Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Contributions List

I see all my edits on my contributions tab. What do the negative numbers in red mean ? Vibhabamba (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Vibhabamba! Those numbers are the change in size of the article brought about by that edit. The numbers are in red when an edit made the article smaller, green when the edit made the article bigger, and gray when the article's size didn't change. The number itself is the difference in bytes. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A proposed category

If I created a category for Andy Griffith Show actors, would it be deleted as non-notable? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, It would be very likely be deleted but not for not-notability - the policy of notability doesn't lend itself to categories, the other core policies of verify and neutral do apply. Instead it is a case of overcategorisation - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by performance venue which specifically suggests not having categories of the type you're suggesting. As there are two articles - List of The Andy Griffith Show cast members and List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars which detail almost, if not everyone, who appeared in the show, there are ways of locating actors who did appear in the show. NtheP (talk)

Okay, then I won't create it. Thanks for your answer. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles about People

Is there a somewhat standardized format when you write/edit articles about people? I notice that some articles (See Charles Eames) have a list of works while other (See Meryl Streep) have tables that document work and accomplishments together. Is consistency in format required? Vibhabamba (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Vibhabamba, hi and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. There are a number of guidelines to help when writing biographies but I haven't found one that gives a standard format. The general guide for all wikipedia articles is the Manual of Style and there is a specific part WP:MOSBIO that deals with biographies and yet another specific part about tables - WP:TABLE. If you are talking just about works then a table isn't the preferred method but if you are mixing work and accomplishments, for example awards nominated for and the relevant work, then a table is suggested. Have a look at these links and ask back here if you have any questions or you could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography the talk page for the project dedicated to biographies. If you're writing a new article then I'd get stuck in - if you do something unexpected there are bound to be people who will jump in and help. NtheP (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Which of the leads of pencils are harder H, 2H, HB, 2B?

Lead pencils are made by mixing graphite with v20% to 60% clay. Pencil becomes harder by increasing the amount of clay. You are familiar with different grades of pencils like H, 2H, HB, 2B. DO you know which pencil contains the maximum amount of clay?Maryam Fehmeedah (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hardest to softest: 2H, H, HB, 2B.--Jorm (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Maryam, welcome to the Teahouse! As Jorm says, 2H is the hardest and 2B is the softest of the ones you've chosen; I don't know whether that's due to a variation in the clay content, or which direction it would vary in. You can look at Pencil hardness for some more info on this subject. Also, a better place to ask these kinds of general-knowledge questions is the Reference Desk; you'll probably get a more in-depth answer there (although you're still free to ask here, if you like!) Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your particular question might productively be posed at the Science Reference desk or the Miscellaneous Reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Packet Switched Smart Grid

Dear Teahouse Members, Can you assist me to complete the references for my first article "Packet Switched Smart Grid". I am advised that the references are not complete and linked sufficiently well. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated as it would enable me to write further contributions. Best, NPRFTE

Thanks for dropping by the Teahouse, NPRFTE. I've taken a look at your article and I'm not sure Wikipedia is the right place for it. If I'm reading this correctly, PSSG is an idea for an invention that you've come up with, right? I saw that you had entered it into the ecomagination contest and applied for a UK patent, but I'm not seeing any mention of PSSG itself in what folks here would consider as a reliable source. The problem isn't that the article is lacking references to how the idea works. The problem is that the idea itself isn't mentioned (as best I can tell) in any book, periodical, newspaper, peer-reviewed journal, etc. That's the measure of notability here, and until you can point to that kind of reference I don't have much hope that the article will get in.

Have you tried writing this up and submitting it to IEEE Transactions on Power Systems? They would be able to evaluate your ideas on the merits rather than on its notability.

Good luck!

Garamond Lethe (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I had a quick look too. I've added the {{Reflist}}, which means that the inline citations will show. If, after considering Garamond Lethe's comments, you still think that the term is notable enough for the encyclopedia, then I'd encourage you to cite references like that where possible. -- Trevj (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Flags and edits, COI - need advice

Hi again. It seems no matter what I do, the article Deborah Berke & Partners Architects ends up with more flags than less. I am aware that I can make no edits to it due to potential/perceived COI. However, the suggestions and thoughts I leave on the Talk:Deborah Berke & Partners Architects are not getting those flags removed, and more edits/questions seem to appear each day. Would it make sense for me to take another stab at writing the article, based on all the WP editors' feedback, flags, inline comments, etc., in My Sandbox or somewhere else (if yes, where?)? I am asking for advice because the flags are just killing me. Please, tell me what I can do to get this article fixed and looking good! Thank you. Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Meredith! I removed the primary sources tag because I feel that primary sources are allowed in that section per WP:PRIMARY. The only remaining issue I see on the page is the clarify thing on two partners and two principals, but apparently it is not desired that the partners be named, so I don't know if that issue can be fixed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As a further comment, I highly suggest that you use {{Request edit}} when you wish for an edit to be made to the page. That way, it is easier to see what edit requests have been answered and which ones are still waiting. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome input Ryan. I had no clue that template for COI existed. I'm going to use it on an article that I have a COI with soon! Awesome tips, and great work Meredith!!! Sarah (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

