Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 238

Archive 235

Archive 236

Archive 237

Archive 238

Archive 239

Archive 240

→

Archive 245

Question about AFD process

I created my first AFD nomination over a week ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Object-oriented_design_ontology There hasn't been a lot of comment but there is unanimous consensus on the delete. I know it's not a vote btw, butI think the argument for deletion is solid and everyone seems to say more or less the same. My question is: what if anything do I do next? If I understand the AFD documentation correctly it has to be an admin or editor not involved in the discussion that closes the discussion down. So do I just wait for that to happen (which is fine) or is there something I can/should do to move this along? MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The very best thing you can do is to be patient and pretty much ignore it. It will be closed and in due time. I understand why you are wondering what happens next, and the answer is that 'process' happens next, and that the process is outside your control. Be a spectator and watch with interest. Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, it's what I thought. It sort of goes against my nature but it makes sense. Just wanted to double check to make sure I was understanding it correctly. Thanks! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: It's like everything on WIkipedia. We act as the fathers of things, not the mothers. Indeed, the road to disaster is to become emotionally entangled with something and lose perspective. Take WIkipedia seriously, but never too seriously. Fiddle Faddle 18:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: Good advice above. One technical note: because it was relisted, while it can be closed earlier than the expiration of the second seven day period, it is now no longer listed in the AfD log for July 27, but for August 4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 4). When that happens it makes it more likely that even if it's ripe for a close, it will not be seen by any closers until that log ages out of the seven-day period that most of its entries are subject to. So, while it may be closed earlier, expect nothing to happen until August 11. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing a Wikipedia Page and making it stick

I am in a intern working on updating a page, I spent all day yesterday working on it and citing it as per the Wikipedia site told me how to. Everything looked fine and stuck when I left work then this morning I came in and saw that all my work I did yesterday was gone. This is the third time this has happened. Can someone please tell me what I am doing wrong. Is there a number or contact person I can reach out to. Please let me know ASAP. My job is dependent on it. Thank you174.61.21.223 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. We'll need some more details before we can help you properly. Which article were you editing? Do you have a registered account here? Sam Walton (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of which article is affected, it's worth pointing out to your employer that no-one can make an article "stick" in one particular configuration here. All articles can be freely edited by anyone, at any time - we don't "fix" them in any given state. If they're making your job dependent on you achieving that goal, then you had best start looking for another job (one with a more competent boss, ideally!). Yunshui ^雲_水 14:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You also have a conflict of interest editing your employer's page at all, please read, and follow, our guidelines on this. Without knowing the article, we do not know the reasons, but editors with a conflict of interest often fail to present information from a neutral point of view, so that may well be why your additions were reverted. Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not directly for my Employer we are working on a book about a local politician and she has researched articles going back to the early 90's we decided to update the Wikipedia page based upon the research, and I have been assigned to edit and cite the references as a research exercise. My job is to find and cite relevant newspaper articles which I have done. WE ARE NOT THE SUBJECT, So there shouldn't be any conflict of interest.174.61.21.223 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as per my comment above can you tell me who this person is? I can then look at the article and tell you exactly why your edits may have been undone. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello person editing from 174.61.21.223. We really can't put too fine a point on it: without telling us what topic this is about, we can only be very general in what we tell you in response. It may be that the edit was undone because of vandalism. Or it may be that the edits were undone mistakenly. Or it may be that the edits did stick but you are not seeing them because you need to clear your computer's cache. Or it may be that an experienced editor reviewed your edits and reverted them with a reason which you don't know how to see, or a host of other possibilities. But operating from the lack of information, are you aware that each page has a page history you can access? And that every edit is logged and you can see who did what there, including what information was left in an edit summary accompanying any revert, which might tell you the reason the edits were undone?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Does a closely related author necessarily mean a problem with the article?

I noticed on the Kappa Kappa Gamma article there was a tag that said "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". I know sometimes this leads to NPOV issues, but to me, the article looks sufficiently neutral, there is adequate coverage of hazing controversies regarding the sorority and no language that is overly biased or promotional. Is a closely related author a problem in and of itself? Or is it just a problem if they have made the article biased? It was the first time I'd spotted that particular tag. Bali88 (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Bali88: If you look on the date on the tag, the article was tagged way back in April of 2009, when the article looked like this - and the article did indeed have issues that resulting from content added by editors with a COI. Since then, the article has gone through quite a few edits and improvements, so if you believe the COI issues have been resolved, you're welcome to remove the tag. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow, that was some fluff there! Bali88 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How to upload a page

I want to know how to upload a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingP09 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@KingP09:

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Hi KingP09. Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to add info for a citation & correct content

Hello! I worked as an editor in trade magazines and several reference guides in the late 1980s and early 90s prior to the internet revolution. Other than learning some HTML codes while contributing photos and articles to a non-profit organization's website, I have very little familiarity with this side of editing.

