Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 9

Question about editing
Recently, I edited "War in Heaven" using references, in which I explain how the early Jews were polytheistic, the origins of Lucifer, and how logically a war in heaven would be impossible considering the attributes of heaven. This was deleted, and I am no longer able to edit this page. Why?

These are subjects I teach, and the references are sound, so why would this information not be available on the post that I edited?Aisforatheist (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Aisforatheist. If you go to the article talkpage you will see the reasons given for reverting your edits. You can argue your case there in an attempt to reach consensus. To me your edits looked rather like editorialising rather than reporting referenced facts.--Charles (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Aforathiest! Thanks for coming by the Teahouse. I know that editing Wikipedia can be pretty stressful, especially if you are a scholar or someone pretty knowledgeable about a subject - I have my subjects, that is for sure. One thing you have to remember about Wikipedia: always remain neutral and always cite your sources with a secondary source (like a peer reviewed publication, magazine, or newspaper). I know it isn't easy, but, like most scholarly writing, we have to remain just that - neutral and in the middle. I hope this helps a bit! We're glad you're here - just stick with that policy and remember: your contributions are valuable! Sarah (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you change the rating on the quality scale of an article?
Two of my classmates and I cleaned up and expanded on the topic of corrective rape. It was previously rated as a "stub" by the LGBT and South African project pages. How do these ratings get changed? The page is beyond a stub now. Thank you for your help. Rachelpop- (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rachelpop, welcome to the Teahouse. That's a lot of effort you and your classmates have put in on this article, thanks and congratulations.  To have it re-assessed leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies.  If it is rated B-class or below then anyone can reassess it but best to have someone with knowledge of the subject do it.  If anyone considers it to be better than B-class then they can nominate it for Good article status which involves a more detailed assessment against a set of criteria.  If you want to nominate it yourself you can do so at Good article nominations.  The criteria for all grades of assessment can be found at WP:Quality.
 * The physical mechanics of changing a displayed assessment grade are by going to the article talk page and editing the relevant template - in this case LGBT Wikiproject - and changing the class parameter to the appropriate grade. NtheP (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have one problem in table from Polish Wikipedia
Could somebody change in my sandbox (User:Mały koleżka/sandbox) in table "Plik:"-->"File:"? Manually is time consuming, and I can't use any scripts yet. Mały koleżka (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Maly, and welcome to the Teahouse! I have changed all the "Plik:" to "File:" with this edit. Note that you don't need to use a script (i didn't either), you can just use the search and replace button Search toolbar.png of your editing toolbar. benzband  ( talk ) 09:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I know something new, thanks! Mały koleżka (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What is a DKY nomination, and how does it affect an article page?
My article, developed and formatted on my sandbox, was moved to an article page yesterday. Does this mean that it's now a bona fide article? I ask because I notice that it is awaiting "DKY nomination." What does that mean?Jmolf (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean WP:DYK? If that, it is just a way of highlighting new articles on the front page of Wikipedia.  Articles need to either be new and at least 1,500 characters of prose or expanded five fold within in 5 days of nominating.  It doesn't impact the article much at all, other than potentially increase the number of editors (mostly for minor stuff) and increase page views. T:TDYK has more information on the process. --LauraHale (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * DYK stands for "Did you know" : it's a section on the main page. :-) benzband  ( talk ) 09:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jmolf! Welcome back to the Teahouse! I am SO happy to hear your article was nominated for DYK! That's pretty awesome. Congratulations! (Soon you'll be able to see it on the front page of Wikipedia for a few hours and it'll probably get a few thousand views!) Sarah (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC) How exciting! Will I be alerted when the Front Page offers my DYK? This has been a learning experience for me. I've made a number of bloopers along the way, and I'm grateful to you and the other editors for your patience and assistance. Confronting the process for the first time, I was overwhelmed by the number of things to know. Nothing in college, graduate school or decades of university teaching had prepared this technophobe for what he was about to encounter. Since I knew the subject of my article intimately, had all the information I needed, and was confident in my ability to write I decided simply to plunge in. I spent a week in fits & starts assembling my article in my user sandbox. In the process of doing so I acquired a deep respect for Wikipedia and the people who devote their time and knowledge to making it a valuable research tool. I hope someday to acquire the knowledge (and comfort level) to pitch in and do for others what you and your colleagues have done for me.Jmolf (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How to report vandalism?
What's the best way to report a page that has been vandalized? Is there a way to flag it, so it's on the radar of the CVU (Counter Vandalism Unit)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Grass

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BCnter_Grass&action=history

Thetilo (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Thetilo, sorry that there's been a problem with that article. The source of the vandalism appears to have been a single user.  As an administrator, I have the ability to block such users, and I have done so.  In the future, if the disruption is caused by such a single user, the correct place to report them is at Administrator intervention against vandalism.  If the vandalism is coming frequently, and from a wide range of people, then the page can be protected.  The place to request page protection is at Requests for page protection.  I hope this was helpful, and thanks again for bringing this to someone's attention.  -- Jayron  32  05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeating footnotes
(The box keeps vanishing before I get a chance to submit my question -- this is very weird!) Anyway, here I go again. I've been cleaning up this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beezus_and_Ramona. When I use the same citation for more than one footnote each one is getting a different number and they are printing out multiple times in the reference section. I feel sure this isn't right. How do I fix this? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Tlqk, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can use the same citation in different areas of the article. Before the citation, put before the citation, like this::Perry's Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill Co., 1984