On the point of the partners, I can think of two things. One, drop it from the text altogether leaving it as Deborah Burke is the principal partner in the firm (this could be referenced to the firm's own website). Two, in the infobox add a [[Help:Hidden text|hidden comment after the |partner= parameter using . This would be to the effect of "the partners have asked not to be named, so please leave this parameter empty" - linking this to relevant discussion on the talk page would help. I must admit I can't see why this is desired and I think it has to be accepted that this can only be a request, if it is public information who the partners and principals are then stopping that info being inserted if someone is dead set on it is going to be hard. NtheP (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan Ryan Vesey and everyone- I have reviewed the comments, changes, and updates to the Deborah Berke & Partners Architects article and am beyond grateful that consensus seems to have been reached regarding the use of sources and that the flags have been removed. From the bottom of my heart, thank you!!! I am not sure why Dori User talk:DoriSmith interpreted my comments as a request to remove the partners and principals' names - that was a misunderstanding. I was trying to point out that they were clearly known and of WP public record as their names were popping up in the info box on the page. I thought this might help "clarify" their existence. However, I will take Ryan and NtheP Nthep's suggestions and request an edit that might omit that "clarify" comment and make the article more clear. Again, thank you all for your input, expertise and help. Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

How does one deal with vandalism in talk pages?

The following talk page Talk:Moodupadam is covered in Chinese and seems to be vandalism. Does one leave as is? Sesamevoila (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sesamevoila! Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, it is okay to revert vandalism. The edit you refer to is almost certainly vandalism and it broke the template so I reverted it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Vesey..how does one revert? When I tried using the undo link, I got the message that it could only be done manually by which I presume the content had to be deleted

If the vandalism has become embedded by following edits you will need to delete it manually by opening the edit window. It is good to open the page history by clicking the tab at the top of the page and go back through the revisions to see if material has been lost during vandalism. Find a clean version and save that. Saving the last good version avoids having to manually replace lost content or dig out vandal additions.--Charles (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikicode

How does wikicode work? How do I remember how to make tables and infobars and many other complex things. Also, why this complexity? Why not wysiwyg? I simply cannot remember any of the wikicode. I need help with this. I should be drt2012 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dannyboy1209, first, I'd like to apologize for any issues we've had in the past. This page has some good information on wikicode. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't help at all! I am known as drt2012 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dannyboy, ok try this page Help:Wiki markup, this page and the pages that are linked to it (including Help:Table) should give you all the information you need about wikicode. This page explains why WP doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor at the moment and what is happening about this. NtheP (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think they are asking not to be called Dannyboy :)

Hi drt2012, if you ask us how to do something that you want to do, we might be more helpful to you. Hopefully NtheP's links will explain some things, wiki markup code can be confusing. Is there something specific you want help with? heather walls (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi drt2012! I totally sympathize with your frustrations :( You're always welcome to come by the Teahouse here and we'll do our best to help you format or learn how to do some things here on Wikipedia. Just so you know, Wikimedians are working on creating a "visual editor" that is like WSIWYG, it just takes time. You can learn more about it here. THanks for coming by, and I hope we can help you out! Sarah (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Very basic summary of what original research is please?

I read the article and it was quite hard to understand. Androzaniamy (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Androzaniamy! Original research is material that you cannot back up with reliable published sources (because such sources do not exist [1]). Say, you know for certain that "such and such has a dog", so you add it to the corresponding article; but no reliable, published sources exist to back up that statement: it will have to be removed. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability —the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. benzband (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research involves other things too. You cannot make your own interpretations on anything and you can't combine information. For example, if one source said that many men wear hats and another said many men are tall you can't say that wearing hats makes people tall. (While this is an unrealistic example, similar realistic examples could occur) Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So if you have a piece of information from a reliable source but don't cite it can it be interpreted by other users as original research? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is very possible that if something isn't cited, people may assume it is your own original research. Generally, something should be cited any time it isn't common knowledge. For more assistance on when to cite your sources see Wikipedia:When to cite. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Two interesting essays sort of arguing some of the limits of a policy such as WP:OR are WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. They are anything but definitive but they give a hint of some considerations. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What if it's common knowledge to people who know about the subject, not experts but jiust reasonably informed? Androzaniamy (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Really, the rule is that, if it's not able to be explicitly supported by reliable sources, it's original research. If something is common knowledge by non-experts, there is almost certainly a reliable source that says it, so it's not OR. Basically, the rule of thumb I use is this: if someone were to ask you where you got that information from, and (after looking pretty hard for some) you can't find anything reliable that supports your position, it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. The relevant sentence from WP:V is this: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." Not everything actually needs to be supported by direct references and citations, but everything must be able to be supported by direct references and citations, were it to be challenged. Does that make more sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with Articles_for_creation/Afranet

Hello;

I am kind of new to the Wikipedia environment. I was trying to make a Page about a public company, which apparently had history in Wikipedia and I guess is protected or something. Can you please take a look and advise how I can request it to be published? I prepared an extensive argument including references and other materials to show the notability of the company, with the Market Cap of 30 Millions USD. Please help! ChazzI73 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi ChazzI73! I have made a deletion review request for your article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 18 please go to that page and provide links to reliable sources you have found. In addition, you should incorporate the sources you listed on your talk page into the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the info. I would appreciate if you check it and make sure everything is in the order it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChazzI73 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello ChazzI73 - nice to meet you. I have been looking closely at your work. It's very interesting. I also looked at your arguments about the deletion. You listed a source "Collection of 60 newspaper Articles about Afranet: http://afranet.com/App_Themes/images/About/Press/Afranet-in-Media.pdf" and I have been studying it. It seems to have many potential sources of useful information. Can you locate any of these media sources on the net? If they are verifiable, they may be useful. They do not need to be in English. All the sources you have provided are in English. The Original Farsi sources may be better quality for Wikipedia. If you can find sources from different places, that is even better. If you do locate any extra sources, please add them to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 18. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi and Thanks. I added a few more links and can add like 200 more if you see it necessary. ChazzI73 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You should probably wait until some more comments come along before you think of adding another 200. The page is getting a little long. I left a note there that the article needs some of those new sources to be included, not just listed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I added a few of them to the article, where it fits. Thanks. ChazzI73 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

