Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 269

Is there a way to nominate an article for deletion in a simple way?
Hello Teahouse. This article is the kind of how-to that, per WP:NOTHOWTO, should not be published on Wikipedia. There are many other issues with it, but WP:NOTHOWTO is a reason enough to delete it. A PROD by user Thebestofall007 was rejected by the article creator a few hours ago (and I've mistakenly PRODed the article a second time without realizing that a first PROD was objected. Sorry for that.)

I've tried to nominate the article for deletion using the new "curation" tool. While it works flawlessly for other kind of activities, it failed at nominating the page for deletion, for technical reasons that I'm not able to assess.

Then, I tried to nominate the page manually following the guidelines listed at How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion but they are a bit complicated and they require several passages. Here is my question:

Is there a way to nominate an article for deletion in a simpler way? Some sort of automated or even semi-automated way to follow that procedure? Thanks in advance for your answers! LowLevel73(talk) 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, LowLevel73. I would like to inform you to the tool, Twinkle. It's a GUI of nifty javascript tools for editing Wikipedia and allows for numerous functions, like: Requesting page protection, placebo rollback, nominating an article for deletion (what you're aiming for), PROD, reporting a user, and some other very useful functions. While it is powerful, you have to be careful with it, as misuse of the tool can lead to blocking. It can be enabled by going to your preferences (at the top right), and under the 'gadget' tab, under browsing, it's near the bottom, enable its checkbox and scroll to the bottom and hit save. Then, you should see a new panel called 'TW' next to the search bar. If you hover over that, and click 'XFD', you can submit the article you are currently viewing for deletion given your proposed reasoning. Once you hit 'submit query', it will automatically create the page, sort the nomination request on a given date, and notify the user. If you do not wish to use Twinkle again other than for this purpose (though I would recommend against that, it's insanely useful for other things as well), you can disable it in your preferences panel. Cheers. Tutelary (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give that tool a try! LowLevel73(talk) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * welcome to the teahouse. I took one look at that article and decided now was a good time for me to use XFD for the first time. The article was so clearly not even in the ballpark for a proper Wikipedia article, it's more a rant you would find on some blog. I've nominated it for deletion using XFD. BTW, here is the process for normal deletion of articles: wp:AFD Like a lot of this stuff it looks more complex than it is, it's pretty straight forward but the sling blade or whatever it was article was so clearly not appropriate I agree with you it needs to be gone ASAP so I think the XFD process makes more sense. If anyone disagrees, feel free to let me know, I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of administrative stuff but am gradually figuring it out. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank for the explanation! Just to see if I've understood everything correctly: is the procedure that you have followed the same that I linked in my original post (AfD, Article for Deletion)? Or is it a different one? Also, have you followed the procedure manually? LowLevel73(talk) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I did is the same as the AFD process you linked to. To be honest when I first used Twinkle I wasn't sure that was the case but I just checked the AFD queue and the "Infinity blade glitches" article is in the queue. I was about to link to it but I see you have already added a comment so you found it. So invoking XFD via Twinkle is just a shorthand way of adding something to the AFD queue. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thanks for the confirmation, very appreciated! LowLevel73(talk) 21:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's not exactly accurate. It does all the steps for you. It notifies the user (if default checked is left), adds it to the queue, creates the page, and adds the afd banner. It does everything for you in relation to afd. That's why I recommended it as the 'easy' way to afd an article. Tutelary (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, administrator has deleted the "article" under criteria A10 of speedy deletion. I agree 100% with the deletion, having had a brief glance at it before it was deleted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I'm trying to learn the logic followed when an action is taken, can I ask you why A10 applies to this specific case? The A10 criteria applies to an article "that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject". The contents of the deleted article, while far from being anything that an encyclopedia would publish, did actually provide information about "tricks and tips" for a videogame, something that is not provided in the main article. This additional information wasn't compatible with Wikipedia policies anyway, so a "merge" wasn't possible, but why this content (albeit horrid and unacceptable) was not considered an expansion of the main article? LowLevel73(talk) 05:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You would have to ask the deleting administrator for their specific reasoning in this case, . My guess is that they ignored the clearly inappropriate content, and saw nothing left that wasn't in the main article about the video game, thereby justifying the A10 deletion. Clearly inappropriate content shouldn't be considered when deciding whether to keep an article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification, Cullen. LowLevel73(talk) 06:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

