Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 86

Sandbox and referencing
I have a quick question about sandboxes and general referencing. Do we use referencing or citations when using/copying information off a website? If the information is basic facts and there is no point of rewording it since it will sound the same, do we still have to? Is Harvard referencing ok because one of my friends' sandbox ref got changed when she used it.

Mraleksrs (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mraleksrs, and welcome. First up - and I can't stress this enough - don't copy text from other websites; nine times out of ten other websites are not licenced appropriately for Wikipedia to reuse their content (and those that are often have text that's not suitable anyway). Use websites as sources of information, not text; everything you add to Wikipedia should be in your own words. This applies even to sandboxes. Copyright is an issue with potential real-world legal ramifications, so Wikipedia is understandably pretty heavy-handed in dealing with copyright violations and plagiarism.
 * As regards Harvard referencing: it's perfectly acceptable to use on Wikipedia, but generally speaking the rule is to retain whatever citation style is already present in the article you're editing. You can start a new article using Harvard (and future contributors would be expected to maintain that style) but if the page you're working on uses APA, CMS or (more likely) Wikipedia's templates, then that's the appropriate format to use for your own citations. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  15:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I will make sure to rephrase and put things in my own words when gathering and then publishing the information. However it comes down to an award reception and a general description of the awards which I think is going to be hard to put in my own words but I will still try. Thanks again. Within my work group we will make sure to keep referencing the same for all sources. We are looking at creating a page so the referencing on it hasn't been set up in stone by another user. 13:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraleksrs (talk • contribs)

New User - Article Contribution
Hi. I'm new to the world of Wikipedia contributions and am part of a group who are compiling a page about a scholar of our choosing. Would it be possible for somebody to provide some feedback about the content which I am planning to contribute? This can be accessed at my sandbox. Many thanks in advance Bellsniff123 (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there - its my first time using Teahouse for a question, and I thought I'd offer one to yours in equal exchange. I've also contributed one article, and did so with the benefit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence at my side.  I note two things you could start working on.

First is that your article is pretty heavy with citations to one author in particular. Try to find some other sources or opposing viewpoints. Right now it kind of reads like a book review and has a heavy bias towards the most cited author. Next, is that you don't make use of wiki or external links to support other types of information. For example, why not try and find a publicly available legal definition of informed consent from a trusted source online as opposed to a scholarly journal that not all will have access to? Lastly, this phrase "the importance of correct website/webpage layout" could quickly get you dinged. What is correct website design, since it changes so quickly (relatively speaking). Why not find a wiki article on web design and information layout for children, or point to a conference on web design for K-12, so that ideas on this from other sources are available? Carry on! noranoodle (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How to find the GOCE article template to mark it "done"
Hi again. I updated one of the articles I edited with the GOCE info with no problems, but when I went to the list to update it by marking the template "done" but I could not find the right template. How do I locate the correct template to mark? I went to the article and pulled up the list of templates on the article but could not find any called doing or anything like that. I searched around for 45 minutes but ended up with nothing. Could one of you kindly editors give me specific directions on how to find and access the correct template to mark an article "done'? Thanks & regards...Montykillies (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you mean marking that it is done on the page for GOCE requests, then you can simply use  in the place of   or  . If you mean on the actual article, then I will need to see the article. ö    Brambleberry  of   RiverClan  23:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, how do I indicate working or doing on an article? If I knew that I could change it to done I assume. I went to the list of 3000+ articles and can see no tags. How do I see the working or doing tags?Montykillies (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again, MontyKilles. That would be on the page GOCE Requests.  I thought that was the page when you indicated high priority copy edits.  Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Montykillies. I spotted you were having some problems in the GOCE drive. It's very late at night here now (I'm on UK time), but tomorrow I'll take a closer look and pop along to your talk page to help you. Please don't take requests from the GOCE Requests page yet, as you aren't yet ready for these. Instead, you can copy edit tagged articles. More tomorrow. Best, --Stfg (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

reference creator
I can't find the wikipedia page where I can paste a web site address and get a pretty good ref line. For example, I want to reference this research http://jn.nutrition.org/content/141/6/1202.full.pdf+html what is the fastest way?32cllou (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, 32Cllou. I recommend you use RefTools.  Hover over the thumbnail and choose full screen before you play it.  Lots more details at Referencing for beginners and even more in the navigation box at the bottom of that page.  Come back and ask again if you need more detail.  For now, take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 02:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops, when I went to your talk page to leave a talk-back, I saw that somebody already sent you to that video. Are you looking for a list of templates?  Can you be more specific? Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 02:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is an application within Wikipedia, it's own wiki web page, where you enter (paste into) the web address (of the public access version of the research), answer a few basic questions, hit enter, and bingo all the "your information" stuff that goes between those ref's is populated automatically.  Where is that application?32cllou (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)  PS the questions are like is it a web site?  do you want it dated?32cllou (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Try DOI filler --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That's even better. Thanks!32cllou (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How do I make a category appear on another (parent?) category page?
Hello. I've been creating articles on the geology of Northern Ireland. After I'm done, I tag the articles with Category:Geology of Northern Ireland so they are all easy to find.

As Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, I would like all the articles tagged this way to neatly also nest into the tag Category:Geology of the United Kingdom and appear on that category page. England, Scotland, and Wales already exist on that category page. Even Ireland has an entry in that category - although Ireland isn't even part of the UK.

How do I get the category 'Geology of Northern Ireland' to be an entry on the category 'Geology of the United Kingdom'? I've tried reading the help guides but it's mostly about to tag your articles at the bottom, and I've no problem with that.

Thanks.Penguin2006 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Penguin, welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at Category:Geology of the United Kingdom none of the categories Geology of ... are sub-categories to it but they are all sub-categories of the sub-category Category:Geology of Great Britain.  Confused, I certainly am; now it maybe to do with the whole thorny area of what constitutes the UK and does it include Ireland.  I'd be inclined to steer clear of that but be assured that Category:Geology of Northern Ireland is in the category tree of Catgeory:Geology of the UK but at a level further removed than might be expected. NtheP (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks, I see what you mean. I was confusing pages with categories since they are both named almost the same.


 * I agree, the whole 'where is Northern Ireland, in the UK or in the GB or in Ireland?' question is just confusing, never mind thorny - and I live here. As far as I know, Northern Ireland is neither in GB, nor Ireland (politically), so of course those are the only two categories it's put in at the bottom of Category:Geology of Northern Ireland. But there seems little point in changing it as it does its job.


