Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 145

Why is TeX so bad on wikipedia?
Hi, referring to Floating_point, I've noticed that mathematical formulas are so bad formatted. For instance: they appear on the left-side of the page, *not* in the middle --which would improve readability instead. Moreover there seems to be a general quality that is far behind what TeX can really do. Why is that? I'm looking for solutions --I'd like to edit the page above-- or if there's not any do you know if there's some active project for improving the TeX-support of the wiki-platform? Thank you in advance, Giuseppe Giuscri (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! TeX isn't necessarily bad, it's just less preferred due to loading time and it isn't supported well in all browsers.  If it is possible to do it without TeX, then that is better for everyone.  There is a complete documentation available to help you create and configure how math displays for you which can be found at Help:Math.  I hope that helps!  If you need more specific help or information, just ask and I'll see what I can dig up. Technical 13 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! When you say that TeX is less preferred you mean rather than what ...? Than HTML math-like formulas? Hope not. I think we should expect more than that from Wikipedia. =) Probably I'm looking for some implementation of MathJax: it will ask the article *not* to load instantly, but we're talking of few seconds. Yet that looks beautiful. Giuscri (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Giuseppe Please note that there is an ability to use MathJax. It is not on for all, but you can choose it. See, near the bottom. -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  12:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah ...thank you! I had not noticed that. Though there's no way of putting formulas in the middle yet; true story? Giuscri (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing the username
Hello, I'm wondering how I change my username. Currently it says Danielmee but I would prefer danielmee or Daniel Mee. It can be just for display purposes if Danielmee needs to stay as is. Daniel Mee 03:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmee (talk • contribs)


 * Oh, I think I worked it out Preferences > Signature :) Daniel Mee 03:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmee (talk • contribs)
 * If you want it to show up, remember to type ~ after each post.  Konveyor Belt   express your horror  at my edits   03:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

getting from sandbox to encyclopedia submisison
I am a novice user. I created a potential article in my sandbox but learned that this is just a trial writing area. I saved the material. I was directed to another sandbox for submission but can't see how to transfer my writing from the trial sandbox to the submission sandbox. Surely it is not necessary to start over. I tried cut and paste but it didn't turn out correctly in the submission sandbox.

This should be easy but appears obscure. Please help.

Alice1938 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Alice1938! Here's the trick:  Type the following at the top of your article: and then save the page.  In a while a reviewer will come along and move it to the review section. There is a backlog for reviewing, so while you are waiting, please try to add some independent sources such as news articles, magazine or journal articles, books, etc., which have been written about the subject or her work by other writers.  Most of the references you have are to her own work.  Good luck! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Curate this Page
An option to "curate" pages has appeared in the toolbox for me a couple of times. It seems to be quite rare. I was wondering what it is used for and what decides which pages it appears on. Biggs Pliff (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Biggs. The Page Curation toolbar will appear (or the link to it will appear in your toolbox, as you note above, if you have it toggled off) for any page that is listed at new pages, whether you access the page from that feed or stumble upon it from elsewhere. For information on using it, please see the link I provides to the overview page, as well as Page Curation/Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)Biggs Pliff (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

יhelp on an article
Hi, I was hoping to create an English version of the hebrew wiki item Researches' night. This is a major event in 300 cities all over Europe, but oddly enough does not appear in wikipedia. Googling it shows a lot of references and even some wiki articles refer to it (like Public and Science and Marie Curie Actions ). my article was rejected. how can I improve it? (I can't link but it's at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Researchers%27_Night

Thanks Golan&#39;s mom (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Golan's mom. What we are looking for is reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, which show that the world has taken note of the topic by writing about it substantively (see notability) and from which the information content of the article can be verified. For some topics, the sources to do this don't exist. Here, the issue is only providing those sources, which exist, it appears, in great abundance. Google Books is a very useful resource for concentrating reliable sources. What I suggest is that you take a look at the results of this search and add some detail to the article, citing to some of those sources for detail about the Researchers' night, that you find in them. You can also look at newspaper articles found through a Google News Archive search, here. In your citations, try to provide, in between the  tags, a good bit of information about the source. For example, for a book a fully-attributed citation would provide the title of the book, author(s), year of publication, publisher's name, location of publication, page number where you found the information, a link to the URL, and the book's ISBN number (for books which have one, i.e., those published after 1975). Just do your best; I and others can always help formatting the citations. By the way, the way to provide a link to almost any page on Wikipedia is to enclose the page's title in doubled brackets. So here, the link would have worked if you had typed   Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Page not showing up in search
Hi, I just created my first page. But when I search for it, it's not coming up. The page is "Adam Klein (American writer and musician)" and there are two other Adam Kleins already listed in Wikipedia. Is it not showing up when I search because it's currently unreviewed? Or do I have to do something to get it to be available with a search? Thanks for your help! Lauren1970 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation page Adam Klein isn't updated automatically. Instead, Adam Klein (American writer and musician) needs to be added manually. Disambiguation pages, like regular articles, are edited and updated by the community. Why not give it a go yourself? :) --LukeSurlt c 19:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Lauren. Though adding this to the disambiguation page is a very good idea, the search issue is, I think, mostly related to how recently you created the article. Wikipedia's internal search engine won't find entries until after the database's index is updated, which usually occurs every morning (GMT). Just wait a day or two. If the issue is about Google or another search engine finding the entry, that will happen after the page is spidered. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! This is very helpful.