HOW about just putting D at the top of the article? it will turn into nomination box of deletion.Userofencyclopedia (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles name
Hello, I made an article about some gov medical system (EMIAS) and made one more article about subproject of the system(Emias.Info), but the article was deleted and now every time I'm typing the name of the new article, I'm redirected to the first article. I changed the article andI need to take the name back, what should I do?IvanZuev (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi IvanZuev Welcome to the Teahouse. First of all EMIAS isn't deleted. It still exists on Wikipedia. And secondly your new creation about Emias.Info isn't an article, It's a draft. Which means you are still working on it, it isn't published on Wikipedia yet. When you search for EMIAS it takes you the article that exists Wikipedia, not to the draft. To access your draft go to your sandbox, because it's currently being redirected to the draft (Emias.Info) you are working on.These are some other ways to access your draft. Drafts are stored in the "Draft" namespace. They are not indexed by most search engines including Google, meaning most readers will not find them.Publishing a draft will (for now) require an editor to use the page move function to move it in the main (article) namespace. This means that registered editors who are not autoconfirmed, will need to request publication by inserting into their drafts the relevant template for page move. Editors can also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process. Hope this helps-- Chamith  (talk)  12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c)  @IvanZuev:   Hi IvanZuev. Emias.Info was not "deleted" as we use that word here to mean the actual title and its history being deleted by someone with permission to do so, but rather was redirected. To access a redirect, when you invoke it and are redirected you will see at the top of the page you arrive at, just below the title of the page: . If you then click on that blue name, you can access the redirect itself and its page history. If you look at the history you'll see from the edit summary left why it was redirected: "We already have an article on Emias. We don't need one on their website also". Can you advise what you need this title for (do you just need access some of the text you wrote for it to incorporate into the EMIAS article)? If that is the reason, just click on the date in the history prior to it being redirected, click edit, and then you can copy text from it. But I also see you have a draft on the same topic. That will likely not be accepted.  In any event, it looks to me like it should remain a redirect to EMIAS, and would likely be actually deleted as an autonomous article, because of lack of reliable sources discussing the website itself, i.e., on the basis of notability. One more issue. I see you've uploaded a whole bunch of images related to EMIAS at the Commons and stated for each that they are your own work. Did you design EMIAS logo, their website and all the other content you uploaded as your own work, and retain the copyright to them? Or did you just take screenshots of those items (which no more makes you the copyright owner than taking a photograph of a painting makes you the painter)?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking for previously deleted article
I noticed that there is no article about Albert Nagler, who has made great contributions to amateur astronomy (see Eyepiece). Before I have a go myself, I would like to check whether there may have been such an article in the past which has been deleted (I have been bitten by this in the past!) Is there a way to search for deleted articles? Gronk Oz (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that I can find. Previously deleted articles will show up if you search for or try to create a page with the same title - both Albert Nagler and Al Nagler show no such prior history. I'd say go for it! Yunshui 雲 水 08:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great - thanks, Yunshui. I thought that perhaps there was something special I needed to do in order to find a deleted article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing an article title/merging articles
Hi - I'm wondering if The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu article title should be changed to Honolulu Museum of Art Spalding House. The Contemporary Museum merged with the Honolulu Academy of Arts in 2011 to form the Honolulu Museum of Art, and the location (and collection) of the former museum is now called the Honolulu Museum of Art Spalding House. I've also discovered that there is an article about the Spalding House (the home of this collection) - is there enough overlap to justify a merge with The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu? If The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu article is renamed Honolulu Museum of Art Spalding House, I think there will be a good chance to cover both the history of the building and the history and collection of the museum. I guess there's also the possibility to merge one or both articles with Honolulu Museum of Art, although perhaps there's enough distinct information to keep them separate? I do not have much experience with changing article names and merging articles, so I wanted to check before I do anything! I've also posted my question on The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu talk page. Thanks in advance for your advice! extabulis (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Teahouse! After performing a web search on The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu, the top results were of the new name. The former website even redirects to the new website. So I think it should be a good idea to move the article to the new desired name, Honolulu Museum of Art Spalding House. ///Euro Car  GT  21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks,  @EuroCarGT:   ! Any thoughts about merging the new Honolulu Museum of Art Spalding House with Spalding House? extabulis (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking articles
Hello I have created various articles and have been individually linking them to other articles that has the article name in them. is there a quicker way of doing this? Wrightie99 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is, I don't know of it... but one trick that you may find useful is the tilde search: put your new article's title into the search bar with a single tilde in front (like this: "~My New Article") and the search engine will spit back any pages that contain the article name (rather than directing you straight to the article itself). Makes it easier to locate potentially linkable pages. Yunshui 雲 水 15:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings Welcome to the Teahouse. If I'm understanding you correctly you area asking is there some tool that can look through articles and automatically recognize which words or phrases refer to other articles and then automatically link to them? That would actually be a very interesting and hard Artificial Intelligence problem to try and tackle. The problem isn't doing the linking, that can be automated easily but the problem is deciding which words or phrases to link to. That requires a lot of what AI people call "common sense reasoning" which is one of the hardest mostly unsolved problems in AI. For example if the text is "University of California" should you link to "University" and "California" or to the whole phrase "University of California"? Those kinds of decisions require good judgement and a lot of contextual information about the article itself so they can't be automated. Have you tried using the linking tool in the editor? That makes linking a lot easier. Look at the icon that looks like a chain link at the top of the widgets in the editor. If you use that it will automatically put the wiki code around the word and will also make it easy to make the text in the article from which you are creating the link be different than the actual name of the article you are linking to. It also supports "look ahead" so if you need to link to say a person whose name matches to a musician and a poet you can use the look ahead to select "Person X (poet)" or "Person X (musician)"     --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you get permission to use WP:AWB, you can speed this up, making each link decision a one-click. You still need to distinguish between good links and bad links per MadScientistX11. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

