Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 76

Mathematical, Statistical and Scientific Formulae
How do you make them? Take z = x - mu / sigma, for example. 03:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. You may find the editors at Reference desk/Mathematics and/or Reference desk/Science much more equipped and educated in this field to help directly.Moxy (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I mean how do you write these things in Wikipedia? Sneazy (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you have to learn some latex...I have seen latex somewhere...if you need any help on Latex I can help you.... for the moment I am still very green here.... but will not last long

Franky Wan (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If in the future you want to work in math you do have to learn that. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeXFranky Wan (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I might know this one. Press the special characters button top right.  Slect Greek on the left dropdown menu.  Then select your greek character mu or sigma...  Pikachudad (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Learning LaTeX is a good idea; -and- there is a wikiway of doing it using math template and/or wiki-markup
 * [As mentioned above] For simple symbols, note the drop-down menu (just above the 'Edit summary' on the edit task bar) that has options for Math and logic and Greek.
 * Using your example: (z = x - mu / sigma) - simply using 'Greek': z = x - μ / σ    Or, you can use    (etc.) for Greek symbols.
 * ► Some useful links:
 * Help: Displaying a formula — general information
 * «math» — comparison of the various methods of rendering math
 * Template: Math — mostly for simple stuff
 * ...and links in the 'See also' sections of those pages
 * ~Hopefully, I have been more informative than confusing, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ~Hopefully, I have been more informative than confusing, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. It may take a while to do some reading. Sneazy (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

what if a previously well-behaved user goes berzerk?
do you consider that the account may be being operated by someone other than it's creator? SmartyPantsKid, Signing off. 18:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartyPantsKid (talk • contribs)
 * Hello SmartyPantsKid. Yes, if an established account goes "off the rails" it can be blocked as a possible "compromised account".  User account security covers this "Accounts that appear to have been compromised may be blocked without warning; administrators generally will not unblock such accounts without evidence that their rightful owners solely control them."  -- Jayron  32  21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. In my experience, we strive to minimise the number of berserkers around here. If you spot any, it's a good idea to politely ask them on their talk page: as Jayron32 advises, the account may have been compromised - or the user may be having a (very) bad day! -- Trevj (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

How can I contribute?
Hi. I am Hz.tiang and I am not very knowledgeable, so I couldn't make a lot of article edits. I tried to fight vandalism by monitoring the Recent Changes page, but I realised that Cluebot NG always undos vandalised articles faster than me. So, I decided to review new pages. The next day, I was greeted with the "Do not bite the newbies" message, so I thought I was not suitable for reviewing new pages. So, my question is, what else can I do? Hz.tiang (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I recommend you continue to review, but concentrate on making improvements, eg. correcting spelling, checking facts and references, etc. If you find a problem and you are not sure whether to correct it, just ask a more experienced editor or an administrator for advice. Deb (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thing you could do Hz is patrol random articles via the link on the right hand side of the interface. You can correct spelling, improve the article in other ways if you find it interests you or you can add maintenance templates to the article using twinkle. For instance, if an article has zero links add Orphan and if it needs references add refimprove, that sort of stuff . Cheers, —   dain -  talk   15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

ar:ويكيبيديا:بوابة المشاركة/قاعة الشاي/أسئلة bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:চাঘর/প্রশ্নসমূহ ur:منصوبہ:چائے خانہ/سوالات


 * Also, I would like to add; in a couple of months or so, if you wish to keep up the good fight, you can ask for Reviewer rights. Having reviewer rights means that you will be able to review edits to pages that are protected, and choose to accept them or decline them. Cheers, and thanks for the question! Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I post to Talk Pages?
I joined Wikipedia yesterday or the day before (time flies). Yesterday I made a few edits to various pages. Was greeted by an editor and was able to post a "Thank you" on their Talk page. Today I can't post on *his* talk page, or on the talk page of the person I *really* want to talk to! I had added some material to the 2013 career of Brandt Snedeker. I gave the dates of each tournament and the name of the winner of each tourney. Took a look at it today and all that important info has been "condensed" to uselessness. I can see where for the sake of space it's not necessary to give the three names of the golfers Snedeker was tied with in his first tourney of the year, but what individual who takes the time to look up Snedeker's stats - or any golfer's stats - won't want to know who actually *won* each tournament, as well as the position that the golfer in question finished at? ExTwoZero (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Ex, and thank you for the question!

Well, this seems to be a bit of an odd encounter. Could you tell us the username of the person you were attempting to talk to? We could then check if their Talkpage is semi-protected. Unfortunately, I can't help you with your question about golf...I'm not much of a Woods. Cheers, and have a great day! Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on your description and edits, you must be referring to User talk:I am One of Many and User talk:Tewapack. Both are indeed semi-protected due to abuse. This is rare for talk pages but you had bad luck. You can edit them when your account becomes autoconfirmed 7 February 15:47 (UTC). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, PrimeHunter and Kevin12xd! ExTwoZero (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How to fix "cite" references
Dear editors: I found a page, Beth dariti, which is making incorrect use of fields in the "cite" references. I tried to fix them, but was reverted. I left a message on the page's talk page, but there was no response. I think this is a new editor. The incorrect field use makes it look as though all of the references are created by the subject, when at least one of them is a substantial review. The page was nominated for deletion, and the user is trying to fix it up. I am too timid to do anything more. Is there someone who can fix up these references? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Anne. I reformatted various citations, removed one to Facebook, fixed various other matters, but I don't see any that are useful "substantial review"s. I think I know which one you are referring to but it's a blog (while I have reformatted it to show the correct author, I have also I have marked it with Verify credibility). While I was doing these edits, Jayron32 took the article to articles for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that settles it, I guess. Thanks &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

