This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
I would like replace my page name from User:Susie9 to Umaidpur, Bihar
I am a first time creator of a page. I wanted to create page with a title - Umaidpur, Bihar.
The page is appearing as User:Susie9. How do I change to - Umaidpur, Bihar
I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I found here on wiki that many editors are dominated either by the admin(s) or by bureaucrats where the editors are helpless. I want to know that how far it is true? And where one can make a complaint regrading these matters? Other these things I would also like to learn about starting a new article as well as from where I can get new topics? INPanda13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
On the topic of editors being dominated by admins/bureaucrats, could you please elaborate on that? Like some examples? And yes, if that is the case there are ways for recourse and making complaints, I'll look those up as I am about to head off to class. A good place to learn how to start new articles is WP:Article_Wizard, so far as topics, is there a particular area that plays to your strengths? Or are you looking to make an article on any topic? Jab843 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Administrators and bureaucrats are users with certain technical privileges that are not normally granted to users. These include (but are not limited to) the ability to delete pages, protect/lock pages, block users from editing, and assign these permissions to other users. They are bound by the administrator and bureaucrat policies respectively, and both access levels are granted only if the user has a high level of community trust. Neither an administrator nor a bureaucrat has any more "status" than another editor (although they may have a bigger role in the project). An opinion of an admin weighs the same as the opinion of any other editor in good standing. Wikipedia policy prohibits administrators from using their tools in places where they are closely involved. So I do not think Wikipedia is a place where admins dominate; it's a free and open community of people working to build an encyclopedia. I hope this helps on the first bit of your question. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! Mz7 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC), revised 21:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
How do I insert and link reference numbers in the body of the article, so that the number links to the reference list at the bottom of the article? For example, I want to add [1] to the end of a sentence that is sourced from the #1 reference shown in my reference list. Productlineeng (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Webbrand. There is a button to click on the notice at the top of that page when you want it to be reviewed. We are hear to help with questions rather than to do reviews.--Charles (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Process of combining info of multiple pages into one page
Hello, My group found that there were two wiki pages that relate to the Mount Seymour Park in Vancouver, Canada. We plan to integrate the information together into one page so its much easier for the viewer. We plan to take the information from the Mount Seymour and add it to the Mount Seymour Provincial Park page (which we are currently editing and adding our own information in our sandbox: User:Thelukkolukko/sandbox).
What is the proper plan of action that should we do?
So far, we copied and pasted the information from Mount Seymour into our sandbox editing page. Is this allowed? What would you suggest?
We also noticed that once we amalgamate the pages together and transfer the info from Mount Seymour to our sandbox ( which will eventually be the edited Mount Seymour Provincial Park page), the Mount Seymour page does not necessarily need to exist.
Should we just edit the Mount Seymour page and delete all the information or is there a proper way of doing this. We ultimately want our edited version of the Mount Seymour Provincial Park to be the major source of info, so is there a way to make the Mount Seymour Page forward to ours?
Sorry for so many questions and thank you very much in advance!
Welcome to the Teahouse. You must not merely copy and paste from an existing page, as that is a copyright violation and fails to maintain the record of attribution to the contributors to the original article. The correct process is described at WP:Merging. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Aabundo, I would oppose merging these two articles. The provincial park contains at least four significant mountain peaks, three of which already have Wikipedia articles. The mountain as a geological feature and the park as a governmental entity are separate and discrete notable topics, and each should have its own article. Of course, they should link to each other. On another matter, you state that you are editing on behalf of a group of people. Wikipedia editing should be conducted only by individuals acting independently, not by groups. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Why does page still show need citation?
How do I get the need additional citation part of this specific page? I have used all the authentic references that I can. Could someone please assist me. This artist is South African so some of the references are in Afrikaans ( one of the languages spoken in South Africa) Elvis Blue.
Tottelme (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. While English sources are preferred if available, sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable and its quite understandable in this case that there would be extensive sourcing from Arfikaans sources.