Correct "grammar" for vehicles no longer in production
Hello all, I've edited a few pages of automobiles which are no longer in production & I've noticed that the pages say "The (insert make) (insert model) IS a ...whatever the type may be," rather than WAS which would probably be used in everyday conversation. Is there a consensus on this? Is it the view that as there is probably an example of the make & model still existing somewhere, that the current rather than past tense is felt to be correct. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome! I looked around the manual of style for some universal rule regarding tense of discontinued products, but didn't find anything. I did however find this instruction in the Computing manual of style, which lays out an argument for using present tense to refer to software that is no longer in production. That rationale makes sense to me, and it seems like it would apply to automobiles as well. Hope that helps, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me  19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it does seem to answer the question as far as Wiki is concerned, even if I find it grates slightly...:P. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Present tense is always correct in these cases. The make and model of the vehicle hasn't changed, so there it always will be the make and model of the vehicle, regardless of the production status of that make and model.  For example, the Nissan Prince Royal will always be a Nissan Prince Royal, even though none have been made since 1967.  138.210.251.89 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: there is an ongoing discussion about "is" vs. "was" on the "policy" VP. ;)  — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Running an article in the mainspace
Dear friends,

I have just created a wikipedia's page about some historic building (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sterndemitri/ChamberOfFacets) which is absent in English wikipedia, but exists in Russian one. Couldn't you help me, how can I tie my article with the existing Russian variant (i.e. implement my article in the mainspace by creating the additional "dimension" in English).

Thank you, --Sterndmitri (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article correctly to mainspace for you (it's now at Chamber of Facets). To link it to the Russian Wikipedia page, go to the Languages menu on the left of the article, and click on "Add link"; this will enable you to link the page to the ru-wiki version. Interesting article; thanks for your work on it! Yunshui 雲 水 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui, thank you so much!--Sterndmitri (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer(s) re-writer(s) required
I'm looking for a re-writer(s), someone who possesses impeccable English writing skills. Please leave me a message in my 'talk page' if you are interested.

(Russell.mo (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC))


 * I hope that you are looking for editors to help you with Wikipedia articles and not soliciting help here for some of your off-Wikipedia projects. w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the teahouse Russell.mo. What do you mean my re-writers? Are you talking about editing an article for grammar and spelling? If so, you can request it at WP:GOCE/REQ where lots of friendly experienced users can help you. If you are talking about Wikipedia-unrelated things, we could not help you. Read WP:What Wikipedia is Not. If you could give a specific article, that would be better. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