I would like to add page numbers in an article that specifically requested them for several citations ["page needed"]. (I own the book and was glad to help.) While I looked up the page number, I noticed that the author of the Wiki article had slightly mis-quoted the book and wanted to substitute an exact quote to achieve a higher level of accuracy.

I find the guidelines a bit overwhelming, but don't want to abandon my corrections. Can someone help me?

Thank you! Crooner62 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Crooner62. Welcome. When you have clicked the edit button to see the raw text for editing you just need to add the parameter |page=xx | or |pages=xx-xx into the citation. It usually goes after the year and before the publisher I believe.Charles (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

---
I see that you have your answer already, but I wrote this out so I'll post it. By all means, please do substitute the exact quote, that would be great. To do that, just edit quote where it appears in the text. (Unless the quote appears in the footnote at the bottom of the page. In that case, maybe you could point us at the page you want to edit.)

About wiki markup codes for citations, this has grown up over a long time to handle many different styles, and the documentation is a bit overwhelming. But you don't need to read it all. I would recommend starting with two things, which will cover 90% or more of what you need to know to write a footnote. The first is the <ref> tag. This is basic tag that generates the footnote numbers. You need one tag to open the cite and one to close it, like this: <ref>...</ref>. The content of footnote goes between the tags and appears at the bottom of the page. For example, the editor who created the cite may have just written the name of the book, like this:

Markup	Renders as
This is the main text.<ref>Moby Dick. New York:1851.</ref>	This is the main text.

In that case, all you need to do is add the page number, like this:

Markup	Renders as
This is the main text.<ref>Moby Dick. New York:1851. p. 21.</ref>	This is the main text.

The other thing that is handy to know is the {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}} templates. These are templates to format cites in a consistent way, and they are very common. They go between the <ref>...</ref> tags, just like before. For example:

Markup	Renders as
This is the main text.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Moby Dick |location=New York |year=1851}}</ref>	This is the main text.

In this case, you add the page number by writing "|page=21" between the curly brackets. Like this:

Markup	Renders as
This is the main text.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Moby Dick |location=New York |year=1851 |page=21}}</ref>	This is the main text.

That's all there is to it. I don't think the <ref> tag requires much further explanation, but you might want to check the documentation for the templates by clicking these links: {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}}.

In general, wiki markup is designed to easy to use. If you've some experience with HTML, I think you can just examine the code and see what it produces on the page and you'll get the hang of it pretty quickly.

Also, when you're done adding the page, you can go ahead and remove the "Page needed" notice. Look in the code for something that looks like this {{page needed|date=August 2014}} and delete it. -- Margin1522 (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Thank you so very much Charles & Margin1522! The page I'm editing is Gene Tierney's bio; I am very thankful you both replied. Margin1522, your detailed posting was especially useful to me.

I don't even know if this is the proper way to reply or if you'll receive a message that I replied, but I am grateful. :o) Many thanks, Crooner62 Doug 72.88.156.19 (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, glad to help! I see you have a special situation there, multiple references to the same book. I left you a note on your Talk page about how to handle that, so let's continue the discussion there. -- Margin1522 (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How to edit a page name

Hi! I created a wikipedia page for the artist Koo Jeong-A (check it out!). I recently met an assistant of the artist who mentioned to me that the artist actually spells her name Koo Jeong A (no dash! and that this is a common mistake). How do I edit the page name? Can I even do that? The correct spelling of her name is confirmed on the artist's website (http://www.koojeonga.com) and the gallerist's website (http://www.pilarcorrias.com/artists/koo-jeong-a/)

Any suggestions?

BettyLondon (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Right next to the 'view history' tab near the top right of the page, click the tab titled 'more'. It will give you the option to move a page. For non-controversial moves, this is generally fine to do and doesn't require any extensive process or discussion. Keihatsu ^talk 02:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to expand a bit on Keihatsu's excellent answer, BettyLondon. "Moving" a page to a new title is the proper technique for correcting an error in an article title, or just giving the article a more appropriate title. Think of the title of the article, and the text (and images) in the body of the article, as two different things. Moving the article to a new title makes no changes to the body. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

awesome! thanks so much!

