Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 131

Lindsay Bell Article
I am trying to find an article I created last night about Lindsay Bell and I cannot find it. How can I look it up if it is not published yet? Thank you.67.61.149.88 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. The article was declined and you can find out more at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lindsay_Bell. You may also want to read our Notability guideline for politicians. Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  22:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For future reference about how to look it up yourself (other than bookmarking the page in your browser or saving the URL somewhere), what you can do is look at your contribution history. One easy way to do so is to click on your signature. If you are not on a page where your signature is already posted, you can simply type four tildes ( ~ ), then click "show preview" rather than saving the page, and then when the preview comes up, click on the linked IP address. Another thing you can do is sign up for an account, which takes about 30 seconds, has many advantages over editing by your IP address, and is actually less anonymous than having an account. Logged in accounts can add pages to their watchlist, they can save links on their userpages, and their contribution history is available from a dedicated link they can access from any page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How to create an infobox for an organization?
Hi, I am trying to create an info box for an organization, I've read in other post my first step would be to go to Category:Infobox templates, yet I keep getting stuck at this section. Is there any way someone can just post the basic code, or send me the link to the actual templates themselves?

Thank you.Gchac (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Gchac, welcome to the Teahouse. Go to Category:Infobox templates and click "[show]" in the box saying "Wikipedia templates: organization infoboxes". That gives links to infoboxes for many types of organizations, for example the general Template:Infobox organization. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks!Gchac (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

articles that need editing
where/what is the address of the Wikipedia article that includes suggestions for articles that need editing? Andreapark (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, there are a few ways of doing this:
 * You can look directly at categories of pages that have been tagged as problematic, e.g. articles needing general cleanup or articles tagged as needing copy-editing.
 * For pages that may be more interesting to you specifically, you can ask "SuggestBot" to recommend you a list of pages based on those you've edited before. Details of how to do so are here.
 * You can use a tool to pick you a random page in need of attention, such as random article that needs a copy-edit(warning: could be unpleasant topic!)
 * Hope that gives you some ideas Jebus989 ✰ 21:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hey Andrea. I am not 100% clear on whether you're seeking a page that provides suggestions on editing itself, or one that suggests articles needing editing. If the former, there are quite a few; some are:
 * Tutorial (a good place to start);
 * Help:Editing;
 * FAQ/Editing; and maybe you might find our
 * Style guideline of use.
 * If the latter, I think you may be looking for one of the categories that certain maintenance templates place articles into when they are added to articles that need attention. Some examples are:
 * Category:Articles needing cleanup;
 * Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit;
 * Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing
 * Category:Wikipedia cleanup (a parent category, containing the three above it, and more).
 * Just a point of terminology. In your question it seems you were referring to pages such as those above as articles. We generally only use that descriptor for the encyclopedia articles in the mainspace. We call everything else generically "pages", or refer to the specific namespace they are in, such as a "category" page, "user" page, and so on. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I have to reference external links? Gchac (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am creating my first article one of my questions is must I cite external links? Even if by clicking on the text the viewer would be directed to the webpage. Gchac (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gchac. Firstly, inserting external links into articles is discouraged.  So your best bet is to write out your information and reference it to the URL you wanted to link.  Secondly, and I may be misunderstanding what you are asking, but all articles must be referenced.  Have you read your first article?  There are lots of helpful hints there. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. When you create an article you reference the content with sources. These sources can be online but should not be "bare urls". These will generally be removed and formatted into an inline citation if left. However we are allowed to create an "External links" section for the article at the bottom of the page. Some restrictions apply. See External links for more information.-- Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Blank a Page admin Help
Hello! I need the help from an admin to blank this page Michka Assayas to move it properly form the original draft.  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is to maintain proper attribution since several editors worked on the draft. I am not an administrator or I would do it. I believe that the article was created by cutting and pasting the wikicode from a sandbox. Miss Bono, can you please link to the draft as well? For future reference, please use the "move" function to move an article from a sandbox to main article space, when not using the Articles for Creation process. I made the same mistake myself when I was getting started here, so don't feel bad.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you tag it (& the corresponding talk page) with it should be speedily deleted, then it can be moved properly from User:Tattoodwaitress/Michka Assayas, assuming that this is where it came from. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of the move. Just seconding what Cullen328 said. Copy and paste moves are undesirable because they split the page history which is required for copyright attribution (although if only one editor ever made edits, and they perform the move, it is not always a copyright problem). These can sometimes be repaired if there aren't overlapping page histories, but if there are, we are left with a page that has to refer to another for its copyright history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Where can I learn about the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom)?
Hi, I was wondering what kind of issues go to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) and what the correct process is for presenting them to ArbCom? -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the answers at Arbitration Committee. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @David Biddulph
 * Hi David, thanks for the quick response. Do we know how effective ArbCom really is?  -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've assessed their effectiveness at 77%, which is pretty good considering they are all volunteers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User's day
I've seen many users have their own day. What is that? What does it mean?  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bono :-) - its just a barnstar noting special -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks Moxy... I just asked for curiosity. You should have one of those... :D  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  17:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just got a message apparently  that barnstar is dead as per User:Neutralhomer/Today/Archive....User:Moxy/Barnstars :-) -- Moxy (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, Moxy (that you have one)  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

