA3 (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki for software related opportunities and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal for other work needing to be done. There is no shortage of things to learn! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@TechnicalEngineerA3: Hey Technical! The first thing that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where people post about technical issues and questions and many technical people hang out discussing those issues and hammering out solutions. Check out also Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Regarding templates, if you'd like to help out, we have Wikipedia:Requested templates and Wikipedia:Lua requests. There's also a wikiproject associated with templates: Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates.

The fact that most templates are locked does not stop you from working on them, though you have to be a bit indirect. The reason most templates are locked is because when you have a page that is transcluded in lots of places, vandalism to the template will be shown through all its transclusions, so there's a potential for damage to many pages with a single edit. But you can work on a template in a sandbox. Check out Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases. One you've worked up a proposed change to a fully protected template, you can post the the talk page of the template, and place an {{Edit protected}} request for the change.

Of course, this is not ideal – especially because many times when people like you, who have the knowledge to make complicated template suggestions post your work and ask for it to be implemented, people like me come along who look at your suggested changes and can't make heads or tails of the syntax and so we don't act and it sits around until someone with permissions who can understand the changes comes along. For that reason, just recently, the Wikipedia:Template editor flag was created so that technically proficient users can be granted permission specifically to edit protected templates. The rub is that full protection must be changed to "template protection" for someone with the permission to edit, which hasn't been done yet to a lot of templates. I wanted to tel you about this option for the future, but unfortunately you could not apply for it yet (you need one year of editing, 1,000+ edits plus over 150 to templates, and meet a few more standards to be granted the flag). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My articles are not promotion.

I'm feeling a bit frustrated. A lot of people here are mistaking my articles for advertisement or promotion. This is NOT the case in any way, I only want to allow the world more insight on local musicians. A part of this is the fact that most of these bands have not yet been written about in other places, as they aren't quite as well known as musicians that have. I don't want to promote the bands/musicians, in fact, I don't care about them quite that much. I'm not a typical teenage fan who just wants to "share the love", I simply believe this website doesn't cover enough musical areas. Especially small ones. Jed Sharp (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jed. Welcome to the Teahouse. I am one of the reviewers that declined your article and I also left you the invitation here. Others will probably add to what I say here, but I didn't deny your article because it was promotional and neither did Numbermaniac. We both denied it because it did not show the needed notability. Although Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, that does not mean you can put anything you want in it. Our standard for inclusion is called notability. In our usage of that term, it has nothing to do with fame, potential, talent, importance or any of dozens of other subjective opinions. Instead, it is a (nearly) objective standard. The standard is this: Are reliable, independent, secondary sources talking about the subject in detail? That, in a nutshell, is what is required to get an article in Wikipedia. The specific standard for musical groups, as I told you in my review, is found at WP:NMUSIC. The only musical areas that wikipedia does not cover are musical areas that no-one else writes about. To phrase it differently, we only cover the coverage of a subject. This isn't the place to get initial mention of any subject. I hope the band catches on, and when they chart something, or receive detailed reviews in widely disperse geographical areas, then we can have an article about them. Until then, it is just too soon. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is admirable, Jed Sharp. However, this website has 4.3 million articles, including vast numbers about music acts that neither you nor I have ever heard of. You have no objective basis for claiming that this website doesn't cover enough musical topics. You are right, though, that we don't cover bands that haven't been written about in other places. Such bands, by definition, aren't notable. That simply isn't going to change. So please consider devoting your attention to improving our well referenced coverage of notable bands. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jed. Don't feel frustrated about this, it's just the way Wikipedia works. Notability is required. Being a musician myself I'd love to have a wiki article about me, but I'm simply not notable enough. Yet

. If those standards weren't in place, the wiki would become bigger than Facebook, Linkedin, and MySpace combined. Yintan 15:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Would my article be a candidate for deletion?

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia, but I know after reading all of the policies like the general notability guideline that the inclusion criteria is quite strict. I've began work on my first article - you can see the current draft at User:Zetherstone/Benjamin Wheatley. I followed the reference style of several featured articles to make it, like the "sfn" template. So, would this article be fine for the encyclopedia? Zetherstone (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. It looks notable to me, but I would like to hear from others before moving it to mainspace. Anyone? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is not ready for a page yet. I have yet to finish it. Thank you for your comment. Zetherstone (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice article. I would, however, recommend adding a lead section at the top of the article--basically to summarize it. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that after I have completed writing it. Zetherstone (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A substantive article needs a lead section that asserts notability and summarizes the whole article, so that other editors reviewing the article, and unfamiliar with the topic, have the basic tools they need for evaluating the article. The lead section can be expanded as the article is expanded. Please do not delay in writing a preliminary lead section. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Creating a wiki page

I am in my sandbox trying to make a page. Is there anyway that I can save the current status of the page without publishing it because the last time I tried, it got deleted.