To use the same citation, simply put where you want to cite different text with the same reference. You can read Help:Footnotes for more information. Hope this helps! --   Luke      (Talk)   00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect example! Seeing it written out showed me what I was doing wrong. And I appreciate the link. I'd tried to find it, but wasn't having any luck. Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

my article was declined at articles for creation
i really admire what you guys have got goin on here, and i'll be glad if you helped me get my article on. I'll answer any question you ask me in order to help create this article.. thank you DeyCallMeKaySo (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It will help if you post a link to it so people can read it and see what the administrators are saying. Don't get discouraged, there are some very helpful people here. Tlqk56 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kay-So is the only AfC he has edited, I'm going to guess that it is what he is referring to...if I'm wrong, please let me know. :) Now, DeyCallMeKaySo (are you the person in the article?), the main reason I wouldn't accept your submission as it looks right now is because it isn't properly sourced. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable -- that's how we know we're accurate -- and right now you only have three external links and all of them are just music tracks. Unfortunately, we need a bit more then that. Has this artist been written about in local news? Profiled in magazines, online or in newspapers? Those are really what you need. That should be enough to start you on the right track, although of course you can ask further questions.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  00:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

editing of Question Book box text
I have just completed editing "Subra Suresh" entry, but the Question Book box at the top of the entry remains unchanged and what it says about this bio of a living person is now out of date (Oct. 2009). How does this box get updated? Who updates it? LeeHerring (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Lee, and welcome! Thanks for pointing this out! I've removed the primarysources tag (see here) as the article no longer bears the same problems as when it was tagged. Note that you always be bold and edit yourself if such a problem occurs again. :-)
 * Also, when referring to a particular article you can link to it by surrounding the name in double brackets like this:, which gives: Subra Suresh. I hope that helps, just drop a line if you have any further questions. Cheers,   benzband  ( talk ) 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?
I've been looking over possible projects to tackle for the children's lit wikiproject, and a lot of them have this tag: Persondata templates without short description parameter. What does this mean? How would you go about fixing this, and is it something that you should only tackle if you really understand how to use the codes and such, or is it fairly easy to learn? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there Tlqk56, thanks for dropping by. Do you think you could give us an example of an article that you've seen this on, please? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Persondata is a template that contains information about people that can be automatically extracted and processed by cataloging tools and then used for a variety of purposes, such as providing advanced search capabilities, statistical analysis, automated categorization, and birthday lists (I'm quoting here from Persondata in case any of the other hosts think I've got some insight). Persondata is added to articles about people (only) and is not seen by users.  It contains a number of parameters - name, alternate name, date of birth, place of birth, date of death, place of death and short description.  The last is shorthand for what is this person famous for? e.g. actor, author, soldier etc.  The tag you have referred to shows entries were short description hasn't been completed.  There are a few of these to complete, according to Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter 524,000 in total!  So if you want to start feel free. All you need to do is edit each article and add a description to short description, you'll normally find the Persondata template towards the bottom of the article. NtheP (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ItsZippy If you go to this page you see the list I'm looking at. http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListing.php?project=Children%27s+literature. Here's an example of an actual page. (Picked randomly.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._M._Burrage


 * NtheP Would I be right in saying then that it means there's a standard template with blanks to fill in with info about the person, but not all the data is filled in? So they want you to check and see if you can find out more info and you just plug it into the right spot -- kind of like filling out a form?


 * Thanks to both of you for responding so quickly. Tlqk56 (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is exactly right. In your case, if you're mostly looking at children's authors, adding "children's author" (or something like that) would probably be enough. I hope that helps, let us know if you have any more questions. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to upload an image but am unable to!
I have been trying for hours to upload the logo for a charity onto the wikipedia page of the charity. It won't let me and I think that it is maybe because I am not a confirmed member - because my email link expired before I clicked it. I don't know who to get the email resent. If anyone who knows how to upload pictures could do it for me or tell me what I am doing wrong I would be very grateful! The wikipedia page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_to_africa

and the image is the logo: http://thepromota.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Cambridgelogo.jpg

Jennyelliott (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When you solve the technical question, you must also solve the FAQ/Copyright question. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have permission from the organisation to use the image

Jennyelliott (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Jenny, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! You're correct in that you have to be "confirmed" to upload pictures, but "confirmed" has a little different of a meaning on Wikipedia than it does on other sites.  It's not an email confirmation thing, so don't worry about that; you don't even need an email address for Wikipedia!  Instead, "confirmed" is a user right that we have put in place to help prevent some forms of image spam and vandalism.  Your account will become "autoconfirmed" (which is the same thing) once you've performed ten edits and four days after you created the account.  It looks like you've just hit that threshold (your tenth edit was the one where you requested confirmed), so if you try to upload the image again, it should work.
 * But just to reiterate what Jim.henderson said above, you should read our page about requesting the use of copyrighted material. To quote the first line of that page, To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone.  So, y'know, just be aware of that.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's great. But the problem remains that when I try to upload an image - the button that says Upload is not available to click on, only the button which says Reset Form Jennyelliott (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Are you sure you filled out all the required sections? Also, can you tell us which fields you are filling in?Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Children's Lit Project
I'm especially interested in children's lit, as I'm a grade school teacher who still loves to read it. I noticed there's a special children's literature project and I've read some about it, but it's intimidating to just jump in. If I pick a page to improve, and do the things that are suggested, what do I do with the page then? Is there a way to resubmit it or something? Or do you just leave it and assume someone will check it eventually?