ChazzI73 you are very Enthusiastic! I agree with Ryan Vesey when he says that you need to find sources that fit into the Afranet page. I remember a quotation translated from Arabic "“Ask the experienced rather than the learned.”. You have much learning in the subject of Afranet. Here, at the Teahouse, there is great experience. “Proverbs are the lamp of speech.” Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So, what would be the next step? I already incorporated a few of the sourced to the original article, even though they are not in English. ChazzI73 (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please help here? I really don't know what is the next step! ChazzI73 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing and citations for a biographical article on a living person.

Many thanks for your friendly welcome to Wikipedia. I have an interest in up-dating the Wikipedia article on composer/harpist Savourna Stevenson but have no experience in writing suitable text for Wikipedia. Perhaps you could give me some advice about listing suitable citations? I can see that an internet link can be created to a specific article published in a newspaper, but this can only be done for an article written relatively recently which is held on the newspaper's online archive ( ... for example, online archives for The Scotsman newspaper only extend back to 2004 ). If I have actual copies of older newspaper articles, which pre-date internet listing, how do I use these as citations? Is it relevant/possible to reproduce an entire article which is used as a citation, or is it considered sufficient simply to list a reference to the article/author/newspaper/date of publication? I am very interested to do some more homework on Wikipedia policies, guidelines and writing style before attempting more editing. I am also particularly interested in getting recommendations from experienced editors for well written articles on similar living musicians which I can study and learn from. With thanks Frasergord (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Frasergord, hi, welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for the interest in improving a biography. If something isn't available on the internet that doesn't matter as long as the source is available somewhere should somebody want to make the effort to find it to verify it. So old paper copies of newspapers are fine as a source. There is a fairly easy to use template for referencing newspapers called {{cite news}} - it supports a lot of parameters but the main ones you want are these {{cite news | last = | first = | title = | newspaper = | page = | date = | url = }}. The various parameters - |last= and |first= are the names of the person who wrote the piece (if known, leave them blank if not known), |title= is the title of the article |newspaper= would be The Scotsman, |page= and |date= the page and date the article appeared. If it is available online then you can use |url= otherwise leave this one blank. To add a reference to the article, in the body of the text type <ref>{{cite news | last = | first = | title = | newspaper = | page = | date = | url = }</ref> (with the parameters completed of course) immediately after the text you want the reference to apply to, then towards the bottom of the article after the main text in the References section add {{reflist}} This adds a reference list to the article if it doesn't already have one. The software will then create the references at the bottom when you save the page. Hope this helps but please stop by again if you don't understand any of this or want to ask any other questions. NtheP (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind welcome and many thanks for your concise and helpful explanation of the use of references. This is enormously helpful to me. If anyone can suggest one or two good examples of Wikipedia articles on similar living musicians which I can study, this would also be most helpful.

With thanks for your assistance, Frasergord (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Frasergord, glad you have come for some tea. I have been looking at the edit history on the Savourna Stevenson entry. It is interesting. I have been connected to the Music Business in the past, and I know that there is a certain Poetic Prose style that is used when talking about musicians and performers - It can get quite Purple Prose - flowery and expansive. That style tends to not work in Wikipedia which has to be neutral and on point.

Saying that someone is "a world renowned, prodigious intentionally recognised expert in playing an instrument" may be true - but there has to be a source to support that view, and it has to be cited. Otherwise all that can be said is "they play a bit". P^)

You asked about guidelines on style - you may find this helpful too Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia respects and even demands truth - but anything on the page has to be verified truth from sources, not the editors view and opinions.

You asked for some examples of how to write about Musicians - so I would look at this page Musicians which links to many examples that show how to describe clearly and "quote" Sources when needed. Philip Glass is an interesting example as his work is seen as contentious by some and yet loved by others - and the editing has to be balanced and accurate.

I have been looking at other examples of Musicians and noted that some of the pages are quite "Purple"! I can see why you have been wondering how to write the Wiki way. I may have to get me citation marker pen out and start marking up a few pages. Some read more like fanzines than Wikipedia entries.

Hope that helps - and if you need more help just shout. The kettle is always on. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind welcome and for taking the time to look at my initial attempts at edits. I am slightly relieved to hear your observation that other Wiki articles on living musicians often tend to be 'no less purple' than my own poor attempts. This is one of the reasons why I am very interested to get recommendations for 'good examples' of Wikipedia articles on 'similar' musicians, as I am struggling to find any which really comply with the stated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Philip Glass article is certainly an impressively well researched and interesting one ... but it is not an entirely helpful comparision, as he is such a hugely sucessful and internationally known person with so many previous studies, articles, books, TV programmes, etc, about his work ... and Savourna Stevenson is, relatively, such a little known person outside the small world of the harp and Scottish music.

Having been picked up for editing 'without sources and writing like an advert', I also realize that I am going to have some difficulty creating an article about Savourna Stevenson which 'appears' to be entirely neutral - as I have now found many valid sources and references to Savourna Stevenson in reputable newspapers and magazines over the last 30 years, but they are nearly all 'enthusiastically raving' about her work. So, if I simply use the available material from verifiable sources, the article will sound biased and like an advert!? I guess I may simply have to avoid quoting too much from those sources?