article classes
I was just wondering how I could improve a start class article. I have read all the criteria for C-Class articles and I feel the article has met them. What else can I do and also what is the importance of rating articles? thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can change the class to C, in that case. The purpose of rating articles is to enable editors (particularly project members) to see at a glance which articles they think deserve to be, or they are capable of improving.  (For example I would expect to be able to improve most stub or start class articles, but I would not be likely to attempt to improve B class American politics article.   Conversely I might think that my time was well spent  improving a GA class maths article, since a limited number of other people would be able to do that.)
 * When combined with "importance" it is even more useful. We do not want to have "importance high" and "class stub" or "start", for example.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Hi and welcome to the teahouse. The advice Rich Farmbrough gave is wonderful. Just remember to WP:Be Bold. Don't stress out when changing the class of an article. It's no big deal. Don't make the class higher than a B though (even if it is really well written). Classes higher than B would have to go through a formal review before it can reach that status. Thanks,   ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 21:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh ok thanks for the help Wrightie99 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Simon Clark (novelist)
I have done some work to - hopefully - improve the page of Simon Clark (novelist). When and how and if does this ever get reviewed to see if it has moved beyond Stub class? It also belongs to a couple of groups that also have it classified as Stub class. S.tollyfield (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have rated the article as Start class for all projects, as it clearly rises beyond a stub. However, I am not personally comfortable with elevating it to C class just yet, as it has some significant problems. First, the article itself seems all to be written in the lead instead of the body. Second, a comprehensive list of everything Clark ever wrote is not necessary. Third, the lengthy quotes from reviews are not appropriate, and also seem to be rather selective in emphasising praise. It is sensible to quote some reviews, but not like this. Try taking a look at an existing Wikipedia Good Article on a novelist, one of those listed at Good articles/Language and literature, to see how best to lay things out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have reorganised the materials on the page which hopefully improves this as suggested. I am reluctant to cut down the list of published works as I spent some time hunting down all the ISBNs which some of your fellow editors seem rather keen on. Thanks again.S.tollyfield (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow! You really put some hard work into it and it's paying off. I've re-graded it to C class following the guideline at WP:ASSESS. It's not quite at B class yet, but I'm sure it has potential to be one. Things that you could do next is expand the lead so that it covers the most important aspects in the article. Also, expand some sections and add more sources. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 21:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with vandalism by several anonymous IP users?
Hello Teahouse! In a new article, currently nominated for deletion, the AfD template is continuously removed by anonymous IP users. I've warned one of these IP users and I've put back the deleted template(s) a lot of times, but other IPs keep deleting them. This is not very frustrating, because sooner or later the article will face its destiny at AfD, but I was wondering if there are good methods to prevent the deletion of the AfD template. Please note that this is an unimportant article and I don't think that it would deserve a (semi)protection. Thanks in advance for your answers! LowLevel73(talk) 17:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , welcome to the Teahouse! What you consider destiny others may not. That said, it is inappropriate for anyone to remove AfD notices from articles.  I must assume you are talking about the Kenscio, and based on it's edit history, I've requested the page semi-protected at RFPP.  This should stop the template removal by anon IPs.  Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer! Yes, I confess that "destiny" was a completely gratuitous attempt to present reality under the distorted view of my subjective beliefs. Can I ask you if, when a protection is not in place, there are other methods to minimize the negative effects of any unpleasant activity from several anonymous IP users? LowLevel73(talk) 18:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, requesting page protection is the only thing we can do to minimize such improper actions of other editors as non-administrators. Great question though. :) Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi LowLevel73, Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you given this user a considerable amount of warnings? If so I suggest you report him to AIV because constant removal of speedy deletion templates is considered as vandalism.-- Chamith  (talk)  18:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've looked over the page history, and the editor(s) who have been removing the notice are from various anonymous IP addresses and reporting to AIV would be an exercise in futility. If it was just one or two IPs or if it was a registered user, then your suggestion would surely be an appropriate course of action. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @LowLevel73:  Just for future reference, if the removals were tied to an identifiable account, or a seemingly static IP address, then you could use the warning template series uw-afd1, uw-afd2, uw-afd3, uw-afd4, and if after a final warning they removed again, then report for a block, as noted above, to WP:AIV (Administrator intervention against vandalism). You can find this template warning series, and a host of others as well as other types of user notices at the intuitive shortcut name WP:WARN (which goes to the page, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, which is a bit of a mouthful). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Fuhghettaboutit:  Thanks! Unfortunately, it didn't work for me, in this specific case. I warned one of the IP users, but after the third level of warning, that IP stopped its activities... and a new one took its place. LowLevel73(talk) 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Links
Hi! And thanks for the invite. Any tips how I can link, let say my albums on the page to my references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtra (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I assume you are talking about the article Bulletrain (band). I'm not sure quite what you mean by "link your albums on the page to your references", but I see you are struggling with how to manage references. In a Wikipedia article, pretty well every statement should be followed by a reference to a published reliable source, and in most cases, to a source which is independent of the subject of the article (so your "reference" to Wikia is almost certainly not acceptable, because most Wikis are user-editable, and so are not regarded as reliable). You create each reference by using <ref ></ref> as you tried, but you put the actual text of the reference (including the URL, if there is one) between those elements, not a number. "References" floating at the end, as you have, are not used in Wikipedia. Please see Referencing for beginners for more information about what to reference and how to reference. --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Referencing Twice
Hi there! If I am writing an article in which I reference the same webpage multiple times spanning the article, should I footnote/reference the webpage every time I use it? Gabiravioli (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gabiravioli:  Hi Gabiravioli. Yes, you should cite the source each time you use it, but we have a facility to cite a single source multiple times in an easy way, that does not result in the citation appearing more than once in the references section.  The first time you cite it, give it a name, like so:         For all further cites to that reference, just use the first part with a forward slash like so:         For more about this, see Help:Referencing for beginners. I will place a visual citation guide below. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Difference between articles on same subject in different languages
Why is there sharp difference between articles on same subject but in different languages? For example the article at hand - Indira Gandhi. The content in English are more elaborate with citations but in Hindi is poor. Gaurav6023 (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Guarav, welcome to the Teahouse. All the various wikis are edited by their own volunteers and, probably due to languge issues, there aren't too many editors who edit on more than one.  So this means that articles on the same subject are written by different editors and with different results.  If you are fleuent in more than one language one of the really valuable jobs you could do would be to translate articles.  As all the text is covered by a Creative Commons licence there are no issues about copyright in moving material between wikis as long as the source is attributed, for example, in the edit summary.
 * [Edit conflict] Hello Gaurav6023 and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia is a wiki, which means it can be edited by anyone. Each language version usually has its own community with it's respective users, this means that the two articles were probably written by different people. Although that doesn't mean you can't copyedit some of the citations from the english article into the Hindi article. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How to do another article with another person
So basically I like working with other people and I want to know how I can do this? Chris 06:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb808 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello Cb808, welcome to the Teahouse. A good way to work with other people on articles is by joining a project, if there's a specific topic you'd like make articles about. (Food as an example), you can join the relevant WikiProject by visiting it's project page (WikiProject Food and Drink as an example) and looking at what articles are being worked on. If you're not interested in a specific topic you could consider joining Today's articles for improvement which is a project where people work together to improve a new article each day. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing Help
Hello,

