Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 173

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 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

→

Questions

Hi there, I wanted to ask a question about the series I'm currently into editing. I wanted to create a page on one of the TV series's main characters. But with the rules of Wikipedia, I wanted to know if she was a main enough character to have created. I noticed that she was on the List of The Vampire Diaries characters, but I dont think it gives her the attention she deserves. So to avoid problems, i thought i'd ask: can I create a page on Bonnie Bennett. TS (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TS and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that if you can find reliable published sources (books, magazines, websites with a reputation for reliable editing, but not publicly contributed sites or most blogs) that are not connected with the series or its producers and that talk about the character (specifically) at some length, then you may write an article about her, citing those sources. If you can't then it is impossible to write a properly referenced article about her, so no article is permitted. See WP:GNG for more information. --ColinFine (talk)+

Um, hi again ColinFine so i can use references from the Vampire Diaries site and Comic Con and from sister sites such as Wikia? TS (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you re-read Colin's list it states:

"that are not connected with the series" which means you cannot use the Vampire Diaries site.

"not publicly contributed sites" which means you cannot use most Wikia projects (there are one or two without any public contributions).

"reliable" - I don't know which comic-con site you are referring to, as there are many. Is it really "reliable"? or is it "fancruft"? In addition, several comic-con sites are also publicly contributed.

So, in summary, no, no and probably not. Arjayay (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, ok, what about IMDb and interviews or Comic-Con megs such as Upgrade? TS (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Chances are you can't use IMDb. I don't know what the other is.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of correcting a red link above. I hope no one minds.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to skull

My article was declined and one of the given reason is "WP:SYNTH/WP:OR angle", which I don't know how to get ride of, being a new editor. Your detailed advice or feedback would be highly appreciated. Synsepalum2013 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Synsepalum2013. WP:SYNTH is when an article combines information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that none of the sources state. For example, if one source says "Whit in poems is often a symbol of Virginity" and another says "The Poem 'The Whitness of the Whale' stresses the white color frequently" and the article then says "The poem suggests that the Whale is Virgin". Also, if the article drafter plays detective, putting together multiple clues to reach or support a conclusion, but none of the sources actually reach that conclusion.

WP:OR (Original Research) is when the article includes facts first learned or theories first invented by the article's drafter, or includes information based on the personal knowledge of the drafter, or in general includes anything not based on published sources.

The solution is to find reliable sources that support the conclusions of the article, and cite them. Anything not directly based on published reliable sources should be removed from the article. If this leaves nothing to the article then it does not belong on Wikipedia. If you have deduced a conclusion from circumstantial evidence, but no one has yet published that conclusion, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Instead try to publish your conclusion elsewhere. If reliable sources cover it, then and only then it can be included here. DES ^(talk) 17:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel, thank you for taking the time to explain. Much appreciated. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

is there an entry on Michael Kenny RA

I am considering starting an article on the British artist and sculptor Michael Kenny. I would like to know if there is an entry already.95.148.122.238 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey person editing from 95.148.122.238. Yes, we have an article on him at the [poorly named title] Michael Kenny, RA, which is also not listed on the disambiguation page for Michael Kenny at Michael Kenny, so it was easily missed. I will be renaming the article momentarily, but the previous link will still work. Please do boldly improve it! I suggest first that you take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial to learn the ropes a bit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

how to submit a revision

Hi!!

An article I had created was declined with the request that I add inline citations. I just finished doing that and then clicked "SAVE." Does that mean that I have now submitted the article for review again? If not, will you please tell me how to submit the article for review again?

Thank you!! PNWscholar (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, PNWscholar, and it's great to hear that you are adding citations to your article. No, pressing save doesn't submit the article; some editors may save several times before they are ready to resubmit. Since your article was declined, there should be a large pink notice on the page with the reasons for the decline. In that notice is a "Resubmit" button to select when you are ready. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi PNWScholar. You removed the notice that your article was declined, so the submit button won't be there. Don't remove those things. They will stay as history during the review process. I will put it back in and do some fixing of the references. Wikipedia doesn't use footnotes that are numbered manually. We have a system of automatically numbered footnotes. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Starry Grandma, I don't see any "automatically numbered footnotes" in this article. Please advise. Checkingfax (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It seems obvious now that I shouldn't have removed the message (duh :))I am so grateful for your responses. StarryGrandma (cool name), thank you for putting the notice back in and fixing the references. This is my first Wikipedia article and I apologize for my clumsy mistakes. Thanks again!!