Zreeves211 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Zreeves211, welcome to the teahouse. From your question I think you may have a small misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a site where anyone can post new content or new ideas. For something like that you would use blogspot.com or other blog creation web sites. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia. The purpose of your sandbox is primarily for you to test out content before you make additions or changes to Wikipedia. For example, sometimes when I edit an article I want to make several related changes, to make the text flow better, etc. I don't want people to see the intermediate steps as I do that so I put a copy of the current article in my sandbox, edit it until I think it's good and then put the new content into the article. So there is no concept really of "publishing" something in your sandbox. You can use your sandbox to create and submit a new article or you can use it to try out and then make changes to existing articles. My suggestion would be to start out making changes to existing articles. That way you can get experience with Wikipedia editing, policies, etc. and contribute something useful right away. There are always pages that need better references and other kinds of cleanup that are fairly easy to do but still quite useful. There is a bot (a small program) that you might find useful. It's called Suggest Bot and you can find it here: Wikipedia:SUGGESTBOT It can give you suggestions for articles that need work that might be of interest to you. Suggestbot learns from watching your edit history so it provides better suggestions the more you edit but I think it can give useful ideas even to new users. RedDog (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Zreeves. The concept of "publishing" is not really well-defined in Wikipedia. Any page anywhere in Wikipedia, including user sandboxes, can be viewed by anybody at all; and most pages can be edited by anybody at all. Having said this, there is a convention that pages in user space (user sandboxes) are not treated as part of the encyclopaedia, and will not be edited by other people unless they break some very fundamental rules - principally, copyright infringement, and personal attacks. But even in user space, if it is clear that the content of a page is never going to be suitable for a Wikipedia article (eg because it is nothing but advertising, or is entirely original research for which there is no relevant published material) then somebody might propose it for deletion, and after due process an administrator will delete it. If your previous attempt was original research, as RedDog seems to be suggesting, then that might be why it was deleted; but when it was proposed for deletion there should have been a reason given. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zreeves211: If you are working on an article in your sandbox, it should be pretty safe as long as it doesn't break the rules mentioned above. However, once it is moved to the main encyclopedia, it can be deleted for a number of reasons. If you aren't sure, you can always submit it for review by other editors by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. After a while, experienced editors will come along and either accept it or decline it. As long as it's not a copyright violation, something nasty or obvious advertising, they'll tell you what to fix and then you can improve it and submit it again. It takes a little longer to be published, but by the time it passes you can be pretty sure that it won't be deleted. One more thing: Wikipedia has standards for "notability", so if your references don't show that journalists and other authors think the subject is worth writing about, your article may not be accepted at all (for example, garage bands, amateur athletes, self-published books, Youtube videos, your mother's recipe for chili sauce, etc.) —Anne Delong (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

add to one article from another

I found the following info under "Boston Tea Party", it should be added to the article titled "Tea Party movement" under the "First Protests" section.

In 2006, a libertarian political party called the "Boston Tea Party" was founded. In 2007, the Ron Paul "Tea Party" money bomb, held on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, broke the one-day fund-raising record by raising $6.04 million in 24 hours.[79] Subsequently, these fund-raising "Tea parties" grew into the Tea Party movement, which dominated politics for the next two years, culminating in a voter victory for the Republicans in 2010 who were widely awarded seats in the United States House of Representatives.

Thank you 108.48.151.202 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. These sorts of discussion are best held on the relevant talk pages of the article involved. Every article has an associated talk page which can be accessed by clicking "talk" next to the word "article" on the tab at the top. Talk pages exist for discussing how to improve the articles. When talking on a Talk page, you should sign comments with ~~~~ just as you have done here. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why did my article get up for speedy deletion?

Someone put my article up for speedy deletion or something, saying it was not noteable or something to that affect. I want to make articles about small, local bands just so it's easier for the world to find music wherever it can. The bands I'm writing about haven't won any awards or done all-too significant things, but I thoroughly believe they should still be given the chance to be on a big website so more people can enjoy their music.Jed Sharp (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jed! Unfortunately articles on Wikipedia have to pass a basic test of notability, whereby "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." What this means in a nutshell is that it will be very hard to write articles about unknown bands who haven't had a great deal written about them. This policy is very important or the website would fill up with any old nonsense people wanted to write.

What this means for your article is that the band probably doesn't have the required notability for it to stay on Wikipedia. If you can provide reliable sources which have information about them then please add them to the article and it will likely be able to stay. From a quick google search it doesn't look like that will be possible, however. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jed, but like many people you misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of anything: commercial or non-commercial, creative, political, worthy, selfish, it doesn't matter. If a subject has not already been written about in reliable, published places, then Wikipedia's rules do not allow any article on it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Do I need more information for business i'm trying to post?