I need help with the following: I'm trying to combine this links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) section 3 with this links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmological_theories) information. I keep on getting confused and muddling it up...

Can someone help me with this please?

(Russell.mo (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC))
 * Why are you trying to combine them? Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings Welcome to the teahouse. When you say you are trying to combine the links I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying you are trying to merge the two articles? There is a process for doing that and you shouldn't just go ahead and do it without following the steps to notify other editors before hand. Here is the page that describes how to do that Merge  You need to put a template for proposing the merge onto the two articles. If that isn't what you had in mind can you clarify a bit more what you are trying to do? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see now that is looking to find help for an off Wikipedia project and has in fact made no edits to actual articles. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again I looked more carefully at the two articles. I see that the timeline article is actually linked to from the cosmology article. There is a separate section in the cosmology article about the cosmology timeline and then a link to the timeline article. So I think I was wrong in my guess as to what you want to do. My guess now is that you want to reconcile the two texts, the timeline described in the cosmology article is not consistent with the timeline in the cosmology timeline article. If that is what you are trying to do I can see why you want to do it. I don't think it's an easy task. BTW, it's not that unusual to find things like this in Wikipedia where there are inconsistencies between two articles that point to each other. As long as they don't directly contradict each other it's not terrible... the timeline article goes into more detail than the timeline section in the cosmology article. Anyway, if that is what you want to do the place to start is on the talk pages of the two articles: Talk:Timeline_of_cosmological_theories and Talk:Cosmology  I would put something on both those talk pages describing how you think the two timelines should be reconciled.  I typed all the above before I saw your comment. So what I said may be moot but in case he does want to do that thought I would leave the info anyway. One more point to Russel: if you are a very new Wikipedia editor I would suggest trying some simpler tasks before trying to reconcile these two articles. There are lots of science articles that need basic editing for better references, etc. If you want help finding those let us know. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know its not as easy task, I've muddled it up a few times, that's why I requested for help. In regards to helping amending Wikipedia articles, I'm currently learning myself a few things, if I do come through things like this or like the previous time (where I found an error [spelling mistake] in a section of an article). I'll notify. Thank you for your advice and guidance . -- (Russell.mo (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC))
 * Glad to help. ;-) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User Page
I am confused about what to put on a user page so I was wondering if this is ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wrightie99 Wrightie99 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings welcome to the teahouse.  A wp:user page is essentially a work area for any editor to do work that improves wikipedia. You can create many user pages. The two most common user pages are each user has a wp:user sandbox meant to be used to try out edits without committing them to the published encyclopedia yet. The other is the user profile page which is what you are asking about. That page can have pretty much anything related to wikipedia editing. Usually, it's things like badges, interests, groups the editor takes part in, etc. I took a quick look at your profile link and it looks great. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Wrightie99 I agree with MadScientistX11, Your userpage looks great and well-managed. Your userpage belongs to you, which means you can use it to describe yourself and your contributions to Wikipedia. You can always check others userpages to get an idea about how to improve it. Visit the userbox gallery to find more userboxes you like. Cheers-- Chamith  (talk)  16:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Inserting a talk page "YGM"
I did something wrong. Please help me figure it out. After sending a Wikipedia email to a user, I went to his talk page, entered "edit mode" at the last entry, and moved my cursor to the end of the last entry. Then I allowed a blank line and placed "==" before and after the YGM(in double curly brackets). This caused my entry to be reverted.Thank you.Janvermont (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Welcome to the Teahouse! You didn't necessarily do anything wrong - editors are free to remove messages from their own talk pages once they're finished reading them. While archiving talk pages is typically preferred, it's not uncommon for editors to remove basic notifications (e.g. you've got mail, talk back notifications, etc.) to reduce clutter.
 * On a sidenote, you shouldn't place templates like YGM in the header (i.e. don't do ). This causes formatting issues; instead, the header should be a text title. For example:
 * As another suggestion, you can click the "new section" tab at the top of talk pages to easily create a new discussion topic, instead of having to edit the whole talk page. Hope this helps! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As another suggestion, you can click the "new section" tab at the top of talk pages to easily create a new discussion topic, instead of having to edit the whole talk page. Hope this helps! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As another suggestion, you can click the "new section" tab at the top of talk pages to easily create a new discussion topic, instead of having to edit the whole talk page. Hope this helps! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Article problems
Another question. I was creating an article and when I pressed preview I noticed problems even though I think I have everything right. Firstly there is no contents. I have used the same reference twice and I added the ref name but they are still appearing twice. Also I have no Idea of what categories to put an old grade 2 listed Victorian town hall under. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_Town_Hall_(England) still a work in progress thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Wrightie99 and welcome to the Teahouse. I went to the article and fixed the problems one step at the time so that you can see what was wrong more easily. The first step was the named ref. There can not be any spaces in that name. Second, the next time you use the ref, you only use the name of it. Third, when you use just the name for it, the brackets must also contain a space and a dash otherwise the ref will continue to "search for the end" and gobble up the following text. For an easy way of inserting a named ref once you have named it, just click on "Named references" in the tool bar. They will be inserted automatically then, and with the right markup. As for categories, you could start with "Category:Buildings and structures in Ipswich" and "Category:City and town halls in England". Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  20:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooops, forgot one of your questions. The article have too few sections for a "Contents" to appear, add one more section and the box will be produced. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are brackets? "[" is a bracket but I never heard "<" and ">" called that.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ), ], >. Bracket, square bracket, angle bracket. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Vchimpanzee:  Ooops, sorry, that's a missing piece in my knowledge of the English language. I just bunched them all up in "brackets". I only know the specific names for them (> <) when used in math, but I didn't think that name would be relevant here. Thanks for clarifying it Demiurge1000! :) <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter  <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  22:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Process to fix Category name misspelled?
Greetings,