PNWscholar (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about making mistakes. The details of Wikipedia are complicated, and the best way to learn is to start editing, see what happens, and ask for help as you have done. And someone else put the notice back before I got there. We're all happy to help. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

first page

I am trying to create a page about the company I work for. My big question is does the page stay out of the public until I somehow move it to the public domain? I have not yet set up an account, since I do not want to put info out there that is not completed unless I know I can have it private until it is public.

Thank you!

Lynne67.6.89.52 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lynne, and welcome to the teahouse. Wikipedia does not have any facilities for working on article drafts in private. Also, regarding your company, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Lynne: Your article will be freely editable by anybody (whether they have an account or not).

" ...Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on an openly editable model. The name "Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning "quick") and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's articles provide links designed to guide the user to related pages with additional information.

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity ... "

Checkingfax (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. There is a lot to digest on going through wikipedia.I just wanted to put down information on the page about things that have gone on at the company since it is an amphitheater. It would not have any of my opinions in it, but rather articles that would be sited and information on when it began, updates and past concerts. Then a picture of it. I have reviewed other amphitheater pages and the content I would be putting on the page I want to create is pretty similar to those.

Lynne67.6.89.52 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether what Lynne means by "in private" and "in public" is exactly what the editors replying mean. Most articles are created with the new article wizard, on a user sub-page, or in the new Draft article space. Although it is possible to find them with a detailed search, they are not "live", do not come up in a standard search and, AFAIK, are not indexed by Google (though I'm not sure about "Drafts").
So, although not totally "private", they are equally not "public" either, and will not be found via standard searches or links in other articles, and they should not have categories, so will not show in category searches.
I've only started about 35 articles, mostly as user sub-pages, but the only time anyone edited one of my user sub-pages was very early on, when I didn't know not to include categories in user-space drafts. - Arjayay (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Arjayay - thank you for reviewing the discussion. I think you might have understood the question I was asking better. In creating a page I would think that there would be a draft phase that isn't part of the public encyclopedia initially. After doing some more research I think the private space I was looking for was the user space and my sandbox for creating the page, then I could move it to main space or to have it reviewed prior to going to the main space for edits. Am I understanding that correctly? Also with the COI - does that mean I cannot publish a page on the company I work for, or that it just may be reviewed more closely?

Lynne67.6.89.52 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lynne, I would suggest creating the page offline initially, in a text editor something like Notepad, then copy/paste it in to Drafts when you are ready to have it published. That way it can be tamperproof. Checkingfax (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lynne. It can be complicated getting started in Wikipedia. To enlarge on what others have said, and answer outstanding questions: if you work on an article in your user space, anybody can see it and edit it; but as Arjayay says, it will not come up in simple searches; and it is not considered good behaviour to edit an article in somebody else's user space, unless there is something seriously and urgently wrong, such as a copyright violation or personal attack.

On the COI question: you are strongly discouraged from editing such an article, but not forbidden. You have made a good start by disclosing your COI, and if you choose to go ahead, you can expect to get closely reviewed.

I don't entirely agree with Checkingfax: you can work offline, but I don't think there's much benefit (unless you are on a flaky connection, so as not to lose your work). All formatting is expressed by wiki markup, and unless you are editing in the wiki, you can't see the result (while you are editing, you can "Preview", which doesn't save your work, but shows you what it looks like). Beware of editing in something like Word: any formatting you do in that will be lost when you paste it into Wikipedia. And as for the point about it being tamperproof: well yes, until it is in the wiki, nobody can see it or change it; but as soon as it is in the wiki, anybody can see it, and once it's in article space, anyone can change it. You will have no control over what happens to the article (or at least, no more than any other editor), and neither will you be allowed to withdraw it (by editing you "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the " irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", as it says at the bottom of the page). --ColinFine (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Formatting questions; reference list and erroneous "page does not exist" markings