Now, the notice at the top of the page is added and removed by humans not bots, so it won't disappear automatically. You can remove it if you think it is no longer relevant. If you are happy to do so, simply remove the code that says {{BLP sources|date=January 2011}} from the top of the page and the notice will disappear. --LukeSurltc17:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
No...non English sources are only be acceptable on the English Wikipedia IF no English sources of the same quality are available.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, be aware of the translation issue and what is acceptable for translating non English sources. If you use a non English source you may be required to show what the source is claiming.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much I did not know that I can remove the note :-) Th ereferences are 99% English and you will see that I translate next to Afrikaans words. Thanks again you were a grea thelp I will ask again if tehre is anything else
I am creating a new article for a topic that is currently redirected to an existing article. Do I create the new article first, then change/remove the redirect? Or do I remove the redirect first? Productlineeng (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Productlineeng: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are advised create an article in your draft and later blank the redirect and move it to redirect page (WP:MOVE). Make sure the subject you are willing to work on have not already been covered in the target article. In this case, you can just expand the target article. Click the red link (your draft) to create a new article. Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk!18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Anupmehra! One more question... once I have submitted an article for review, how can I see the status of the submission? Productlineeng (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, @Productlineeng: You can visit the submission page to track the review status. However, I would like to let you know that once your submission reviewed by some reviewer, you'll be notified on your talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk!09:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Notable artist declined for notability
I'm pretty surprised because in the contemporary art world you don't get much more notable than Nancy Buchanan.
My references are verifiable and top notch: The L A Times? The Getty Publications? Lots of articles and catalogs. Why really is this article declined? I think it needs to be reviewed by someone who is knowledgable in the visual arts. This is a problem in arts coverage that is being addressed across the country by women artists. Please help.
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nancy_BuchananMarilyn Nix (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The editor probably didn't decline the submission because she is a non-notable artist, but because the sources listed were not ideal. I'll help you go over it with you and clean it up, if you'd like. :-) Also, the use of a bullet-pointed list of references is always frowned upon because it doesn't show what pieces of information you derived from those particular sources. Bali88 (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not getting my notifications
I don't know if notifications are turned off. But, I don't get email notification's anymore and when I log in and click on my name, I don't see any notifications from the site. How can I keep track of notifications in some other way? I may never see them. I go what looks like a talk page, but that one is blank and there is other talk page, has some stuff on it, but nothing new. I used to get them a few days ago. I have missed stuff and I want to see all past notifications.Apriv40dj (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Apriv! If you're having trouble with notifications, try taking a look at your notification preferences. You can set up what types of notifications you'd like to receive. As for viewing your notifications, you don't click your username to see them - you click on the little number box, which glows red when you have a new notification (see the image for reference). As for viewing past notifications, you can see them all over at Special:Notifications. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs22:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Note that you're probably not missing getting any notifications unless you've changed your preferences yourself. Note that you don't automatically receive notifications for replies, unless someone sends you a notification using Template:Reply to, like so: @Apriv40dj:. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs22:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I am a new editor on Wikipedia. Since I joined Wikipedia I tried to contribute my best on the free encyclopedia. But there are unnecessary conflicts are going on, some of them I have mentioned below -
For the above mentioned article I contributed a image file which was copyrighted but fair to use. I contributed the image on wiki Commons since I am not yet a confirmed editor. For the same I started a discussion (on above talk page) and later when the resolution was solved I closed the discussion by removing the tags.
As I mentioned above that I am not yet a confirm user, so I made a request on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed so that any admin could see my issue and resolve it. But unnecessarily User:EatsShootsAndLeaves closed my request without looking the cause for my request as well as he is not a admin and when I reverted back on this he started annoying me by interfering my edits/ talk
User:EatsShootsAndLeaves also warned me that my edits are becoming disruptive as well as not behaving in positive manner and according to him my signature is not valid as I have copied his signature (where he himself have copied the signature of User:DangerousPanda
I would also like to tell that I've changed my signature around 13:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC) where he left message around 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC).