Your observations and comments are most helpful. Thanks for your assistance, Frasergord (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Frasergord, if the sources themselves are independent, reviews of live performances, recorded material - that type of thing, by journalists and the like and are not rehashs of press releases, fan blogs etc then it's ok to say "Her music has been described variously as the best thing since sliced bread<ref>Insert reference here</ref> and the best thing to come out of Scotland since deep fried Irn-Bru.<ref>Insert another reference here</ref>" That way you are writing neutrally about her and pointing out it's other who came up with the purple prose. The way the article is currently is reasonably neutral but grossly under referenced. Take for example the paragraph about Tweed Journey - it doesn't tell us why it brought her to national attention or indeed which bit of national attention. Was it a smash hit in just the Scottish traditional music scene or did it attract wider more mainstream music interest and got reviewed more widely? I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm denegrating Scottish traditional music, I'm not, but national attention in a fairly specialised interest area is not the same as national attention in a wider market; big ponds little ponds and all that. NtheP (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Frasergord - glad you found the observations on the Purple Prose helpful P^). I was actually quite shocked by the amount I found!

You said "...small world of the harp and Scottish music." and I can think of quite a few Scottish Musicians who would seek your blood.

Wiki does not do small or big. Wiki does equality! Oh - and verifiability! You seem to have valid sources, and if they sing the praises of a talented, amazing, inspiring and internationally respected and renown player of the Harp - Mouth Organ - Pair of Runcible Spoons- or their elbow - provided the sources exists and are notable then they have a place in Wiki Land. (Last Time I looked the Scotsman was a source of note).

I see that if you search google news and choose the archive option there are quite a few references going back to 1990 - and she also features in Google scholar. One trick I pull is to use Google images as a search tool and see where the images lead. You can often uncover hidden gems. Often the image is held on a server that allows Google indexing, but it's displayed on a web page that Google is not allowed to index - so the gem is sort of kept secret and out of public gaze. Many images have Meta Data (Hidden Data) that says who is in the image - and that get's indexed. You can also play with the search parameters using Album titles and linked musicians, that also pulls up hidden gems. It's shocking what is out there but not easily found. I like this quote from 1994 "fiddler Aly Bain - "'Savourna is the most progressive harp-player in Scotland. She's also happy to experiment, which is the only way that innovative music is produced." Link. Sounds good to me. P^) And I think the Independent Newspaper does circulate south of the border! If you search for Womad it seems she has many links there, and last time I did Womad it was Global.

Oh and don't forget to scour Google Books. I have to wonder what Savourna Stevenson was doing at the National Library Of Scotland - in 1981? In 1999 she has some very interesting things to say about Scottish Music being like an essential oil - essences she works with. There are even more interesting comments about Scottish music being damaged by the "Tartan and Haggis Tradition", and how progress comes in many ways. There seem to be some very interesting quotes out there about her music and work - and not just in newspapers. You can just look for her, or people and events she has been linked to. It's quite amazing what Google does index, but also what it misses but can be found by a few tricks.

And I don't know where the deep fried Irn Bru came from NtheP? Do you fry the Irn Bru in or out of the bottle? P^) Deep-fried Mars bars are much more like it, and I know that Wiki is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong (well misleading). It can only cite the 1995 reference from the Daily Record as the earliest source - and a chippy in Aberdeen of all places. Yet, I was ordering Deep-fried Mars bars along with many others In Glasgow in the 1980's - over 10 years earlier. It was an Italian chip-shop off Trongate - the true Home of a Scottish Delicacy. The place was thronged in 1990 when Glasgow was the European city of culture and they expanded into deep-fried confectionery of all types - including Clootie Dumpling . . Funny that - but I can't find a source to verify my calorie intake.P^) "Verifiability - Not Truth"! It can be annoying and frustrating!

All the best - and it looks like you may be able to also get the Citation Pen out and help remove some of the Purple Tint that has been allowed to creep in. Editors have to be transparent, even if others ""quoted"" have a heavy tint to what they clearly say. Editors are neutral - they quote other people's truths. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Harp & Scots music is more a niche market than some, so small in that respect. I did say I did not intend to denigrate it! Deep fried Irn Bru - freeze the Irn Bru first then drop it in the frier. I admit I've never eaten one but then I don't like the fizzy drink either. NtheP (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's something I can answer ... Savourna Stevenson was at the National Library of Scotland in 1981 to illustrate a lecture by her father, Ronald Stevenson, 'Harps of their own Sort' ( the title from George Buchanan, a 16th century Scottish scholar who wrote 'They delight very much in music, especially in harps of their own sort') and there is a photo of the event in the book 'Ronald Stevenson, The Man and his Music'. I like your Aly Bain quote from the Independent, which I have never seen - thank you. I was a bit gob-smacked to find that Google returned 27,000 results for the name 'Savourna' ... and they do all relate to her. So, there should be lots of possible references, but also loads and loads of unhelpful dross to sift through.

I am finding it interesting to note that, although I have asked quite a number of different Wikipedians to recommend good quality articles about 'similar' musicians which I can study, I still have not received any specific recommendations ( except Philip Glass ) ... so I am left wondering if perhaps there are no 'good' Wikipedia articles on similar musicians?