naming rights for American Airlines Theater at the Roundabout in NYC
how much did American Airlines pay and what is the term of the commitment? 208.54.87.238 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the Teahouse, which is a place for newcomers to ask questions about using & editing Wikipedia. You may be better off at the Reference desk. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Hungary
This article, List of cities and towns in Hungary, is a mess. I'm not good enough with tables & inserted pics... Can someone fix it? Thanks in advance. 81.62.227.171 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had a go. It's slightly better! Sionk (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Usernames
Is there a way to change my username without losing credit for previous edits?Wolfdude359 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Wolfdude359, you can request your username is changed at Changing username. Have a read of the restrictions/limitations before you request though to make sure it's possible for you. Cheers, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Cabe6403, found and completed requestWolfdude359 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Trying to anderstand Wikipedia.
Hello, I just believe i did my first page, i would like to know the status of it, i am reading a lot in this page about some possible errors, formatting. I upload some photos that i own the proper copyright, How do I know if i create the page successfully? I also wounder about translating same page in Spanish, whats the protocol for that. Thanks so much. 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoracionpuntual (talk • contribs)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. The page which you have edited so far is not an article, but your user page. As that was presumably intended to be a draft of an article, I have moved it from User:Adoracionpuntual to User:Adoracionpuntual/Lenny Flamenco, as a user sandbox. At present, it certainly would not be accepted as a Wikipedia article. You need to read WP:Your first article, and other documents linked from there. Wikipedia does not use inline external links as you have tried to do; what you do need are references, so you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners.  If you want to include images, these would need to be uploaded to Wikipedia or to Wikipedia Commons (and have appropriate licences); you can't directly include images from another website.  See WP:Images. More fundamentally, before Wikipedia can accept an article you need to prove that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's definition, which means that it needs to have received substantial coverage in independent, published, reliable sources.  For persons, the notability requirements are at WP:BIO.


 * When you have read all of that, if you have any specific questions, please ask again. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Account
How do them work?  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you referring to legitimate uses of alternate accounts? If so, have a read of that policy and make sure your indended use is compliant. When you've created the account make sure to link them publicly on both accounts (e.g. by putting User alternative account)). Can I ask what you intend for an alternate account so I can try provide you with more relevant advice if I can? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just asking, Cabe. I was thinking about creating an legitimate alternate account for when I use another computer in public places, such a school, which I often do. So I don't compromise my actual account.  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  15:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You could, for example then, create User:Miss Bono (alt) or User:Miss Bono (public). If you do you should link both accounts using the template I previously. I.e. on the new account you should have a notice saying it is an alternate account of User:Miss Bono and your current account can have a notice saying something along the lines of "This user has an alternate account for use on public computers: User:Miss Bono (alt). How you name them and go about doing this is up to you. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A good example is User:Jauersock Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Cabe!   Miss Bono  [zootalk]  15:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. I am reading and educating my self on it now. Are there any videos that you can recommend me to get started? Adoracionpuntual (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I get a page created? (Subjects below)
Hello,

I just went to see if Michael Tronn could be found on Wikipedia?

I was surprised by the fact that he is not here.

In brief, Michael Tronn was one of the pioneers and creators of the underground Club Kid movement, and featured for being so appeared on the cover of New York Magazine in March 1998.

After a decade there, he went on for another decade leading the underground art, nightlife and tastemaker scene in South Beach.

He produced the Miami launch events for Madonna's Ray of Light and Liquid albums.

and much more.

On www.michaeltronn.com there is a large bio of work and art accolades.