BettyLondon (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

fixing a page that has been speedily deleted

How can I fix my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_by_Karishma_and_Pratyush that has been speedily deleted Bananadoodle (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to include reliable references about the book itself which discuss the book in detail, not just in passing. Note that it is entirely possible that such reliable references don't exist (I don't say they do, and I don't say they don't. I'm just asking us to allow for the possibility that they might not exist). If so, then there shouldn't be any article at Wikipedia about that book. --Jayron32 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bananadoodle, welcome to the Teahouse. If you are interested in writing articles, a good page to read is Wikipedia:Your first article. Afterwards, I recommend proceeding through the Article Wizard, which will provide guidance on whether or not the topic you want to write about is suitable or not for Wikipedia, and how your article should be written. When you reach the end of the Wizard, I also recommend going the path of articles for creation, which saves a draft of your article so you have time to work on it, and when it is ready, you will be able to submit the draft for review by an experienced editor. If the draft contains issues, it will be declined, instead of deleted - giving you the opportunity to fix the issues. Once your draft is okayed by a reviewer, it will be published. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

VxWorks Issues Comment

There are two commented issues in VxWorks which I updated recently: 'article relies on primary resources (June)' and 'article is in list format (July)'. Since then I have include 3rd party references but I have not changed the parts of the article that lists various VxWorks capabilities. Two questions: 1) Is it necessary to try to reformat some of the information which I feel is better communicated in a list? 2) How often do editors re-check and follow-up on their comments ie on the improved references? Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Robpater, that article is seriously bloated with excessive detail and feature lists. The references are sketchy, for the most part undated, and I noticed Wikipedia articles used as references, as well as at least one YouTube video. There is way too much industry jargon and terms that aren't wikilinked. The overall tone is something promotional that might be written by the company's PR department, instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with "Template:Cleanup-list"

I recently came across an article with a Template:Cleanup-list tag which I believe was specifically aimed at cleaning up the article's list's assertions with sourcing. However I was unsure how to actually place the references on or in the list. I looked through the Manual of Style's listing page but I can't seem to find the stylistic norms. Any help would be appreciated. Asdklf; (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Asdklf; and thanks for the question. {{Cleanup-list}} should be placed at the top of articles, which are poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. You just need to edit the article and insert{{Cleanup-list}} at the very top. If you want to flag a list in a particular section, enter {{Cleanup-list|section}} under the section heading in the relevant position. You could back this up with {{Citation needed}} tags at the end of list entries that require sourcing. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't need helping place an indicator, but you mean I tag each person within the list with a reference separately to assert their placement within it? Asdklf; (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Asdklf;: If the list entry is a non-blue linked individual then you could either add a {{Citation needed}} tag at the end, or, if you think that the individual is never likely to feature in their own article due to notability issues then you could remove them altogether as a bold move. It would be easier to assess what's actually needed if you mentioned which list you are referring to. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Asdklf;: Yes, you place a reference at the list member you wish to have a reference for. Fiddle Faddle 11:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both! Asdklf; (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirection Error

I want to create a new page for the song "Do My Thang" from the album "Bangerz", but apparently, there was already a page on Wikipedia for it. When I clicked on the link, I was redirected to the article for the album. How do I remove the redirection to the article for Bangerz and create a separate article for the song? Thank you.

CyrockingSmiler 13:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @CyrockingSmiler: Welcome to the Teahouse. For future reference, new questions at the Teahouse should go at the top of the page. Anyway, when you go to Do My Thang and it redirects you to Bangerz, you should see some text right below the page title of Bangerz that says "(Redirected from Do My Thang)". Clicking this will lead you to the proper page, after which you can edit it and replace the redirect with article text. Just ensure that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for songs :)

Another note - please make sure that your signature contains a link to your userpage. By the looks of it, it's simply static text right now. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake about the placement of the question and thank you so much for your help! I'll make sure the article meets the required standards. :) And I'll change my signature to include my userpage. Again, thank you so much for your help! CyrockingSmiler (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How to like to upload in wikipidea — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalawanAkoew (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

review of page

Hi, I'm working on an article about Fundación Aladina in Spanish, and I wanted to translate it to english. Can someone check it out to make sure its ok, before publishing? Thanks -FMateos (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if Anastasia has already offered help. I also do some Spanish to English translation, so feel free to contact me at my talk page if you ever want more assistance: Noyster (talk), 17:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is my work? Why did it not pass?

I don't know why my recent attempt to make an article for Fireclay Tile, a cool green tile business in SF that recycles toilets and tvs to make tile was denied. When I went to look at the article for comments etc. it was blank! Am I clicking the wrong thing? I'd love to get this published because I've interned there, and I'm trying to spread the word about the innovative work this company is doing!