Hello. I've got a piece that I believe is ready, and fully kosher, but there are two things I'd like to resolve. First is a red-letter prompt at the bottom of the page saying "Cite error: There are tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist template (see the help page)." Second is the fact that a few names (of people, films, and musical recordings) show up in red letters, and when the cursor is placed over them they say no Wikipedia page exists. But I've re-checked all the indicated pages, as well as the correct spellings, etc. Byron Laursen (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Byron, and welcome to The Teahouse. There are a few problems with the article, just based on a brief look, but not the ones you described. I fixed one, and you can easily fix some of the others. Movie and album titles should be italicized (notice how the apostrophes appear on either side). I have other things to do right now but I'm sure someone else can help you.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Byron. The links to Elephant's Memory and Willie "The Lion" Smith didn't work because you had "smart quotes" (for example ’ instead of ') in them (did you cut and paste from Word or something?) so the links did not match the titles of the articles, which have ordinary quotes. I've fixed that by creating redirects from the title with the smart quotes, so if anybody else tries to link with smart quotes, the links will work. --ColinFine (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hi, how does one create a Wiki page? I am working on a documentary project (thecrookedhouse.org) and would like to provide more information about it on Wiki and open a page for others to discuss their opinion and build a dialogue around it on Wikipedia. Am I ethically allowed to create the Wiki page for my own project, or is it something that needs to happen spontaneously? Thanks for your advise!

174.56.48.25 (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, only logged-in users can create new pages. But making an account is quick, easy, and free. Sign up here! Instead of creating an account, you can use the article wizard to make a draft, which someone else will eventually make into article. Concerning your idea, though, it's okay to make an article about something you're working on as long as it's not biased. However, Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. If you want to generate dialogue, it's better to do that elsewhere online. You are still welcome to improve other articles on Wikipedia. Cheers! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I hate to disagree with Anon126, but I have to disagree that "it's okay to make an article about something you're working on as long as it's not biased." It is only okay to create articles about topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There are all sorts of things that I am "working on" and I am capable of writing about them in a way that's "not biased". That doesn't mean that each and every of my personal projects deserves an encyclopedia article. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of my own personal projects are unworthy of encyclopedia articles, with the exception of the times I actually write encyclopedia articles on notable topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

To add to Cullen's points, Wikipedia isn't a forum host; if you want people to discuss your project then Wikipedia is definitely not the right venue for you. Whilst we have article talkpages, these are for discussing the content of the related Wikipedia article only, not the subject of the article. You can't "build a dialogue" around your project here. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You could create a Wiki page (or indeed an entire Wiki) for your project on Wikia. Wikia is not the same thing as Wikipedia, but uses the same software and markup, and would indeed allow others to discuss their opinion about your project and build a dialogue around it, which is your aim here. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I just thought notability wasn't worth mentioning here because the policy against promotion, etc. already draws heavily from notability. A misunderstanding, I suppose. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Would it be a good decision to make changes with citations

Would it be good to make changes with the citation of the website for proof in the edit summary? DarkStone06 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend always including references for anything you submit.

Use the <REF>...</REF> structure, where ... is the URL and/or bibliographic reference that supports your change. Place this structure immediately after your change.

ALSO be sure that the construct

appears under

==References==

towards the bottom of the page.

Regards

Philip Hunt BScHons(Library Technology) Wikiphunt (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How to 'implement' a redirect

A personal research project on place names in the United Kingdom led me to the page "List of places in County Durham".

The last name in the list is "Wreckenton", which, until I just made a few edits, pointed at no other Wikipedia article, unlike most of the other entries in this list. The edits that I have already implemented make a minor edit to the article on "Wrekenton", which makes a note of the fact that "Wreckenton" is a late 19th century spelling for today's "Wrekenton". I have made this edit based on information, found elsewhere on the web, that transcribes entries from the Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5, which I have duly correctly referenced. I have therefore put the correct internal link in the list.

OK so far, that gives you a summary of what I have done and the context of my question.

What I do not know how to do is to implement the link so that it does not just simply go the "Wrekenton" page {that is what I've done} but rather goes to the "Wrekenton" page and displays on that resultant page "(Redirected from Wreckenton)", cf. "West Pelton" from the same list of places, which causes the page on "Pelton" to be displayed with the reference " (Redirected from West Pelton)" being displayed immediately under the line that reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".