It is my humble request that please take strict action against him, else I will think that my question that I asked on Wikipedia:Teahouse on the same day when I joined will be trueINPandaTalk15:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
EatsShootAndLeaves is a valid alternate account of DangerousPanda (who is an admin, by the way). They're the same person (hence the similar signatures). I'd recommend taking his advice. Yunshui雲水15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The "disruptive behaviour" I believe EatsShootsAndLeaves is talking about is the deletion of talk page discussions (such as this). This is frowned upon, as you are removing comments by people other than yourself and makes discussions very hard to follow for observers. As a case in point, your deletion of these discussions means it is hard for me to determine who has said what to who when and in what order.
As for the copyright issue, I believe users have explained to you the differences between what can go on commons and what is acceptable fair use (and what is neither). If the response here seems severe, please be aware that this is more than mere Wikipedia community policy. Copyright violations constitute a breach of the law of the United States (where the Wikimedia servers are located), and if the community did not act swiftly and decisively to counter such issues Wikipedia could find itself being sued or shut down. --LukeSurltc15:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I still have things I need to see but can't find them
Now, the problem is I now see all notifications, but I can't a summary of all questions, I have posted in tea house. The board moves quickly. I want to see a summary, because I have notifications that lead me to the talk page, the talk page send me here to tea house, but then I can't find the thread which I am to go and read the message and reply so I don't look like I am just ignoring. I guess I am sort of slow with these things. But, it does not seem to be completely intuitive. I want to read all messages and reply. Apriv40dj (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Apriv40dj: Wikipedia talk pages aren't like your typical forum room - talk pages are just in plain text, and there isn't any automated way to automatically be notified of new replies. You will only be notified of a reply if the replying user chooses to "ping" you, as I did at the beginning of this message. This basically means that it's up to you to be on top of things by checking back.
However, it isn't too hard to get used to keeping track of your questions. If you go to your contributions list, you'll see all your contributions, including any edits you've made to the Teahouse. If you take a closer look at the edit summaries for your Teahouse edits, you'll notice that they contain arrows followed by the title of the section you edited. If you click that arrow, it will take you right to your question. Just check back every so often to see if there are any new replies. (Note that after a period of inactivity, discussions here are archived, meaning that you'll need to search the archives to find old questions). Hope this helps you out, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs18:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Another easy way to find your own posts is to search for my own username on the page (Ctrl + F on Windows, Command + F on Mac). You'll find all your previous posts and can check for any new replies this way. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs18:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you put your user name into the archive search, that will give you a list of the archive pages (only 2 so far) which include those questions which have been archived from this questions page. You can then search the relevant archive for your user name. Of course if they have been archived you can't reply on that page; all you could do is put a reply on the user talk page of the person to whom you wish to reply. In general, when an editor replies to one of your questions they will try to leave a talback message on your user talk page, and that out to have a section link to lead you to your question, so if you follow that talkback link before the question and answers are archived, it should take ou straight there. (I will now try to remember to provide such a talkback link for this question & answer). --David Biddulph (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I want to reply to David, but I don't know how to, my question how long does it take before the discussion is tabled and no new answers can be added? I clearly should "ping" him what ever that is. Apriv40dj (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Apriv40dj: You can ping people by linking to making a link to their user page. The template {{ping|username}} does this. To answer your other question, I believe that threads here are archived after three days with no reply (though threads can be archived after more or less time on other pages). --Jakob (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about the media commons. I was making a study on art work and I wanted to save a copy of the file of a painting called Loke och Sigyn 1863 by Mårten Eskil Winge. Each time I save it the file won't open, it says, this is the wrong file. I thought all wiki commons file could be downloaded for free without restrictions, but it is as if it was copy write protected. So, I said, let me try a screen capture, the same thing happened. Can someone check the file to make sure it is not corrupted.76.14.60.80 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Good news, I was able to create a file from that file using a complicated process, but the file is now a normal jpeg, so maybe I could offer it or upload there in the place of the other file? It looks the same but the dimensions are slightly smaller then the original.16:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apriv40dj (talk • contribs)