Are there some guidelines on how to find and verify images that are free to use -- I notice the book articles usually have a picture of the book? But wouldn't some of those be under copywrite? You can't just use any picture, you want, surely.

Also, I think I saw somewhere a way to archive the links you use as references, so they don't disappear over time. Could someone direct me to that info, or explain it to me?

I think having a place like this is great. There's so much info and so many rules and acronyms and technical terms and such, I've really been afraid to try editing much, because it looks pretty overwhelming. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Tlqk56 and welcome. I am glad you like this space. Nobody is going to mind you making mistakes when you are new and acting in good faith. Be bold and make improvements you think necessary. You cannot break anything and nothing cannot be undone.


 * Some copyrighted images can be used under the fair use policy. You may find more expert advise on it at Media copyright questions. I do not know about archiving links. I hope someone else can advise on that.--Charles (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)--Charles (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Hi, Tlqk, thanks for dropping by. You don't need any permission to change a page, that's one of the great things about Wikipedia, so if there is an article that you would like to edit just jump in and do it.  If you make a lot of significant changes then leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature that an article could do with a review helps but it's not essential.  If it's an article tagged with something like cleanup required or needs wikifying etc and you've addressed those issues just delete the tag - it'll be towards the top of the article somewhere. If you are planning anything that might be contentious then discuss it at the article talk page first (is there anything contentious in children's literature other than Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorceror's Stone depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on?) but the vast majority of edits do not need to be discussed first.
 * You're right that a lot of the images are still in copyright and any old picture can't be used. For many books especially modern ones the only image, if there is one at all, is a picture of the cover used under the Non-free content criteria which basically says there are 10 criteria to be met for using a non free image and if all 10 aren't met then the image can't be used.  The main criteria being, is there a free version that could be used instead and does the image add to the understanding of the article.  If you want to use a non free image then it's up to you to justify that all 10 criteria are met so a through read of the criteria is useful before you try and use any non free images. Sorry to labour this point but more people fall foul of this and are probably lost to Wikipedia than anything else.
 * If you are linking to web articles then it's worth using the template Cite web for this and to include as a minimum the parameters title, url, work and accessdate; that way if the website is subsequently archived there is something to trace the original entry from. If it is something that has already been archived then the parameters archiveurl and archivedate can be used to refer to the archive.
 * Don't be afraid of editing or asking if you're unsure, there are a lot of processes and techie language that is thrown around and a lot of it is understood fully by very few so you'll be in good company. NtheP (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks NtheP. I regularly use Cite web but had not thought of that being part of its purpose.--Charles (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm going so save this info for later use -- not too much at all, but just right. Tlqk56 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

AFS
Good day !!! My article Eden Nature Park on AFC has been declined lately. I need help on how to make the article more encyclopedic... Thanks to all...QuecyKeith (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi QuecyKeith. Welcome. The language in the article is very "flowery" in nature and some of it looks as if it has been copy/pasted from a tourist site. We need to put just the facts without opinions and to reference those facts to reliable sources such as newspaper articles or government reports on the park. I hope this helps.--Charles (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. have a look at the section above regarding image formatting.--Charles (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand...thanks very much and GOD bless...I'll try to solve the issue later...--QuecyKeith (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Help PLEASE, I'm a newbie
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and I have an article I have been asked to submit. I would really like someone ( a reviewer - hopefully, a coach, a host or someone like that ) to look at the text before I post it. That way I won't waste reviewers time in declining it for acceptance.

I suspect it doesn't have enough 3rd party sources. I would like some objective feedback on IF the article is really appropriate for submission. I think it is, and it's probably a loooong way from that...Please advise how to proceed...It took me forever to even find the Tea House to ask the question...Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

BrooklyntrackerBrooklyntracker (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brooklyntracker, welcome to the Teahouse, I'm glad you found us! I think the best place to start here is for you to copy and paste what you have into your sandbox (paste into the box and click the save button,) and people can help you from there. If you've already posted your article somewhere, I can't find it. Would that work for you? heather walls (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is how you reply...Yes, I can do that...I did find the sandbox...I'll post it there now..THANKS... brooklyntrackerBrooklyntracker (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Brooklyntracker. I visited your sandbox and had a look at your article.  Nice start but it needs to be Wikified..  I edited your sandbox a bit to demonstrate Wikification.  I posted some specific suggestions to your Talk.  Hope I helped a little.DocTree (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who helped me get somewhat on the track here. This is more than my time allows at the moment and a lot of new information for me to handle. Thanks again and I am proud to be a supporter and user of Wikipedia.