With thanks again for your helpful thoughts and advice, Frasergord (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Frasergord, have a look at Category:GA-Class biography (musicians) articles and Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles for those biographies which have been assessed as good or featured quality articles. NtheP (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I shall have a closer look at the Category:GA-Class biography (musicians) articles and Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles. Frasergord (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Directing where to upload pictures to

Hello,

I want to upload some pictures specifically to the China section on english or chinese wiki. I am not approved yet (new member) so I couldn't try it. When I upload one will it go to my personal account or to the commons and can it be classifed after uploading based on a country that it pertains to? Also is there an mb upload limit per picture or in total per month for example? I want to upload some very dense pictures in terms of mb and allow people to use the very good resolution or just average depending on their needs. Thanks Whoisgalt (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look at commons:Commons:FAQ, your questions may already be answered there. Else ask a question at commons:Commons:Help desk. SpeakFree 22:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakFree (talk • contribs)

Hi Whoisgalt! Welcome and sorry to be so late in getting back to you. Regarding your question of how/where to upload, I suggest uploading your picture straight to Wikimedia Commons, as SpeakFree suggested above. There should be some instructions there when you click "Upload file" on the left side of the page which will walk you through the (somewhat confusing) process. And at some point in that process you should be able to add 'categories' or 'tags' to the image you are uploading--so, for example, you could add the category 'China' to an image. Once the image is on Commons, it can be used multiple times, on any language Wikipedia! As for resolution, the more megabytes the better! I've never tested the upper limit myself, but I'm curious to find out what it is. If you do find out, let me know ;) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 05:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I figured it out after I uploaded a few...The tags are useful.Whoisgalt (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your photos! About upload limits, there's only a 100 MB file limit, so you need an enormous file to get near the limits (File:Van Gogh - Starry Night - Google Art Project.jpg enormous), and you can get around that if you need, too. As long as your stuff might be useful ("in scope" as they say), the more the better, that's the idea. About categories, there are way too many photos of China to put them all under "China", so we sort them into specific categories like "Zhaoqing" and "China in 1999". Just adding something like the country or province is fine, and other editors can sort more from that. —innotata 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures from commons pages

Hello I've been adding some pictures to commons and then using some of these to beautify pages and for several it allows you to click on them one time and get the larger version but most won't allow a 2nd click for a whole page version. It says it can't be displayed because it causes errors and then it gives a blank thumbnail outline. Has anyone run into this problem before or no why it's happening. You can take a look at Port_of_Dalian. Any help would be greatly appreciated.Whoisgalt (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Not sure if it remedied itself or someone behind the Oz wiki curtains did some majic..But thanks it works nowWhoisgalt (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues and Content

How can I improve an article when there is no relationship between the issues and the content? Vibhabamba (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vibhabamba. I am not sure what you mean by issues. Can you tell us which article you have in mind?--Charles (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging two articles?

Hi there!

I'm wondering if the article Pagwa (festival) (which is an orphan and a stub) should be merged with the article Holi? The article on 'Pagwa' - which is, I'm pretty sure, an alternative spelling (or perhaps a misspelling) of Phagwah - seems basically to be a duplicate of the article on 'Holi', possibly created because the article on Holi previously made no mention of Phagwah as an alternative name, even though a search for Phagwah is automatically redirected to the Holi article, as are other entries for Phagwah (e.g. those on the Culture of Guyana and Culture of Trinidad and Tobago pages). I added 'Phagwah' to the list of alternative names on the Holi article yesterday. So should the Pagwa article be merged, or deleted? And if so, what's the best way of doing this?

Thanks!

Loriski (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Loriski. Thanks for coming by here. I think the best solution here is to make the Pagwa (festival) page into a redirect to Holi. There is nothing much to merge. Normally this would be proposed on the talk page with merge tags added to the article. In this case however I think you can justifiably go ahead and boldly do it. To do this the text on the page is replaced with #REDIRECT[[Holi]]. Leave the categories and the talk page as they are. I hope this helps.--Charles (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Charles - hugely helpful! I will go ahead and do that right away! Loriski (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

how to request a review of a wiki page

hello everyone. i authored a wiki page: Stav Shaffir which was accepted a while ago with a clause that reads: This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. I have since added a whole bunch of references for things that weren't referenced before. Is it possible to get a new review of the page? I want to do everything that's needed to remove that clause :) thanks.

Idoshlomo (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Idoshomo. Your page will come within WikiProject Biography and will be assessed by that project in due course. It may take a while but you can make a request at that project for it to be assessed. Adding the template {{Wikiproject Biography}} to the talkpage will make it part of that project.--Charles (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

hey charles - thanks very much! i did both things - added to the project and posted a request. from the request page it seems that it takes a while to attend them. i hope it happens soon! thanks again :) Idoshlomo (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Idoshomo, you can also leave a note on the talk page of the person who tagged the page. From the History page of your article this appears to be User_talk:SarahStierch (14 May) --Wolbo (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

hey wolbo, i did that already but she seems very busy so i thought i'd try something else. maybe ill try her again in a while :) thanks! Idoshlomo (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism?