I cannot replicate the problem. For me commons:File:Loki,_by_Mårten_Eskil_Winge_1890.jpg downloads just fine. I can assume you that any issues you are having won't be due to copyright issues, DRM is basically a complete anathema to the Wikimedia philosophy. One think I suggest you might try is to download the file and when you save it, to change the title so it doesn't have the a comma or an "å" character in the filename, as this could confuse some systems. --LukeSurltc16:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for answering, but I was not notified of any replies. I tried saving it under different names, and it was still the same, so I have uploaded it again, and I can download, so now merely to add it to the wiki, but I don't know how to do that. It is the exact same file. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loke_och_Sigyn_repaired.jpg Maybe it was the umlaut, but if so it should save under a different name and all versions had the same problem. Apriv40dj (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to add, when the file is saved it does not ask to save with an umlaut, but it does try to save with some characters. The source page for the file is also a dead link. I will like to provide a link somewhere near the original file in case someone wants to download for a school report. Apriv40dj (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Apriv40dj. You use the file in an article by writing [[File:Loke och Sigyn repaired.jpg]], usually with some formatting information such as [[File:Loke och Sigyn repaired.jpg|thumb|alt=Loke och Sygin painting]]. See WP:Image tutorial for more about this. . I don't know about your other questions. --ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Now, I am afraid people would object to me changing the file in the article, so is there no way to link to the file from the file page? The idea would be if file won't download try this file? Otherwise I would do it.Apriv40dj (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Apriv40dj: To link a file in an Wikipedia article, Follow up this format, [[File:FileName.jpeg]]. It would be showing the particular image (FileName.jpeg) in the respective article.
In your case, this should be as, [[File:Loke och Sigyn repaired.jpg]]. Make edit tests here. Edit, place "[[File:Loke och Sigyn repaired.jpg]]" and save the page. It'll be showing the image.
I have saved all the coding, but I am still too afraid to make the change. Either two photos will be posted of the same thing or else to remove the corrupt file. I would like if more people would confirm if they can save the photo in windows 8. I have windows 8. Since someone posted it was not a repeatable problem above. Apriv40dj (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
creating wikipedia page or editing existing
I am new to wikipedia and I have an assignment to create a wikipedia page. My topic is about Flexible Boxes (CSS) and The Flex Property of CSS and I was wondering if I should create a page or just edit the CSS page and add it there somewhere?
Welcome to the Teahouse. Rather than putting the message on your user talk page, you'd be more likely to attract the attention of the other user if you put the message on their user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I wrote an article in my sandbox. I would like to have someone more experienced than me critique it, and then I'd like to "publish" it - make it live or real on wiki.
Do you have any suggestions how I can do these two things?
Hi Smitty, welcome to the Teahouse. If you put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article in your sandbox, it will be queued to be reviewed as an Articles for Creation submission. This can take a long time (several weeks), but it should achieve exactly what you're suggesting. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I took a quick look at it and overall, it looks pretty good, although I think when you write song names or album names, most articles use italics instead of bold. :-) Bali88 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! The Ambox template used to create standardized banner messages for articles. For example, Template:Cleanup and Template:POV were created using the Ambox template. Could you try describing what you're stuck on? Unless you're trying to make a banner for an article, there isn't much reason to use it. If you're looking to make a banner for, say, your userpage, Template:Ombox can be used instead. Example of usage:
Article denied due to copyright infringement with Linkedin
I just had an article about a living person denied due to it infringing with the same individual's LinkedIn profile, which I also wrote. how can I get around this?
Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. If you own the coypright to the LinkedIn profile, you can see donating copyrighted materials for information on how to allow it to be used on Wikipedia. Keep in mind, though, that Wikipedia strives to be free content, which means if you "donate" the content, you are allowing anyone to use it with few restrictions, even outside Wikipedia. If this is not what you want, you're better off summarizing the material in different words. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
LinkedIn would never be considered a reliable source anyway, as it is user edited. So unless you have some independent, reliable sources, the copyright violation is somewhat moot. Without reliable sourcing to show that your subject is notable, you will not have an article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks John. The article I submitted is supported by links to reputable news articles and organisation web sites (for awards etc)which I included. The wording is quite similar to the individual's bio that appears on his LinkedIn page though.
While writing article about a book,
Do we really depend on references of third party reviews/books?
or could we quote from book?
Secondly, if the book is published privately some (non registered) but known organization but is present in many libraries around city, how will that article be categorized? (Karantsingh (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Karantsingh. Please read our notability guideline for books. Citing in depth reviews in independent, reliable sources is the best and most common way to establish the notability of a book. Including brief quotes from a book in a Wikipedia article about that book may be appropriate in some cases, but such quotes do not contribute to the notability of the book. Self-published books can be notable in some cases, but in general, Wikipedia articles about books not issued by established publishers will be subjected to careful scrutiny. A book of primarily local interest, held by libraries in only one city, may also be judged not notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for link. I have a use case like: If some known/reputed person within region, community, religion, state etc. had written some text(book) which may published by his own institution(institution may be registered or non registered). Will article on that text of such person accepted on wiki (also if person's article is not present on wiki)? For Example: Father XYZ of ZZZ religion is known/reputed in XYZ region and also listed as scholar in Supreme seat of ZZZ religion and he is also running his own institution of ZZZ religion studies. He had written two books which he published on name of institution, developed by local press. Under which case books article will be acceptable on wiki and with how much details? Looking for answer :) (Karantsingh (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The book will have to meet WP:NBOOK as I stated above. In most cases, that means it will have to have been reviewed in detail by several reliable, independent sources. So, those would be sources entirely unconnected with Father XYZ or the ZZZ religious institution and its press. Examples might be the book review sections of major regional newspapers or literary magazines, with reputations for serious analysis of important books. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I created the article yesterday (4th). Title: Product Line Engineering. I did many rounds of 'save', revision and 'preview'. However, I’m not 100% certain that I successfully submitted it. If I saved it in the creation process, but did not submit it, does the system retain the draft that I should be able access?
I am new to Wikipedia submissions (obviously) so I am confused by the difference in "main namespace" and "talk namespace"... If I submitted the article via AFC, does that automatically send it into the "talk" area ~ I didn’t create it as a Talk page (at least not intentionally). I feel certain that it has no copyright violations, as it is all original material with a large collection of references. Productlineeng (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Productlineeng. I'll try to clarify. Every page, anywhere in Wikipedia, can be viewed by anybody; and most pages, anywhere in Wikipedia, can be edited by anybody. However, only pages in main space (without a prefix) are considered to be published articles, and normally only those will be indexed by search engines. So an article in user space (with a title beginning "User:") or an article in the new Draft space (with a title beginning "Draft:") are not usually found by search engines, and by convention are not usually edited by other users unless there is a serious problem such as a copyright violation or a personal attack.
Talk pages (anything with a prefix "Talk:" or "XXX Talk:") are usually for discussion about an article, or about a user's contributions, and anybody (nearly always) may edit them. But for technical reasons, new articles created using the Articles for creation process are put in a talk space ("Wikipedia Talk:") though that is not really a good place for them. (I believe this is the reason that the "Draft:" space was created recently).
No Wikipedia article needs to be "submitted" or "approved"; but a Wikipedia article which is not satisfactory for some reason may proposed for deletion in various ways. In order to avoid this, people writing new articles are encouraged (but not required) to go through a review process, whereby they submit them for review: generally the draft articles being reviewed are not in main space, so are not normally subject to deletion. Once an article passes review, then it may be moved to main space. If you use the Articles for creation process, I believe it will automatically put a button at the top of the article which you can pick to request a review; if you have not used that process, you may insert {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article to request a review. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I wish to write a biography
Dear Charlie,
I am completely new to Wikipedia and have spent an hour or so trying to understand whether I may add a biography and if so how I can do it. Doubtless, it is my fault but I keep getting lost. I wish to add the full biography of Roger Jenkins the TV and Theatre director who has contributed so much to the nations enjoyment. For example, Howard's Way, Z-Cars, Crossroads and many many others.