I am just at the beginning of a massive research on British Heritage and am hoping to be able to become a significant contributor and editor over time. Up until now I have only done a few grammar and internal link edits.

With thanks in anticipation for some useful advice.

Regards

Philip Hunt BScHons (Library Technology) Wikiphunt (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. All you have to do is create the article "Wreckenton". Search that name and the results page will give you the option to create the page. Add the code #REDIRECT [[Wrekenton]] there and save. That's it! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

New article

Hi! WTF do I need to create a new article?

Here's how it looks ATM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lake_Piva

This is a huge lake I've recently visited, about 3 hours driving from my home.

You can find in on google maps, bing maps, any other maps.

There are articles about the lake in another languages: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пивско_језеро, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivsko_jezero

I've tried to create an English one, more than 2 weeks passed, nothing happens.

Please help. 37.0.68.80 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately the Articles for Creation process is highly backlogged, and as mentioned at the top of your article, the process can currently take up to three weeks. My main advice for you right now would be to add more Inline Citations, to show which sources back up which information :) Samwalton9 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article states that "The elevation is 675 m from the sea level, making it the most elevated artificial reservoir in the world." This cannot possibly be true. Saddlebag Lake in California's Hoover Wilderness is an artificial reservoir created by a dam, serving the town of Lee Vining, California, and that reservoir is located at an elevation of 10,087 feet, or 3075 meters. My guess is that there may well be higher reservoirs in the Andes or the Himalaya, but I am certain of this one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How can I create a new page on wikipedia?

From last 3 months I was working on Indian traditional fighting called "Yudh".....and I think think it will be a good matter.Rateesh Tripathi (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rateesh. You have made the article on your user page (User:Rateesh Tripathi) which shouldn't really be used for article creation, so I would suggest first of all that you copy the page contents over to your sandbox which can be found at User:Rateesh Tripathi/sandbox. To create an actual article page you or someone else would need to move the page into article space. I don't suggest you do this yet, however, as your article is not supported by reliable sources. Articles require reliable sources to back them up so that we can prove the contents of the article are true and the topic is notable and worthy of being in an encyclopedia.

That aside, I've just noticed that the article you spent "3 months" writing is actually copied from this and this article. Wikipedia articles cannot be copied directly from other sources and thus I have requested the page's speedy deletion as copyright infringement. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

how do i upload a photo to a page

Hi can you help i am trying to upload and put a photo on the "Hale End" page but do not know how to do this can you help thanks John Johnstone Smith (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, on the left column of your screen there is a link labeled "Upload file". Click on that. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Though what Checkingfax said is true for most editors, you won't be able to upload any images yet since your account is not autoconfirmed. This will happen in 2 more days (4 days and 10+ edits are required). Samwalton9 (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@John Johnstone Smith: Please note that if the image bears a free copyright license – one that is compatible (if you took the photograph yourself you can in many cases choose the license) or the image is in the public domain (say because it is an English government image published more than 50 years ago), then it should not be uploaded to Wikipedia, but to the Wikimedia Commons so that all projects have access to the image and extra work is not created for us to transfer it there. Note that the Commons does not have the autoconfirmation threshold for uploads that Wikipedia does. Once an image is uploaded to the Commons it can be used and on any other language Wikipedia natively.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How can I write an article about the rich history of a chorus I know which is related to another organization listed on Wikipedia?

How can I write an article about the rich history of a chorus which is related to another organization listed on Wikipedia? I have written resources such as articles and newsletters, but no internet citations. MonicaRabino (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@MonicaRabino: Hi Monica. We absolutely do not require citations to online sources and many of the finest published reliable sources are not available online or are behind a paywall. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. So, if the sources you are talking about are reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject of the proposed article, please go right ahead and write that article.