 * I'm starting to understand categories better now, thank you. And thanks for editing my wikilinks above in my question. I didn't know how to do that - I've been adding hyperlinks each time I want to link to categories, even in articles. I'm off to edit those now. Cheers. Penguin2006 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad we could help. If you have any more questions, you know where to find us. Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Citing a State Constitution
Hello Tea Folk!- How does one cite a state constitution? Example, if I were to be doing an article on the constitution of any US state, how would I cite their constitution? Do I need to, as it is a public document?? ThanksCoal town guy (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. These are primary sources. They can be used to illustrate claims being made in secondary sources but any interpretation or anayslis requires a relaible source, previously published to make any claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the text of the state constitution is available online, it would be great to add an external link to the online version. Amadscientist is correct - you can't analyze the document yourself, but you can cite regognized legal experts who have commented on it.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can do that easy. BUT, If I were to state Article 1, of state x's constitution says, etc etc etc, Would I use the web site as the source of quotation from the document?Coal town guy (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not quite understand what you are all getting at. How do I quote a Constitution Article x, section 9 verbatim?? Do I type out the verbatim text, and then ref it with the state websites maintained copy? The interpretation would of course be a legal or historical sourceCoal town guy (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. In order to even mention a section of the constitution you need a reason to summarize the content and put it in the proper context. We do not just copy content from one source to the article. A reliable secondary source must have already made some previously published comment or claim. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not answering my question.You are quoting policy and telling me to have a nice day. AGAIN, I do not want to stick a copy of a state constitution on a page and call it an article. I want to be able to quote sections of it as I provide analysis using only reputable sources. Tell you what, DONT answer, I will figure it out. Thanks so much for inspiring another Wikipedian to contributeCoal town guy (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again CTG. Two editors have attempted to answer your question based on what you asked. There is no need to become unfriendly here. If you are not getting the answer you believe you need, perhaps you could just rephrase the question and be more specific to what you are looking for.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unable to perform this sort of locution. I appreciate everyones time. Thanks for helping. I am willing to accept I have bad grammar, perhaps even bad language skills, but when I ask, I want to quote a State Constitution in the context of a properly written article that would be about said constitution, how di I properly cite the text. I got, this is a not a respository...and dont analyze it your self which would be original research. Would the replies above help you, if you were me? AND Would you think it rude?Coal town guy (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Grammer, language skill and even spelling are not an issue. Heck dude...I can't spell worth crap. LOL! Sreiously. But, we clearly have not answered the question to your satisfaction and that concerns me greatly. Give me a moment and I will look further into the issue for you.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I very much appreciate the effort by all here and I have had many positive experiences here. I have left a message ion your page with I hope a more clear question. I am beyond impressed that you took the time, to see, I am not the world only living heart donorCoal town guy (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I am able to see, there are refs to a state web site, there are refs to a pdf, there are no refs etc etc, all of this, goes to quoting the specific constitution of a specific state. Its not a copy, its not a repository, is there an offcial method? I looked at the MOS, I also look at CITE, no real answers there pertaining to a specific state constitutionCoal town guy (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talkpage to the best of my ability. A bit complicated but I would recommend using other GA or FA articles as an example to work from.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * MUCh appreciate that, means a lot that you took the timeCoal town guy (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Content menu
I have been looking around, but i don't seem to be able to find a way on how to display a content menu on the wiki page, like the one on |50 cent page, he has the content menu nearly at the top of his page. Spikerok (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Spikerok. The table of contents will display automatically when you have more than three section headings (==Like this==). If you have fewer than three sections, you can still create a contents table by adding the code  (two underscores on each side) to the top of the page. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  23:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If there are at least 3 sections, it'll be displayed automatically! You can use magic word _TOC__ too. See WP:TOC for details. --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you guys for help! Spikerok (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Videos
hi, newbie here. I have a question..Is it possible to add youtube videos into a page? (Dinisabila (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dinisabila, welcome to the Teahouse. Technically it's possible but caution has to be displayed about copyright. Much content on Youtube  is copyright violation and therefore should be avoided in line with Wikiepdia's policies on content being free.  You can find out more at WP:YOUTUBE. NtheP (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are certain that you are linking to the official, authorized YouTube channel for an organzation or individual, and you are adding it as an external link in the article about that organization or individual, then it is acceptable. If there is any doubt, assume that the risk of copyright problems is high, and avoid linking. Thanks for asking.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm new how to contribute?
I would like a movie I'm watching to Hoagy Carmichael pages. Can I do this from iPhone ? I don't see a tab at the top of the page that says edit. I don't see any tabs other than the menu. How do I add this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriWiggins (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Henri, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Unfortunately, there isn't a really good editing capability for mobile devices like iPhones yet. People are working on it, but it isn't quire there yet.  So sadly, you're probably better off waiting until you're in front of  areal computer.  If you really want to, though, you can try to switch to the desktop site, which should give you an edit tab as usual.  There should be a link somewhere on the page (I think it's at the very bottom of the page).  It'll still be pretty clunky and awkward (I've done it myself, and it's...less than awesome), but it does at least function.  Hope this helps! Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can ask User:Vanischenu who has experience of editing from mobile, and he did it well! --Tito Dutta (contact) 21:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you enforce WP:ADMINACCT ?
I usually edit in an other wiki and we have problems enforcing accountability for admins. When we ask them questions about their admin activities, they threat us to block. Other admins also back each other or they do not risk criticizing each others wrong actions. Do you have any suggestions we can avoid tyranny of majority there? sicaspi (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to English Wikipedia and Teahouse! Which Wikipedia? Could you provide examples? You can report it at Meta! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems, it is Persian Wikipedia, where you are blocked and you can not edit your talk page too for talk page abuse! I'll see if I can ask someone from Persian Wikipedia to have a look here! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My question is a general question. I think we need some reliable mechanisms which protects the questioning of admin actions but I donno what it can be. --sicaspi (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

We have a committee there similar to the Arbitration Committee here and I'm also a member. It would be a good idea for you to take a look at the regulations there to fill out a complaint. -- Nojan (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do not want to complain for every single issue. This should not cause a problem. This is kind of a behavioural issue and is related to editing culture. Also, the fact that this committee has only 1 non-admin member among its 7 members sheds doubt on its effectiveness. --sicaspi (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the same case in here and most arbitration committee members are admins! But here is not the best place to complain about your problem. You have to wait till your account is freed, then refer your case to the committee in your local Wikipedia. Then, if you still think no justice has been served, you can refer the case to the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope I made it clear for you. -- Nojan (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not COMPLAIN. I just asked a general question and did not even mention wiki fa. Do you see any reference to any specific wikipedia in my words? It was dear user:Titodutta who referred it to Fa wiki. By the way, my question is still unanswered. --sicaspi (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Folks, isn't this discussion more appropriate for WP:AN?--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a common thing that if you don't give details in question, another editor will do some studies to find those details himself. The answer is either post at that Arbitration Committee or meta! But, I can not understand the abuses you mentioned. And I did not receive any email from you which I have posted at my talk page. --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, sicaspi. This is a question and answer board for inexperienced users on English Wikipedia.  This is not really the proper forum for you to be raising these issues.  You have been directed by several other editors to more appropriate forums for this discussion.  I am going to ask you kindly to drop this here, go to one of the many places that have been suggested to you to get the help you need, and let us return to doing what it is we are here to do.  Thank you very much, and I wish you luck in resolving your issue. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