BrooklyntrackerBrooklyntracker (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Using an image
I'm about done upgrading an article from a stub to something better, (I hope). I'd really like to add a photo of the woman, who is deceased. I've read about the process, and frankly most of what I've read is over my head. There is one photo of her available on the net, at Goodreads and again at the Princeton Library. It seems to me that using it would definitely fall under the fair use doctrine, but I have no idea how to go about proving that. Is there a form you download and fill out? Is there a step-by-step process for getting the photo onto the page? Or should I just skip it all together? Here's the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Dalgliesh. Thanks for your help, again. Tlqk56 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article needs multiple formatting corrections too. There is not any free image of that person in Google search, there is not any image in Commons too! That concludes part 1 of my answer.
 * Now, part 2, you can not understand those image uploading process related thing! Okay, okay, I'll try to describe in my own words! Suppose you took some images of a local festival you attended and then you uploaded those images to Picasa, Flickr or somewhere else. Now, actually you own the copyright of those images. Most of the people generally don't care about license or copyright, but, in Wikipedia, we do. So, if we want to use a photo you have taken, we'll follow these procedure:
 * We'll see the license information of your images, if you have allowed to use or share (which generally most of the people don't), we'll use those images with attribution (that is we'll mention how and where we hot the image and link your site with your confirmation page link).
 * If you have not allowed to use your images, we'll try to contact you and request you to allow to you use your images under creative commons license.
 * That is the general process. And there are some images which are too old, so, their copyright is expired!..... I'll stop here, see if you can understand what I tried to say, then we can continue again! --Tito Dutta (Message) 01:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. First of all, please tell me what formatting changes the article needs. I'm learning as I go along, and there is so much to do. But please don't leave me hanging like that.

I understand copywrite, and fair use, at least in schools. I'm a teacher, we deal with it all the time, though it may be different on the Web. I obviously cannot go back and take a picture of a dead person, I must use one already available. What I'm asking for is a clear description of how to go about doing that. Perhaps someone else would better be able to help me. I do not mean that as an insult, I really appreciate you're trying to help, but we don't seem to be communicating too well. And I really need to hear it in very plain English. Sorry, that's my shortcoming. Thanks anyway. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * About formatting changes, I did not mention the formatting changes, since this thread is not related to formatting of that article! I was planning to make some changes in that article myself, anyway.. If you understand copyrights (as you have said), upload an image which follows Wikipedia image upload guidelines Image_use_policy. There is not any freely licensed images in web, you need to collect from somewhere else (book, magazine, photo etc!) --Tito Dutta Message Contribution Email 01:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tlqk56! I guess you have a couple of options. First, I don't know the date of the image, but it may be out of copyright - I don't think the photo is pre-1923, which would make it public domain, but it is likely to have been first published pre-1964, so maybe the copyright wasn't subsequently renewed. Accordingly, I think you will find that the photo is ok.
 * If it is under copyright, and if a fair-use equivalent isn't available (normally because there would be no photos of her that are public domain, which seems a bit unlikely, but possibly the case), the best approach is to upload a photo to Wikipedia directly and add a Non-Free Use rationale. That will involve pasting:
 * into the image page, normally just under the description, presumably with the url to the page on Princeton's website as the source.
 * That said, I'd be a bit wary of this, as I think it can be argued that a free-use photograph would exist, and I suspect that the Princeton one is likely to be outside of copyright if we could track down where it came from. I'll do a bit of digging and see if I can find anything. - Bilby (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I'd be a bit wary of this, as I think it can be argued that a free-use photograph would exist, and I suspect that the Princeton one is likely to be outside of copyright if we could track down where it came from. I'll do a bit of digging and see if I can find anything. - Bilby (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I don't mean to make extra work for anyone, but I appreciate the help. Is there any straightforward way to finding out if an image is free-use or not? I'm trying to learn as much as I can about how this all works, but there really is a steep learning curve! Thanks for helping to fill me in. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is easy if you know when it was first published - in the US, anything published prior to 1923 is automatically in the public domain. Anything prior to 1964 is also public domain, if the copyright hasn't been renewed and if it had a copyright claim when first published. Anything prior to March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice is also public domain, as well as anything published by the US government at any time. The difficult bit is the 1923-1964 period, as you need to determine if copyright was renewed. That's a bit tricky, but there is a form available which will help - if it is in that database, then it is still under copyright.
 * Copyright is tricky. :) It get's worse if you are working with non-US works, in which case it needs to be free use in both the US and the country of origin in order to go on Commons. In my case that means I get some sticky problems when it is out of copyright in Australia, where I live, but in copyright in the US. (The gap is small, but I seem to run into it a lot).
 * Looking at the photo, I think we can reasonably surmise that it was pre-1964. So that's great, as it keeps it in the "possibly out of copyright" category. I'm not sure if she looks under 30, but if she is the photo is pre-1923. So the trick is to work out when it was first published, and if it was something that could have the copyright renewed. Maybe Princeton would help? - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My article for creation was rejected and I'm dejected. Can you help me please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Graduate_Institute

First time, I was told the article needed citations. I beefed up citations, even making them in line citations.