One note of caution: the term "newsletters" is often used to refer to internal publications of an organization, and if that is what you are talking about, they would not be secondary, independent sources. This does not mean they could not be used at all, but as primary sources, they must be used cautiously, and would do nothing to establish any notability. Also, they would need to have been published and available in some way. Readers need to be able to check themselves whether a citation verifies what it is cited for. Getting back to the way this started, again this does not mean they need to be online, but they do need to be accessible in some non-impossible way, e.g., through a library. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox issue

Hi there everyone i was wondering if you also experienced the same glitch as me. For some time now if i edit an infobox the new data fails to appear in the infobox until i edit an article where the named infobox is located. I must say that this is a very annoing thing because if every time i'm forced to edit an article where the infobox is located... you can do the math yourself :) Any suggestions? Thank you very much BineMai 10:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it sounds like it could be related to this problem reported at the village pump 12 days ago. Various other people have reported it and the problem's still ongoing, I've had to purge or edit pages today after I've finished to update the page. Jr8825 • Talk 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jr for clearing this out. In your oppinion when could we see an improvement regarding this? BineMai 12:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bine Mai and welcome to the teahouse. The "troubles" you are talking about is actually the normal operation of the wiki and the software. More details can found found on the job queue page. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, know I know too! ;) Thanks Technical 13! Jr8825 • Talk 13:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Carrier" improvements

Hi,

I recently finished watching the PBS documentary "Carrier" so I checked Wikipedia to see if it has an article. It does indeed have one, but it seems pretty basic. So, I decided to try and improve it. Here's what I've done so far: Carrier improvements. I'm really interested in getting feedback from some others before I add it to the main article. I thought of adding it to the article's talk page and asking for feedback there, but it's not very active at all so I'm not sure how many people are watching it. Right now, I am thinking of adding the "Episodes" section to the main article between "Production" and "Events" and the other two new sections I've created between "Events" and "References." Anyway, if anyone has some spare time, I'd appreciate the feedback. Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly, welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't had time to take a careful look at what is in your sandbox but I noticed your question has been here a while with no reply so I took a quick look. Keep in mind this is a very quick look, hopefully other people will comment more. My quick reaction is this looks like a good start although there are a few issues. First as a general point: I think your idea to post on the Talk page is a good one. Don't worry that people don't seem to be commenting it it is still possible people are monitoring that page. If I were you I would post a link to your sandbox on the talk page (rather than past the entire set of changes, although you can do that too). Also, if I were you I would remove the beginning section in your sandbox, which seems just like practice work but that could be confusing to people. BTW, it is possible to save work without putting it in your sandbox. You can create wp:user pages to save work that you may not want to discard yet. On the work you've done you linked to Amazon a few times. That is OK, it's not like I never see links to Amazon but in general it's not a great idea since Amazon is a for profit site and we try to keep references away from such sites when possible. You also had a link to a PBS site: http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/the_film_episode_descriptions.htm IMO (again this was a quick look) that site had all the info that was on Amazon and it was better as it's not promotional. I would just use that site and not use Amazon (unless here was some specific info I missed that Amazon had that was not on the PBS site). The one major concern I have is that the text on the PBS site looks very close to your text. It looks to me (I apologize if I'm getting this wrong) as if you may have just copied the PBS text and then made some small changes. That, unfortunately is still considered wp:plagarism and that is one thing that is not allowed on Wikipedia. You need to either write the text completely in your own words, either that or make it clear that the text is a quote of text at that PBS site. (I think that latter option would be OK, although I'm not that experienced an editor so not sure, the rewrite in your own words is best). Also, on the notes, it's good you have many but if you have a reference that supports multiple statements you don't have to use it on a sentence by sentence justification. At the end of a paragraph or the end of a section is fine. Hope that was helpful, this looks like a really good start and you are doing exactly the right thing by asking for some feedback before going live, keep up the great work! MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: Thanks for all the input. Somebody else did already offer suggestions, but they did it on my talk page at not here. Yeah, the first "Episodes" table was just for practice and I did copy and paste the stuff from the PBS page; however, it never was my intention to use it as such. It was just for my own reference when rewriting it in my own words for the second "Episodes" table. I tried to write the descriptions in the second table after watching each episode, but I guess some of the expressions I used might be similar to what was on the PBS page. As for the links, It was hard to find specific stuff related to episode dates and DVD release dates other than on the PBS page, Amazon, and TV Guide. I just added as many sources as I could find, and then figured I'd eliminate the superfluous or bad ones before adding in to the article's page. So, it's still sort of a work in progress. The other person who commented also suggested I add it to the talk page so that's what I will do. It looked like only one person has posted on it in the past few years, so I wasn't sure. Anyway, thanks again for all of the input -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

B+?