referencing
hi i'm a newbie to wikipedia editing, how do you reference the correct way in wikipedia? (Dinisabila (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! The best way to cite sources is to user the  tag. Inside the ref tags, you can in theory put anything you want to stand for the reference, but it's best to use templates like Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, or the all-purpose Template:Citation.King  Jakob  C2 16:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All further explained at Referencing for beginners.--ukexpat (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Category Question: Category:People educated at Chatham House Grammar School
Hi there, I've used this category on an article about Matt Dunn (author) but when it's been created in the category he's being shown alphabetically by first name whereas everyone else is listed by surname. What have I done wrong? G2003 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!G2003 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of other readers the page needed a template like this .--Charles (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking it's a magic word not a template.--ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Tagging for lack of notability
Dear Editors: I found a page Kokomo Bros about a band that has no references and doesn't indicate that they did anything particularly notable. I wanted to use Twinkle to put a tag on the page to this effect, but when I tried, the banner comes up and says that it shouldn't be used on articles. (What else needs notability?}. So I thought that I could use the Page Curation tool, but it doesn't appear in the toolbox at left.  What should I do?  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * An tag includes the implication that the article does not comply with WP:Notability because notability is based on the article citing proper sources. Roger (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Anne D; have another crumpet!
 * According to the documentation for notability : "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is..." — I don't know why Twinkle doesn't understand that.
 * ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems like the page have been deleted by Yunshui. Ushau97  talk  contribs 11:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that worked even better than the tag! Thanks, Yunshui.  Does anybody know why the Page Curation tool is not showing up in my toolbox any more?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Hey Anne. The page curation tool only works with articles that are logged as being created within the past 60 days. If you look at any article outside that framed period, the link does not appear in your toolbox. I suspect this is what's going on with you here. For a quick way to check that it's working, see if the link appears when you look at articles listed at Special:NewPages. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If the page is within that period and you are not able to see it, that might be because someone have already patrolled the page. Or you may click on the link on the left hand side of the page. At Toolbox there will be a link Curate this article. Try clicking on it. -- Ushau97 talk  contribs 12:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also please remember to sign at the end of your posts. I have done it for you at the top. -- Ushau97 talk  contribs 12:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there is no such item as "Curate this page" listed under Toolbox on my screen, even when I click on an item listed in the New Pages Feed. However, the toolbar on the right does show up then.  I know that at one time there was an item in the toolbox on the left, because I had to use it when I accidentally closed the toolbar on the right.  At least I know now that it is only for new pages.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this happen for only one page or all the new pages listed at NewPages. If it is only for one particular page please specify which page it is -- Ushau97 talk  contribs 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I went to the New Page Feed and tried a number of articles, both reviewed and unreviewed, and still no "Curate this page" on the left. A bug, perhaps? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When you open a page and see the curation toolbar there will be no link. If you close the toolbar then the toolbox link to "curate this page" should appear. This makes sense because the only function of the link is to open the toolbar, so the link serves no purpose once the toolbar is open. If, however, you're closing the toolbar and the link is not then appearing, that is a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
 * Thanks again. I was afraid to close it in case I couldn't  get it back.  It's too bad that the Page Curation is only for new pages.  A lot of pages older than that seem to need review.  Anyway, problem resolved.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, again, Anne! Twinkle has the capacity to put a speedy deletion template on a page.  It is the tab marked "CSD".  I cannot see the article because it has been deleted and I am not an Admin, but if it went away so fast, I am guessing that Yunshui thought it met the speedy qualification "A7", unremarkable musician or band.  Any unreferenced BLP (and articles about groups of people, such as bands, fit in there too), you can use the "PROD" tab in Twinkle and put a "BLPPROD" on it.  That will also get someones attention quickly.  A lot of the options that are available with page curation are also available with Twinkle.  You can also use to Twinkle to leave a welcoming message for new users, which is a great thing to do. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the eponline user right?
Just asking this out of curiosity, but I've seen a few users with eponline as a user right and was curious what it means. WP:UAL doesn't list it. Cheers. Andrew327 06:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, ep-online is a special user right for people in the Education program (EP), it allows them to add or remove online ambassadors for courses. There are quite a few special user rights for the EP. They're outlined at User access levels. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My post is not live!
Hi, can anyone guide me how to post the article in a way so that the article can be viewed as wiki article not as " User:User Name/sandbox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia..... help me please!

Shruti Malviya (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey,Shruti Malviya. Welcome to the Tea House. See there's a template at the top of your sandbox. The last line of the template contains

Click the link here. It'll take that article to the WP:AFC. There, a user or reviewer will review that article. If he/she thinks the article is okay then it'll be accepted, or else it'll be declined. Then you can improve your article.
 * If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here.