Thanks, Coopermichael (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Coopermichael. Welcome to the Teahouse. There is a process for requesting articles which you can read about here. There will need to be significant independent coverage of the subject for him to be deemed notable for an article. The best way of course will be to write it yourself, working in your own sandbox until it is ready to be submitted for creation. You may find Biographies of living persons useful. Do call back if you have any further questions.--Charles (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How many details before submitting a new page ?
Hi everyone ! I'm new at wikipedia. I've already made edits as an IP before registering, so I understand the syntax and how the community operates. However I don't really know at what point (at what level of details) a new page should be submitted. I created a stub on my sandbox (User:Stpeter3/sandbox) but I don't know whether I should continue working on it alone so that it is a little more comprehensive before I submit it, or if I should already submit it so that other people can help (that's wiki's goal, after all). Thanks for you feedbak ! 46.14.77.224 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)    (I apparently was disconnected while I was writing my question, but I (stpeter3) am the one who wrote the question. Stpeter3 (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Hi Stpeter3, glad to see you've registered an account to contribute to Wikipedia. From looking at your sandbox it seems that the person meets the WP:NBLP requirements. If you moved it into article space I believe it'd stand on its own just fine. If you'd like a second opinion you can click the "you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." link on your sandbox at the top and one of the WP:AfC regulars will be along to review it at some point. Any questions, feel free to ask Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Cabe6403 ! Thank you for your answer. So I moved the article to the article space. I'll continue to improve it and I hope other people will too ! Stpeter3 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking for experienced editor to guide me
Hello,

I'm desperately trying to get an article reviewed/approved but everytime, I get different comments on what's wrong or not by different editors, each one of them with a different point of view (last one used an aggressive and warning tone!). I am open and very willing to delete all items considered not proper to the article but I need clear guidelines and a fair review. Can anyone help?Mmarraas (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mmarraas, I presume you mean this article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Automatic Systems. I agree the most recent reviewer's comments are quite blunt and I'm sorry you found this aggressive. However, the reviewer is quite right to say that Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for advertising. To be honest, your article looks like a long advert for Automatic Systems' products. There are fundamental problems (proving the company is widely known, removing advertising) which need to be addressed, therefore if you simply tweak a sentence, or only replace a single source before re-submitting it for review, reviewers will inevitably get frustrated. I'd recommend you write a simple article about the company, using information that has been published independently in reliable, journalistic sources. Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Image addition - regarding
Hi, I am a new user and i have created an article for my college. The article was also reviewed and tagged by reviewers. But there is a mistake in the title of the page. A comma that should separate the name of the college and the place it is situated is missing. Also i wish to know how i can pictures to the article. PraveenPraveen043 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Praveen, and welcome to the teahouse. The reviewers seem to have reviewed this article incorrectly. Agricultural Engineering College and Research Institute Kumulur has now been deleted as a copyright violation. As a long established educational institution, the college is probably notable enough for there to be an article about it. You may wish to read Your first article and then try creating an article in your own words, but supported by references to independent reliable sources, at Articles for creation. Good luck! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

simple answer to a simple question I cannot get.
In Australia since the beginnings of film in this country, the place you went to see a movie was called a theatre or earlier a picture theatre. The simple answer I want is what year in the 1980's did it become cinema. As I am the spokesperson for a group of friends whose mothers, grandmothers and our own children only knew the word theatre or picture theatre. we would simply like to find out this fairly easy question. Why can't we?124.184.184.88 (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Here we answer questions involving Wikipedia, policy, guidelines and collaboration efforts. For your specific question, please ask at Reference desk/Entertainment. Thanks you.-- Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the folks at Reference desk/Language might be more adept at this question than the Entertainment specialists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How much detail on plot synopses?
This has already been asked to a certain extent, but not exactly.

I like how individual TV episode pages are being converted into lists of episodes; seems more compatible with the notability guideline. I have been noticing a lot lately, though, that on these list-of-episodes pages, Wikipedians are providing more and more plot information per episode. It seems to me that a two- or three-sentence summary should suffice for a list article (something like you'd see on a satellite TV info dialogue), but some pages have paragraphs of plot information for a single 48-minute episode. Not only is this annoying because it gives away spoilers, but also it doesn't seem very encyclopedic in nature.

I've read the guideline that stipulates that plot summaries should be between 200 and 500 words; that length seems reasonable if a TV episode deserves its own article, but in a list, I think it's overdoing it. I was wondering if I had some sort of support from the Wikipedia rulebook when asking people to give briefer summaries in episode lists (maybe a banner template for "too much plot", or a guideline I could refer to when deleting extraneous content).

Thanks! Jon VS (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Depending on the size of the overall primary source the plot should not be longer than needed to summarize the basic plotline. Overly long, detailed plot summaries are a misuse of the guideline on summarizing source material. Do not interpret the source or attempt to make claims in the summary. Be concise and use brevity.-- Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, . The length of a plot summary is determined by editorial judgment and consensus. I think most editors would agree that something more than two or three sentences is entirely appropriate, but on the other hand, there is no need to describe every scene. Please don't be concerned about spoilers. Wikipedia articles routinely provide complete details of plots including what some might consider "spoilers" and there is consensus that this is encyclopedic. Those who don't want to know the plot details should refrain from reading the plot summary. Please read WP:PLOTSUM and WP:SPOILER for further insights on these issues.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a number of locations for information. I like to suggest the style guide at WP:FILM: Manual of Style/Film (although this is just a project guide and may not be as accurate as other MOS guidelines) as well as the MOS guideline: Manual of Style/Writing about fiction.-- Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone. :) Jon VS (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice on contesting an article's speedy deletion?
Hi, my article has been put up for speedy deletion "notability" any advice on how to contest this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beasts_(British_band) Here is my reason so far, the post hasn't been deleted yet.