Lauren1970 (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Where can I find policies on links to external sites?
Where can I please find documented policies for what types of links are or are not appropriate and how to correctly integrate them into articles? Thank you! SunShines123 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:EL might help.  Konveyor Belt   express your horror  at my edits   18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This seems to be what I was looking for.SunShines123 (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable thai Police Chiefs ....incorrect data. One Ex-Police Chief 's missing..SAWAT AMORNVIVAT. Please help update, thank you.
One Ex-Police Chief 's missing..SAWAT AMORNVIVAT. Please help get information and update, thank you.24.199.39.2 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, 24.199. Generally, lists such as that (I take it you mean the section Royal Thai Police) are not exhaustive: they usually contain only people who have, or could have, Wikipedia articles about them; which in turn depends on whether they are 'notable' in Wikipedia's special sense: whether there have been substantial articles written about them in reliable newspapers, books etc. Simply being a chief of police is not enough. If you believe that there is enough writing about Amornvivat to establish notability, then there could be an article about him, and he could be added to that list. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Found a reference for music soundtrack credited to "Alexander Courage" from 1938
I'd like to create a hyperlink for Alexander Courage, who is credited with having composed the soundtrack for Star Trek's theme. The Wikipedia article on Alexander Courage lists his earliest work as at MGM in 1951. However, there is a credit for an "Alexander Courage" as having arranged or created music for on a production of the "Columbia Workshop" in 1938. If this is the same Alexander Courage (born 1919), it would mark one of the earliest jobs that Courage ever had (he would have been 19 years old?), but it would give him additional honor and prestige for having been involved in arranging broadcast music from almost it's earliest inception. SO, DO I update the Columbia Workshop site and create reciprocal hyperlinks -- or is there any additional way to authenticate that this is indeed the same man with whom we associate Star Trek?

Thank you. TMR Sharyaffo (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Sharyaffo, and welcome to the Teahouse! There is a user essay entitled Don't build the Frankenstein that advises you not to combine two different people. Unless you can provide a reliable source stating that this Alexander Courage of Columbia Workshop is the same as the one who worked at MGM, that information would be considered original research.  Konveyor Belt   express your horror  at my edits   16:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How do I know if I have enough sources?
A couple months ago, I submitted an article for Objective Solutions International but it was rejected as there were no published sources besides the company's own website. Recently, several press releases have been published about the company. There has also been articles and a bio written about the company's CEO Steve Warren Wolfe. Ultimately, I would like to write two separate articles about the company and its CEO. I would like to know if I have substantial references in order to write these articles. I will attach the links to the press releases and published articles written. I hope that someone can let me know if I have enough references or if I need to continue in my search for published articles.

http://www.openpr.com/news/270401.html http://www.onenewspage.us/n/Press+Releases/74w12os3n/Steve-Warren-Wolfe-President-CEO-Objective-Solutions.htm http://www.i-newswire.com/steve-warren-wolfe-president-ceo/238884 http://www.pressbox.co.uk/cgi-bin/links/page.cgi?g=detailed/1309912.html http://www.exactrelease.com/steve-warren-wolfe-president--link-661617.html http://www.businessportal24.com/en/steve-warren-wolfe-president-ceo-of-osi.html http://www.pressbox.co.uk/cgi-bin/links/page.cgi?g=detailed/1317228.html http://recruitmentbuzz.co.uk/the-recruitment-industry-staying-ahead-of-the-curve/

Thanks! Lauren 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osilauren (talk • contribs)
 * Press releases are not considered reliable third party sources and it appears that you wrote these yourself, in which case you will need to read WP:COI Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok thank you for getting back to me. So, just so that I am clear, a reliable source would have to be written and published by someone other than myself about the company and/or CEO. It cannot be anything I have sent them to have published. Thanks again Lauren 14:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's right, Lauren. You can use non-independent sources (eg the company's own website) to support non-controversial factual data, but not for any kind of evaluative statement and (most relevant here) not to support notability. I would recommend not using a press-release as a source for anything, because it is a non-independent source that may be mistaken for an independent one. --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Review delay
I had nominated an article for GA review on Sept 1. An editor has said he has started reviewing it on Sept 11. But there are no comments on the talk page. The first reviewer seems to be in a break as his contribs page suggest. Can someone else takeover the review process? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sriram, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is the article in question Gemini (2002 Tamil film)?  I might be able to pick it up if the other reviewer has been inactive.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 14:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah. It is. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll begin my review today or tomorrow. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 14:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Submitted article rejected
I am very disappointed that an article I recently submitted has been rejected and, despite the feedback, don't understand what more I can do to improve it. The feedback is very general and I am at a loss to understand what is wrong with the submission. The article is a biography of Captain H.C. Tippet, a golf course architect responsible for creating many of the best known golf courses in America in the 1920s and 1930s. The article was meticulously researched, well written in good English and copiously referenced to the original sourse material.