If you do not want to go to WP:AFC then I tell you a way. search for your article at the search box. if no article exist the searchbox will show a redlink. The redlink will be your search. the click the redlink and click. Hope this helps.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 06:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see this question was asked at a few different places and by way of the Help me template. I have posted a reply on your talk page Shruti Malviya.Moxy (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * thnx ppl....

Shruti Malviya (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Help required with creating pages that explain some undocumented musical scales.
hi i need feedback from someone with knowledge of music theory. Musoalert (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have an intermediate level of music theory understanding. What do you need to know?  Powers T 22:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out LtPowers, but don't forget to drop off a notification on the editors page so that they know you are attempting to answer their question with:

--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I just need to figure out where I can find that code for copying and pasting. =)  Powers T 23:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorporate an article into a section of another
The article Adaptive stepsize was flagged with multiple issues, so I took a look.

At the moment, the article mainly talks about the adaptive step method used for solving ordinary differential equations. Some other methods for solving ODEs, such as Euler's method and its variations, are being discussed under Methods in Numerical ordinary differential equations. I'd like to write up an introduction to the adaptive size method for solving ODEs in Numerical ordinary differential equations and have Adaptive stepsize redirected there.

I am a new editor, could anyone please tell me whether this is allowed and is sensible to do? How can I delete the original wiki article and redirect it to the section of the other article? Thanks. Hattoriace (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The simple answer is, yes.

The detailed answer: This would be a bold merge. The article actually has the wrong template. There are no references. This also appears to be a rather obscure subject and article so it should be unconvoversial. On Wikipedia, articles may be boldly merged without any proposal taking place, though it is recommended where the merge is expected to be controversial. If you boldly merge an article and it is reverted, this should be considered part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not undone until discussion takes place—do not edit war. Happy editing--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * More detail. When you do this, you need to attempt to salvage whatever you can from the article and merge that content first before you write and additional, original prose. When doing this you must state in the edit summar: "merging content from [article A] to [article B]" (which is, of course, the article you are merging the content into). This is a requirement to attribute the previous work of the other editors. Then I suggest attempting to find some reliable sources even for your own new content if it is anything more than simple math.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, Amadscientist! The main reason for me to want to merge Adaptive Stepsize with Numerical ordinary differential equations is that the adaptive stepsize method is an improvement of Euler's method so it makes a lot of sense to put them together. But I see now that Euler's Method has its own article. Also, the methods being discussed under Numerical ordinary differential equations contain much lower level of details than Adaptive Stepsize. So salvaging the majority of Adaptive Stepsize during a merge of these two would be rather tricky (and ugly). On second thought, I will work on the Adaptive Stepsize ariticle to improve its quality and also add an introduction to the method under Numerical ordinary differential equations which will link to Adaptive Stepsize by "For more details on this topic, see Adaptive Stepsize method." Thank you again as your comments were insightful! Hattoriace (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A friend wants to change an article about his father.
Hi.

A friends father died four years ago and someone has written an article about him here on Wikipedia. This article has one mistake and is very brief. Can my friend write his own article about his father to replace the existing one?

This is the current article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Leadbetter

Thanks in advance - Simon Szimon (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon,