citation style question
Another editor showed me how to split up Citations and References in How to Create a Mind. So there are about a dozen citations to the book, but the full information appears just once as a reference. Which is all good, I think it looks nice. But then what about the newspaper/web citations? They only have 1 citation each. Does it make sense to also split those up? That is to have a single citation which links down the full reference? To be uniform. Thanks. Silas Ropac (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Silas Ropac, welcome to the Teahouse! Usually the citations vs references split is only used for things like books, pamphlets and long review articles, where there are often multiple cites to different pages. Newspaper articles would tend just to be included under the citations header, even if there were multiple citations to the same newspaper. Websites likewise are nearly always just repeated under the citations header, but very occasionally, where there's a particularly large number of citations of the same basic website (eg in a long list of items all sourced to different pages of the same website), they do get split out too. But that's very much the exception, not the rule. Hope this helps, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks yes that is clear. Cool. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

References / Citations using the symbol "§" instead of page numbers
I have a book that's a very good RS for an article. There's an English verion, but I only have a Spanish translation. Since the page numbers may vary between both editions, I'm thinking of using the § numbers of the book. Is there a template (something similar to sfn?) that allows you to use this symbol instead of page numbers? Thank you! Fauban 19:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the documentation for $(${Cite book}}, you could use the "at" parameter. --  YPN YPN   ✡  21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

my very first entry needs to be linked to from a disambiguation page
I've just created my first entry: a single sentence explaining and referencing an acronym (YASS). I have submitted it for publishing. 'Yass' has a disambiguation page. Do I need to edit the disambiguation page, or will an editor or script do that automatically when my entry is accepted?

Lexicogräfin (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Lexicogra(sorry I don't have umlauts here on this sucky American keyboard)fin, and welcome to the Teahouse! That should be taken care of for you once the article is created, but if not, you can do it at that time. Thanks for the question, and good luck at AFC! Let us know if you have further questions. Happy editing, Go   Phightins  !  23:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protection
I hope I'm in the right place. I'm not a brand-new editor, but new enough that I don't know some basic things.

Summary of question: where do I go to get semi-protection for an article? Some new editors are adding material en masse that is not referenced at all--no sources of any kind, let alone reliable secondary sources.

Background: Over the past month, I have done quite a lot of research on Yin Yoga, in order to improve the article of the same name on Wiki, which had been flagged as having multiple issues, including major contributions from someone personally involved with the subject, and improper reference to self published sources.

I rewrote the first half of it, referencing each significant point to reliable secondary sources. I was about half way through the rewrite, making about 100 edits.

Then yesterday, someone came in, a couple of editors obviously very new to the site--they have no talk page history--and added a lot of material (about 600 words) to the beginning of the article that is not referenced at all. It is like an essay, but with no footnotes. Today I reverted their edits, due to this major problem with them.

I'd like to work with these people since they are knowledgeable, and will leave notes for them on their talk pages, but in the meantime, would it be possible to get some kind of protection for this page? I remember that one article I worked on last year (Wayne Gretzky) was semi-protected, so that only editors with some level of experience could work on it. Did I understand that correctly? Thanks much for your help! EMP (talk 18:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi EMP! If you have a concern about a page, be it a content dispute or repeated vandalism, you should go to Requests for Page Protection. You follow the instructions on the page and leave the request. An admin reviews the request and the page history to determine if the protection is warranted. If it is, they'll protect the page; if it isn't, they'll explain why.


 * Semi-protection is often used in case of lots of anon IPs coming into an article and adding stuff; this can be a single individual or even a coordinated "attack" on a page. Full protection prevents anyone except admins from editing the page. This is used in a content dispute, when editors are arguing over what should go into the article. Full protection forces everything to the talk page in hopes that it can be hashed out.


 * Hope this answers your question, but feel free to ask for more details!


 * -- McDoob AU93  18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Just the info I needed! EMP (talk 20:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, EMP. if you happen to have Twinkle enabled, there should be a tab that says "RPP" in your toolbar.  Click that from the page you want protected, and it will automate the reporting for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gtwfan52! I'll install Twinkle--sounds really good. EMP (talk 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I installed Twinkle and used the RPP function, which worked like a charm--thanks very much!! EMP (talk 20:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, thank you for doing all the right things (attempting to fix multiple issues, citing your sources, directing attention to the article's talk page for discussion of possible controversial edits, etc.).  One other thing that might be useful would be to put a construction template at the top of the article.  This would let other editors know that you are in the middle of a major re-working, and let readers know that it might be messy for awhile. ~I hope this helps, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eric--I'll put that template in, and I'm sure it will help! EMP (talk 20:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Go Phightins!