It seems to have been rejected because either a) a reviewer has subjectively decided that Tippet is insufficiently well known to warrent inclusion, or b) the article is original research. I cannot include references to any other sourse material as no-one has hitherto compiled a biography of this man. However, a UK national newspaper considered him and his wife of sufficient notability to divert no less that four full pages to articles about them. What more can I possibly do that I have not done already? Please read the article and let me have specific guidance. Duncanharrington (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks almost there to me. There is another reference here I'll see what else I can find. Theroadislong (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was declined because it was felt that the subject did not meet the basic inclusion requirements; however a quick review of the sources shows that he has clearly received enough reliable, third-party coverage to have an entry in Wikipedia. I've therefore taken the step of moving the article into mainspace; it is now located at Herbert Charles Tippet. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yunshui,

My grateful thanks.

DuncanharringtonDuncanharrington (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I use sources that exist only in hardcopy?
I am writing an article on an Austrian non-profit organisation. It started as an initiative in 1987 and there's tons of newspaper articles about the creation. Unfortunately, all of these articles exist (as far as I know) only in hardcopy. Can you advise on how to use such sources in a wikipedia article?Christie16888 (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Christie16888 and welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: yes. When citing a newspaper, please fill out Template:cite news to the fullest extent possible. URLs are nice, but as long as we have the title of the article, the name of the newspaper and the date of issue this will be sufficient. --LukeSurlt c 09:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Help With Conflict of Interest
Hi all, I've been asked to post an article about the company I am working for, since I have done some Wikipedia editing in the past. I understand that this is a COI, but would like your help with finding a reasonable way to write such an article, as I believe the company is noteworthy: its managing editor is well-known in the Australian news industry, and its chairman is a prominent Australian businessman.

Thank you in advance for any guidance or assistance you can offer here...

I have posted the text for it at my sandbox page: User:Wujitaiji/sandbox. Wujitaiji (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for asking the question. In your draft you have two references which make no mention of Broadbent Media, and the third reference is the company's own website. If you can't find significant coverage of the company in published reliable sources independent of the company, then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, so in that case it doesn't get a Wikipedia article. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Wujitaiji and welcome. I think my original response was lost in an edit conflict. You have done the right thing declaring your COI and working on the article in your userspace. It is possible to have another editor work with you and for them to move the article into main space when they agree it is ready, however in this instance I agree with David Biddulph and don't believe that Broadbent Media meets the guidelines for a notable company. Please read WP:CORP and I will follow up on your talk page. best wishes ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   06:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To add to what David and Flat Out have said: please note that notability is not inherited: even if the editor and chair are notable (in Wikipedia's sense) it does not follow that the company is. That depends on whether there are articles etc on the company, as opposed to the people. --ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. They are on a major publisher's website, contracts signed, wors in progress of being witten.........

Zzebra138 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Uppdating a page
Hi

In updating the wiki of an author cn I mention books not published yet but part of the trilogy as I've seen on other authors pages? Do Ineed to link to the publisher's websites to authenticate and correctly referenc the pubished books?

Zzebra138 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome!  Thanks for asking your questions here; the answers to both are "yes".  I'd suggest clearly marking the unpublished books as such, perhaps with special formatting or a parenthetical future date.  Powers T 12:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Zzebra138. I'm afraid I don't entirely agree with LtPowers. If there are independent sources that discuss the not-yet-published books, you can certainly mention them; but if they are only on the publisher's website it's not so clear to me: an awful lot of things (books, events, albums) get trailed that never appear. I guess in the end it comes down to how reliable you judge the publisher as being. If it is a major publisher, probably yes; if it is a new publisher that's only got three books on their list, probably no. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think that putting future works on the list is equivalent to saying "these works have been announced and are planned". I think it's okay to source that to a primary source.  They should, of course, be removed if the works don't get published.  Powers T 23:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Pictures
What pictures can I use on wikipedia page, I know how to upload them to wiki commons, but am I allowed to just take a photo from google images, say, and upload it and then use it?Rachel Indomitus 19:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckplatypus (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, Chuckplatypus, and welcome. Generally, you can only upload free images to Commons. However, on Wikipedia, both free and non free content can be used in certain situations. Thanks. the  one  sean  20:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Rachel. The general answer is no: most images you find on the Internet are copyrighted (or we have to assume they are copyrighted) and they cannot be used on Commons, and only under very tight restrictions on Wikipedia. For details about the restrictions, see WP:Non free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rachel. Images on Wikipedia that are used, should be personally created by you, unless you have the explicit consent of the image's creator. If you do choose to use an image made by a person other than yourself, make sure you make the original creator and the copyright info easily accessible for a reader. However, there are a few restrictions to what images you can use: they must permit derivative works and commercial use for it to be considered free on Wikipedia.