 * I don't believe that would be a problem, as long as he cites his sources and strongly avoids having a conflict of interest. Unfortunately his (probably extensive) personal knowledge can not be used as a source.  I'd also recommend perhaps rewriting or changing the current article rather than writing an entirely new article, as the original author might be a bit miffed to see all his work removed.  Again, some people would advise against it, and I'd say it's only worth it if your friend knows he can be impartial on the subject and cite proper sources. —Strachkvas (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon, welcome to the Teahouse. First off, I think it would be a much better idea to focus on improving the current article rather than starting from scratch; starting from scratch is only a good idea when the current article is a mess. The current article isn't great, but it's adequate. Your friend is welcome to edit the article, but he should be mindful to cite reliable sources and be extremely careful editing where he has an obvious conflict of interest. Let me know if you have further questions. Happy editing, Go   Phightins  !  22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In addition I have seen few editors making edit request to avoid conflict of interest. --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone may edit the existing article, even the subject and family members and friends. That in itself is not a problem, but if you become disruptive, edit inaccurate information or remove accurate and well sourced content then the editor will stand in conflict of interest with the goals of Wikipedia. Editors that are extremly close to the subject should take extreme care with their edits to avoid any perception of impropriety.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User page help
I wish to enhance my user page but am unsure how to do so. If anyone is willing to help i would appreciate it. Hyleasia (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome back to the Teahouse! I believe you are looking for the Userpage design center. I'm not an expert in coding and whatnot, but you are welcome to copy the code off of my user page if you want and I am sure most others wouldn't mind either. Go   Phightins  !  20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I will have a look at the design page. :) Hyleasia (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Referencing
Are there any specific ways of referencing on Wikipedia i.e. Harvard, etc.? --JoeyFox91 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good question. No there are not (although bare external links without tags are discouraged). The guidance is that reference formatting should be consistent within an article and one style should not be changed to another for reasons purely of personal taste. Take a look at referencing for beginners for further assistance.--ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ukexpat JoeyFox91 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Referencing
When adding any information to a page does it all have to be properly referenced?Mattehhh (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse! When in doubt you should reference, however most people agree that you don't need to reference the obvious. — nerdfighter 17:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYKcheck
I tried purging my cache and stuff, but my DYkcheck just disappeared from the toolbox. I have already bypassed the browser repeatedly and the scripts still in my vector.js. Can help? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 14:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bonkers, try removing it from your vector.js page. Save, purge, re-add and re-bypass and see if it reappears. NtheP (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it was a problem in your common.js page. I went ahead and fixed it; it should be working now. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you check my Commons and vector jss pages too (vector.js page is now blank)? For some reason, a good number of scripts are not working including the Teahose talkback scripts! Tito Dutta (contact)--23:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that should do it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 05:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! (Gonna try the TB right now at your talk page)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Administrator
How many edits are required to become administrator? Farhajking (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no rule stating that you need to have made edits more than a particular count. The English Wikipedia has no official requirements you must meet to become a Wikipedia administrator. Anyone can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience. Administrators are expected to uphold the trust and confidence of the community, however, so requests for adminship from users who do not have considerable experience are not usually approved. Each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way. Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for at least several months, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. If you are trying to become one, then you have still got a long way to go. Thanks, -- Ushau97 talk  contribs 10:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty zen question... in response, I offer the koan of WIkipedia adminship: the more you want to become an admin, the longer it will take. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no specific edit count needed to be an admin. However, candidates with under 3,000 edits tend to fail spectacularly, and candidates with under 5,000 edits are in for a very difficult time. However, candidates with 20,000 or more edits have been known to fail.King Jakob  C2 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Farhajking. The essentials are covered above but I thought you might be interested in some pages that describe requirements/expectations for adminship in detail. Please see Guide to requests for adminship, Advice for RfA candidates and Administrators. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Professional profile creation on WIKI
Hi Guys,

I wanted to create my own page describing my technical profile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chady_Maalouf) and so I did. How can I publish it on WIKI and make it "verifiable" if the only reference in this case is no one else but me.

Best Regards, Chady Maalouf. Chady Maalouf (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Chady,


 * Unfortunately, autobiographical material on Wikipedia is generally discouraged due to possible conflicts of interest, and if unsourced would be subject to deletion. Articles should rely on secondary sources primarily—if none exist, then the content probably doesn't belong in an online encyclopedia.  Thanks for your effort to contribute, but this sort of material might be better suited to another site.  Sorry!


 * —Strachkvas (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Chady. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn; you do not need to provide a professional profile. Doing so is, in fact, not permitted; your userpage as it stands breaks the rules on userpage use and is likely to be deleted before very long. If you want to get your CV out there for employers to find, there are many websites for that very purpose - Wikipedia is not one of them. Self-promotion here is simply not allowed; if that's all you're here for, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The following two paragraphs were on the end of the next section, "Date of Birth | Place of Birth", but I think they were intended to be here, so I have moved them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally understand your points of view especially regarding the references, but WIKI promotes other people (mostly famous ones) profiles and was just wondering why not promoting regular people's profiles (maybe by creating a dedicated section in WIKI) and surely by getting all needed references to backup stated info (i.e. certificates)

just an idea I had and thought it would be worth the discussion. I am not really here to promote my professional profile since I already do that on dedicated websites.