As a kind of follow up to the question lower down, how do you go about reporting vandalism? I don't like reverting it without letting someone know what happened, but I don't know how to do that. (Keeping in mind there's a difference between making a mistake and deliberately vandalizing something.) Every time I've run into it it's been done by someone who isn't registered and doesn't have a talk page. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Tlqk, welcome back. If a vandalizing user doesn't have a talk page, the first thing to do (before reporting them to anyone) is to give them a warning. You can do this through the various user warning templates, usually Template:uw-vandalism1 through Template:uw-vandalism4. Start at 1, then escalate to 2 if the user vandalizes again, then to 3, then to 4. If you're using Twinkle (I do), there's a "Warn" function that appears when you're on a user's talk page that's great for this. After a user has been given a final (level 4) warning, and if he continues to vandalize, you can report the vandal at WP:AIV, which is the admin noticeboard for vandalism. Please keep in mind that, especially for IP (unregistered) editors, all four warnings must be recent (like within a day or two), and there must have been vandalism since the final warning. (Obviously there are exceptions to this where the chain of 1-2-3-4-report can be bypassed, but they don't happen often at all, and virtually never with IP editors.) Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer, Writ Keeper. Where do you put the warning if they don't have a talk page?Tlqk56 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You can then create their talk page with that template. A link to a person's talk page should always be visible on any History of any article they have edited, as in this picture (i.e. where it says Example (talk · contribs)). The heading for your message on their talk page can be the date, i.e. ==MMM YYYY==. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought that those addresses, with only a series of numbers, changed every time a person logs on. So if I start the talk page and leave a message, the person it's intended for won't get it, will they, if they've already logged off? Or am I totally misunderstanding how those work - which is quite possible.Tlqk56 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The addresses, known as IP addresses, are held for varying lengths of time. Some internet service providers switch a person's IP address regularly, others when they reboot their computer or their network, others still hold on to them permenantly as a "static" IP address. They're still worth warning, as they might be keeping the address for a while, and even if they don't the warnings can be taken into account for a "range block", where an entire range of similar IP addresses can be blocked. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Worm said most of what I was gonna say, but I'd just like to emphasize that dynamic IP addresses are the reason that warnings to IPs must be recent; if they're older than a few days, we can't be sure it was the same person that incurred the warnings, so we have to start the cycle again from scratch. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks so much for explaining that. It's great to know I can leave messages and the people at least have a chance of getting them. I really appreciate everybody getting back to me so quickly. My only worry is that at some point I'll feel I've been on WP too long to be a newcomer, and have to stop coming here for answers. Then where will I go? :) You people are great!Tlqk56 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, maybe by then, you'll still be here as a host. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

how do I add a section to an article?

Hello, I am wondering how to add a section to an article. Specifically, I would like to add a section to the Phosphatidylserine article to describe its metabolism, but I don't know how. Also, I don't yet know how to add citations to an article. Thanks in advance, NathanaelKing (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello NathanaelKing. Equal signs are used to make a section, usually 2 at the start and 2 at the end of the section heading. More create sub-headings.--Charles (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nathanael! Under "Help" on the edit toolbar, there is a guide for labeling headings. I hope this helps as well. -- Luke (Talk) 02:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nathanel. I'm new to Wikipedia, and usually come here to ask questions. But I noticed you asked about adding citations. Basically, you put this: <ref>last name, first name of author, ''Title'', publisher, date, pp. ##</ref>. (Or whatever info works for your source.) Place all of that directly after the part you are referencing, with no space after the punctuation. Then towards the bottom of the page there must be a section called References that looks like this:

==References==

{{reflist}}.

That section will automatically number and put the footnotes in the right order for you. There are special ways to reference web pages and to use the same citation over and over again without typing it all out, if you need them. It may be clearer if you click edit for an article and see how it's done there. Then practice it in your sandbox. If it doesn't work come back here and somebody will explain it more clearly. It's really easy once you figure it out! Happy Editing.Tlqk56 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How do I merge two duplicate articles?

I've come across two articles referring to the same film but with slightly different spellings. See Mookilla Rajyathu and Mookkillarajyathu. How do I merge the two/delete one? Sesamevoila (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sesamevoila, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Good spot on seeing two identical articles. In case like this where they are near enough identical then the simple thing to do is to redirect one to the other. As Mookkillarajyathu seems to be the more common title I would redirect Mookilla Rajyathu by replacing all the content of this page with

#REDIRECT [[Mookkillarajyathu]] {{R from alternative name}}. This will mean anyone who looks for Mookilla Rajyathu will be automatically sent to the other page. before you create the redirect it is worth checking if there is any information worth transferring to the other page. Redirecting articles where two topics on the same subject only works if the content of the pages is the same. If it different then the pages need to be merged which is a bit more complicated. NtheP (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,NtheP, now how about these two? Mazhathullikilukkam and Mazhathullikkilukkam. There is only a difference in the middle k but the spelling is the same in the heading and also when one goes to the edit pages

The one with a single k is already redirected to the other. You'll see that when you click on the link it takes you to the other and just underneath the title in small text says (Redirected from . . .) NtheP (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, by simply redirecting, the movie shot (included in the old version of Mookkillarajyathu) is now unused. It's probably worth reincluding File:Mookkilyarajyathu.jpg in the infobox at Mookilla Rajyathu - however, I'm not familiar with the guidelines for movies, which usually seem to include poster images in infoboxes and only screenshots if they're discussed within the text. Check the non-free content criteria. -- Trevj (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Referencing from one Wikipedia to another