 * File copyright tags


 * Hope this helped!
 * Padraig Singal 21:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Re- notification on my User & Talk pages
I have been receiving messages of "Thanks" recently for various editors following some revisions that I have made to articles of a common interest. How do I activate this feature for my own use? — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Post script: Sorry... should read "... from various editors ..." — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Do you mean WikiLove? If you're using the default Wikipedia skin, when you go onto another user's talk page you should see a red heart up around the top right of your screen. Click it, and you'll get lots of options to send a friendly template. --LukeSurlt c 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

— &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  18:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I am familiar with WikiLove
 * If you mean "thanks" notifications, you can send these by looking at a page's history (for example this page's history). Every edit by a logged-in user will have an option to "thank" the user for his or her edit. --LukeSurlt c 15:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

— &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  18:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  20:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you LukeSurl! I just followed your advice: Clicked on your link above, and then what? No invitation to "thank" next to your name.
 * I just clicked on Luke's link, the one that says "this page's history", and I do see the word "thank". Personally, I prefer to write my own thanking messages, but many people seem to enjoy this facebook-like feature.  I'm not sure why you aren't seeing it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Still as above. Thank you, Anne Delong, I shall continue — as you do — to post personalised messages of thanks as appropriate

— &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  21:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found out how to activate it by referring to Notifications/Thanks — I followed the reversal of opting-out described there and I can now *thank* other editors.
 * I find the Thanks option very useful when I am a little bit busy with other stuffs and I really want to thank somebody for some edit, and I have no time to personalize a message.   Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  16:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Page appearing in search
Hi, I just created my first page. But when I search for it, it's not coming up. The page is "Adam Klein (American writer and musician)" and there are two other Adam Kleins already listed in Wikipedia. Is it not showing up when I search because it's currently unreviewed? Or do I have to do something to get it to be available with a search? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren1970 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It showed up fine for me, did you search for "Adam Klein (American writer and musician)" or just Adam Klein? If you just searched for Adam Klein, I imagine it wouldn't have appeared because it hasn't been added to the disambiguation page yet. Hope that helps. Biggs Pliff (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

New to wikipedia - COI as well
I am new to Wikipedia and I have a COI with Playlist.com. The data in the article is incomplete and out-of-date, but I have trouble figuring out how to edit the content myself, and also I have a COI. Is there a way to get someone who knows how to do the Wikipedia markup edit it instead? Maybe someone from the community? Thanks!

Rdavidorf (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wellcome to the Teahouse, . I recommend that you read our guidelne on conflict of interest and declare your COI on your user page and the article's talk page. Post any additions or corrections you propose on the talk page, along with reliable sources backing up the claims. Feel free to ask here at the Teahouse for help from experiended editors.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

geez wikipedia y u no have animeme
put animeme on wikipedia 05:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.12.29 (talk)


 * "Animeme" appears to be a series of Youtube rap battles utilizing "anime" and "meme".

Possibly you can add it under "memes"/"memetics" since it is an inspiration of something like "Rap Battles of History" on Youtube, i.e. the rap battles are inspired by historical figures.

Tanith 1st (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Has this topic received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? That's the minimum requirement for a Wikipedia article. Existence of the videos is not sufficient. They must have been discussed by sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Not blogs or user submitted websites.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How to highlight a link to a site outside wiki
Hi, I've written an article that is almost ready for submission. In it is a link to a youtube video. I got the link to work, but the word (in this case MTB) is not highlighted (either by an underline or by being in blue). How can i make it stand out so people know that it is, in fact, a link. any comments on the article itself are greatly appreciated. GMarin 02:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to the CNN video that is an external link, then it seems to be working fine and is blue when I view it. Your references are formatted in an unusual way, though, that displays raw URLs. Preferred practice is to display the article title instead of the URL. See referencing for beginners. Given that Oliver North is an opinion commentator rather than a reporter, I would recommend trying to find another source for those specific factual claims.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hi Lrh246. Great start on the article. Regarding the video, I'm not sure why that would be. You had successfully made "MTB" into an external link and so it should have displayed for you as a blue link with a little arrow next to it, like this—that is what I was seeing when I looked at the article. At first I thought it might be a page cache issue but as you say the link was working for you, it should have been blue when working. Anyway, no matter, it was displaying successfully (maybe someone else can shed light; I can only chalk it up to something with your browser). However, we don't place external links in text (except in unusual circumstances not relevant here), and so I relocated it. What I did was make an external links section and highlight that video there with a description. I've made made other tweaks. I also left a "commented out" note in the article (text you can only see when editing it) regarding the reference section's description that it incorporates public domain material. Can you advise which material you are referring to? If you are just referring to the image, which is in the public domain, this message should be removed as that's not what it refers to. If there is text, it should be specifically attributed with quotation marks and inline citations to its source. Public domain material can be used without worry about copyright, but good attribution is still needed to avoid plagiarism. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor articles written by possible only one person
Hello, I wanted to ask how to best handle articles as stated in my summary. I have come across this many times since I've started using wikipedia years ago. Mostly short, nonneutral, shitty articles that were most likely written by only one person.