193.227.170.247 (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, 193.228. No, Wikipedia does not promote anybody or anything, except maybe itself and the Wikimedia Foundation. Subjects have articles precisely because they have already been written about. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Date of Birth | Place of Birth
I know the date of birth and the place of birth but cannot provide an online citation - how does one satisfy a tag that says provide a citation? SistaSu (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse... One satisfies the tag that says provide a citation by.... Providing a citation! ;) Sprry, but we need these citations to verify the information. Happy editing. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 06:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bonkers :) it's hard to get on-line verification on DOB info but point taken. SistaSu (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you provided more information SistaSu, we might be able to asist you. Which BLP article is this inregards to? I have some experience with difficult and controversial birth dating. Not much but a little.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) welcome! Although... It need not be an online source. We accept offline sources as well, such as books or magazines. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 07:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Bonkers pretty much answered my question Amadscientist - the article is not controversial just the notable person is still alive and I was wanting to improve it by providing a citation and I found that there is no where on the internet and that includes books or magazines where it is documented so I guess the tag stays there until he dies and then it will probably be available on line then. Thank you again for your help - this is a great place for newbies :) SistaSu (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed the point that a source 'does not have to be online - try looking in actual paper books, magazines or newspapers. Roger (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes agreed. Could you give us the name of the article in referral? I could try to find some sources. You never know, somewhere deep in the cabbage patch lies a gold bar. So a source is bound to be somewhere.... Just takes a little digging. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 07:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A record of birth exists for nearly everyone. Birth certificates can be located to verify the information and while they generally cannot be used as an inline citation (as many have too much personal data) they are documentation that is easily verified.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redacted birth certs? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 07:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are asking there Bonkers, but I suppose I am an exapmle of someone who does not have a birth record from the time I was born as it was destroyed in a fire that burned the hospital down.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is very kind of you all - as this is an article that I am interested in I have exhausted the on-line sources - there are a number of issues that need to be sorted and I am just starting from the top with DOB and working my way down to improve the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Thomas_(academic)SistaSu (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And if a reliable reference cannot be found, the date of birth should be removed from the article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Colin - if a reliable reference is not found I will do that - I just did not want to remove content without at least trying hard to find a reference source. SistaSu (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Who to contact about a deleted talk page
Dear editors: I was looking at the article Barnraisers and I found that most of the links did not work. I stated tagging them, and wanted to make a report on the Talk page. There was a banner on the talk page that it had been deleted (2007), and it seems that the page had been deleted and recreated. The banner said to contact the administrator, but that administrator is retired. Is there someone else that I should contact instead? The band was probably notable enough if the references originally were good. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Anne. Have you contacted ALL the administrators involved in this rather complicated mess?  If not, maybe a Teahouse host that is an Admin would look into it for you.  There is still a live reference to a newspaper, which to be honest I didn't read, so it is quite possibly still notable.  The biggest worry for me is that the band may no longer be together, as there own website is now dead making this article stale and in need of updating.  have you tried doing some websearching to try to fix some of the broken links? Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the article under WP:CSD. It was a near identical copy to the version considered at Articles for deletion/Barnraisers, as endorsed at Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. About contacting an administrator: how do you know which editors are administrators?  The reason I keep coming up with these weird questions is that I've been looking at the New pages feed, but at the oldest unreviewed pages, so most of the straightforward cases are already reviewed.  One more thing - should I be asking questions about reviewing here (I really am new at it), or is there a help area that is aimed at reviewers?  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Anne, if you install the NavPopUps gadget (in your preferences), when you hover your cursor over a user's name (assuming it is Wikilink), it shows their user rights, number of edits and when their account was created.--ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Anne. I know this is all moot now, but for your future reference, if you click on the redlink for a deleted article, one of the things that will show up is its deletion history, which will show every deletion and the admin that did  it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on my article
Hello fellow Teahousers. I created my first "real" article with "real" sources. I acted in good faith by requesting deletion after creating my first article about my middle school. I did create an article called Academy of Chinese Culture and Health Sciences, which you can take a look at if you want. I may act in good faith by requesting deletion. Also, I created a minor airport stub called Uru Harbour Airport. Never mind those, I'll get to the point. This is a national children's television show called Noodle and Doodle. Can you please give me feedback on that article? Feel free to look at the other articles if you want. Thank you. JHU bal  27 • Talk •E-mail 03:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, JHUbal27. I was in the process of approving Noodle and Doodle When TBrandley approved it, and I too would have rated it as a start class.  I am not familiar with WikiProject Television criteria for a higher rating than that, but generally to get an article up to "C" you need both more content and more references, which is kinda hard to do with a TV show with such a short history.  Possibly instead of just a listing of the episodes and air dates as you have now, add a synopsis to it? (Assuming you can reference it).  I made a comment at the AfD discussion for Academy of Chinese Culture and Health Sciences, you can see those for my comments at that.  As for the airport, things that are a "feature of the landscape" such as mountains, rivers, roads, and airports are notable as long as you can show at least one reference to its existence.  That reference would usually be a primary source such as the US governments official list of place names, but a secondary source such as the pilot's guide you cited should be enough for now.  i would attempt ot find the official listing for it, but It is a keeper, without a doubt. A stub, but that is ok, because very simply, some subjects just never have enough information available to rise above a stub.  Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just NAC'd (non-admin closure) the Afd as Keep.--ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Style of quotation marks?
Dear Editors: I was looking at a page Anti-American sentiment in Russia on the New pages feed. Everywhere where I would use "quotation marks", the article uses «these characters». Is this a different kind of acceptable quotation marks, or should I change them? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the relevant guideline here would be MOS:PUNCT I believe, so it probably should be changed. TBrandley (what's up) 23:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That sign is generally used in Russian, Ukrainian, which is generally not used in English Wikipedia and AWB sometimes correct it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do it not while I remember. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The « » symbols are quote marks in languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet, so please go ahead and replace them. Roger (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Procedure for removal of tags at start of article?
Last month, I noticed that the article on Yin yoga had several tags at the start of the article (see below). I have dona a major re-write in which I believe I have addressed all of these issues. Is there some standard way of inviting some other editor to have a look and see if the tags could be removed? And to get feedback to improve the article?