 * Hi! It needs references. Try searching for some reliable sources.  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  13:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Ktsoni100 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Beasts have national presence online, in high-quality mainstream publications, and on radio with a release on all major digital marketplaces through major digital distributor, AWAL. Beasts have supported major recording artists including Miles Kane and Dinosaur Pile-Up. Whole post is verifiable via references.

Ktsoni100 (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Simple "presence" in digital marketplaces is insufficient to establish notability. Neither is playing on the same bill as notable bands. Please read our notability guidline for bands.


 * Procedurally, the Teahouse is not the right place to contest the deletion of an article. We discuss editing Wikipedia here, but we don't make decisions about deletions. Read the pink box at the top of the article and follow the instructions there.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  15:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello - (I can't see your name). "Notability" is a bit of Wikipedia jargon, and is not the same as "importance". It says that reliable sources unconnected with the band (major newspapers and websites with an editorial policy comparable to major newspapers) have written about them: not the band members, their mates, or their fans, and not blogs or forums. If these references in newspapers etc exist, then the band are notable, and all that is required is that the sources are referenced in the article. If the references do not yet exist, then the band is not yet notable, and may not have a Wikipedia article at the moment. --ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Automatic blanking of talk page (users own talk page)
Is a user permitted to automatically blank every message he/she receives? User talk:Neptune's Trident does this without exception, within minutes and with the same "Blanked the page" comment. I am just curious to establish if this is acceptable WP practice ? Melbourne3163 (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly, this is fine. There are a few exceptions, see WP:BLANKING.  Removal of a post is normally taken to mean the user has read it and is aware of its contents.  Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying this, and for the reference. Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Wizard 101
I'm about to use the Article Wizard for the first time. In the template, I find the lines:

Subject of my article is ...

Does this mean that the subject has to be entered twice in the second line? - e.g. My Subject is My Subject