I am trying to get the company Metal Flowers Media onto Wikipedia. I need help! Do I have enough information? What could I add?

Metalflowersmedia (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Metalflowersmedia and welcome to The Teahouse. There are several problems you need to address. First, your username violates Wikipedia's rules and you need to ask to have it changed. You can't use your company's name as it is seen as promoting your company. Also, your article is very promotional right now, with words like "powerhouse", "impressive" and "inventive". You can't use those words unless someone independent of the company has used them in an independent reliable source such as a magazine or newspaper. Your own web site is not acceptable as a source because it is not independent and its purpose is to promote the company. Finally, is your company notable? You need to have had significant coverage in the media. You say you are "industry-trusted"; who says this? You say "we do it better than anyone in our field". How can you prove this? You need to address all these problems before your article can be a part of Wikipedia. You say you are trying to get your company onto Wikipedia. The question is not "Do you need to be on Wikipedia?" It is "Do we need your article?"— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Creating an article (redirect)

Hey, Teahouse folks,

I've got a basic question for you. I've been working on categorizing a series of television shows and, for one, the contestants who have been on the show during a few seasons (seasons 2-5) each have article pages. For, I'd say, about 10-15% of them, the pages have developed into full articles as the individuals have gone on to do notable things. But, for the most part, the pages redirect to a section of the season page that lists them and their bio and accomplishments. It's more than just a sentence, since it is a talent program, there is at least a paragraph on each contestant.

So, it looks like some Editor made a project of this but probably has stopped editing. My question is if I'd like to give the same amount of attention to the other contestants, how do I start new articles? The only way I've created a new article is to write it in my Sandbox and then move the page. But in this case, it would be about 20 articles with categories and a redirect. There must be a faster way.

Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Liz, good to see you here! To create an article in userspace directly, simply type the title exactly as you want it to appear (capitalization, etc. counts) into Wikipedia's search bar and hit Enter. This should bring up a list of search results, and at the top of the results, there should be a note that says something like "You may create the page "<title>", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.", with the "<title>" part a redlink to the titleyou typed in. Simply click on that link and you'll be taken to an editing screen, where you can create the article or redirect. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you know how to do re-directs, but if you don't you just need to put in #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]/press the button with a blue arrow going to the right in the advanced toolbar. Thanks, Mat ty.007 20:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. From your description, it sounds to me as if hardly any of these people meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The question for each one of them is, has there been substantial writing about them, in reliable, independent sources, such as books or major newspapers or magazines. If not, then Wikipedia should not have an article about them, as it cannot be made verifiable, and any article which does exist should be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

need help editing

Hello! I am new at this and would love a neutral third party to help me edit the Wikipedia Article: Jim Van Eerden so it adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Right now it says that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." I have already gone through it to take out "biased" words and phrases. What else in it seems not neutral? Any help would be appreciated, thank you!Lah723 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lah, welcome. I took a quick look at the article and yes, it does need work. Sentences like "he has focused his entrepreneurial and private equity roles on the development of blended value enterprises" (and similar CorporateSpeak) need serious pruning. It's not so much "not neutral", it's more "not encyclopedic". There's more info about this at WP:BETTER. Kind regards, Yintan 21:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi I have a page called ImaCor which has 9 references. The error message indicates that the reflist is missing but it is not.

Hi I have a page called ImaCor which has 9 references. The error message indicates that the reflist is missing but it is not. Can you help me with this? Samcgarrigle (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samcgarrigle, and welcome to the Teahouse! I used reflinks on it, which sorted it out. Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Same question asked and answered at the Help Desk. Let's keep the discussion there please: Wikipedia:Help desk#ImaCor.--ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can there be more than one "English"?

Hi, One of the pages I'm interested in improving is the "Full Stop" page. The page suffers from a fairly serious problem but I don't know how to deal with it.

Essentially, the words "Full Stop" and "Period" have different usage in British and American English. Historically (100 or more years ago) the generic punctuation was usually called a "period", and when a period was used to end a sentence it was called a "full stop". This is more or less the modern American English usage, but in British english, full stop became the standard name for the punctuation in any usage.

As it stands now, the article is titled "Full Stop". The usage within the article is mixed but moving towards "full stop" instead of period throughout. From an American English perspective, this is completely incorrect, hence the problem. But I can't just "correct" it to my perspective because then it's wrong for other english speakers.

One approach would simply be majority rules, pick the usage that's more common. Even that's not clear. At the moment the article creates the impression that the british usage is more common by listing far more countries where that's used. But of course many of the other countries are not solely or primarily english speaking. And it's also not clear if population really matters, or if the number of the Wikipedia readers makes more sense.