I have researched him and have his permission to insert this article. May I proceed?
Hello, Keith, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia - and don't be discouraged that it's difficult to get started: Wikipedia is big and complicated, and works like nothing else that I know. The main criterion for whether Wikipedia can have an article about him is whether he is notable, in Wikipedia's special sense. This doesn't mean whether he is well-known, or important, or popular: it means "Has he been written about at length in reliable sources independent of him" (such as books from reputable publishers, and major newspapers and magazine - not user-contributed channels such as blogs, social media, or IMDB, or trivial mentions such as listing in directories). If such discussion exists, then there can be an article about him; but if it doesn't then there can't. His approval or lack of it is of no consequence - but if your jention of it means that you are close to him, then you need to be aware of your potential conflict of interest that may make it difficult to write in the required neutral tone.
Is there a way to request that others review an article?
There's an article that I an several other editors worked really hard on polishing recently. I thought it looked really good, then someone showed up and started saying all kinds of things like that it was a "train wreck" and "shouldn't even exist". It's tough to critique your own work, so I try to listen to others opinions, but I'm having a hard time working it out with them on the talk page because they're speaking in generalities instead of specific concerns. Is there any way to request that others read an article and give an outside opinion on it? Bali88 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, person with an IPV6 login. I'm afraid I can't find either the article or a record of its deletion; and this posting is the only one from your IP address. Could you give us any more detail: a link to the draft article, or even what happened that makes you say it was rejected? --ColinFine (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I created and submitted the article under “Articles for Creation” (as is recommended) rather than directly in the article namespace ~ I didn’t realize that this submission would not be associated with my user account. Argh.
So… if I recreate the article directly into the namespace, will this result in deletion (since the article was submitted via AfC)? OR… is there a way to remove the original AfC submission?
If you had been logged in as your current user when you submitted the AFC draft, it would have been recorded against your user account. Were you logged in as a different user, or logged out? Could you give us a wikilink to the AFC page in question, please? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought I was logged in when I created the article via AFC, but apparently not. I would not have been logged in as another user, since I have no other user accounts. I saved the page (repeatedly) in the creation processes, and upon submitting it. wikilink:product_line_engineering (FYI, this term currently has a redirect from another article, which needs to be moved once the new article is in place.) Thanks! Productlineeng (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you didn't actually save it. I cannot find it when searching everywhere on "product line engineering". New users are often confused by the interface and incorrectly think they have saved a page when they only clicked "Show preview", or they did click "Save page" but overlooked a message about a problem. Try saving it again and check it is saved by clicking "Contributions" to see your saved edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I created the article yesterday (4th). The title is: Product Line Engineering. I feel certain I saved it, as I did many rounds of save, revise, and preview.... However, I’m not 100% certain that I successfully submitted it. If I saved it in the creation process, but did not submit it, does the system retain the draft that I can access?
I am new to Wikipedia submissions (obviously) so I am confused by the difference in "main namespace" and "talk namespace"... If I submitted an article via AFC, does that automatically put it into the "talk" area ~ I didn’t create it as a Talk page (at least not intentionally). I feel certain that it has no copyright violation, as it original material with a large collection of references. Productlineeng (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that PrimeHunter is right. This search is looking in all namespaces & doesn't seem to find anything relevant. There is a very remote possibility that the search database hasn't yet caught up, as it can take a day or so; you might want to look again in 24 hours' time. As PrimeHunter says, it looks as if you're going to have to try again. Make sure that you are logged on to your account when you do it, so that you can find the result easily.