Leilanifireclaytile (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @Leilanifireclaytile: When I take a look at your contributions list (accessible by going to Special:Contributions/Leilanifireclaytile), I see two drafts on the same subject: one at User:Leilanifireclaytile/Fireclay Tile, and the other at Draft:Fireclay Tile. The latter is the one you submitted for review, and has since been reviewed. You can see the reasoning in the red box at the top of the page, with further clarification in the comment right below it. Let us know if you need anything else! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Leilanifireclaytile: Your talk page also tells you that you have a reply at teh AFC help desk. When you ask questions it is usual to read the replies.

Please beware promoting a company, especially one you have worked for. What was exciting while you were there may well not pass WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 20:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing an article with "needs additional citations" box at the top

I want to edit an article, but it has a box at the top that reads "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification." What's gonna happen with that box? Can I just go ahead and edit the article, and someone from Wikipedia will eventually remove the box at the top? Or do I have to remove the box myself, and if so, how?Lupine453 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You can go ahead and edit the article. The template that's creating the box is most likely the first line in the article, and is enclosed in {{double curly brackets}}. If any user feels that the problems outlined in the box don't apply any more, they can remove the box. So, edit the article, and if you feel there are enough citations, you can remove the notice. If someone else disagrees, they can replace it, and then you should probably discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Howicus.Lupine453 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Applying edit with additional information (+) reliable references.

Sir(s),

I am trying to add information to an article, and give proper references. I have been rejected 5 times, and each time, has either been poor or unreliable references, or "administrator disagreement".

Now, my understanding is that editing an article with reliable references should fall under the category of "additional information". And considering the article is a United States Slang, there is really no proper form of explanation or administrating of this particular subject. The motive is still open to explanation.

I understand the consensus of Wikipedia administration wanting reliable sources, yet I have a Wikipedia resource and an outside source reference from a book, but the "article reference" page on Wikipedia states,..."...some articles will not be represented by authors not established..."

That is tough, because, according to history and the subject applied, no true pinpoint of origin has been accomplished.

So, I give additional information, references, and sourced material, yet no room for hypothesis. I am confused; will someone help me. HungryUSAHungryusa (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Hungryusa, welcome to the teahouse. I think you are talking about your edits to Kilroy was here Your last edit was reverted by McGeddon (talk · contribs) The reason given was "Source says absolutely nothing about Cyrano de Bergerac or self-doubt." So what McGeddon is saying is that the reference you included in your edit does not actually back up the claim you made in the text you added. If I'm understanding you correctly I think you are in error when you said this in your question above: "considering the article is a United States Slang, there is really no proper form of explanation or administrating of this particular subject. The motive is still open to explanation." It doesn't matter what the topic is, US slang or any other topic there are still guidelines for what can be included in Wikipedia and the most important guideline is that every significant claim in the text should be justified with a reference and if a claim is not justified it can be removed. You seem to have included a source with your last edit to Kilroy but McGeddon thinks that your source does not actually support what you wrote. You still have options in cases like this. What you do not want to do is just go back and make the same change again. That's called wp:edit warring and if very much frowned on. What you can do is to either leave a comment on McGeddon's user page or start a debate on the talk page of the Kilroy article. Actually, I just looked at the Kilroy talk page and I see McGeddon has already created a new section to discuss the issue, so that is the appropriate place to continue the discussion. Here is a link to that section: Talk:Kilroy_was_here#Cyrano_de_Bergerac BTW, I know it can be a bit frustrating doing your first few edits but stick with it, you are off to a good start, it just takes time and experience to get used to how things work. You might find these links useful as well wp:42 Wikipedia:Verifiability --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

un-indentation in 2. order bulleted list

Please help with the following: I have one bulleted item with some text and two 2 bulleted sub-items. How can I manage to return to the indentation level of the first bullet, to comment on the 2 sub-items without returning to the environment of the list. Thanks in advance. Purgy (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Purgy, welcome to the teahouse. Are you talking about this section of the article Jerk (physics): Jerk_(physics)#Human_Perception_of_Jerk? All you need to do to change levels is less or more astericks in the Wiki code. So one * is one level down, another one makes two levels and then if you use one again you are back up at the first level. One thing that might be confusing is I notice a line break in the text. Not sure if it's meant that way or not but once you add a carriage return you have stopped the bulleting. I put an example (using the text from that section) in my sandbox here: User:MadScientistX11/sandbox Note that I removed the carriage return so all the text is in bullet format. Note the text I added at the bottom as examples: "this is level one" and "this is level two". Hope that helps. If I misunderstood your question it would help if you can give us a link to the article and section you are trying to edit. Cheers, --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply. Your link points exactly to my problem zone. The last paragraph, it is the one started by a linebreak I assume, is intended to be indented ( :) ) as 1.level-bullet text, but not having a bullet of its own. As far as I know up to now, I may use

* two asterisks to add a third 2.level bullet item
* one asterisk, to start a new 1.level bullet item
* a linebreak to leave the bulleted list

My desire is to add the text, which is now the last parapraph, on the same level as and belonging to the existing two 2.level items, i.e. as 1.level text.