In an article for the English Wikipedia, how do I reference an article within the German Wikipedia? Something like .de, but I don't remember exactly. HPaul (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, HPaul, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can do interwiki links by appending a colon, the abbreviation of the wiki, and another colon to the link, so a link to the main page on the German encyclopedia would look like: [[:de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite]] (at least, I think that's the main page; I don't speak German...) Anyway, hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just note that you cannot cite an article from German Wikipedia when trying to verify something at English Wikipedia. German Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Jayron32 23:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! And one more note: if you translated something from the German wikipedia (or any other language) into the English language article, you should account for that on the English language article's talk page, using this format: {{translated|de|Hauptseite}}. Does this help? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Writ Keepr, Jayron32 and Rosiestep! But the translation remark in the talk page for "Ruth Cohn" looks funny. HPaul (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you would like the template to be the full width of the page like the other banners at the top of the talk page, you can add |small=no into the {{translated}} template. I've done this on Ruth Cohn as an example. NtheP (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nthep! And how do I get rid of the "Stub-class" at Talk:Ruth Cohn? HPaul (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've re-assessed it as start class against the criteria. The change is by changing the |class= in the project template(s) on the talk page. This has also re-categorised the article categories at the bottom of the talk page. NtheP (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nthep! HPaul (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving my article draft from my sandbox to a specific user subpage

Hello, I'm still learning about how pages should be build, and from what I understand it would be better for me to build the page I'm working on in a dedicated user sub-page rather than in my sandbox.

I have not yet been a registered user for 4 days, so I don't think I can move the page myself, but I did not want to simply copy-paste the information into a new subpage.

How can I move this page?

The article in progress currently: User:Jemmera/sandbox

Desired Page to move this project: User:Jemmera/T&M

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!

Jemmera (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Jemmera, welcome to the Teahouse. Happy to help you here and I've moved your sandbox page to User:Jemmera/T&M as you requested. Any problems, please come back here and leave another message. NtheP (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jemmera, in the future you can go to Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page once you can move an article. -- Luke (Talk) 13:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help; much appreciated! Jemmera (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

tastefulness of picture

One thing I forgot. I also added a picture of dogs being butchered (no blood, or graphic detail, kind of sterile) will this be flagged as inappropriate or derogatory? Because it happens in China and is a real life thing. Would it be like posting pics of a life birth, we know it happens but not many people want to see it :-) ?Whoisgalt (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Whoisgalt, I can remark on this, sorry that I need to run and don't have time to do a full review of your other question; although, the same issue doesn't appear for me. Wikipedia is not censored so images are (almost) never removed as inappropriate. Your image should be fine. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan..Actually right after I posted the message I found the "dog meat" page and saw several dogs on platters so then I knew it would be okay. Mine will just add to the already heavy mix of pics.Whoisgalt (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as the image makes sense to have in the article and isn't misrepresentative/makes no sense/etc then it'll be okay. It usually gets controversial when it's sex/porn related. Sarah (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Why all the fuss?

No need to reply to this further, thanks >>>

Why does the article about "Stuart Ashen" get deleted so much. I find it unnessesary. Ashen is a famous youtube personality. There is no need to delete his article that many times! Reply to, me, drt2012 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dannyboy1209. Not every person who has ever been born merits a Wikipedia article. In order to merit an article, a subject has to be written about extensively in reliable sources. That means that there have been extensive books, magazine articles, newspaper reports, etc. etc. which cover the life of a person in sufficient detail that we can use those other sources as references that we can cite to verify the facts about their life. If reliable, extensive writing about a person doesn't exist, then Wikipedia doesn't have an article about them, because we don't like having articles with information we can't trust. It doesn't matter how many YouTube hits they have, what matters is what information about their lives we can find in independent, trustworthy sources. If we can't find enough information to write a good encyclopedia article from, we don't write that encyclopedia article. You can find more information about this concept at the page Wikipedia:Notability. Does that help explain what is going on here? --Jayron32 17:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that deleting once is justifyable, but 6 times! Why so many anyways. Just stop deleting it, okay! I am the Emperor of admminship, his imperial majesty, drt2012 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

I'm not an expert, but something tells me that posting an article six times does not NECESSARILY make the subject noteworthy. By that theory, when somebody vandalizes a page six times, the vandalism becomes legit. Uporządnicki (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And ANYWAY, deleting the article as many times as it appears is JUSTIFIABLE if the article shouldn't be there in the first place. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Same old picture trouble

Hello Editor!

I keep getting this type box instead of the photo showing on my article page. What am I doing wrong? How can I fix it? I've uploaded the photo twice with the same result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Patricia_Childress

Thanks a lot. Marilyn Nix (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marilyn, nice to see you again! Believe it or not, capitalization counts with these wiki links (like the file of the image). I've capitalized her name and now it seems to work, check it out. heather walls (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Heather, thanks so much for fixing/tweaking that picture--should be able to handle correctly next time. Appreciate the TeaHouse scene.

Marilyn Nix (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks as a source for citation source in wikipedia

Can wikileaks leaks such as the US State department files be used as a credible source for citation in wikipedia articles? Sesamevoila (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, that's a great questions Sesamevoila. My gut feeling is that they shouldn't be, as they are Primary Sources, and we look for secondary or even tertiary sources. The discussion came up before on the Reliable source noticeboard - and the general thought there was that they were primary sources and self published, we have no idea if the information is accurate or was ever intended for publication. There might be exceptions though - if you can argue that it's reliable, then I'd be interested to hear why you think so. I hope that helps, and I'm sure some other editors will have other thoughts. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, you can use the {{WikiLeaks cable}} template for linking/referencing to a particular cable. benzband (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found it useful for compiling biographies since the many assessments on individuals contained in the cables carry precise information such as exact date and place of birth,places travelled to, etc presumably from passport information available with the concerned Embassy. I have always tried to verify this against more general info available in the public domain such as year of birth. If there's a template available for linking/referencing a particular cable, does that mean it's being done on a frequent basis? Sesamevoila (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You can see some of the instances of referencing {{WikiLeaks cable}} (if not all, some might be substituted I guess?) by looking at "What links here" in the toolbox of the sidebar of that particular page. heather walls (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How to edit the very top of an article