For example I have found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Suit_Zero The first paragraph alone seems non-wikipedia standard. " Strike Suit Zero seeks to revive the space combat genre by introducing[...]" It looks like the descreption from the devs themselves. I looked at the edit-page and there seemed to be lots of people involved so I'm not too sure. (Also I've looked at the metacritic page, lots of user reviews that look very fake)

Anyway how do I generally handle things like this? I don't know if I have time or will to actually edit bad articles but atleast I would like to be able to mark them as stubs so other people know what needs cleaning. How do I do that? (am i allowed to do that or do I need more experience?) QuoVadis101 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have options (and you are allowed to do them all, all editors, old and new, are encouraged to be bold in improving the encylopedia):
 * You can edit the article to make it better (this is the #1 option, though not everyone has the time to fix every poor-quality article they see). Removing unsourced and unwarranted content, even if it results in a drastic reduction in the length of an article, is generally a good thing.
 * You can add maintenance tags to the article (for a list of tags, they are legion, see here). "Stub" really only refers to article length, a long article, even if terrible, isn't a stub. If you feel an article is an advert, the  tag might be best. If doing this, it's often useful to leave a message on the talk page explaining specifically the problems you found in the article.
 * If you feel the article is better off deleted entirely:
 * If an article is a blatant advert, a copyright violation, or otherwise absolute rubbish, you can request it be speedily deleted by tagging it accordingly.
 * If the article covers a topic you feel is probably non-notable, you may wish to begin deletion proceedings. Articles like the ones you describe are often forgotten about by all, so the most stress-free deletion method is to "PROD" it. This effectively sets a timer, such that if no-one contests the deletion for 7 days it is removed. It's great for articles you suspect no-one cares about.
 * If the above two methods are contested, or are otherwise not appropriate, you can bring the article to Articles for Deletion (AfD) where the community will discuss whether an article should stay or go.
 * Hope this is useful. Happy editing --LukeSurlt c 22:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Who inserts the "Additional citations needed" tags?
Who decides which articles deserve the "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag/banner?

I occasionally run across an article with sparse - or no - inline citations, but which is sans the banner.

Whom do I notify about such articles (e.g. Coronary circulation, Helmholtz resonance)?

Thank you. Martian (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Martian! The thing is, any Wikipedia editor can add that tag. If you want the big banner across the top it's  or   or   (if they claim a source at the bottom but don't footnote it) as the case may be. If you want to tag an issue in the body of the text, there's   for "citation needed", and many other question words (who, when, why) also become tags when placed in double curly-brackets.


 * If you see a weakness anywhere on Wikipedia, WP:Be bold and go ahead and tag it! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

New Article Creation...
I deleted the submission thing from my article by mistake. Now I am unable to submit my article against for it to be accepted. What shall I do now. The articles is- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mahnad_Al-Zaab (Alhosniomani20 (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you intended to refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mahnad Al-Zaabi? I've undone your most recent edit; you could have done that yourself. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

old name of "RADISSION HOTEL"
What is the old name of "RADISSION HOTEL"?113.199.166.178 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC) HELP ME.


 * Hello. This page is for questions regarding editing Wikipedia. For general factual questions, please ask at the Reference Desk. --LukeSurlt c 16:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Radisson Hotels have had the same name since the company was founded in 1909.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

having problems with merging pages
I tried merging the WIlderness Medical Institute page with the National Outdoor Leadership School page and I did steps 1 and 2 in merging instructions and the coding didn't work

Rachelizhoffman (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. If you are happy that all the relevant content of Wilderness Medicine Institute has been merged into National Outdoor Leadership School then go to Wilderness Medicine Institute, click "edit source" and replace the entire content of the page with
 * and leave the edit summary:
 * You can then proceed with steps 3 onwards of the merging process (you won't need to do any work for step 4). Note that an article's talk page, i.e. Talk:National_Outdoor_Leadership_School is distinct from the main article. --LukeSurlt c 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can then proceed with steps 3 onwards of the merging process (you won't need to do any work for step 4). Note that an article's talk page, i.e. Talk:National_Outdoor_Leadership_School is distinct from the main article. --LukeSurlt c 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can then proceed with steps 3 onwards of the merging process (you won't need to do any work for step 4). Note that an article's talk page, i.e. Talk:National_Outdoor_Leadership_School is distinct from the main article. --LukeSurlt c 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

May I take flags down?
Hi, I recently edited the "Undergraduates" section on Miami University's (of Ohio) page that was flagged for needing clean up and was wondering if it was okay to take down the flag when I was done? Maneybe (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Maneybe, and welcome. If you feel the issue has been addressed, then yes, this is a good thing to do :). The essay WP:BRD discusses how Wikipedia benefits from individuals making bold edits, and then having these edits reviewed and discussed by the wider community. Happy editing! --LukeSurlt c 14:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate Article Issues
Hi,