For Category Organisation of Catholic religious orders I noticed that Organization is spelled with s instead of z.

To correct the spelling, is this something best left for an Admin? It's totally beyond me so thought to ask here first.

JoeHebda (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Joe! Welcome to the Teahouse. This is not an incorrect spelling, it is common outside the USA. See WP:ENGVAR. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The place to suggest it would be Categories for discussion but "organisation" is the British spelling. See Manual of Style and American and British English spelling differences. The category has been called this since it was created in 2005 and there is no strong tie to USA above other countries so our guidelines do not support a renaming. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. Once again, I am impressed with the huge scope of Wikipedia knowledge (or would that be knowlledge? LOL)! Here I thought that only COLOUR was different. Much more to learn! Thanks! JoeHebda (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is my article strong enough to publish?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Olamic_time Logna (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * hello and welcome to The Teahouse. No, your article is definitely not ready. You need to format your references, which can mean using a template, but you don't have to use a particular format. If you are using books as references, we need to see the author, title and page, and probably the publisher and copyright date. Please don't just use URLs. Where you use multiple page numbers in a book, there is a formatting method you can use, instead of putting the page numbers in parentheses. Here is a book where the information is on page 85. For web sites, you need a page name in case at some point that link doesn't work, so we can find the information. You also need to link to other articles on Wikipedia, such as Book of Genesis. You put book titles in italics. For example, The Six Days of Creation. And if that book has an article here, The Six Days of Creation. That produces The Six Days of Creation (and the link is red, so no, there is no article).


 * The biggest problem is the lack of detail. It's not clear to me that this is a notable subject worthy of its own article. It looks more like a section that belongs in a bigger article.