The tags: "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (April 2011) This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (April 2011) This article may contain original research. (April 2011) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (April 2011)

Many thanks. EMP (talk 17:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the question. If you think the issues have been resolved, you can remove the tags, but please explain why you are removing them, either in an edit summary or, preferably, on the article's talk page. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Early morning person. You could start a new section on the article talk page proposing that they be removed and see if anyone disagrees after a couple of weeks. If you are sure you have removed the problems you can just boldly remove the tags.--Charles (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Ukexpat and Charles, for the fast and very helpful response. EMP (talk 19:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Rheem
I work at Rheem, the company whose article I just linked to. A colleague of mine has expressed his interest in adding a non-encyclopedic reference to himself in the article, see these edits:. He then created an account for himself (User:Jtcrowder49) and made a further edit, adding back his non-encyclopedic information.

Due to real life thingies, I'm loathe to actually revert and report him myself - but I know that the article needs to be watched carefully for the next hour or so, until he loses interest. —Kierkkadontalk/contribs 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to TeaHouse! A recent edit has been reverted and a "refimprove" tag has been added! I am not sure of its notability either! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has been deleted for failing to meet Notability, the issue is thus moot. Roger (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it has been taken to Deletion Review. Roger (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How can I edit an article's title?
Your article on "Patrol 35" (about neo-Nazis in Israel) is incorrectly titled - it should be Patrol "36"; I've edited the text within the article, but the title is remaining the same! Some of the references given within this article also make the same mistake, calling the respective group "Patrol 35", so please don't look at just those references cited therein - if one checks the group's name by doing a general search outside of Wiki (e.g., by using Google), one can see that virtually all of the search results come up with Patrol 36.

The other important point about Patrol 36 (versus Patrol 35) is that 36 (the number) is twice 18 - in effect, the name "Patrol 36" reflects the fact that it is the second style of group built along the lines of the neo-Nazi group Combat 18 (but is not a scion thereof, such as White Wolves): two times 18 is 36! (Not, of course, 35... To find out why "18" is so central to neo-Nazi ideology, check out Wiki's own article on Combat 18.)

In any event, your advice as to how to alter an article's main title (not just the header) would be much appreciated.

Totenschadel (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Totenschadel. Welcome to the Teahouse. Page titles can only be changed by slightly more established editors with an account 4 days old and 10 edits of any type. When you have reached that level you will be able to use the "move" tab at the top of the page. There are complications caused by moving page titles so it is usually a good idea to start a new discussion thread on the talk page of the article concerned to get a consensus for the move. This is reached by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the page and selecting "new section". Wait several days to allow other editors to comment before making a page move and be sure that the proposed title is consistent with the references for the article. Happy editing!--Charles (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for pointing out it. An editor has moved that page from Patrol 35 to Patrol 36 per this question. Thank you ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Was/Is
Hi, I'm working on a userspace draft of an article. It's about a railroad of which only part of which still exists. So should I say The Susquehanna, Bloomsburg, and Berwick Railroad is a railroad... or The Susquehanna, Bloomsburg, and Berwick Railroad was a railroad...? Thanks

King Jakob  C2 00:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Heya King jakob. For most things from the past which don't exist anymore, we use the past tense when discussing them.  There are a few edge cases which are not always readily apparent, but make sense when you look at them, but the example you have mentioned isn't one of them.  So as to not confuse you with those oddities, in the case you gave, the word "was" is appropriate because the company doesn't exist anymore.  From my point of view, though some of the tracks exist, they aren't owned by the company anymore, so it would be like a business that was housed in a building.  If the business went bankrupt and stopped operating, descriptions of the business itself would use "was", but descriptions of the building would use "is" (presuming the building still exists).  Likewise with the railroad, discussions of the railroad company should (as you do already) use "was", while descriptions of any extant track, when discussing the actual track itself, should use "is".  Does that work?  -- Jayron  32  00:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How do I create a redirect?
i ant to know. and i just took a WikiBreak, and i'm back now!SmartyPantsKid, Signing off. 22:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartyPantsKid (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome! To make a redirect just create a new page, then fill it in with #REDIRECT (article name). — nerdfighter 23:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * N.b, additionally, see WP:REDIRECT for details about how the whole kit and kaboodle actually works, as well as best practices and such. —Theopolisme (talk )  04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)