Lexicogräfin (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Photos - Thumbnail size
I have put a photo into an article, and the thumbnail is very small. I have read the Picture Tutorial on how to dictate size. However, when I put, for example, |500px| into the string of information, that command shows. In fact, any attempt to dictate where on the page the image appears, using instructions from the picture tutorial, causes those instructions to show as if they were part of the caption.

Also, I don't understand what the difference is if I use "Insert" Picture Gallery which places File:..... on either side of the information vs.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwonderling47 (talk • contribs)
 * A gallery uses multiple images with captions. A single image would use the following:  produces:

. The main difference is- the single syntax will not allow another image to be rendered right next to each other, so you have to use either the "gallery" coding, or other similar markups to render images next to each other. This is one of the areas where we can make choices about the look of the article. Images can be produced in a number of ways.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

need help getting article approved
Hello allo, I am trying to add an article to Wikipedia. It's my first article and I read all the guidelines. Unfortunately my submission keeps getting denied on the basis of not showing "adequately evidence the subject's notabilit". It says to "improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia" but I already added 31 references to outside articles in third-party websites that are unrelated from the subject. I'm kind of stuck and would love some guidance. Thanks66.65.115.48 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome. Thanks for your effort at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Marc_Urselli. I guess it is possible this subject could be notable, but I haven't checked the sources. Which sources demonstrate notability by following WP:GNG? Please read that carefully. I see you've cited Wikipedia five times. Wikipedia does not cite itself (see WP:CIRCULAR), FYI. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See also our WP:Core content policies. Is everything in the article verified by the sources? For example, you say he is "best known" for something then you cite a source. Does the source say he is best known for that? Biosthmors (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, 66. You have a lot of references on the article and your information is fairly well referenced.  The problem, as the reviewers have told you is notability.  As an encyclopedia, we only publish articles that reflect what others are talking about in reliable sources.  Along with providing verifiability, some of your sources must also show his notability.  For this, it is required that you "prove" through sourcing that other reliable sources are talking about him in a significant way.  You show no reliable sources in your list of sources. In your references, you have three reliable sources (the two books from google and the article from the Seattle newspaper), however, they only mention him in passing (one just being a bibliography reference to a book he wrote).  His Grammys should make him notable, but as the previous host told you, you cannot reference things back to Wikipedia.  So find sourcing on the Grammys he won, and that should get you there. Just an aside, not having any bearing on the article's acceptance, you only bold the first use of the subject's name in the article, not every use. Hope this helps and please come back if we can help more! Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I need to permanently delete an edit I did from the History of a Page
Hello, can someone please help me. A friend and I changed the JJ72 wikipedia page on the 5th of February and wrote a load of nonsense and then changed it back to the original. But we didn't realise a copy of the changes we made remain on the history page. I'm absolutely terrified that the stuff we wrote (about a close friend) will remain there forever. Can anyone out there please help me delete it?

Orkface1 (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you could ask an Oversighter to suppress the revisions are an Administrator to delete the revisions, but it's unlikely they'll grant that as revisions are usually only deleted to hide people's personal information or get rid of really bad violations of the policy on biographies of living people.King Jakob  C2 12:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The easiest way is to email to the email address at Requests for oversight, including a WP:DIFF of the problem and explaining why it's an issue. If there's something that potentially identifies the "close friend" and they're a living person, it may very well get removed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this draft of 'List_of_psychological_effects' OK to move to a new page?
(Irregular editor, be gentle;-)

Is it OK to make this draft into a new page and link to it from Outline_of_psychology?

I'm doing the initial population by extracting psychological effects from List_of_effects.