Thanks. Purgy (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, I don't know hoe I managed that code-box!Purgy (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I get it. Like this?

• A highly reproducible experiment to demonstrate jerk is as follows: Brake a car starting at a modest speed in two different ways:
  • apply a constant, modest force on the pedal till the car comes to a halt, than release the pedal;
  • apply the same, constant, modest force on the pedal, but almost before the halt, reduce the force on the pedal, optimally, releasing the pedal fully, exactly when the car stops.
• The reason for the big jerk in the first way to brake is the discontinuity of the acceleration, which is initially constant due to the constant force on the pedal and drops to zero immediately, when the wheels stop to rotate. Every experienced driver knows how to start and how to stop braking with small jerk.

If you edit this comment you can copy that Wikicode and use it in the article. Let me know if I still haven't quite got it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

1. The indentation is exactly what I want, just the bullet before "The reason ..." should not be there.

2. How come I opened this code-box (or what it is) above, is it the space at the beginning of the line or is it the asterisks?

I hope I am not too bothersome. Purgy (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

First, don't ever worry about being "too bothersome" that is what the teahouse is for, to ask basic questions, it's the only way to learn. Now, this time for sure, I get what you want and that is a bit more tricky. Sorry I missed that before you want the same indentation but without the bullet. To be honest I'm not completely sure how to do that. You might want to look at the Wikipedia style manual: Wikipedia:Style I'm not sure if that is considered appropriate wiki style btw. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just honestly not sure either way. In general from my experience it's rare to see text that is indented unless it's a list or a blockquote or something like that. Manually indenting via tabs or extra spaces might be problematic. Also, I think that is why you got the code block above but again I'm not sure. You are at the edge, I guess over the edge, of my formatting knowledge, I pretty much stick with the standards and just avoid using tabs or extra blank space because they can do strange things. You may need to wait for a more experienced editor to completely answer the question. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Purgy. So I found the following that might help wp:indent Essentially if you put a colon at the start of the text, the way you do when you indent for discussions like this that might do what you want. Here is what it looks like:

• A highly reproducible experiment to demonstrate jerk is as follows: Brake a car starting at a modest speed in two different ways:
  • apply a constant, modest force on the pedal till the car comes to a halt, than release the pedal;
  • apply the same, constant, modest force on the pedal, but almost before the halt, reduce the force on the pedal, optimally, releasing the pedal fully, exactly when the car stops.

The reason for the big jerk in the first way to brake is the discontinuity of the acceleration, which is initially constant due to the constant force on the pedal and drops to zero immediately, when the wheels stop to rotate. Every experienced driver knows how to start and how to stop braking with small jerk.

Two colons indents two levels, etc. BTW, I recommend actually not doing this. I don't think it's standard Wiki style, it's better IMO if you don't want the bullets to just go back to the unindented text but I haven't read the source text closely so there may be a good reason to do that in this case, it's up to you and the other editors of that article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I missed your solution while researching with your link and I did it! Your link led me to help:lists, where I learned that Wikimarkup can't do this, but showed a HTML pattern, that I could adopt. Is this something to avoid? I am still totally unsure about the manners considered de rigeur around here. I did also not expect to come that far around on my first hike. :) Thanks for your help and, please, let me know if I do something inappropriate. Purgy (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Purgy, in general yes I think it's not a good idea to escape from Wiki markup and use HTML. The whole point of the wiki markup is to maintain a consistent look and feel across the encyclopedia and going down to HTML starts to violate that. Obviously it can be done or there wouldn't be a way to do it and in some circumstances it is justified but I don't think this is one of them. Another issue is that many users (e.g. me) are not very literate in HTML. I can get it and edit it if I have to but I very much prefer not to and if I were to see HTML in an article it would be much harder for me to understand what was going on then normal Wiki markup. My recommendation in this case is to either just not worry about indenting or use the single bullet. Glad to help, happy editing. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How can I list files in a directory on my Wiki server