Now I'm told it reads like an advertisement. The only thing I can see in my article that looks like advertising is the mission statement, which by its very nature always sounds a little like advertising. Should I drop out the mission statement? Do you think the article will be accepted if I drop the mission statement?Conscioustwit (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Conscious - Wikipedians really like seeing independent sources in articles. The thing that would help your article the most is the addition of multiple (at least three) additional sources that are not self-published by the graduate institute and are not things like state documents. This would include things like news reports on the graduate institute, or books that mention the graduate institute. I looked around a bit and couldn't find very much that would work well, but I'm sure that some other people here have access to better sources than I do and may be able to help you out a bit more. If you can't find any yourself, one thing you could do is approach the graduate institute and ask them if they maintain a media file - a lot of places do, and that'd be a perfect way to dig up some stuff. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin. The issue of the rejection was 'advertisement' not independent sources. But speaking of independent sources, I would think that documentation from the state government would be considered more reliable than a newspaper article. The citation for state accreditation would best come from the state agency that accredits educational institutions rather than a newspaper article, no? Can someone help with my article being too much like an advertisement? Thanks!Conscioustwit (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I certainly wouldn't describe it as an advertisement, but I can see where the reviewer is coming from - because the article is relatively short, the focus is on the mission statement, and that is (by the nature of mission statements) very positive. :) Dropping that might help, but the other direction is to expand on the rest of the article - the issue to me is one of balance, and you can fix balance by removing the parts that have too much focus or by expanding the rest. What I'd love to see (just because of personal interest) is more on the Graduate Institute's history, but that may just be me. :)
 * In regard to the sourcing, it isn't so much a problem of reliability but of breadth. The referencing is great and very reliable, but the aim is also to show that the organisation has been noticed outside of its immediate area, and thus we need to look outside of government or other official channels. That shouldn't be too tricky depending on what can be found in the databases, and I'll do what I can to help out there.
 * Overall, though, I think you're doing a great job with the article, and the problems the reviewers are identifying are easily managed with a couple more sources - once it gets through the page creation process it will be a great addition to Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The reviewer did say that, but I don't really agree with the reviewer too much. I don't think it reads too much like an advertisement, it just needs some flushing out.  To me at least, the main thing that makes the article not look ready for the main encyclopedia space yet is the lack of secondary sources.


 * At Wikipedia, we have an idea of notability. The details get a little bit messy, but the basic idea is that a lot of Wikipedians think we should only have articles about things that have gotten some level of notice.  Usually what this means is that a secondary source, like a newspaper or journal or book or something has talked about it some.  State agencies are definitely great places to cite for stuff like whether or not a place has been accredited, but they don't really speak to whether or not a place has been noticed by other people. For a place like this, I bet it would be pretty easy to find sources like that, and I bet the institute could help you find them if you can't find them yourself.  And like Bilby said, the other great thing about sources like this is just that it'll fill out the breadth of the article, and make ie a more intriguing read for people :)


 * If you find some secondary sources and want help incorporating them in the article or something, feel free to drop a note on my talk page, I'm always happy to help out. If you get another version ready, I'll be glad to review it myself too if you'd like. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

categories boxes
I've been noticing that there's this 'Categories' box at the bottom of most articles; how do you insert one? Or do you not? Thank you. --Tropzax (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tropzax and welcome to the Teahouse! First, I'd suggest you to activate a fantastic tool Hotcat from your Gadgets section of 'My preferences', this is a very helpful tool to add, remove or change a category on a page. So after this, whenever you need to add category on any page, just click on  in this 'Categories' box. I hope this helps.  undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   00:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this helps a lot! --Tropzax (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Cite alternate soundtrack?
How does one (or does one?) cite, for example, a director's commentary from a DVD's alternate soundtrack? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Eric, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, you would cite the video using the template. Unfortunately, it's one of the pulldowns up above here where you see "Cite", so you'll have to add it yourself by following the directions for the template here. To be specific, in the "Type" field, you would enter where you found the information; for example, you might say "Director's commentary audio track". Another important field is "Time", where you can provide the time reference in the video when the specific information appears. Hope this helps!  -- McDoob  AU  93  21:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! -- I should be able to figure it out from here. :) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ...or maybe not. When you say "one of the pulldowns up above" does that mean before the 'pipe' delimiter? --> | ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think McDoob is assuming you have one of the gadgets enabled that puts citation in the pulldown menu. I don't know which one because I don't use it, but you can see all the parameters at cite video. NtheP (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That could be the case ... I've always seen it, but never really used it that much, so I may have assumed that everyone could see it. -- McDoob  AU  93  22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Vertical Bar?
I've read about how to set up a Wikilink with the vertical bar, so I don't have to use the exact name of the article in my writing. But I can't figure out where the vertical bar is on my keyboard. I've been cutting and pasting one from an example. Can someone tell me where it's hiding? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On both UK & US keyboards it shares a key with \ so [shift] + \ should do the trick. The sign is called the pipe. NtheP (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky one; the label on the keyboard doesn't look like the symbol. this is the key you're looking for. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for both your quick answers. It will definitely speed thing up. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Creating New Article about a Village
Hi, I just tried to start a article about a village, which is where I was born. & was really surprised when I couldn't find it already on wiki :). So i started the article, and submitted it but it is still showing on Wikipedia talk: AFC page from past 8 days, without any review or anythig.so can anybody help me to get it published. it name be Suhaval. atleast can anybody tell me this much time is normal or i have gone completely wrong with the procedure.Durgesh 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Durgesh! It's great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm happy you stopped by to see us at the Teahouse. The best place on Wikipedia to actually get faster help in reviewing your article is at the "official" Articles for Creation Help Desk. While we're happy to help you in regards to editing questions, suggesting improvements, and lending a general hand in making your wiki experience better, the folks at the AfC help desk are the official volunteer team for reviewing your article. So, stop by that help desk link and make sure you share a link to your article with the people there and they hopefully will take the time to review your article again. And of course, please visit the Teahouse if you're still having a hard time with anything or not having any luck. I'm glad you are here! Sarah (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. A really important aspect of editing Wikipedia is signing any comments you leave on talk pages or help desks. So, after you are done saying what you wish to say, be sure to write four tildes: ~ and then it'll sign your name for you! Thanks again for coming by! Sarah (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sarah: since the user used the JS helper tool (posting at the top), the costom signature will not link to the talk/user page; but is correctly using the four tildes! mabdul 23:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, mabdul, using tildes in the question box 'posting at the top' links to talk/user pages when I have used it. Perhaps you mean something else? If we want to have a conversation about this we should move it to the Teahouse talk page. Thanks for pointing this out if there's a bug we're unaware of! heather walls (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite correct: guess: why do my signature only link to my talk page if I use the four tildes? Yes, it is a custom signature, and if you remove the wikilink (to your user page and / or user talk page), then it won't show up, even if you use the 4 tildes (a common problem). mabdul 09:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