Earcanal (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Earcanal! (love the name, BTW)!  Not trying to be evasive, but perhaps you would get a more informed answer by posing that question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology.  That way, people who know about the subject matter can answer you.  Thanks.  Hopefully we can be more directly helpful with other questions you might have, so please come back if you need us. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How to create a good looking article...
Hi, I've created quite a few articles on Wikipedia and I see that my articles look very unattractive... So I was hoping I could get some advice and some pointers on how an article can be made to look good and neat with various trinkets also... The articles that I would like to appear better are Irrigation in India, Revolution in The Valley, Inside Apple.. And I would also welcome some feedback on how the articles are in their current state and/or if I should work harder... Thanks again in advance Ajayupai95 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ajayupai95. Having taken a quick look, I'd say: Irrigation in India looks pretty good already (nice picture, sensible use of headers and sections), but the two book articles could use more references (especially Revolution..., the sourcing's quite weak on that one) and jacket images (you can usually upload these under Fair Use, but make sure your images meet those criteria first). Whilst decoration is perfectly acceptable on userpages, for accessibility purposes we try to avoid making articles look "attractive"; aim instead for "comprehensive", "easily-navigable" and "suitably illustrated" and you won't go far wrong. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a pretty set way of building an article however, I think the worst looking aticle is a short stub. An attractive article comes about by having broadly covered, well referenced and well structured article. If you can, make it long enough to be interesting and worth stopping to look at and read. I kind of agree that basic articles when first put together don't look that great, but generally because they are short. Content. Lots of content looks very attractive to some.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you help a new editor?
Dear editors: I found a page called Lizzie Velazquez by new editor "Steals". Within minutes of its creation it was marked for deletion as being too contentious, but it was contested and the notice was removed. The page also had some technical problems which I have fixed up. Steals may be feeling a little daunted. Maybe one of your friendly Tea House invitations would be in order. It sure helped me! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Anne Delong, I have already sent Steals an invitation and a personal message on the talk page about how useful Teahouse is and what one can learn for it... I agree, it's very demotivating when your article has been put up for deletion minutes after it's been created... And your right, Teahouse was a boon and has helped my as well... So, I have sent the invitation and have also attached a personal message Ajayupai95 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Article References
I am a new editor, and I was wondering? How do I insert references into an article? Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hardcoreromancatholic. I have left illustrated instructions on your talk page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How to create the "information sidebar" on right side of page
Hello. I'm probably overlooking the obvious, but how do you create the "information sidebar" on the right side of the page--not sure what you call it--that you see on many pages, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REI. Thanks.Cellotown (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Cellotown, and welcome to the Teahouse! Are you talking about the box at the top right of REI with "Recreational Equipment, Inc." at the top and a picture of the logo? If so, we call it an infobox, and it's a common element of wikipedia articles, and it can't be removed or hidden (though I'm not sure why you'd want to, as they're generally pretty useful). If you're not talking about that, then I can't see it. In that case, it could be a script of some kind, so I'd try refreshing the page, trying to toggle between https:// and http:// URLs, removing anything in the url that starts with the '&' character, then searching through your preferences for anything you might have turned on without meaning to. I hope that helps! — Rutebega ( talk ) 04:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He doesn't want to remove it. He wants to create it, presumably for another article he's working on.  The sidebar is generated by a template called an "infobox", templates are used at Wikipedia primarily to create stand-format graphics exactly like this.  See Help:Template for general info about template.  There are many different kinds of infoboxes at Wikipedia, each one tailored for use in a specific article.  Cellotown, if you can tell us the specific article you want to add an infobox to, perhaps we could recommend a specific one to use.  Alternately, you could look over Help:Infobox which has information on infoboxes in general, and browse through Category:Infobox templates which contains just about every kind of infobox used in Wikipedia articles.  There are hundreds, so you'll probably have to browse a bit to find the right one.  Does that help?  -- Jayron  32  04:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right you are. I guess I was reading too fast for my own good. — Rutebega ( talk ) 19:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the infobox--that's it. How do I create this box? Where do I upload text and an image? Is there a tutorial about this somewhere?Cellotown (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "sidebar" of information or "infobox" is a template that is created and then placed within the article to be transcluded with all the information from the template. This is like a page within a page. See Help:Infobox.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks--I'll take a look at this information.Cellotown (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that many articles use a preformatted version of the basic infobox template that can be manually added to the page and then as each field is filled out, appears in the info box.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cellotown! One of the cool things about infoboxes is that there are tons of fields for information in them, but the only ones that actually show up on the live page are the ones you fill in.  As you or others find more info they can fill in some of the other fields, and most infoboxes have a bunch of fields that most likely will never get filled in.  The one I work with most often, Template:Infobox school, has fields needed for both private and public schools and some arcane info that nobody ever adds!  Just leave the unused fields alone.  It is fairly easy to break an infobox :).  When you get to the point of uploading an image, c'mon back and someone will help you with that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I'm in the home stretch. Just a few quick questions:

--How do I upload a logo to the Infobox? Will I need a PNG file?

--For future reference, where can I find all the Infobox templates listed? For example, on the Category: Infobox templates page I don't see either the Infobox school template or the Infobox company template.

--Some pages will say, under References, that a source has been "retrieved" on a certain date. What does this mean? Are they using some kind of template to create this? I was just going to manually enter the dates of sources where applicable.

Thanks.Cellotown (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding images: 1) PNG files are preferred because PNG files are "lossless", which means they scale appropriately without distorting. 2) As soon as your account is autoconfirmed (which means it is 4 days old and has made more than 10 edits), you'll get full rights at Wikipedia, which includes the ability to upload files.  On the left side tool bar under the "toolbox" menu is an "Upload file" option.  There's a few different ways to upload; you probably want to use the default "Upload wizard" for now, which walks you through the process and won't let you upload an image if you forget to do something.  When you upload an image, you need to include a lot of information about it, so that Wikipedia has all of the correct copyright information.  The use of copyrighted logos is restricted, but still allowed in limited usages, at Wikipedia under the guise of "fair use"; most other copyrighted images aren't appropriate at Wikipedia.  If you want all of the details you can read Uploading images which explains in brief Wikipedia's procedures and policies for uploading images, and contains links to even more details.  3) at Category:Infobox templates there are lots of subcategories which contain even more infoboxes.  Infobox school is actually a few levels down: first you'd select Category:Society and social science infobox templates and then Category:Education infobox templates.  4) The "retrieved" date is used to indicate the exact date you viewed the webpage you used as a source.  This is important as webpages can sometimes change, and so it is important when tracking sources to indicate the exact date the webpage contained the relevant information.  If the webpage later changes, the old version on that date can still be recovered using various internet archival services; but you would need to know the date in order to find it correctly should it change.  Does all that help?  -- Jayron  32  07:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great--thanks!Cellotown (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Posting an article
I have an article that I have been trying to add about Fashion Model Mogul Thomas Zeumer. I have had some difficulty with it being accepted but I chalk that up to being unexperianced in wikipedia. The first time I submitted it, it was deamed that the wording was too promotional, so I changed the wording. Then the revised article was found to have elements of the description of the subjects background that were too similar to other sources. They were then revised and the article was submitted AGAIN. THEN for the third time it was rejected with a suggestion that Mr. Zeumer is not a notable person. In plain fact, Thomas Zeumer is the owner and president of one of the most successful modeling agencies to of ever existed, Metropolitan Models. He discovered Heidi Klum and CLaudia Schiffer, among many others, and is cerdited with the creation of the wonder-bra billboard campaign which became the most successful billboard add of all time. That to me sounds like someone who is worthy of being in the wiki database. My question is; Why does my article keep getting deleted and what can I do to get it approved? It seams that there is nothing I can do that can make my submission good enough for wikipedia. Please help and explain to me what I am doing wrong because I cant even imagine how to proceed. 50.74.179.26 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Zeumer seems to be related. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tried to make the text more readable by deleting repeated text and a couple of erant ref tags. Next thing to do it to convert the references to inline citations.  There is a tool at the top of the edit window to help with that -- where it says 'cite'. See Referencing for beginners for more info. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help Ariconte!!! After fixing the citations do you think there is much more that has to be done before it is ready for submission?