I recently created a Wikipedia account because I wanted to create an article for the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis, since I am doing some research in the area, and it was listed as a requested article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences/Physics#Thermodynamics_and_statistical_mechanics

When I click on the link for the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis, I either get a web page telling me the article does not exist (if I am not logged in), or a web page allowing me to create the article (if I am logged in). Since there was supposedly no such article, I took the liberty of creating one, and submitted it to articles for creation:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eigenstate_Thermalization_Hypothesis

However, while browsing around on Google, I became aware of this article, which was apparently accepted about two weeks ago:

Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis

Perhaps there was an issue with the case sensitive nature of the title, which is why I did not see it before?

In any event, my question is how I should approach this situation. With no disrespect to the original author, the article that already exists on the subject seems somewhat vague and not very clearly worded, and certainly contains much less information than mine (it does not appear to contain any mathematical details whatsoever). It appears from the history that it was originally declined several times due to a lack of sources, and I suspect the original author may not have a detailed knowledge of the subject.

I would proceed to just edit the existing article, but to be honest, I find the lack of capitalization of "thermalization" and "hypothesis" in the title to be somewhat heinous. Is there any way to change the title of an article after it has already been created? It appears that Wikipedia thinks that "Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis" and "Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis" are two separate articles, with the first one existing, and the second one not existing.

Would it perhaps be easier to just delete the original article if mine is accepted? Or could the original one be merged into mine?

Thanks for your help! I apologize for any newbie faux pas I commit, since I am certainly new to this.

EDIT: I took a closer look and am now indeed aware of the case sensitive nature of article titles. I suppose I could set up a redirect, but honestly, that mix-and-match capitalization just looks so awful to me. Is there any way to tweak this?