If not, what does it mean please? Chrismorey (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure I understand the question. Could you please elaborate more about the situation. I have never used the article wizard and when I click on it there is a box that asks for the subject to search Wikipedia to make sure it is not already covered in an article. Where are you seeing the question posed?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris, thanks for your question. The part that you're referring to is called the lead of the article.  In the lead, you generally want to make a statement generally identifying the name of the article in bold letters like this and write a few sentences summarizing what will be in the rest of the article.  If your topic is, say, the Duke of Earl, the line there...
 * Subject of my article is...
 * should be replaced with something like:
 * The Duke of Earl is a royal title first used in Briton in 1612 that designates...
 * Does that answer your question? (Note: I know absolutely nothing about The Duke of Earl and made those details up!) <font color="green" face="Candara">I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I understand the issue now. Hope that helped Chrismorey. Thanks Jethrobot!--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you deal with editors and/or admins who try to block any improvement of an article?
Hi, I've been following an article for a period of time and decided I would try to engage the community around it to try and improve it. I have significant experience in the topic area (Information technology) and noticed that there was a flaw in the definition and thought it would be nice to contribute. Rather than directly editing the page without vetting it with others, I thought it better protocol to try and engage the community via the talk page. I first proposed some ideas for change and later even submitted a draft of a rewrite for a certain section. The only responses that come back seem to be attacks, both, regarding the content and on me, and there are no attempts from anyone to work towards improvement of the article. For example, I have one user openly writing that he knows more than me on the topic and that I know very little, and he doesn't even know who I am or what my experience might be. I even did some research and found that one of the editors has had a history of problems with WP. Anyhow, I was wondering, what your opinions are on how best to handle these types of situations? -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussion, I see some unpleasantness but mostly just other users who disagree with you. You may not be able to convince others that your approach is the correct one.  If you would like to get broader input from other users to see how others (besides the two currently involved) view your changes, I'd post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing with a neutral message soliciting input. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Calliopejen1, thanks for your quick response. I like the idea of soliciting input from the computing project.  As you suggested, I'll spend more time continuing to work with the existing editors and admins to see if there's a way to achieve some progress and, if not, then reach out to the computing project and see what happens, there.  There's certainly no rush and I'd rather find a way to resolve any conflicts directly as I think it builds stronger long term relationships. -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello FGuerino and welcome to the Teahouse. Is it really accurate to say that "The only responses that come back seem to be attacks, both, regarding the content and on me"? It seems you got a very reasonable and well thought out response. I also note that no one really said they do know more than you, but responded to your statement: "The simple fact is that anyone who does know anything about Information Technology, and who reads this article, realizes that it is a very poor representation of what Information Technology really is.". The editor simply asked you not to assume they are one of those that know nothing about the subject and suggested that they might know more about the subject than even you, which seems reasonable from the text I am reading. Just suggesting one might have more knowledge than another is not an attack. In fact it seems this is really nothing more than what we call a content dispute. The discussion is ongoing. I suggest continuing to engage the other editors. If you feel that your input is being ignored for no apparent reason (it looks apparent to me) you could take further steps to gain wider community input. I would normally suggest an RFC (request for comment) but in this situation I wonder if you might be better off for now by asking if there is anything in your draft that they agree with and work from there.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 19:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark, thanks for your quick response.  I do see what you're saying and I will gladly keep an open mind about trying to find alternate ways to make my point.  I would like to point out, though, that like many of you, I've been working with people for many decades so, at this point, I'd say I can easily tell the difference between people who really want to move things forward and people who like to be speedbumps.  When I put an idea out there and one of the first responses I get is something along the lines of "You know nothing of this topic and I know more than you," without that person having any clue as to my experience or background, I can pretty much assume I'm dealing with a stonewaller or someone who wants complete control of a page and who refuses to work with others for fear of losing control.  My goal, here, is to learn what the best and most constructive ways are to handle these types of things so that progress can be made.  I'm always ok with not getting my way if I see real progress but I'll be honest and say that I see no progress (or even a plan for progress) in this space.  I do see endless arguments about minute things, like what should or shouldn't be capitalized.  Anyhow, thanks again for your feedback and advice.  I'll absolutely digest it and see what I can do to improve my approaches. -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have an excellent outlook, but you need to adjust one thing. Your perception of the criticism is being taken too personally. There is nothing to indicate that such was the case here. No one was telling you outright that they know more than you. It was a response to an aggressive statement you made that could be perceived as an attack on the other editors. See where they are coming from. Also, I suggest you engage directly with the editors on their talk page. one of the editors involved is, perhaps, one of Wikipedia's finest content contributors (this of course being only my opinion). I find that when you speak directly to them, asking relevant questions in a neutral manner, will get you much further than just arguing on the article talk page.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, thanks again for the advice.  I'm trying to learn as I go along and I'm trying to find what the most constructive paths are for actually getting things done.  You're advice on not taking things too personally is well taken, as I take very few things personally.  Please know that I was reacting to very explicit statements where the editor openly stated: "It's quite likely that I know a great deal more about it than you do." and "I don't think you've got the faintest idea of what you're talking about." (both being said without knowing me or my background).  While I don't take such statements personally, I'm certainly not used to such statements coming from professionals.  Also, I do know about and respect his long list of content contributions, which is why I've specifically asked for his opinions on potential improvements.  However, I'd expect far more constructive criticism and contribution from someone so experienced in the ways of WP (and life).  In all cases, the responses have been direct blasts with no contributions for moving things forward.  In professional circles, when someone does nothing but criticize while offering up no other options to try and work towards a progressive solution, it's usually a big red flag.  I came to the Teahouse with this question because I sensed the red flag (not assuming that I was either right or wrong) and wanted to understand the most constructive ways of dealing with it, as I'm bound to see it again, if not with this article, I'm sure with others.  Anyhow, I thank you again for your words.  I really like your suggestion of reaching out, directly on editor's talk pages, and I've already reached to him via his own.  Hopefully, I'll find what can be done to make it all move forward in a way where everyone is happy. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Article pending approval
Hello. I would like to know how long does it usually take to get an article published? Thank you. Curnau (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Curnau. Welcome to the Teahouse. Most articles submitted at Articles for Creation do not ever get published. The most common reason for this is that they do not establish the notability of the subject by including references to significant coverage of it in multiple independent reliable sources, as explained in WP:VRS.


 * Those submissions that do get accepted, usually take between a few days and a few weeks to be accepted. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello,, welcome to the Teahouse! There are currently  drafts in the queue awaiting review just like the one that you created.  The reviewers at AFC tend to look at an average of about 65-75 drafts per day unless there is a backlog drive running.  This means, that your draft will likely get reviewed sometime in the next 10-14 days.  No worries though, this gives you time to make sure that your topic is adequately backed up with independent reliable sources and makes good on the golden rule.  Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Source Tips
Hi Teahouse. Edit source is kinda complicated. Could you give me some tips on how to add boxes in edit source, because it's really hard.