50.74.179.26 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for erasing everthing on Whistler & Pemberton Pages
why would I enjoy making contributions edits that are all censored & removed ???????????????

I tried to cite refferance but camnnot get syntax right why would you not correct reference syntax rather than PADANTICALY eraseing & censoring everything??????207.200.141.204 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC) there are not clear examples of how to do a simple refferrence only pages that connect to pages to pages add infinium like a kafaesuqe joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!207.200.141.204 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to hear your having some trouble. I see by your question your having some trouble with referencing - pls take a look at Tutorial/Citing sources. Must also be aware that there are some simply rules of what is appropriate for the encyclopedia in terms of content and tone - pls see Tutorial/Keep in mind. Hope this helped.Moxy (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank that's a very useful link & clear example. it was not the pages 1 navigated to off the edit pages why???

As to tone it is very disrespectful to cut an paste as a bot but sign as a man. see what inerior posted Quote Hi. I would have simply corrected the syntax, but your sourcing was very problematic. If you read my note above, it gives some instructions on how to cite and what to cite to. I'm sorry, but these are the rules on which Wikipedia was built. If you want to try again with reliable sources, I can help you. The Interior (Talk) 03:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)End Quote

Reposted response to Interior Quote

so the wikipedia sites for both grizzly & black bears are wrong????

Ursus arctos horribilis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear}}

Ursus americanus[1] : }} I would prefer Prov Min stats but government doesn't want their biologists publishing! Help would be nice but referring to the links to the damn follow charts from hell is not helpful I can read the so call help buttons but they are like bad assembly instructions with screws missing. With all due, real Help would be to fix 1 single reference showing how to reference a url & not cutting & pasting form letters like a bot.

Single references also may be wrong!There is no Slopside district in Whistler never ever has been. So even if the NY times apparently refers to a Slopside distric it doesn't exist!!!!!!! There is a Slopeside dinner though the district is Creekside & was the original town site called Alpha Lake. I'd like I'do give you a dozen refferrences but no one will show me how.207.200.141.204 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)end quote — Preceding unsigned comment added by PemGateway (talk • contribs)


 * A great way to start is to post what is above at Talk:American black bear and see what follow editors interested in the topic have to say.Moxy (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi PemGateway, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may not have noticed, but you've made a few edits while logged out of your account, so you should make sure you're logged in before making edits to Wikipedia. Anyway, something that you seem to have already realized: Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve. It can be very difficult to get into editing right away, and that's alright. We're here to help you learn the process and make better contributions. If you need help understanding wiki markup, we can try to explain things in a clearer manner. First though, you should know that Wikipedia requires reliable sources. You wouldn't want to rely on someone's word alone when reading a reference text like an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is no exception, so it's important to include good references when adding material to an article. Merely knowing a lot about something isn't enough to justify adding it to an article, although if you're an expert on something, you may be better able to find good sources on it.
 * Just some general info on citations: we cite works on wikipedia using the tags. Between them, a template is often used to simplify the citation formatting. When a reference is correctly formatted, it should appear as the inline citation you've seen before, and should automatically appear in the references section at the bottom of the page. You can practice using wiki markup by editing your sandbox.
 * If you have any further questions, we will be glad to answer them and help you learn more about editing. — Rutebega ( talk ) 04:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for writing clearly & helpfully, & not using form letters as a Bot (ie The Interior) Oral history sources should allowed w/ 2ndry reference ie Tipta has a bio & Photo in 'The Salish Elder' Book. This 88 yr old Lil'wat elder talks about living at Green Lake with his father. All published official material says the natives did not live in Whistler. BS created to forestall legal legitimate land claims!PemGateway (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether/how to use oral history on Wikipedia has been discussed, but I'm having trouble finding the discussion. The main problem is with verifiability - Verifiability requires that information here be verifiable.  If there is an audio or literary record of the oral history available outside of Wikipedia, you are more likely to have it accepted. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And *I* can verify that native life in the Cheakamus Valley - by Lil'wat, appeared in print, both ancient and modern, long before the land claims issue surfaced publicly in the 1970s.......in the tradition of the Lower Lillooet (Mt Curried and Skookumchuck and Semahquam) their Great Flood story states clearly that before the Flood, they lived around Green Lake, and it's from there their version of Noah loaded his canoe, which after the flood wound up grounding on Gunsight Peak aka In-SHUCK-ch, which is over on the other side of Garibaldi Park; this may be a reference to the eruption of Mount Meager in 2350bp......and in modern times, there were traplines up in there, and at least one cabin I know of (since burned by the RMOW for being used as a squat) had internal houseposts all carved up and such; and there were Lil'wat living at "Watertank" (down by Black Tusk Estates). Those are in Irene Ronayne's books and in France Decker's and in Irene Edwards, and there was a columnist (chubb pascal? not sure) from Mt Currie in one of the lesser local papers for a long time who had lived there.  I think you should read a bit more, PemGateway, instead of shooting your mouth off like you have here and on your talkpage.  Th Interior was trying to be helpful and, yes, using bots as many Wikipedians do for inroductory formalities and things like the talkback notice that led me here.  You're wrong about local history in a lot of spots.....very wrong, especially about native occupancy; I have a Squamish friend (used to be an active editor here User:OldManRivers who also has stories about Squamish use of the valley.  There were natives living, fishing and hunting in the Alta-Green Lake Valley (the Cheakamus-Green Pass, really) long before someone started to see it as a place to build a ski resort.  Go ask at the Whistler Museum, and start doing research; and there you might find the citations you need to back up your expansions of these articles.  Trying to be polite and not dressing you down, just telling you you're wrong on several points.  Including your manners.Skookum1 (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