I have reports that my boss wants me to upload to my departments wiki using a script. I'm very experienced with scripting and have no issue with generating the files and then uploading them to a directory. How can I make our Wiki page automatically "refresh" the view of that directory and allow a user to download / open the files in it? Or would I be better off just uploading the files to a web server and then referencing the url to the web server's directory in the Wiki page?199.38.155.10 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, 199. This is more a page for editing Wikipedia, rather than a general helpdesk for wiki software; you might have better luck at the Reference Desk (probably the computing subsection). The answer is that it depends on the wiki software your company uses; there are many different kinds, and most have little or nothing to do with the wiki software that Wikipedia uses (called Mediawiki). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

Hi. This isn't a question, just a note to Teahouse hosts that there's a thread here that you may be interested in. --Jakob (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a section in the MOS for whether to use miles or kms first?

And if not, is there a way to add to the MOS?(ie by creating an RFC or something.)Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb: Yes! Check out WP:UNITS. It varies by the type of article. For example, scientific articles tend to use SI units. Articles related to the United States typically use US customary units, while others tend to use metric, and so on. The link I provided goes more in-depth. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Ack! The correct guidance is to use whatever system is tied closest to the subject of the article. To summarize, in articles where the primary topic has a natural or historical affinity for one measurement system, give that system primacy. In cases where there is no historical affinity, default to whatever system was used first in creating the article. --Jayron32 02:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Conceptually, this issue is closely related to the question of which variety of English to use in an article. In an article about a US topic, we spell the word as "color", where in articles about a UK topic, it is spelled "colour". We use "miles" (along with feet and inches) as the primary units of measurement only in articles about topics where those customary units are still commonly used, mostly US articles or historical articles. The metric system is standard in almost all scientific and technical articles. Battling about such issues is always discouraged. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanding a page in User space - how to move it back into Mainspace?

Greetings again, Teahousers. When I am making substantial changes to a page (such as I recently did for Bart Bok), I generally take a copy to my User space and work on it there. Once it is done, I move the new version back to Mainspace, and that is where my question comes up. Some editors have suggested I should use Move, some Copy-Paste. I prefer Copy-paste for two reasons: firstly, it keeps all the history of the original page intact, and secondly because when I work in User space I tend to make lots of lots of tiny changes that would be of no interest; other editors would probably prefer to see my changes as one big change. I can see guidleines around Moving new articles, but not enchancements like this. Is there an official preference, or advice from the more experienced editors? Gronk Oz (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Gronk Oz. When you are making "lots of tiny changes", you should make them, one by one, directly to the article. When you are drafting a significant block of new content, as opposed to editing and modifying existing content, feel free to perfect that in your user space, and copy and paste it to the article when you are done. This results in the most accurate article history, as there may be intervening edits by others when you make a long series of tiny edits. And other interested editors will have a better chance to monitor what you are doing. Copying and pasting does not preserve earlier editing history. A "move" is more appropriate to a new article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Help on reviving a previously deleted article, deletion of userfied page, Article Incubator

Hi, an article of mine Liam Hackett was nominated for deletion about a year ago, and the final decision was made and was merged with Ditch the Label. Recently I've only managed to get back to Wikipedia to do some editing due to University. So recently I've got some new information about the subject "Liam Hackett" and I would like to further improve that article to hopefully bring it back to the main namespace Liam Hackett but now I'm facing several problems:

• My userfied page for the article User:Nicholance/Liam Hackett was nominated for deletion recently so I was wondering if it's even possible for me to further develop the article in my userfied page. But I would like to first note that the userfied page was indeed inactive for quite some while, making it as a possibility for the deletion nomination, but right now I've found some new info and I would like to know if its possible to keep the page so that I could improve it?

• I wanted to bring the merged article to the Article Incubator, but it seems that the Article Incubator is in the process of closing down. I need help and assistance with my "Liam Hackett" article to improve it and to hopefully bring it back to the main namespace, but I don't know which Wiki Project page to put my article up to for help in improving the article except the Article Incubator. What should I do?