KeithFratus (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi KeithFratus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Congratulations on making such an impressive draft about this subject.
 * As an article already exists, the AfC process is superfluous. Technically I've "declined" your draft, but this is just a procedural thing due to the preexisting article, and not a comment on its relative quality.
 * Please make Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis as best as possible. If you feel this would be best achieved by completely overwriting the existing article with your draft, then go ahead. However there may be a few things in the current article you may wish to incorporate.
 * As for renaming, we call this moving. You can move the existing article to a different title (as long as that title is not already occupied). If you're using the default Wikipedia skin, this option is accessible via a small downwards pointing arrow to the left of the search box. A redirect from the old to the new title will be automatically created.
 * Hope all this helps, ask if there's anything that isn't clear. Cheers, --LukeSurlt c 14:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! I just found the article Naming conventions (capitalization), and perhaps I shouldn't change the title after all, as much as it bothers me. I'm still somewhat unclear on the naming conventions, because it seems to me like something such as Riemann hypothesis should be a proper noun, but apparently Wikipedia does not think so.
 * I think the existing article reminded me of one or two points I had forgotten to mention more carefully, and so I will try to incorporate those into whatever the article ends up looking like. I also have plenty of additions and modifications to my own draft which I want to eventually incorporate into the article.
 * I guess in either case, I can make edits to the preexisting article, and then decide later whether or not it should be moved to the new title name, or whether the new title should redirect to the original title, due to capitalization conventions. Anyways, thanks again for the help! KeithFratus (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, KeithFratus. If you are going to use some of your material and some of the existing material, it's a good idea to improve rather than replace sections which are not too bad in the original, since someone has put a lot of thought into the wording and the references are likely already correctly placed, which saves time.  Totally new bits or sections which you feel don't do the job are candidates for addition and replacement, respectively, but try to save the references if they are relevant and good quality.  There are advantages to changing/adding sections rather than a whole draft in one edit, because others may disagree with your edits and revert them, and it's easier to discuss changes to a section of a large article than the whole thing at once.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input, I will try to keep this in mind. At the moment though, it looks like the references in the original are actually a subset of mine, so I already have all of their references. They also don't seem to have any separate sections yet, so there aren't any for me to remove in the first place. The article is short enough and lacking sufficient structure that I'm not really sure how to merge mine into the original article without necessarily making large changes, but I will try to retain anything in the original article which seems to be useful. I'll also make sure to discuss the matter in the talk page, with a detailed list of what I kept and what I removed. KeithFratus (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Drawing from a photo
Hi guys... it's just me... bothering again with this annoying stuff of a drawing from a picture... I finished a digital drawing based on a picture of Bono taken for the cover of a magazine. It doesn't look like exactly as the original. Is it ok if I upload it here?  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  13:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but my guess would be no...it's a "derivative work" if the reproduced image can be seen to have a resemblance to the original, it's a copyright infringement.
 * Oh, I see-- So if I draw an image and it doesn't have a resemblance to any other... I can upload it, right?   Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  13:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, yes. I think a drawing of Bono that you made, as long as it's not explicitly traced/rotoscoped from a photo would be at your copyright disposal. A question though: what are you planning on using it for? We have a lot of free photos of Bono available, and I can't imagine that a drawn picture would ever be more useful for an article than one of these photos. However, if it's just for your user page, and you're willing to license it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, then go ahead. --LukeSurlt c 13:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess I'll do that. Thanks. It is for something I am planning to do for WikiProject U2.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  13:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Creat an article
I am trying to create the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Trieb. For the second time my article got declined because independent references are missing. I do not understand how many references an articel neds. I already added a lot of literature references whichare not writen by Michael Trieb himself. Coul you help me with this concern? Thanks a lot.Leachim 1 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Leachim. You say that you added a lot of literature references which are not written by Michael Trieb himself. Where are they? Eight of your ten references are to papers where Trieb is an author, so they are not independent of him. It is possible that the two apparently independent references are adequate to establish his notability; but you adduce them to very specific aspects of his work. Furthermore, all ten are used to support items in one single section of the article ("Research"). Where are the references for information about him, his life and his work?
 * I am guessing that the books listed in your "literature" section are what you mean; but mentioning a whole book is not acceptable as a reference: you need to make clear what information about the subject is being supported, and where in the book is the text that supports it. Please see WP:Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC
If an editor makes an edit that contradicts the conclusion of an RfC, will that editor be immediately blocked for making an edit against consensus? Pass a Method  talk  04:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not. There are usually warnings given before a user is blocked plus WP:AGF.  If you have concerns about an edit, raise it on the article's talk page.   RudolfRed (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We should be very slow to block editors acting in good faith, . Discussion comes first, with links to the AfC. That should include efforts to explain, reversions with detailed edit summaries, talk page discussion. escalating warnings, and only then blocks if disruptive editing continues.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation of similar words
I'd like to add an article for SPAdes (the genome assembly software). There is already an article for Spades (the card suit). There is also a disambiguation page for Spade. Should I treat "spades" and "spade" as different forms of the same word, and simply add a link for SPAdes (genome assembly software) to the Spade (disambiguation) page? Thanks! Sloc melb (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome! I would recommend you add (software) after SPAdes or the other one you had. Make sure there's no pages currently with those names. Example: SPAdes (software) or the other one. Good luck! ///Euro Car  GT  03:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with EuroCarGT, I would add that we often (but not always) ignore name stylizations like SPAdes unless a trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark, so it may be that the disambiguated name should be Spades (software). See WP:TITLETM and Manual of Style/Trademarks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my section
I did the section Novels about Kievan Rus' (in the article Kievan Rus') long ago, and nobody had a protest. Then I change a format, supply other books and begin to make notes (Russian, with English titles). I attract the attention, and my section has been deleted as off-topic. Who is right? Анна Волкова (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I apologize that I am unable to type your user name, because it is not in Roman characters. This isssue regarding novels is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, where a conversation had already begun. Some editors feel that a separate article should be spun off, while others have concerns about your additions and selection criteria. Please discuss the matter there, with respect for the opinions of other editors, and a sincere willingness to come up with a solution that is best for the encyclopedia.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  08:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't time to be here. Now I want to discuss. Анна Волкова (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help reviewing a my first article
Could I get help reviewing my article: User:Andrewduty/JDCapra Andrewduty (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Andrew, welcome to the teahouse. You should put at the top of your draft article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Donald Capra so that it can be reviewed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How does an "appear to be written like an advertisement" get re-reviewed?
I am adding new material to a company page that has been marked "This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (February 2013)". How and when will this page be reviewed and have the comment possibly be removed? Pauldtyler (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Pauldtyler and welcome to the Teahouse! If any editor believes that the page has been improved enough that a tag is no longer necessary, he or she may remove it.  Konveyor Belt   express your horror  at my edits   21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe that the article in question is Fidelity & Guaranty Life. This article has no references. Please be aware that verifiability is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Without references, a reader has to trust you that all that information you have added is true. Why should anyone trust the information without references? Please read Referencing for beginners and follow its recommendations. Please also rewrite the article with the neutral point of view in mind. Many of the sentences read like marketing language, not an encyclopedia article. You are not writing a marketing brochure here, but a neutral encyclopedia article. Write this article exactly the way you would write encyclopedia articles about this company's leading competitors.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Pauldtyler. Looking at the article, I do not find any advertising language, so I have removed that tag. However, I have substituted the 'unreferenced' tag, because the article has no references at all. Please read the link Cullen gave you on referencing, and apply it to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting assistance better construct my article NAREIT
Hello everyone, I have recently constructed my first wiki article found here at NAREIT

I have made my citations, references, and also linked to the other wiki articles that the organization has been referenced in.

I have also created a talk page at WikiProject_Investment - in order to generate constructive feedback into producing further content for the article itself.