2 accounts?
Hello fellow Wikipedians, i was wondering if there was any good reasons or benefits for having 2 Wikipedia accounts. thanks sincerely.zeroro(talk)(edits) 00:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are several legitimate reasons to have two accounts (mainly, security, privacy, and compromised accounts). More examples of legitimate reasons for two accounts can be found at WP:SOCK, but it's best to be careful with what you use a second account for. King Jakob  C2 01:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

thankszeroro(talk)(edits) 02:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I declined a submission as a copyright violation?
Hello. I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PM Academy as a copyright violation/close paraphrasing, but I probably should have checked the references. The italics were added without Wikimarkup, which should have been like this, also an ® symbol was added. Can someone please check the references using this oldid. Thank you. JHU bal 27 Roar! 23:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey again :) I took a short look, and though I cannot tell exactly what it copyvios, it's more than likely a copyvio. I can maybe dig a little deeper later tonight, or tomorrow if someone doesn't get to it first. gwickwire  talk edits 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ADD PHOTOS
How do you add a photo? How is the box formated? The barrington (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the teahouse. You can add a photo by using the code [[File:Example.jpg]], but if you want it inside a box, the best code to use is Example.jpg . To change the size of the picture in the box, the best code to use is Example.jpg Does that help? King  Jakob  C2 23:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, The barrington! I am guessing you are asking this in conjunction with your work on Eulalie Spence, correct?  Is the box you speak of the "infobox", that box on the top right of many pages that summarizes the information on the page?  Please let us know and we will help you further!Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How to clean up after a page move
Dear editors (me again): I found a page called Animated Film Award. When I investigated, I found that it was referring to an award given out at the Mainichi Film Awards. I moved the page to Mainichi Film Award for Best Animation Film, which matched the name of the award on the main awards page Mainichi Film Award. The page mover suggested that I fix redirects, so I used the "What links here" and found a list of pages said to be linked. However, I tried several of these pages and was unable to find the text "Animated Film Award". Am I doing something wrong here? I don't want to leave a mess. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Anne Delong the redirects were being transcluded  from Mainichi Film Award for Best Film - its fixed  now.Moxy (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proper use of disambiguation pages
Dear Editors| I found this page Gb3 (disambiguation) which is unlikely to have more than one entry. I wonder if it shouldn't be a series of redirects instead. What do you think? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome back to the Teahouse! I can't cite a policy, but I don't think there should be disambiguation pages with only one link, as that would defeat the purpose of such pages. The best bet is to change it to a redirect with the following code: #REDIRECT Name of page . King Jakob  C2 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should have been a redirect when it only had one link. Two more links have now been added to make it a proper disambiguation page. I have moved it to GB3 because we only use "(disambiguation)" when there is a primary topic at the title without "(disambiguation)". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New article
Hi, I just created Victoria Carling. I was going to use the article for creation process, but reconsidered when I saw the backlog. So I just went ahead and created it. Is that OK? Also, is deleting the bit from the bottom of the draft enough to stop it wasting time at AFC? Smithlock (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome! You may create a page and other editors can still review it at Special:NewPages, where new pages are posted. I like to review AFC articles, so I could have helped you. I will review the page. Thanks for submitting it and editing Wikipedia! JHU bal 27  Roar! 12:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell when a speedy deletion tag has been removed?
Dear editors: I was looking at this page: Matuto and I noticed that some sections of it were copied from the band's web site at. I was going to put a tag on it, but first I checked the page creator's talk page and found that there was a notice that the Matuto page had already been tagged for not having evidence of notability. However, there was no such notice on the Matuto page, and no evidence of one having been deleted in the page history. What could have happened here? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Anne. The notification on the creator's talk page was left at 05:17 on 7th February, and the creation of the current version of the article was at 20:46 on 7th February, so I would conclude that the article was indeed speedily deleted at some point between those two times, and therefore the creator has re-created it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Confirmed by the deletion log. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I marked it for deletion for copyright violation. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And somebody deleted it and I re-applied it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a look at this. The band is notable. I stubbed it to remove the copyvio and will leave an explanatory note on the talk page and on the talk page of the article's creator. Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Jamaican Patois/non-standard English in quotations
Hi, I couldn't find any information about this in the style guide. I'm writing a Jamaica-related article and would like to include a quote spoken in the Jamaican Patois/Jamaican English language continuum. Is there a generally accepted policy for this? For clarity, I assume I shouldn't write it as quoted in Jamaican media. However, it might seem off-putting if I converted a perfectly acceptable dialectical varient into standard English. Thanks! —Strachkvas (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Strachkvas. The Manual of Style indicates that quotations should preserve the original wording; therefore if your source is written in patois, the quotation should be too. If you're concerned that it's unintelligible to speakers of other English dialects, you could add a "translation", either in square brackets as part of the quotation or as a footnote. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