I'm new when it comes to dealing with reviving a deleted/merged article, I appreciate any suggestions or assistance, many thanks in advance! Nicholance (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nicholance and welcome to The Teahouse. Two editors support keeping your draft so it seems okay to continue working on it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As for what to do without the Incubator, I would suggest moving the article to Draft:Liam Hackett. I didn't do it myself because I was concerned it might not be the right thing to do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Vchimpanzee appreciate it! Do you suggest if I should move it now to Draft:Liam Hackett or should I move it later when I'm done improving the article? After I've done improving with the article what should I do to bring it back to the main namespace (Liam Hackett)? Nicholance (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that when the time comes to submit, the draft space will have what you need. I don't know whether that is automatic. If it is not, I think I know what needs to be added to the article so it can be reviewed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I figured out what to do. You need to not only move the article (or I can, if you don't know how) and put {{subst:Submit}} at the top.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your help Vchimpanzee, I really appreciate it! I'm still trying to improve the article, but one question though, the page User:Nicholance/Liam Hackett is still having the MFD template on top, the deletion nomination discussion is stilll going on, am I supposed to move it to draft now? I dont mind your help with moving it to Draft:Liam Hackett, as I know i can still do some further improvements to the page even on the draft space, I can put the {{subst:Submit}} by my own when I'm ready with the page. The problem now is just that since the MFD discussion is still going on, are we allowed to move the page? What if the result of the discussion ended up to be "delete" instead of keep? Nicholance (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You probably should wait to move the page, but no one has !voted to delete, and in fact, no one has voted since I first looked at the discussion. I think you're safe.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks a lot Vchimpanzee for your assistance! Really appreciate it! Nicholance (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

IPA for this article

Can someone show me how to create an IPA or create one for this article Natascha McElhone, i'm having a hard time. Thanks. (Monkelese (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Monkelese, welcome back to the Teahouse! The first thing to do would be to describe how to pronounce it in terms of English. (For example: "Anon" is pronounced "AY-non", like the name of the letter A followed by "non" as in "nonlinear".) Then that can be translated into IPA. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And somehow, I thought it was pronounced "ahh-NAHN". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To editor Cullen328: I assume you're thinking of the first part of "anonymous", heh heh. I suppose that would be expected, but "AY-non" is how I'd pronounce it. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Only you, I'm afraid, Ay-non - every pronunciation guide I've ever encountered uses "ah-NON". (/əˈnɒn/ or /-ˈnɑːn/, to be exact.) Yunshui ^雲_水 09:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(which, incidentally, shows how awkward it's going to be IPA-ing Nat-ASH-ar Mac-EL-HON (or Nat-AR-sha Mc-el-NOWN, or Nata-SHA Muck-el-HO-nay...) Yunshui ^雲_水 09:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monkelese: This page has audio files of a "female from United Kingdom" and a "female from Ireland" pronouncing the name. Roughly, the former pronounces it /nəˈtæʃəməˈkɛlhoʊn/ (i.e., nuh-TASH-uh muh-KEL-hohn), and the latter pronounces it /nəˈtæʃəˈmækəlˌhoʊn/ (i.e., nuh-TASH-uh MAK-uhl-HOHN). I guess you pays your money and takes your choice. (I've always heard the surname pronounced the second way, but maybe that's because the bearers were of Irish descent.) Deor (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone.(Monkelese (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand redirects

I wrote an article (Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife), and moved it from my sandbox to Wikipedia, but I see it still as a redirect from my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mrmedit/sandbox

I have read help pages, but I don't really understand how to complete the move (so it no longer shows up in searches as a redirect from my sandbox). I'd like to start work on a new article, too, but this article draft is still in the sandbox, so I'm not sure how to begin working on the new piece. Can anyone advise?

Thanks!

mrmedit 14:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmedit (talk • contribs)

Hi, Mrmedit, and welcome! You should be able to blank the sandbox page without any problem. I just typed in the name of your article, Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, and it's appearing properly, and not as a redirect from your sandbox. So the process is complete, but since it was moved from the original location, the software assumes that people may still try and locate the page using the original term, so it sets up a redirect to help them find the new location. Since that's not a plausible search term (that is, a user looking for this article won't type in your username and sandbox to find it), you can simply delete it. --McDoobAU93 15:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mrmedit, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article, Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, is moved from your user sandbox to the main namespace. The move is completed. A redirect is left on your sandbox that redirects to the article "Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife". When you go to your sandbox, you are redirected to the article, but under the article's title there is a small text that reads "(Redirected from User:Mrmedit/sandbox)". You should click on that link, and you will be taken to your sandbox, and not redirected. When there, you can edit the sandbox regularly, and you can remove the redirect. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Which criteria are utilized to judge a contribution as promotional?