P.S. The promotional singles I'm adding are "Confetti Falling" and "We Are". The music video I'm adding is "We Are".IGotProof (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "add boxes"? Could you be more specific? (Maybe giving an example of an article with the type of box you would like to add.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that a lot of people do this by going to a similar article and copying the WP:Infoboxes to the new one. Then you can just change the "answers" to the right information for the article you're working on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a recipe to redirect a link
I would like to link the word "Myopia" in an article about equine vision, to Myopia in animals, so that a person clicking on Myopia would end up here Myopia in animals and NOT here Myopia Help appreciated!Nicoderno1 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. The technique is known as "piping", and the syntax is Myopia, giving this result: Myopia. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I improve articles?
How can I improve the articles? Wangedgar (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the teahouse. Could you be more specific?<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Wangedgar! If you're looking for ways you can help out, the menu to the right of my post shows several "projects" which are working to improve Wikipedia overall by systematically improving articles. Maybe one of those projects looks fun to participate in? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Any advice on how to deal with my first heavy editing of an article on Wikipedia?
I am working on improving a Wikipedia article. This is the first time I have really tried to improve an article,I usually just correct grammar or remove vandalism on pages I happen to be reading. The article I'm working on is Dance Moms. It is a hot mess. My problem is the every time I change what needs to be changed, like removing unsourced claims, or opinions, anonymous IP's or people with a user name but no talk page just change what I write back to how it was before I changed it, or they add in statements that are even worse. Their are boxes throughout the article stating what needs to be changed so that is what I try to do. I always explain my changes in the history and on the talk page. But I feel like I'm not getting anything accomplished on the article. Since Dance Moms is a popular show, it seems to attract a lot of fans who just don't understand the guidelines of Wikipedia and write statements that are nothing but opinions. I'm not trying to claim ownership of the article, I'm not even a fan of the show,but I have watched the show,which is why I looked up Dance Moms on WP in the first place. If anyone would care to look,they can read the history or the Dance Moms talk page to see the statements I have removed,to see if I am correct for removing them. I just feel like I'm going in a loop everyday trying to fix this article,removing the same things over and over again,yet accomplishing nothing for the article. Thanks for your time. BeckiGreen (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Becki. After a bit of page history exploration, I have semi-protected the article for three months. This means that editors without accounts, and those with accounts who are not autoconfirmed will be unable to edit the article during the span of protection. This should allow you more room to make good changes without all the hassle I see in the page history. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you very much for your help.BeckiGreen (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Boxes to Graphs
Hi, Teahouse. I'm on Big Time Rush Discography and I'm trying to add two more promotional singles but I don't know how to. I'm in the beta editor, and I'm more used in editing with a transclusion. That's all, bye.IGotProof (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi IGotProof. VisualEditor is still in development and has a lot of limitations. One of them is not being able to add rows to tables. Click "Edit source" instead to use the old source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I ment to post in the top conversation. Sorry Adoracionpuntual (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

How to create an infobox
I'm currently making an article and I don't know how to create and infobox on the page. Help!ZeMusicFan (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello ZeMusicFan, welcome to the Teahouse. To use an infobox, find the one you need first, at Category:Infobox templates.  (From your name I suspect you may want Category:Music infobox templates).  Once you find the one you need, copy the text between the  in the "Usage" section, and put it at the very top of the article.  Then fill out all the fields you can, and delete any that don't apply.  Howicus (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You also may not delete the ones that are left empty, because maybe other editor have such information :) <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono  [zootalk]  20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info it helped out a lot. But, 1 more question. I looked it up on the search engine, but when I pressed search it took me to the page. How do I get the page to be in the results?ZeMusicFan (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, ZeMusicFan. I'm guessing that you mean, how do you get the page to be in the suggestions that get offered. The answer is that you wait until thew relevant index gets updated. I don't know whether that is hours or days. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback script error
A fault seems to have developed today with the Talkback script. I am getting an error message saying:

" There was an error requesting the page edit. Code: protectedpage": The "editprotected" right is required to edit this page. "

Have other users encountered the same problem? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have just had to move this section to the top of the page, in accordance with Teahouse conventions, as the "Ask a question" button put it at the foot of the page in line with normal Wikipedia practice. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks as if the problem was temporary, as it seems to be working again now. I'm now just curious as to what the problem was. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Spoke too soon. Seems to be doing it again today. Has anybody got any idea why? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * welcome to the Teahouse. It would help if you could specify what talk pages (what usernames attached to the TB) are doing it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yours, for one. User talk:Nicoderno1 was another one earlier today. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