To address one of your points, the reason that AFC drafts are in the Wikipedia talk namespace is that IP users can not create pages except in the talk namespaces. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I have done additional searches and still find nothing. You don't have to submit it for us to find it, only to save it, and we can see pages saved in any namespace (you don't have to know what namespaces are). Indications are that no page with that name was saved anywhere. It certainly wasn't saved by your account. In case you saved it after logging out, try logging out and click Special:MyContributions on the same Internet connection you were on at the time. If you still have the same IP address and the page was saved when you were logged out then the link will show where you saved it. We don't have access to your IP address so we cannot make this check for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Question regarding references
This is my first time creating a page. I am doing this for a university project. I am pretty much using other pages as examples and trying to follow the way they ddid it. In some pages I came across people would have a section called Notes where the references with [1] would be linked, which I know how to do. However, they also have a section called References where they have the correct citations of the sources they used and somehow they are linked back to the notes as well. How can I do that?
Also, another question that just popped into my head that is irrelevant to references is regarding the set up of the page. I am going to put an extract of a poem, but when I type it out, it doesn't look like a poem would. I mean, each line isn't on a new line and I don't know how to fix that.
Hello. I'll try and help with your first question. Referencing is a very important part of Wikipedia and it's great you're keen to do it well. We have a help page at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners which should be useful to you, though if you'd like any "human" help, just let us know here. Cheers, --LukeSurltc21:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Is this what you are talking about concerning references?
Example
This is an example.[1] Here is another example.[2]
I would simply like to say that I have just submitted my article and want to once again thank all of you who helped me. I am happy to hear feedback. :) Ally1023 (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
A watchlist, as normally viewed, will only show edits made to your watched pages in the last few days. If no edits are made to a page in this period there will be nothing to report and you won't see the page at Special:Watchlist. --LukeSurltc10:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Why was my article again declined as non notable
My first article about the Quick Mesh Project was once declined as not having enough independent or reliable sources.
So I edited it and made clear the following independent sources: the local municipality, one foundation and a master thesis.
It has again been declined, as this time there are no further comments, I think I maybe got the reason wrong. Can anyone help me to find out why and how to get the article published? Thanks for sharing any idea on this with me! Ionosphera (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@CatanOverlord: Hey CatanOverlord. A [linked] table of contents will automatically appear in an article when it has more than three section headers. You can force a table of contents to appear in an article with less than four sections by placing on the page this code: __FORCETOC__ or __TOC__ (← those are doubled underscores btw). For more, see Help:Section#Table of contents (TOC). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It says I can delete old messages left on my talk page. I can see how to edit them but not to delete them. If I can't delete them, can I archive them? It seems to me once the matter has been resolved there is no need for clutter on the page. It makes it harder for me to see new stuff that I should attend to. Also I would like to add some badges to my user "profile page" I would like to select from a list of possible badges. I noticed some people have badges that say what state you live or that maybe you like to play baseball or stuff like that to make it more fun and personalized. Apriv40dj (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Apriv40dj: Welcome back to the Teahouse. It's allowed to get rid of messages by removing them (just highlight whatever you want to get rid of and hit the delete key on your keyboard), but it's strongly recommended that you archive messages instead. To do this, you can just copy the messages from your talk page to User talk:Apriv40dj/Archive 1. Then after you've moved the messages to the archive, you can remove them from your talk page the way I mentioned above. Hope this helps. --Jakob (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks I just created the page. That is a good idea. Apriv40dj (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I only went and removed the you got message boxes on the page, but I can see that racked up a lot of negative points. I want to remove some other to the archive page in the future, but how can I send them there without racking up a lot of negative points? Apriv40dj (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. The red and green numbers I believe you are referring to aren't "points", they are merely a record of how many bytes you made the page smaller or larger. It's a purely technical thing, no-one is judging your edits :) --LukeSurltc20:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, it looks like I was scoring negative points for remove those notices. So, I will just ignore those numbers from now on. But, how do I move sections from one page to another? I guess I would copy them and then start new pages? There should be a way to just move them without changing them. Then what to stop people from changing the comments? If one wants a record to see if that people was getting a lot of negative feedback, and maybe they change that into glowing feedback when they move the sections to the archive page? 76.14.60.80 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
When archiving a talk page, cutting and pasting is fine. While the sort of skullduggery that you describe is technically possible, it's actually quite rare. All edits and old versions of pages are saved, so the subversion would probably be discovered anyhow. --LukeSurltc16:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
hey, wondering how I can contribute
Hey everyone, Im new to Wikipedia and Im wondering if there are article s I can contribute to, as in is there a subject that hasnt been filled or is missing reasearch? Then I'm ready to look for it. You see, I feel like writing something, but I have no idea what to write about, thanks everyone, and I hope I get to know everyone better soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorchManiac (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@TorchManiac: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't think of any article topics, you can always find some requested articles to write here. Or, if you have specific interests, someone may be able to point you to a relevant WikiProject to help out at (joining a WikiProject is simple - just find a "participants" section on the WikiProject page and sign up by adding three tildes - ~~~). --Jakob (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Flag in cite template to get the attention of a citation archive bot?