 * User:CutestPenguin gave advice above the article, and if you click on the link that was provided to you there, you can make the article much better and then it will have a better chance of success.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . Other editors have given you good advice, but I want to focus on the central issue of whether or not the topic of "Olamic time" is notable or not. Simply showing that three 19th century authors used this terminology is not enough to show notability. The Hebrew word "olam" has a variety of complex and subtle meanings. It can refer to the distant past or the distant future. It can refer to all of planet Earth, or to the entire universe. It is sometimes translated as "infinity". It can refer to things that are hidden, since no human can perceive such vastness. One way to conceptualize the word in contemporary terms is the Space-time continuum. So, I believe that various concepts associated with the Hebrew word "olam" are highly notable. I recommend that you read Tikkun Olam, which may shed some light on the contemporary connotations of this terminology in Judaism. Your challenge is to demonstrate that the topic of "Olamic time" is truly notable. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody know StarryGrandma, and is she well?
StarryGrandma was interactively (with me) editing my AfC. It was my pleasurable experience to be helped by such a generous person. Originally our dialogue took place on her talk page. Eventually she suggested that we move to my draft talk page. We agreed. Since August 8, 2014 I have had no communication from her. I am concerned.Janvermont (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , as most editors are anonymous it's difficult to know but you could try emailing her. use the "Email this user" link on the left hand side when you look at her user page.  You need to know that this will disclose your email address to her. Nthep (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick check of her Contributions shows that StarryGrandma has not made any edits at all since 14 August. I share your hope that all is well.  --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You can get her email but if it is a major concern then type a shout-out. eg. Where are you starrygrandma.Poledancer230605 (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Irregular names on list of pages
Could someone please take a look at Category:Units_of_measurement_by_country? I put a note on the talk page about it, but it looks like pages would have to be moved/renamed in order to make this Category user-friendly. --- Rev. Mik McAllister (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Rev. Mik McAllister, welcome to the Teahouse. The sort order in a category is controlled from the various articles in the category. For example in Units of measurement in France putting will put the article in the category sorted under U. But the article can specify a sort key; so that  will cause the article to be sorted under F. Or if the article contains , the article will be sorted by default under F in all categories. I hope that's clear enough. See Help:Category for details. —teb728 t c 08:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting another article
Hi all, Can you tell me how to start on another article? Should I just delete the last one in my Sandbox now that it has been published (thank you very much) and start again or what? Thanks SusanSusanCummins (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi SusanCummins Sandbox pages provide space to experiment with the process of editing Wikipedia pages. Your sandbox belongs to you. If you have finished a project then you are free to clear the sandbox and start a new one. Cheers!-- Chamith  (talk)  22:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks SusanCummins (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi User:SusanCummins, I have removed the redirect from User:SusanCummins/sandbox, please go there and create any new draft article you have in mind.


 * User:ChamithN, please think of new users' needs and requirements when offering advice like this. "Clear the sandbox", when the sandbox is a redirect to a mainspace article, is unhelpful advice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Demiurge- Wow that was a good save. I am glad I didn't delete the whole thing but just experimented with a part I could put back in. I am a little scared to do anything on these pages since I don't know the ropes yet. I now see you have cleared the sandbox and that I can start again. Thanks so much, Susan 23:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanCummins (talk • contribs)


 * A page move automatically leaves a redirect behind. That's what happened to your original sandbox. See Redirect for another time. It's also possible to work on multiple drafts at the same time by using different pages, for example User:SusanCummins/sandbox2, User:SusanCummins/sandbox3. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , while ChamithN's advice was a little misleading, as Demiurge picked up, don't worry about breaking things: there's nothing an ordinary editor (non-administrator) can do which can't be undone - it's all there in the history. And as long as you're obviously doing what you're doing in good faith, nobody should make a fuss if you make a mistake. --ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Football Biographies
In articles that are about footballers, do appearances only count for being in the starting lineup, or can it be counted if they appeared after coming on as a substitute? Zafiraman (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Please note however, that the standard template:- WikiProject Football/Players includes the footnote
 * Appearances are what they say, appearances; in the same way that, if you come on as a substitute for a national team, you still win a cap.


 * "* Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of (time and date)"


 * As an example, consider "supersub" (David Fairclough) of Liverpool:- "of his 153 appearances, [for Liverpool] only 61 were from the bench." so he only started 92 games.  However, his stats, (which are league games only) are 98 appearances and 38 goals. - Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

How can I ensure that the references are eligible and verified ?
Please!. Could anyone please help me? A lot of my articles were rejected because of the references i put.Don Hamood (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Don, welcome to the Teahouse! Let me work through a quick example with you.


 * Let's imagine I'm trying to create a Wikipedia article William Pooley (Ebola patient), about the British nurse of that name. Actually it turns out that is a silly thing to try and do, because consensus will most likely conclude that Wikipedia does not need an article about William Pooley, but just needs a redirect to the small part of the Ebola outbreak article that mentions him. (That's the situation at the moment.)


 * So, OK, let's imagine I want to add the sentence "Pooley was treated with ZMapp, an experimental drug" to that article.


 * The source I propose to use for this is a copy of the London Evening Standard that's on a shelf next to me. I verify it by picking it up off the shelf and reading what it says on the front page about William Pooley.


 * How do I make that reference verifiable so that other people can check it if they really wanted to? Well, something like this:




 * That produces something looking like this:
 * Pooley was treated with ZMapp, an experimental drug.