An article nees major corrections
How do I make major corrections, or complely delete and article? 70.183.27.180 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, 70! Welcome to the teahouse.  Your question would be much easier to answer if we knew specifically what article you are referring to.  Could you share that with us? Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hey person at IP address ending 27.180! If an article suffers from major problems, you can boldly edit it, including a complete rewrite. Please note that there's is something of a divide between articles that are well or fairly well sourced to reliable sources through citations, and those which are not. Often a complete rewrite or major edits to a sourced article should be done with more circumspection and note that removal of sourced content may be seen as a red flag for some editors, depending on the changes made. I suggest you take a tour through the Tutorial to learn the basics of editing if you are going to undertake this task. I can only be general in my advice here, and very broad, because you haven't disclosed the particular article you are here about. Regarding deletion, there are four chief processes under which articles in the mainspace are deleted:


 * 1. Speedy deletion (strictly construed; generally should meet the letter of the criterion under which it's tagged for deletion);
 * 2. Proposed deletion (prod) (generally, for articles which don't meet any speedy criterion, and for which deletion would be rather uncontroversial);
 * 3. Proposed deletion of articles on living persons (sticky prod) (generally, for articles on living persons that cite no sources whatsoever); and
 * 4. Articles for deletion (AfD) (deletion after discussion on the merits).
 * It really would help if you told us which article you are here about so we could target our advice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is REVERSE MORTGAGE. The entire first page is misleading, and contains outright misinformation. The National Reverse Mortgage Loan Association has a much better explanation for reverse mortgages, and I would like to delete the present article, and replace it with truthful, substantiated information.

Thank you! RealronRlankford (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rlankford. I assume you are the editor that asked the original question?  Although the above information is the correct procedures for attempting to get an article deleted (something only an administrator can do, after one of the above procedures is concluded), Reverse Mortgage would not be deletable by any of them.  It is a completely referenced article.  I have to point out to you that The National Reverse Mortgage Loan Association is a trade association for businesses engaged in selling reverse mortgages in the United States.  The article is about reverse mortgages in several English-speaking countries around the world.  Information from the NRMLA would only apply to the US.  Further, since the NRMLA is a trade association for the reverse mortgage industry, it would not be an independent and unbiased source.  Information sourced to them would undoubtedly be disputed if you put it into an article.  Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced to independent secondary sources for all but the most uncontroversial information (addresses, etc).  I hope this helps. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that the article in question has multiple references and citations, and that the NRMLA is possibly biased. However, the truth from a biased source is still the truth, and the misinformation in the article is still misinformation, regardless of the references and citations. Oddly enough, some of the references are the exact same ones I would use to refute the improper facts stated in the article. So, with that in mind, how should I proceed to update the article to convey the truth about Reverse Mortgages?Rlankford (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Claim an Article?
Hi, I wrote an article before I had an account. Can I 'claim' it? Piratenfiber (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Piratenfiber, sure why not! Best. =) Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Piratenfiber. It depends what you mean by 'claim' it. If you mean, can you say on your user page that you had a hand in writing it, certainly. If you mean, can you get the history changed so that it attributes the edits that you made to your current account, I'm afraid there is no way to do that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It might not hurt to go to the Talk page of the article and post a section there stating that you were the initial contributor. Less so for the "fame", but it may be totally appropriate if it serves the purpose of helping people who want to discuss the start of the article to contact you if needed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

How to participate in an article's 'talk' page
I was recently looking into Bond Equivalent Yield and saw there was a talk page as the article was a stub.

Looking at the talk page, someone had asked a question about bond equivalent yields, in an economic context, but had completely the wrong end of the stick. I would like to "reply" to the question and to pose my own questions about bond equivalent yields, however the "talk" page is not really a forum so I am unsure how can I "reply" or participate in the discussion without deleting the previous "post"/question.

Richard.peter3 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Richard. You can participate in a discussion the same way I have here, by appending your comments after the existing ones. Use a colon (':') at the beginning of the line to indent, and more colons to indent more deeply, in order to clarify the sequence of the discussion. And remember to sign your posts as you have here.
 * You are right that a talk page is not a forum: any discussion to the end of improving the article is appropriate; any other discussion is not. --ColinFine (talk)
 * Hello Richard and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you are correct about the talk pages not being forums where editors discuss the subject or topic. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. I would simply answer their question on the editor's own talk page where such discussion is permitted.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

images
how do I add an image to an article? FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, FockeWulf FW 190.
 * It is a piece of cake, you'll see. You just have to enclose the name of the image between these guys 
 * This way ---> Bono_i_motljus.jpg The 100px gives you the size for the image


 * If you want to add a caption
 * use this ---> Bono_i_motljus.jpg


 * And It will look like this:
 * Bono_i_motljus.jpg

Hope this helps! <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono  [zootalk]  19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Change name of an Article
I need to change the name of an article: Dik Evans for Dick Evans, the musician's name is actually Dick no Dik, I made an extensive research including the official biography of U2, and I'm afraid the current name of the article it's the wrong one. I need help, please. <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono  [zootalk]  12:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:MOVE, especially the little "step one", "step two" graphic on the right. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I need help from someone who understands music, to improve a song article
I began a song article, 'Villikins and his Dinah', about a London traditional street ballad which mutated into a hit comic song in 1853.