I feel that the two attempts to flag my article for deletion were unwarranted and am thankful that someone took my side that they were as such. I would like to better develop the article in order to avoid baseless accusations towards it in the future.Joethsmow (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Joethsmow: Welcome to the Teahouse! As with every Wikipedia article, yours should have several references to independent sources such as news reports, product reviews, magazine articles, books, etc., that are written by authors not connected with the organization, to show that this is a notable organization and to verify the information.  The article has very little in this regard, and so the "accusations" were not baseless.  Those supporting you likely thought that given a little more time you would improve the referencing.  The article will likely be nominated for deletion again unless the referencing improves.  You seem confident that your subject is notable, so please find and add the independent sources, and then you won't have to worry. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The user User:Ryulong keeps flagging my article and is even accusing me for using two accounts when I'm not. I have added the reference links as advised here and he is still flagging my article for deletion. I am not sure as to how to resolve this, I have made attempts to talk to the user regarding the article in what he finds not notable in it. He has deleted/archived my topic on his talk page and refuses to provide reason as to why he feels the need to flag my article for deletion. As I have stated, I am new to writing articles and if I need to make a change to make the article more noteworthy I shall do so.Joethsmow (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Joethsmow, but your comments indicate that you do not understand what is meant by "notable" in its special Wikipedia sense. It doesn't make sense to ask somebody "what he find not notable" in an article. "Notable" means that several reliable sources, independent of the subject, have published substantial writing about the subject; and to establish notability, the article needs to reference these. It looks to me as if none of the references you have put in the article meet these criteria: most are just passing mentions. The one that looks closest to it is PRNewswire, but that article begins "FTSE Group, NAREIT and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) announced today that ... " which makes it look very much as if the article was based on a press release, and so is not truly independent of the subject. In order to contest the deletion, you need to find substantial articles about the association, published in reliable places (major newspapers or magazines, websites with a reputation for reliability), and reference them. If such articles do not exist, then I'm afraid that at present the association is simply not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

May I please be allowed time to do so in order to find the requested credible sources? I wish to at least have a chance to rectify the apparent lack of references as described before the article is completely deleted. I will spend the time and effort to do so, I am only requesting to not have deleted at this current time.Joethsmow (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The best way to "be allowed time" to improve the article is to move it to your userspace. While it is there it won't be deleted, once you have added the reliable sources it needs you can request that it be reviewed and moved back into the encylopedia. I have moved the article to User:Joethsmow/National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts so that you can work on it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Colouring my Signature
I have a colleague on Wikipedia who has a coloured signature. I can't figure out a way to do this. Does anybody have some advice?

Padraigsingal (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Padraigsingal. Welcome to the Teahouse! If you go through Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial you'll find a section on color. -- Neil N   talk to me  00:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would be happy to help you design and color your signature as I have done for other users upon request.  Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page telling me what you want it to look like, and I'll help you make it happen. Technical 13 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How long is the review process?
I know there is a backlog and I'm grateful there is a review on my current article but how long can I expect to wait, currently 11 days with a reviewer. BethKub (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever added that "under review" tag did so without actually reviewing your draft. I removed the tag.  Your article is near the end of the backlog, so it should be reviewed fairly soon.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Howicus for the quick reply. I have written to the reviewer to ask for an explanation about what is happening from his end. I'm a little disappointed to be going backwards after watching and waiting for 11 days since the review tag popped up. I have a group of 30 13 year old children waiting to see what happened to their research! Peace BethKub (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello . I did some copy editing, read the references, and moved the draft into the main space of the encyclopedia at Thomas and Mary Poynton. Tell the children that I think they did a very good job.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for speedy reviewing and lovely editing Cullen! The news came through during while I was with the girls in class today. It was great news for them and for me. It was an excellent learning activity - creative and permanent, something they can always be proud of.BethKub (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Tell your students that I am honored to have made a small contribution to their excellent research project.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconding a job well done! I've tweaked the citations to list the sources with more clear attribution. Note that when you are citing, for example, a newspaper, the citation should provide information about that source, not the website hosting it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks just fine to me and I've gone ahead and added a redirect from Mary Poynton as well as a hatnote on Thomas Poynton that should help with searches for the article and will assist those that navigate to the page for one or the other get to the article. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Which noticeboard, if any, for a multi-IP spammer?
Hi again. There's someone (or several someones) systematically attempting to add links to Vietnam-related commercial tourism sites. Here's a diff from | September 20, IP address 222.252.69.184. Someone just added | the same kind of link to the same article, using IP 123.24.66.116. In the earlier case, the person at 222.252.69.184 backed off after a final warning. The insertion of links to triphanoi.com, ninhbinhtours.com and vietnamgoldenholidays.com (among others) continues, though. The links are usually in the text, rather than the External Links section, too. What's the most appropriate place for me to bring this pattern to people's attention? Thanks much. DoorsAjar (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:ANV, I think that's the right place.  There are links there to other noticeboards, if that one doesn't look right.  RudolfRed (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem quite right to me; they take action on individual users or IP addresses, and seem to respond best when the user/IP has just violated a final warning. This is slightly more complex. But I'll try there eventually if need be. Thank you! I'm open to other opinions as well. DoorsAjar (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)