 * And that's it really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Don Hamood, Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume your problem is how to identify verifiable resources. Let's say you are citing something from an online newspaper. International news sources such BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press are generally considered as reputable. Always try to find well-know, reputable sources. Do not consider blogs as reputable sources because lots of them contain factual errors and questionable information. self-published or user generated information on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets (if the account is official and verified then sometimes twitter could be used as a reference) are not acceptable. Even IMDB isn't considered as reliable source because it's made up of user generated information. YouTube videos can be cited as long as they aren't promotable or fan-made videos. If you are unsure whether the source is reliable you can always ask other editors on article talk page. Fore more information read Identifying reliable sources. Hope this helps-- Chamith  (talk)  21:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually YouTube videos are best avoided because they are often copyright violations, see WP:YOUTUBE which deals with their use as External Links; the same applies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material. But if you are copying,storing or distributing copyrighted material without prior permission from copyright holder then it's a copyright infringement. In this case Don Hamood is talking about referencing. Citing YouTube isn't a copyright violation-- Chamith  (talk)  22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Linking to copyright violations should be avoided. See WP:YOUTUBE which deals with their use as External Links; the same applies for references. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually No. External links and references are two different things. Citing Youtube videos is rare but it still happens. WP:YOUTUBE says 'Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. It doesn't say that using Youtube as a source is a copyright violation. And even WP:ELPEREN (not a policy) says sometimes Youtube can be used as external link. Doesn't matter we talking about reference here.-- Chamith  (talk)


 * Thank you for giving your opinions here at the Teahouse, ChamithN. If you have any evidence based in Wikipedia policy to indicate that the copyright concerns inherent in linking to YouTube videos do not also apply to giving such links as references, please continue this discussion on the talk page.


 * It should go without saying that merely providing a link to a YouTube video would be a very shoddy means indeed of adding a source to an article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually I was speaking according to WP:COPYLINK. I think we misunderstood each other. I was arguing that linking to YouTube videos isn't a copyright violation while you were saying linking to copyright violations should be avoided. Two different things. But what you said is true, linking to 'copyright violation is wrong yet we can use YouTube as reference. I think I jumped into conclusions without reading your answers properly. Pardon me. -- Chamith  (talk)  04:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * and I think it's important to distinguish between some video (e.g., a film or TV show) that might be on Youtube as opposed to thinking of Youtube in general as a reliable source. Youtube isn't really ever a source. The source would be the actual video or film. Those absolutely can be referenced. There are templates on references for citing a film or TV show, the time stamp for the section you are referencing, the director, etc. The issue of whether you can or should also link to a Youtube video for any particular video is another question. It's always a good idea to give a link to the actual source if you can but that is where copyright comes in. If the video is posted legally on Youtube then you can and should link to it. If it's not up legally, or if it's ambiguous then it's better not to link. Previously most of the content on Youtube wasn't legal so Youtube was strongly discouraged from being included in a reference or used as an external link. Since Youtube has been doing a better job of making sure their content is legal I think there are more cases where it can be included. In each case the crucial question is always are we sure that the video being referenced (whether as a link or a URL as part of a reference) is there legally. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note also that some entities have "official Youtube channels", making these videos RS on the same level that other material similarly published by that entity would be. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

Deletion or Merge?
So earlier I created a stub article about an important road. I just created an article on a development which its main road is the road in the stub article I have done. I copied everything out of the road stub article and inserted into the development article, but what do I do with the first stub article?

Stub Article (Road) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Road_(Ipswich)

Work in progress Article (Development) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_Village_Development

thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I forgot that you can redirect a page. I redirected the short article to the longer one. Wrightie99 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

wrong box office collection of salman khan movie kick.!
there i saw on your site the collections of salman khan movie kick in highest groosing bollywood films as 377 cr the problem is that none of the box office collection recorders have gicen any information about the film crossing 350 cr mark so from which website did you get these collections it is requested to right the real collections which are froom 300-320 cr worldwide Prince usama (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you would like to tell us which of our four million articles you are talking about, we could have a look. (I can't find these numbers in Salman Khan, so I don't think it's that article). In any case, if you have a reliable source with different information, you are welcome to edit the article to correct it, or to start a discussion on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect this relates to Kick_(2014_film). In that case, the box office receipts are supported by footnote 2, which links to an article in Box Office India.  The important thing is that the quoted figure of 360 crore from that article is an estimate of what the final total receipts will be; it is not an actual value. So as Colin said, if you can find a better source then please use it to improve the article.   --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Prince usama is referring to the figure given in List of highest-grossing Indian films—where Kick is listed in fourth place, with a "worldwide gross" of 3.77 billion (377 crore) rupees. That figure is sourced to Koimoi.com, but I have no idea whether that's considered a reliable source. I know that there has been a fair amount of controversy over the earnings figures for films and albums (and the sources used for them) in various places around Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)