I can deal with the stuff about the history of how the lyrics changed, but I do not read/understand music, so the section on the tune is very weak. And the tune is the more important component - apparently many other folk songs have evolved from it.

Any musical editors able to help?RLamb (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Rlamb. One route might be maybe a post asking for assistance at the talk page of one or more musical wikiprojects. A list of them is provided at WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Music. I'm not sure which particular ones to recommend. Note that the ones in the list with a green background are active and those in gray are inactive. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll give it a go.RLamb (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But remember that if you write anything about the tune that does not come from a referenced source, that will be original research, and should not appear in the article. Much better would be to find reliable sources that discuss the tune and its use, and write the article from them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, my problem is that I can find (and reference) remarks like this: 'Members of the “Villikins” tune family are most easily spotted by the introductory tonic, then the outline of the major triad in the first bar(s) and the repeated fifth that follows immediately.' While I'm sure this is absolutely right, I don't know if it's relevant to include it because I don't actually understand what it means.RLamb (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Math?
Is there some sort of template that automatically does math for numbers which automatically update from time to time? Specifically I want to find a template that will find the average of the Harry Potter (film series) films' Rotten Tomatoes tomatometer percentages in the critical reception table. They update automatically as the numbers come from Template:Rots, whose RT numbers are updated manually by a bot. Thanks! Koopatrev (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what you want is the #expr function. This is quite advanced-level stuff. You probably want something like . Be warned, it takes a few minutes for Template:Rots to return the correct value, and until then #expr will break because it won't accept non-numeric input. --LukeSurlt c 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse ! While 's idea may be valid, you may be better off taking advantage of RotTomBot which uses Rotten Tomatoes score and will automatically update those things.  Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey. I've tested my idea, and it looks like returns the rating as a string rather than a number that expr can understand, so that causes problems :S --LukeSurlt c 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Becoming a registered user
How long dos it take to become a registered user? Amadeo17 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. You are registered.  If you mean autoconfirmed, that takes 4 days (+ at least 10 edits which you already have). - David Biddulph (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a specific layout policy
Is there a style policy on wikipedia? Because all the pages I visited are of poor quality and some are even a little cluttered! BeijingMan2008 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello BeijingMan2008! Feel free to check out Manual of Style/Layout and to browse some WP:Featured articles to see what are well-organized pages! Best wishes, and happy editing. =) Biosthmors (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates
Where does one find the templates that allow insertion of editorial comments into articles, e.g. the superscript "who?" etc, and the notes about what needs doing, including the catch-all "this article has multiple issues". Is there a template wizard or does one hand-code them? Chrismorey (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Chrismorey. Templates are encoded by placing their names within double curly brackets (e.g. ). So to make the  template, simply type   where you want to place it; for the  template, type  ; for the Multiple issues template, type   (on its own line); etc. You can also use template shortcuts, such as   for Citation needed and others. However, there is no "template wizard", since using templates is fairly easy in this way. If you want to create a template, you can use this tool.&emsp;&mdash;  |  J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 06:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And lists of the cleanup templates can be found at Template messages/Cleanup. Deor (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating tree diagrams
Hello. Mainly for my own userspace purposes, I would like to be able to add neatly constructed tree diagrams to pages as extra visual aids in displaying information. These will provide an easily comprehended manner of communicating schemes of category relationships, etc. among pages within both the template namespace and my own userspace, for example, as well as possibly improve the content of certain articles for which such diagrams would be beneficial. Preferably, they should be downward-facing (i.e. branching downwards and outwards) for clarity. However, I am not aware of any templates that provide a format for displaying downward-facing tree diagrams in this way (perhaps I am simply not experienced enough), and I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 04:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm stumped. You probably already know that for sideways display there is Template:Clade, for example: E_coli. Post here if you find an answer. I'm curious. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You could try and its associated branches to see if that does what you're after. NtheP (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responses. I was in fact aware of the Clade template, which only displays branches of the diagram in a left-to-right manner. However, I am beginning to think that no such template for creating top-to-bottom tree diagrams even exists, and that the function should be added to Tree list or, if not, built into a new template altogether. The existing templates will do for now, but my search for the aforementioned template continues. Thanks again.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 03:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)