Is there any way to add a flag to a specific reference that is in the standard <ref>{{cite news |title=... |url=... etc.}}</ref> format that would let some cruising bot know that the news article would likely be going behind a non-free/subscription wall in a few days/weeks, and thus would be really useful for Wikipedia use if some bot got an archive URL for the news article? Sometimes the news article I come across is one that I know won't leave the source freely available for more than a few days or weeks. Lots of local newspapers do this but so do some of the bigger ones.
Yeah, I had understood that there was some manual way to do this. And I even tried it a few times about a year ago: but it required a lot of manual steps, wasn't intuitive, and not worth the time expended. I suspect this is true for the vast majority of citations added to WIkipedia everyday that will soon disappear to WP readers behind subscription walls.
My question is about whether there might be a way to simply leave a "flag" in a cite template (e.g., |needsArchive=y or something like that ) so that the citation might be saved in an automated way, without a multistep manual process on the part of the volunteer editor who did, after all, just spend three minutes just creating the citation in the first place.
If the answer is that "There is no current way to do that.", then is there some way to perhaps leave an idea at a "ideas for future bots" location on the English Wikipedia? N2e (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Non-Wikipedia site masquerading as Wikipedia. How to report?
While editing List of political self-immolations, I noticed lots of discussion on the talk page about some named Thomas James Ball. I Googled him and found the page http://powernpraise.com/Krazie316/Thomas_James_Ball.htm, which is formatted exactly like a Wikipedia page and is titled "Thomas James Ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" in the Google search results. This external site is pretending to be Wikipedia in order to cover content that Wikipedia editors have discussed and decided not to cover at this time. This seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia's trademark and policies. How can I report the external site to Wikipedia? (Also, if you have a few minutes for List of political self-immolations, please chime in on the issue of Siripur/Subram Yadaiah from the talk page.) Thanks for your help. -Xxiggy (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hah, I did too before seeing your message. At least they're well aware of this site now! And thanks, Anon126. -Xxiggy (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Concerns
Hello. I've posted a request for help about site processes on my talk page and a banner appeared which suggested this page as somewhere I could go to get information. I could do with having some kind of easy-to-read introductory package if there is such a thing. In addition, I have concerns about some stuff I've been reading.
I'm a fan of cricket and been reading the cricket project pages. I'm not impressed by this which makes me wonder why people who like cricket can't just get along and write about it without these sort of recriminations. Then I followed some of the leads from the thread and came across this which strikes me as a greater concern because it is clearly a legal threat. The intended recipient made his last edit before it was posted so may not have seen it and possibly no one else has either. I hope I'm doing the right thing in drawing attention to it, but if the site is holding libellous statements, the webmasters or administrators should be aware of them. Thank you. Red Cervelli (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The comment was made by a user who has since been blocked indefinitely. As a completely uninvolved bystander, my advice would be not to poke hornets' nests and to have fun editing those articles which interest you. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