Basically I need to know how to edit the summary box, there is something I would like to fix on an article. It would also be useful when creating articles. Calicoyoda 05:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicoyoda (talk • contribs)

I'm not really sure so as to what u mean by the very top and the summary box. If you are referring to the lead section of the article, you can edit it by using the edit button at the top of the article. If you are referring to the title of the article, you cannot edit it. You will have to move the page to another page with the name you want and delete the original page(or tag the original page for deletion). The summary box usually refers to the edit summary that you leave after an edit. Roshan220195 (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Calicoyoda. Good to meet you, I don't think we've chatted before. There's a couple of possibilities here. As Roshan suggested, there is the article "lead", which is the text above the table of contents. When you press the "edit" button, it's the first block of text that's there - but if you're having trouble finding it, try using Ctrl-F and typing a bit of text you know to be in that lead. The reason it's sometimes hard is that there is sometimes an "infobox" there. This uses some wikicode to generate the text box on the right hand side of the screen on some articles. You can edit that too, or scroll past it. If you're looking for more information about infoboxes, just let us know and we can clarify that. It might also be helpful to let us know the name of the article, so we can give you more accurate information. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Found it now! It was hidden away as that little tab. Thanks :D Calicoyoda 09:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicoyoda (talk • contribs)

Notability Problems

Hi, I'm quite a novice at all this creating articles game... Oh and thanks for the invite to tree house! I have a problem with an article i have written which was deleted within about 40 minutes of me posting it for lack of notability... So I rewrote it again, this time I submitted it to the articles for creation part. Basically I have wrote a brief history of an amateur rugby club (link here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Egremont_Rangers_ARLFC) which play at the highest level of amateur rugby in europe, and have won national championships in their past, as well as competing against professional opposition regularly. And I have tried my best to link references, BUT every time someone comes along and says they are not notable enough for a page. I find this hard to believe when nearly every other club they play amongst has wikipedia articles which have absolutely no references to back up notability (Thatto_Heath_Crusaders, Stanley_Rangers and Castleford_Lock_Lane#cite_ref-0 just to name a few peer clubs). I just find this extremely hypocritical of wikipedia. Please can one of you wonderful people point out where I am going wrong and what those other pages are doing right? Thank you :) Fearsomemumbler (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

When I looked over the article yesterday, it didn't appear to me as if the subject was notable. However, it appears a precedent was established with other articles, so I apologize for the decline. However, there were other issues that I noticed. The article doesn't appear to have adequate sources (see: WP:42). What I mean by this, is you say the team has "10 players with over 25 international honors", but there's no accompanying reference(s) to verify that. Add sources and inline citations. If you need help, see WP:Referencing for beginners. Also, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. You currently have a Wikipedia page listed a source for the article. I'm not sure if this was your intention though. Remember, that if you want to link to an article in an article, you can simply just put [[ ]] around the article title (e.g. [[article title]] OR [[article title|the text you want displayed instead of the article title]]. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. AndrewN ^talk 18:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that the existence of other unsourced articles is not any reason to make another. The articles you point out are truly dire and are not doing anything right. It is just that nobody has got round to cleaning them up or getting rid of them.--Charles (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you Charles that the ones I pointed out are dire, but I didn't realise that I never referenced properly. But is the one I wrote as bad as those? Also I have made lots of edits on the article and hopefully got my references up to scratch. Got some good ones from the likes of The Guardian newspaper website. Thanks for the link to the referencing page Andrew, I think I've learned a bit tonight. Heres the link to the new article which I've just submitted for review again to Articles for Creation Submissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Egremont_Rangers_ARLFC. Also if anyone could give any extra tips I would be very grateful. Fearsomemumbler (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Fearsomemumbler (What a great name with Northern Overtones - love it). Been Looking at your work and you did ask for tips. I was looking at a link to "The Whitehaven News" and spotted that the source is from 2005 - 7 years ago. That may be a problem. Not the source - it's ""age"" in Internet Time.

Given data protection laws, combined with Business Practices over net storage space, my betting is that it will be deleted soon. One way to preserve the page is to use http://www.webcite.org - they take a snapshot and archive it... and it's free. Doing that also guards against what is known as "Link rot". You can then use the link from webcite.org to maintain the source for longer - possibly indefinitely. It also helps with other web pages, as they can be moved, changed or deleted at the click of a mouse button.

I did notice that some of the sites you have referenced are a little scrappy - and my betting is it's some chap in his back bedroom running the website on old technology - he gets a new system for Christmas and the website gets a makeover - and all the links are broken - whoops, all your sources are no good, and if too many of the links break you van find your article pending deletion. It could even be that his whippet hits the delete button by mistake!P^)

You will still need to improve the citations from newspapers, as there are no publication named or publication date details. If you provide them ""and"" the link from webcite.org it's belt and braces! When you're editing - if you look at the top bar of the edit window you should see the word "cite" - click that and you get the citation bar - and on the left hand side there is a drop down selection of templates. Choose news - fill in the blanks - Jobs a Goodun'!

It looks like you have been using the "cite web" template, which is logical, but not when the webpage is from a newspaper. Silly aint it? .... and, as for some thinking the article is not notable? Flipping Heck. They have no idea just how important men running round a field every weekend chasing after funny shaped balls is to the Culture and Heritage of the UK. Some countries they need padding and helmets. Wusses! P^) Above all else remember Wiki Land should be fun! Off to walk me Whippet Now . TTFN. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)