@Mabdul actually this signature thing has something to do with your personal setting, i also realized this and later found out that I had checked a box (something like is it your nick name?) and due to that it was not linking to my talk page, i corrected later :) Durgesh (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this promotional article allowed?
look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Orthopaedic_Associates

This appears to be an advertisement. If it is not, then why is a very factual, dispassionate article about Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic (their competitor) not allowed?Hcallaway (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Hadley Callaway, I'm sorry you're having such a frustrating time on Wikipedia right now. We at the Teahouse are happy to give advice, but we don't make any of the rules or decisions. You probably want to bring up that issue, frankly, I'm not sure where is the best place, but someone more experienced can pipe in here. In the mean time, NtheP offered a lot of good advice when you first asked your question. Have you made any changes based on those suggestions? We would be happy to work with you on improving your article as those are the steps to getting it approved. heather walls (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hadley - most of the time when an article that is written like an advertisement and it still exists, it's just because no one has done anything about it yet. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, and sometimes things slip through the cracks. You are right that the article about triangle orthopaedic associates is written an awfully lot like an advertisement. I'm pretty busy right now so I don't have time to edit it (or look in to deleting it myself) right away, but I've put it on my "to-do" list. Eventually I (or someone else) will go through it, and either rewrite it to be more encyclopedic, or put it up for deletion. Wikipedia is a giant work in progress, and it's not uncommon to find articles that don't follow our rules very well just because no one has gotten around to fixing them up yet.

In terms of an article about your practice, the most important thing it is currently lacking is in-line citations, especially from sources that are independent of the clinic itself (like news articles.) I just took a quick look through some news archives, and I think that there are enough news articles talking about the Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic to warrant writing an article about it. If you add some of them to the article, especially if you use in-line citations, then I think your new article submission would be accepted. You can see some information about how to use in-line citations and other useful information at these two pages: WP:CITE and WP:CHEATSHEET. I hope this helps you, and feel to drop a note on my talk page if you need help with anything in the future, Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Hcallaway. Thanks for pointing out a problem with another article.  Just to reiterate something Kevin said: Wikipedia is a big place.  There are, right now,  articles being hosted here, and hundreds are added every day.  Wikipedia has standards, and tries to enforce them, but occasionally something gets missed.  That's why, if you see a problem, you are allowed to fix it, and sometimes that means requesting that an article be deleted.  Also, please note, that merely because something wasn't "caught" doesn't mean that it is being "allowed".  Finding that someone else has posted an article promoting their business doesn't mean that you have free reign to ignore Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines as well.  -- Jayron  32  02:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging words. We have a couple of retired people who have collected historical information about the group and perhaps they can take up the editing project. I will try to get them involved soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcallaway (talk • contribs) 02:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Uploading Album Artwork
One of my main objectives on Wikipedia, and large source of usage for it, is perusing artist discographies and miscellaneous facts. Therefore, I am dedicating a lot of my initial efforts at getting to know Wikipedia contributing to this area. I've familiarized myself with the article coding, help queries, and related article hints and tips; however, I am having trouble figuring out the odds and ends of permissions of adding images to the albums, EPs, and various types of music productions for which I am creating articles!

If you too are familiar with Wikipedia discography articles and adding the right permissions for each uploaded album cover, please walk me through the steps. I know of hundreds of album covers which all under fair use rationale which are not deleted. I haven't the foggiest, even after reading through the permission steps many times (and looking at other articles pictures), of how to go about listing these pictures in the perfect way while I upload them