Of course ideally we wouldn't choose one or the other. I could certainly write the beginning of the article in a way that more neutrally describes the discrepancy in usage without favoring either side, but for the rest of the article you have to actually use one word or the other (or attempt some very cumbersome language such as "this punctuation symbol" everywhere). No matter which I choose, I'm imposing the standards of one region on readers from another, essentially making the article prescriptive rather than descriptive.

So is there A. some magical recipe for handling this that I haven't heard about, or B. should I try for very neutral language throughout even though it would make for cumbersome reading, or C. figure out which is more correct for the largest number of readers and use that?

Thanks Battling McGook (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The better and more correct place for this discussion would be Talk:Full stop. Blackberry Sorbet 18:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. What you need to do is to read WP:ENGVAR. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

using person infobox

is it ok to use person infobox for a sculptor instead of artist infobox? Emrahzorlu2 (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Emrahzorlu2, and welcome to the teahouse. Yes, I can't see any problem with that at all. If the person infobox seems more appropriate, use that one. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Where do I go for info on cleaning up references?

My article on Jay Steensma was tagged as 'references need cleanup'. They seemed pretty thorough and plainly laid out to me. Where can I go to get info on what the problem is, and what I need to do to resolve it? Thanks Tomseattle (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom. What I think the issue is here is that where you have cited books you have used plain (though detailed) text to detail the reference. I think "yellow tagging" the article is a bit harsh, but it is true the references could be improved if they were transferred to the standard {{cite book}} format.

There's a really easy way of doing this that I personally like very much. Find a book in Google Books (usually on the first page of results when googling for the title). Copy the Google Books URL and paste it into this citation generator, and you'll get a lovely reference in a form that makes everyone happy.

For example, I looked for The Accidental Collector: Art, Fossils, & Friendships, which is a book you cite. I found the entry on google books, copied the URL into the generator, and got:

<ref name="Wehr2004">{{cite book|author=Wesley Wehr|title=The Accidental Collector: Art, Fossils, & Friendships|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=r11jLQ0R2LsC|date=January 2004|publisher=University of Washington Press|isbn=978-0-295-80256-5}}</ref>

, which looks a little like this when used:

Wesley Wehr (January 2004). The Accidental Collector: Art, Fossils, & Friendships. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-80256-5.

This is pretty much the optimum form of this reference, the ISBN in particular makes this ultra-verifiable.

Hope that's useful, --LukeSurl^{t c} 23:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, you have used the same reference several times. While this is acceptable, it's much neater to combine them using named references.--ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

VERY useful - Thanks!Tomseattle (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that helps. By the way, there's a bunch of other useful tools at Help:Citation_tools --LukeSurl^{t c} 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

# symbol showing up in code

I have been editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnerSys and sometimes upon trying to view things before I edit them all of these symbols: . [ ] ( ) seem to be replaced by # signs. Is there any known reason for it or was I running into glitches? For reference I was using internet explorer at work ( not by choice) and then I gave up and used chrome once I got back home.

Thanks,

Rutger

174.60.43.47 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rutger. The only #'s I can find in the article EnerSys are two that are there in the source, so I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain the problem a bit more clearly? --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Rutger is referring to edits like this[1], there's a whole bunch like these in the article's history. No idea what causes it. Maybe it has something to do with the network at your work place, Rutger? Some kind of filter, perhaps? Mind you, I'm just guessing here. Yintan 23:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What browser are you using? Any add-ons that could cause this problem? Does this happen with all http requests? (e.g., try searching on Google for ".") πr² (t • c) 17:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This has happened to me when using Wikipedia at the public library, particularly when I was using Reflinks. I'm also uncertain as to the cause, but it may have to do with software that modifies browser properties that is common in public libraries. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My guess would be that some software designed to prevent SQL injections during log in, keeps filtering your input after you've logged in. Something along those lines. Possible? Yintan 02:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Something like that would be a possible cause, but there are much better ways to prevent SQL injection. I would be interested in whether this happens any time using POST requests, or just on Wikipedia. πr² (t • c) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

With Internet Explorer when "cross-site scripting" is disabled in the security settings (in IE it is disabled by default) then the hash symbols appear all over the place when using tools such as Reflinks. The browser's security settings need to be changed to accept cross-site scripting. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting/Annexing Articles

Hello, I had been creating articles for the American Poultry Association's standard-sized chicken breed classes (American, Asiatic, Continental, English, Mediterranean, and All Other Standard Breeds), but now I think it would have been far wiser of me to have created a single article concerning all six of the categories. The individual articles are rather short, without much hope of considerable expansion. My question then, is, how can the unneeded aforesaid articles be deleted or annexed into a broader article? Your help and insight would be appreciated! As the Crow Flies (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best approach would be to create the combined article,then redirect these old articles to the relevant sections within the new article. To turn a page into a redirect, replace its entire content with #REDIRECT [[New article name#Section title]] --LukeSurl^{t c} 21:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall do that. As the Crow Flies (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)