What is the class "B+"? Thanks! Philroc (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the context of the Wikiproject within which you have been working, you need to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Assessment. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot question

I've been trying to get a bot running (using the API) to edit, but it isn't working. I've asked about this at User talk:Hellknowz, but haven't really gotten to the bottom of the problem. The code is below (obviously the actual code is more complex, but this is a test at editing using the API):

      Socket s = new Socket("en.wikipedia.org", 80);
      PrintWriter out = new PrintWriter(s.getOutputStream());
      out.print("POST "+ "/w/api.php" + " ?action=edit&format=json&title="
      + "User%3AJakebot%2FTest%20report&text=test&"
      + "token=9567fcd18f2e0606b0333c71d53c17d3e&"
      + "summary=Test&bot=&assert=user");
      out.flush();

Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Jakob. Although you will probably get a better response asking this on VPT, I'll give it a shot. I'm guessing that you are getting an error that your token is invalid. You will need to pull the token from the api and encode it properly (will need encoded +\ at the end iirc). I could be off here, and like I've said, you will get the right answers on VPT or in the #wikimedia-labs ^connect channel on IRC. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: I have encoded the +\ and made a point of getting the correct token from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=tokens&type=edit. --Jakob (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How to check plagiarism

Can any one tell me how can I check plagiarism in newly created articles while reviewing them ? Thanks Nechlison (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nechlison. One way to check is to copy a unique paragraph of the article in to your clipboard then paste it in to your favorite Search Engine. I use Google. Put quotes around it if you want it to be an exact search. Hope this helps. I just checked the Wikipedia help pages and here's what they have to say: WP:PLAGIARISM. Checkingfax (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nechlison, also here is a category with some tools to detect plagiarism. These tools aren't necessarily endorsed by Wikipedia, the results are far from guaranteed to be accurate but they can be a help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Plagiarism_detectors --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Many many thanks to all of you Nechlison (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Hi, I try to do an Infobox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch!_Generations_Soundtrack ) but it only appears 2 information even if I put more information when I editing (sorry if i made mistakes, i normally speak french) Thanks YoshiNoirMC (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear YoshiNoirMC, did you copy that page from a music site review? Sorry to get off topic, but I found the same content here: http://www.squareenixmusic.com/reviews/chris/touchgenerations.shtml

Getting back to your infobox, what's the problem you're seeing? Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Are you trying to add fields to the infobox template? Checkingfax (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this:

But it appear this:

Touch! Generations Soundtrack

[Cover image]

Soundtrack album by Nintendo Released October 14, 2003 Genre Soundtrack

YoshiNoirMC (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The problem is that you used non-existing parameters. Template:Infobox album does not have parameters "Published by", "Arranged by" or "Duration". Instead of "Publish by", you should type "Label", and instead of "Duration", it should be "Length". There is no parameter for the arranger of the record (see: Template:Infobox album/doc). I fixed the two wrong parameters. The other problem is that most of the article is copy-pasted from [1] which makes it a copyright violation, and probably a candidate for deletetion (see: wp:G12). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Musical Infobox

Hi, In french wikipedia editing, we have this special infobox: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch!_Generations_Soundtrack What is the name of this Infobox in english? I search but I find nothing (Sorry if I made mistakes, I normally speak french) YoshiNoirMC (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi YoshiNoirMC. Here's it's called {{Infobox musical artist}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Question on citing websites, etc.

Is there a particular date format you should use for "date" and "accessdate" when you cite a website, etc?

I've been using "YYYY-MM-DD" for both (probably because that's what I've seen some others do), but on a couple of occasions these have been changed to "Month(name) date, year" by another user or a bot.

Is the "YYYY-MM-DD" way of writing dates incorrect?

Which is better, "2014-01-10" or "January 10, 2014"?

Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The main principle in most aspects of citation-formatting seems to be "be somewhat consistent in any specific article" rather than endorsing one specific way across wikipedia. MOS:DATEUNIFY is the official word on it (it's also summarized and linked in the {{Cite web}} documentation). I think it's most important to get the information there correctly in some standard/recognizable format, and then if the formatting bots recognize a better format, they can improve it. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks for the info. Being consistent makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure how such a "standard" is established. Does this imply that all citations for an article should follow the format used in the very first citation? Does it mean that the majority rules? All 3 of the citations in the article Toni Tennille were using the "YYYY-MM-DD" format, but another user came along and changed them all to "Month Day, Year" due to WP:MOSNUM. Thanks again. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Prove-it, the preferred nomenclature is: 9 January 2014. Do not put a zero in front of the nine. Hope this helps. Checkingfax (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks for the reply. Does that mean the "Prove-it" is the preferred way to do it? What if "Prove-it" uses "9 January 2014", but a bot or user edits it to "January 9, 2014"? How do you decide which to follow? Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There is an English variation issue with date formats. The short version is that we prefer no style of English but should be consistent and respect the established usage already present, except, if an article is about a subject that is tied to a particular country, it should use that country's variant of English. Use "labour" and "9 January 1945" in an article on Winston Churchill; use "labor" and "January 9, 1961" in an article on John F. Kennedy. If there is no such tie, respect the variety that is already in use, and if there is none, choose one and make it consistent. The citation tools are blunt ones, and often do not give a choice where they should (and often contain other problems and errors affecting this and other matters, e.g., always providing an "accessdate=" parameter when paper sources should not be given one). In other words, I would read very little into what any citation tool provides as the default.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Hey, thanks for the detailed reply. OK, if all of the citations were using the "YYYY-MM-DD" format, then there was no real need to change them to "Month Day, Year" or anything else, right? Does WP:MOSNUM imply that all dates (even those in citations), excluding the exceptions you referred to above, are to follow the "Month Day, Year" format? Sorry, if I'm repeating myself. I'm pretty much still a total newbie when it comes to Wikipedia so I just want to make sure I'm doing things correctly. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: IMO not only was there no need to change them to YYYY-MM-DD, but I personally believe that dates are better when written out because doing so provides perfect clarity (but of course sacrifices brevity). Because of the variations between date notation systems, and also because it can be confused even if it's your culture's system, a date like 1980-01-02 will leave some people wondering if this refers to January 2, 1980 or February 1, 1980. Anyway, as you can see from MOS:DATEFORMAT, written out is acceptable everywhere and while it's difficult to speak in the hypothetical, I don't think a bot should be changing any acceptable date formats solely to do so, without some consistency or other goal for which here's some consensus (which might very well have been the reason; maybe it analyzes the percentage of citation dates that are already in one format and if over some threshold, change everything over to it). Anyway, the point is that we have lots of guidance that in the absence of consistency, retaining the established format, or English variation concerns, there is no correct format so just don't worry about doing it wrong. Worry instead about POV warriors, sneaky vandalism, reliable sourcing, the unbelievable increasing tide of advertising/spam articles and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank again for taking the time to reply. I think I've made things confusing. The original citation was written in "YYYY-MM-DD" format, so I used that same format for the citations I added in order to be consistent. Another user (bot?) came along and changed them all to the "Month Day, Year" format citing WP:MOSNUM and WP:Linking. So, I am just wondering if this means that "YYYY-MM-DD" is not the preferable format to use for "dates" in citations and I should instead write such dates out in the future. Thanks again and sorry for the confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The table in MOS:DATEFORMAT is pretty specific as to where each date format is acceptable. MOS:DATEUNIFY states "Dates in article body text should all have the same format" and "Publication dates in article references should all have the same format" but there is certainly no requirement for article body text to match the references - otherwise the formats that are acceptable in references, but not bodytext, as set out in the first table, could never be used. Arjayay (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Thanks for the input Arjayay. So, it seems that as long as the format for the citations is consistent then everything is OK, right? So, what should you do (or should you even do anything) if somebody comes along and changes all of the citations from one format to another? I guess it's OK as long as everything is still consistent, but it seems strange (and a little inconsiderate maybe) to take the time to do that if it's not necessary. It seems more cosmetic and personal preference than actual improvement. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:DATERET states "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk." With dates, as with UK/US spellings, there are some editors who are obsessive about having an article written their way. You could point out the rules to the editor, and ask them to refrain from doing it again, just don't start an edit war over it - there are far more important things to worry about. Arjayay (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I prefer peace over war, so I'll just leave it as is. As long as it's still consistent, then no blood no foul. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Marchjuly, one more citation tool is WP:REFLINKS and it defaults to ydm, but allows you to edit the fields before you save them. A lot of US articles have this template in the source code: {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}}. Like everybody else said, it's not set in stone. Checkingfax (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Options for handling being Wikihounded

In recent weeks I have become aware of the fact that another editor is Wikihounding me. I left a question about this on my mentor's page recently, but I haven't heard back from her yet. Could I get some advice here? I just want to be able to edit, but this person's behavior makes me very anxious.