cruft at end of section link?
This link works: Predictions_made_by_Ray_Kurzweil But where is the end part coming from, the .28990.29? I was going to make a link to this section, but seems odd to have that number in there, like what if it changes. I hope there is not a most-questions-asked-badge. Silas Ropac (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Silas, and welcome again! ".28" represents the left parenthesis and ".29" the right, and 1990 is in the middle, just as in the section heading. The link should still work if you just change it to (1990). The same is true with underscores and spaces: spaces aren't allowed in the URL so they're converted, but they're still allowed in wikilinks. I hope that helps! — Rutebega ( talk ) 04:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, makes sense! Thanks. 04:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas Ropac (talk • contribs)
 * By the way, the link is the encoding you get when you click "The Age of Intelligent Machines (1990)" in the table of contents. Our software is made such that the link Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil will generate the right encoding. I made the link by copy-pasting the displayed article title and section heading separately instead of the url. It makes the link look better and should be used for links displayed in articles, and preferably also elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation and confusing references
Dear experienced editors, I am a very new contributor to wikipedia. Yesterday I published an article about the European Organization for Quality (EOQ). I wanted to post on the top of the page that if someone is searching on wiki by using not the entire name of the organization but just the acronym "EOQ", it should be redirected to the article I mentioned before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Organization_for_Quality). Unfortunately I did not know how to do this, more exactly, I did not know how to create the needed disambuguation page. On the pther hand, trying to see what happens if I search for "EOQ", it comes a disambiguation page which contains the complete name of the EOQ, with a link to the article referring to CQI, which has no relationship to EOQ. This is not correct AT ALL and I would like that first of all, this mistake is corrected and second I want to know what to do for succeeding the redirection of "EOQ" to my article "European Organization for Quality".

Please advise. Thank you, smarandita109.100.202.82 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi smarandita! I looked at the pages you mentioned, and it looks like someone redirected the organization's name to what may be its parent organization. If there is truly no connection, it may be time to be bold and correct it in the EOQ article. You would edit the wikilink for the full name to go to your article instead. If you have any questions about that, please come back to the Teahouse and we'll assist you! -- McDoob  AU93  18:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your prompt answer McDoob! No, it is no connection between CQI and EOQ! I will try to do what you suggested; if I don't succeed, I will come back to your help, thank you!

smaranditaSmarandita (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here I am again Mcdoob! Becasue I am really a beginner and because I don't want to make mistakes, maybe you may do this change for me or if it is not possible could you explain in detail, step be step, what exaclty do I have to delete when editing "EOQ" page and what insert instead?

Thak you in advance, smaranditaSmarandita (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi McDoob! Finally I did the change on "EOQ" page and I think it is ok!

Smarandita (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Article declined

 * Thanks a lot of your help guys (and for the message I got as well).

I have removed the bolds and removed the wikipedia references but the article still gets declined. Frankly I am at a loss and with over 40 sources mentioned I really don't see how anyone could argue with the fact that that is 'significant coverage' or that the subject is 'notable' and that the sources are 'reliable'. I am open to suggestions but at this point I've been trying for a couple of days and frankly it is really frustrating to put so much work into something and and find some many sources. I have read all the WPGNG guidelines and I am at a loss as to what else to do or change to make this go through. 66.65.115.48 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tried everything... I removed the wikipedia references. I added more references. I removed the bolds. Still won't go thorough... it's very frustrating!