Hi, I am a fresh graduate of journalism. Having a special interest in health and development issues, particularly in developing countries. Two of my contributions were deleted because they were considered promotional. This was certainly not my intention. Therefore, i would like to have a guidance on how to avoid giving such an impression in my future contributions.Maha Mansour (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maha. It's great to see someone making an effort to improve their Wikipedia work, and I think it's only fair to add that your edits so far really aren't that bad (leastways I've seen - and removed - far worse!). There are three main things you should bear in mind when trying to write neutrally:

• Firstly, have you presented both sides of the argument? If there are valid sources that support the claim that Ingredient X is good for your teeth, but also valid sources that suggest it causes heart palpitations, it would be biased to devote three paragraphs in the Ingredient X article to dental health and one sentence (or none) to cardiology issues.
• Secondly, what sort of language are you using? Words to watch has some examples of language that you should try to avoid - adjectives in general are not your friend when writing for an encyclopedia.
• Thirdly, ask yourself whether what you've written would convince someone to take a position on the topic - would I buy Ingredient X based on your article, or would I avoid it like the plague? If your work could in theory polarise a reader into taking a particular stance with regards to the article subject, you haven't done a good job of writing neutrally.

Promotional text is at least somewhat subjective, but considering the three points above is a good way to strive towards maintaining a neutral point of view. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui for your reply. Really helpful. I revised one of my contributions against your criteria and realized that i have heavily relied on references stemming from one source. Perhaps that is why i have given the impression of being one-sided. I appreciate very much your tip regarding the use of adjectives and agree fully with you.

As a beginner to Wikipedia, there is no doubt that my first choices for writing will include somehow the issues I associate strong feelings with them. It is difficult to be very neutral. Maha Mansour (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Article Draft Not Saving

I created an article using the wizard and then requested to save the draft. After doing so, my computer has stalled on the "Creating Draft" page for over ten minutes. The page is also now blank. Was there an error? Should I leave my computer open for a long period of time for the task to complete? Please advise. Thank You. Ottmanpr (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a difficult one to diagnose. Generally the Wiki software is quite quick and a wait of over 10 minutes is an indication something has gone wrong. It may have been an error of the software, or it may have been an error with your browser. As we can only see the contributions that you have (successfully) saved, there's not much we can do.

I see you have created a draft since writing the above. Have things worked out OK now? Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, LukeSurl! I assumed the same and decided to bite the bullet and compose the article/citations for a second time. Saving and submitting for review went smoothly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottmanpr (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

More forceful criticism

I would like to be able to put a template in some articles which would express my own opinion of what is being said. It would be something like {{This is rubbish, don't believe any of it}} or even {{This is crap, get it off the page}}, or perhaps {{get this mumbo-jumbo out of here}} . All of the available templates seem quite tame and don't quite fit the bill. I don't want to be rude on a page or go about make massive removals of text, which could give rise to an edit war, but I think something more forceful is required to get get rid of a lot of the pseudo-scientific/religious nonsense we come across which is being presented as fact. Jodosma (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Does {{Fringe theories}} fit the bill at all? Yunshui ^雲_水 08:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Could be, where did you find that. I just put it on Vihangamyoga. Thanks. Only problem now is that I have to spend more time on it on the article's talk page. Jodosma (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I just happened to know that one, but Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is a good place to look for similar tags. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Jodosma, you should never state your opinions in articles. Wikipedia's articles have to be neutral, that is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. And, any tags added to the article should also be neutral. Talk pages are for opinions, articles are for facts that are verifiable. So, if you find an article that has some certain issues, you may tag the article for that issues. For example, if the article is too promotional, you may tag it with {{Advert}}. Those tags (WP:TC) are made to be specific and neutral. But, tagging articles for being "rubbish", "crap" or "mumbo-jumbo" would not be helpful. That way, you would give your opinion, but opinions are not neutral, nor verifiable. You say that you don't want to trigger edit wars, but adding unverifiable tags to articles would certainly lead to edit wars, because anybody who disagrees that the article is "rubbish" may then remove the tag, and so on. The only way to keep Wikipedia neutral and verifiable is not to add opinions and original research to articles, otherwise Wikipdia will become a forum, and not encyclopedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Points taken and thanks for the info. Looks like I may need some more bookmarks. Jodosma (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem with supposedly blank submission

I created a page and submitted it but was then told that the submission was blank. I have the Wikipedia code in a separate text file as well as in my draft. I'm just not sure what went wrong and I have no idea how to go forward. Anyone willing to take me through the process step-by-step?AstridNicholls (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AstridNicholls! When you submitted it on July 3, no doubt by accident, it was blank and that was what was reviewed. i have placed a submission template on the draft, so whenever you are ready to submit it, all you have to do is click on the appropriate place on that template and then, ahem, wait. AfD is backlogged considerably so it may be a couple weeks. Just a quick observation tho: Talking about what an author did while he was in ROTC in high school is probably not real good content. John from Idegon (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)