TheMikeBlackSpecial (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, this is one of those things it's easier to do than explain but I'll try. To upload files use Special:Upload.
 * Assuming you've got the image to hand you need to specify where to upload it from i.e. your computer and to give it a meaningful destination name.
 * In the box that says Summary, copy and paste the information from the syntax section of Non-free use rationale album cover. Then insert the appropriate information - the only two parameters you must specify are Article to name the article you are going to use the image in and Use where in the article you are going to use the image - normally this will be the infobox.  All the other parameters are optional but I would change the parameter Source to say exactly where you got the image from, if it's from the web the url you downloaded it from.
 * Finally in the box called Licensing, from the drop down list select "Album or single cover" - this will add another message to the finished upload.
 * Click on Upload file to finish the upload process.
 * You must then go to the article you've named in the upload to add the image to that article as one of the fair use criteria is that the image is used in at least one article. If you don't do this step the image can be deleted as an orphan fair use file.
 * I hope this makes sense, try it and come back here if you don't get the result you imagined. The worst that can happen is that the image gets deleted and we have to start again. NtheP (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What a great walkthrough. It made great sense and I believe that I've already made my first legal upload and tag to one of my articles already (here); a process I'm going to be replicating very, very often thanks to your instruction. Thanks so much. TheMikeBlackSpecial (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Need help on Allyson Brown
I wrote an article called Allyson Brown and I have a lot of trouble with citing. I put in a reflist and used Provelt but it still doesn't work. Please help! Androzaniamy (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Androzaniamy! Welcome to the Teahouse and congratulations with our article. I see that your references are footnoted, which is wonderful, and they look good to me! What type of trouble are you having? We'll do our best to help you here! :) Sarah (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone had already swooped in and fixed it (I actually edit-conflicted trying to fix it myself). Androzaniamy, the problem is that you were only using numbers to name your refs (that is, you named them "1", "2", "3", etc.). The ref tags require a more descriptive name than that to work (the fix that's in there now is a bit of a copout, but it works so good enough).  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, what quick answers! What would be a good title for a reference because whenever I look around other articles they all have numbers in each citation box? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The naming scheme I was going to use was something similar to the base URL, so a ref that linked to tvguide.com would be named "tvguide". As an aside, I would be cautious about some of the sources you're using; I know that IMDB is not generally considered reliable, for example. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, a bit of interface confusion has been illuminated (thanks to Androzaniamy)! The text that goes inside the name="" field is not what gets displayed as the footnote in the finished article.  The "name" field is only there to make it easier to refer to the same source multiple times within an article.  The footnote numbers are generated automatically with no input needed.  Perhaps we need to make that more clear in our documentation!  Powers T 20:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

New submission rejected
Dear Editors, I am an orthopedic surgeon in Raleigh, North Carolina. I use wikipedia frequently and one day noticed that the other large orthopedic group in our area (Triangle Orthopaedic Clinic) has a wikipedia entry about it. Their entry was obviously written by a PR firm and is very promotional. My practice (Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic) is much older and more highly respected. I tried to submit an entry for Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic which was brief, sticks to the facts, and is much more modest. Why is my article rejected when the much more self-promoting article about Triangle Orthopaedic Clinic is allowed? (BTW I see no problem with allowing both of them, because they are helpful to the public which is trying to navigate the confusing American healthcare system.)

Thanks for considering this Hadley Callaway, MD 199.72.197.209 (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please show me a link to this article, please? I could refer to things in the article and state the situation--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And I recommend you to login to your account(i.e-Hcallaway)--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I read your article and thank you for your good work. Please realize that in order to be considered noteable, you will need to have independent references.  Also, since it is YOUR clinic, you have a conflict of interest.  Please read the linked pages for further information and welcome to Wikipedia.Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hadley, thanks for stopping by. Ok I'm going to mostly ignore the article on the Triangle Clinic because there is a Wikipedia guideline called Other stuff exists - in a nutshell don't make comparisons with other articles on similar topics; and instead let's concentrate on your draft article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic.  Gtwfan52 has pointed out a couple of issues.  Firstly there is your conflict of interest in that you are president of the clinic so you are likely to have a bias in showing your business in its best light.  That's not an accusation of anything but honesty on your part but human nature that we all want to show our dealings off as best they can be.  Secondly the notability or otherwise of the clinic.  Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product.  I've had a look at most of the references given and as some of them are to just the main page so for that site so I can't find the references to the clinic, so these need to be looked at again.  Is there anything that makes the clinic a first e.g. is it the longest established clinic in Wake County?  If so can this be verified other than by the clinic's records?  That's the type of information that makes the clinic notable.
 * As to the layout I think you've mimicked the Triangle clinic article, and why not it appears to have worked for them, but I really wouldn't advise it, just listing names who've held positions of authority isn't good prose. Stick to "Several surgeons in the group have been presidents of the North Carolina Orthopaedic Association" and if any of them hold current positions in an association, naming them isn't wrong.  You also want to link it to other articles e.g. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons to stop it being what's called a "dead end" article that doesn't link elsewhere.
 * All this said the biggest issue is that your conflict of interest and I'd strongly recommend that you get someone else to improve the article. I hope this helps but please stop by if you want more help. NtheP (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC

I think it is silly because the Triangle Orthopaedic Article was clearly written by a public relations or advertising firm. Why should I try to circumvent your rule about conflict of interest (as they have done) by asking a friend or hired person to submit the article under their name?

Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic has been in continuous operation since 1919 which is one of the oldest orthopaedic surgery specialty groups in the country. Also there have only been about 100 Presidents of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons which makes us fairly distinguished in having one. Triangle Orthopaedic Associates is a relatively recent entity, approximately 20 years old.

If Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic can't have an article then please take down other orthopedic clinic articles. This is an unfair and arbitrary distinction.Hcallaway (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh?
This, is my first question after I returned to teahouse after half a month. I was saving edits in my userpage when, the edit conflict page came. I did my edits all over again and checked my revision history where there were only my edits. No other user edited it. Do you know if anything (or anybody) is behind this?Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Monareal, and welcome back. The first thing that comes to mind is tabs. Did you have multiple tabs or browser windows open, and edit conflicted with yourself between the different windows? The other possibility is, again, that you edit conflicted with yourself by hitting the "save page" button twice in a row. Did you lose any of your work?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  17:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the teahouse in one tab but I was not editing it.--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Tip
I just thought I'd pass along a tip (a lesson learned the hard way). When engaged in extensive research on one or more topics, do not do the following: Delete (remove) browser history. And if you use a disk cleaning utility (such as 'CCleaner'), be sure the option for doing that is not selected. For one thing 'history' is merely a record of your activity and uses virtually no HD space (essentially a bunch of shortcuts). For another, it can be very useful when trying to track down any mistakes you might have made. (Not that I'd know anything about that). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: it is a common misconception that 'history' and 'cache' are synonymous -- they are actually two different things (clearing cache is usually a good thing). ~Eric[learn by doing] F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a useful reminder...people sometimes confuse the two when directions tell them to clear their cache.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  17:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking to have a new article posted
Hi - I'm interested in having a short article I submitted - a biography on a local folk duo - posted so that I can then set about editing it and adding more content. I have past experience of adding small amounts of content, including citations, but posting a new article seems to be a much bigger proposition.

I have seen the style guide and am not sure that what I am submitting needs to be formatted much more than it already is.87.113.66.147 (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, as you don't have a user account you can't create a new article directly but you can submit an new article at Articles for creation where you can draft and edit your article as much as you want before submitting it for review and hopefully publication. I'd suggest you start by reading the guidelines at Your first article.  If you want to write a biography of a local folk duo, there might be issues about their notability which will need to be addressed before the article would be accepted. NtheP (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you know the duo concerned in some way, you should also declare a conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that the article won't be considered valid, providing it meets the usual notability criteria. -- Trevj (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ready to help!
Greeting everyone,

I have been looking through Wikipedia and helping out here and there with little fixes and adding thing and I was wondering if there is anyone starting an article that would like help to maintain or add to it. I am particularly interested in article to do with computers or ancient history

(Lunashy (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Lunashy, thanks for stopping by and thanks for the offer of help. There are a few places I can think of (there may be others) you go look to see what articles have recently been created which might interest you.  These are New articles by topic and Special:NewPages.  You could also have a look at WikiProject History and it's talk page and/or WikiProject Computing/Computer science to see if they have lists of new articles wanting assistance. NtheP (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lunashy! There are categories wish list Stub-Class articles (maintained by the relevant WikiProjects), maybe you would be interested in the history or Computing stubs.
 * There are also more specialized categories (maintained by the relevant WikiProjects): as examples i could list the military history, Middle Ages, Ancient Egypt, Computer science, Computer networking or video games stubs.
 * Now there are many, many more than this; i'm just listing a few to to give an idea :) Hope this helps ~ just drop by again if you need anything else. Cheers, benzband  ( talk ) 10:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetising category
Ok, I now can put people in categories, but they're ordered by their first name instead of their surname (so 'Hannah Louise Mickleburgh' is under H, not M). How do you change this? --Tropzax (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Category:British actors. AFAIK, you can't change name sorting in category, you can try in the article! --Tito Dutta (Message) 01:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What the heck is AFAIK? I think I know..but...not everyone is savvy with the internetz-speak. Sarah (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an acronym! Common term! You can discuss in talk! --Tito Dutta Message Contribution Email 02:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps our new editors might not know what it means? Sarah (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. The acronym "AFAIK" stands for "as far as I know". Hope this helps. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed! Thanks Rosie! Sarah (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can change how names are sorted into categories you add the magic word to an article.  Replace the "sortkey" with the form you wish to sort it by.  For example, if you put  at the bottom of your article (anywhere is fine, but the standard is to put it at the bottom so others will find it) then the article will be sorted correctly in the "M" section of the category.  Likewise, this can be done for titles that start with, say, "the", where you don't want to sort by the article.  So, for example, the article The Importance of Being Earnest has  in it which allows it to appear under the "I" in Category:Plays by Oscar Wilde.  I hope that all makes sense.  Do I need to clarify anything?  -- Jayron  32  02:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is something I'm also interested in, and am trying to understand. What I am unclear about is: how do you differentiate between what is sorted from what is displayed. In other words, using your example,  the sortlist would sort "The" last, but you want it displayed first. And how would this be done in a table, where you might have a 'Year' column that sorts normally, and a 'Name' or 'Title' column that sorts differently. Eric[dazed & confused] F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The title in the Category list will be displayed as it is on the top of the page. Check The Importance of Being Earnest and Category:Plays by Oscar Wilde to confirm that.  If you want to change how the title is displayed, there is a different magic word called DISPLAYTITLE which does that.  Tables work completely independent from categories, the information I just gave only applies to how a title will be sorted using Wikipedia's category system.  Sortable tables are possible as well, see Help:Tables and Help:Sorting for more details on how to sort in tables. -- Jayron  32  16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)