Can I do anything else or should I just give up? 66.65.115.48 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume that you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marc Urselli? If so, you confused us by posting these messages in a section referring to a different question, so I've added a new section heading.  You say "the article still gets declined", but if you look at the history you'll see that the only time it was declined was in July 2010.  The draft has not subsequently been submitted for further review.  If you want it to be considered again you need to read the box at the top of the article where it says "When you are ready to resubmit, click here. " - David Biddulph (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

undo a sandbox move error?
Is there a way to reverse (undo) a redirect? I seem to have redirected my sandbox page when I intended just to move an article I had created on it. Reginac7 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the question. I removed the redirect..... You moved your sandbox to an article and left behind the redirect.....  no worries, fixed.  Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Reginac7 (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Publish
I think I am ready to publish the main page. I would like to do that while I work on the subpages. How do I submit it for subject matter expert review? Here is the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PerformerResearch/sandbox

Thank you so much PerformerResearch 74.103.30.151 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The last line of the info box at the topof the page says "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here". Doing that will lead you to the submission pages.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at it and the references are a bit on the thin side. With the track record claimed, just five references, three of which are from anonymous reviewers isn't enough and I would expect to see quite a lot more available about him.  I'd also suggest that you look at using Inline citations to support the comments. NtheP (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What template should I use
Hi I am PerformerResearch. I am trying to write an article about a musician/songwriter. I would like it to be using this format http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Byrd_(musician)

I am having trouble with getting the box containing the picture to right hand side on the page. Here is what I have so far in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PerformerResearch/sandbox

Also, I want to be sure I have the proper format for linking to sub pages for details on the discography. Can you help me?PerformerResearch (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the question!


 * The easy way to do this is 'Use the format of the article you want to copy'. I have done it in your sand box... I copied the infobox from the other page, inserted in your article, and then changed the contents...


 * Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Writing a new Article, Dan Bigley Relevancy
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but before I go through the trouble of writing a long article, I want to know if Dan Bigley is relevant enough to write an article about him. I don't want to write an article about him and have it get deleted.

I wrote a short summary about him so that you can get an idea of what this man has accomplished. Also, not written yet, is that there may be a movie being made about him in the future, but that isn't a sure thing yet:

Dan Bigley (born 1977) is an inspirational speaker, author, and the director of foster care for Denali Family Services, an Anchorage nonprofit counseling center serving emotionally disturbed children and their families. On July 14, 2003, during a fishing trip in Alaska, he was mauled by a Grizzly bear and lost his vision. His story was the subject of an episode of the television series "I Was Bitten" that airs on Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel. He is now a public speaker that gives inspirational talks to groups around the United States about how to keep living after going through a traumatic experience, and on September 30, 2008, was honored as Alaskan of the Year for his efforts. He is now in the process of writing a book called "Beyond the Bear," with the release set in Spring 2013.

Ashikitty (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming to the Teahouse! Do reliable sources support his notability?? My gut feel is other editors will see the book prediction as promotional.... and not needed. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much!  Now, I just have to replace the picture using a picture from the commons that I will upload and then I can change the text too, is that correct? PerformerResearch (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the follow up question! The best place for your 'under construction' article is in your sandbox.... a link for that is at the top right of your browser window.  You can do what you want there and then ask other editors to have a look.  Another way to proceed is to use the 'wizard', see WP:WIZ. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Finding Wiki Rank
How to find a wikipedian's overall rank based on number of edits ???...as it is shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/List_of_Indian_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Mkg just4u (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. List of Wikipedians by number of edits is I believe what you're looking for. But remember, the number of edits is not the most important thing, it's the quality of the edits.  Go   Phightins  !  17:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright question
I would like to upload photographs portraying the life of my grandfather. He died in 1967 in India. Many pictures have always been in the family collection, having been passed through 2 generations. These pictures were always private and have never been published. The photographer is in all cases unknown, presumably a family friend or visitor. The first picture is of 1914, the last of 1959. I understand that except for the 1914 picture, all the others are not in the Public Domain. But I don't see that anybody else could or will ever claim copyright on these pictures. I am legally the owner of the photos. So - what is there to be done, if the photographer is unknown and highly unlikely to ever become known? Thanks.

Example: File:V. A. Sundaram in the late 1930s.jpg

Thanjavoor (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'm answering it but I don't know too much about images and it's licensing in here at WP. But what I think about your question is you are free to upload those image as you're the legal owner of those portraits. But still watch this page for more informations.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 15:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanjavoor. I'm afraid that owning the photograph doesn't give any rights to the copyright of the pictures. :/ See, in the last section, which is titled, "My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?" The 1914 image is in the same situation, if it was never published. See this chart - "Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship)" are protected for 120 years from creation. You might seek more information from experienced copyright specialists on Wikipedia at WP:MCQ or at Commons, at commons:Commons:VPC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Does a new article "Eye gaze" make sense to link a bunch of articles together?
The term "eye gaze" is found in many pages. It is more than simply [Eye contact]], as includes sharing of attention, communication of attention shift, and the cooperative eye hypothesis. It is also a huge part of Gaze

I can think of two options: 1) New article Eye gaze that ties these things together. 2) add a bullet to Gaze (disambiguation) that links to the related current articles and add notes to each page. But it seems like there might be other options.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_contact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_tracking - "point of gaze"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_attention - "means of eye-gazing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonverbal_communication "eye gaze" link to eye contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_eye_hypothesis

Bodysurfinyon (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I recommend creating eye gaze as a redirect to eye contact. Andrew327 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that seems like the easiest thing to do, but, I don't think the is the right thing. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I made the redirect. In the true tradition of asking the question until you get the answer you like, I'll ask again on the psych talk page. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)