Thanks.

Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lightbreather, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry that you feel this way, and I hope that your mentor responds quickly. Your first step should be to politely ask the editor in question to stop the behavior. Please be precise in describing the behavior, and be aware that editors working in the same field may interact frequently during normal editing. After that, if you believe that you are being harassed, then please follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen. I hope I hear from my mentor soon, too. I had promised her that I would ignore other editors who said negative things about me, and I'm doing my best to work and to keep that promise at the same time, but with the hounding - well, I'm not sure about how to handle it. It crosses the line from simply saying negative things about me to doing negative things at/to me. I feel like I'm wanted to just leave Wikipedia - and I don't want to. I think I have a lot of skill and smarts to contribute. Again, thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lightbreather, How about if you {{whale}} them on their talk page? See WP:EPICFAIL. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaurav Bajaj and Gaurav S Bajaj

Hi I really need help from anyone who can really help me. For me this is quite a colossal issue as I was reading an article about Gaurav S Bajaj who happens to be a television superstar and one of my favorites. It was quite contemptuous to see that there was wrong information about him as his article had also been merged with Gaurav Bajaj who happens to be a film actor. I have tried to make some changes and try my uttermost best to give coherent and factual information. The references in both are quite clear that both of them are two distinct people but with the same name where there is just a difference of a letter. I have tried to provide some pictures but due to copyright issues it has been removed but the reference that I have provided is authentic enough to support the iota of changes that I have made in Gaurav Bajaj. Please someone try to give me a hint on how or help me to provide relevant pictures of both the actors without a copyright issue to show the readers, the distinction as to who is who. In future I assure to all that any changes I make will be supported with a tenacious reference but as a new member I really need someone to help me and guide me on how to do all this, Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurav (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your question to the top of the page, as (for reasons best known to those who developed the Teahouse) this page has a different convention from the rest of Wikipedia and wants to see new questions at the top rather than the bottom of the page. I have also added a section heading. It is always useful to provide a wikilink to the page about which you are concerned, and this is done by enclosing the page name in double brackets, so [[Gaurav Bajaj]] and [[Gaurav S Bajaj]] displays as Gaurav Bajaj and Gaurav S Bajaj. I will leave someone else to answer your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maurav, I have also informed WikiProject India as to your concerns and asked that they look into it, but also feel free to visit them there and inform them of your concerns: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Indian_actor_WP:FRANKENSTEIN_disambig_issue_raised_at_Teahouse.3B_any_experts.3F Thanks for bringing this to our attention! MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maurav. There is an excellent essay about accidentally combining facts about two people with the same or similar names into a single "biography". It is called Don't build the Frankenstein, and may give you some guidance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, and yes who does not want to read the true and factual information about their favorite stars. It would be highly appreciated if anyone could help me to provide some pictures of both the actors. Pictures are one of the most vital aspects to differentiate two people with similar names in an article. I have found so many pictures of Gaurav Bajaj and Gaurav S Bajaj on the net on different sites but the only dilemma is the copyright. I've seen many articles on wikipedia which have pictures from the net and the url is provided and that site allows the users to modify the pictures. It would be of great help if WikiProject India can do something about this by finding a relevant site or just anyone who is proficient in this.An article is just incomplete about a living person if there is no picture and there is just no doubt about that.

Maurav (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is quite an interesting note that you have brought up. I'm pretty good at finding sources and would like to try my best to help distinguish the two. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

all the pages i creat dont show in wikipedia search

hello I'm having a problem with Wikipedia search, i have created two pages : Sumu-Epuh and Hammurabi I and moved the article Yamhad from the stub category and added over 28 online source to it but no matter what i do the pages i created doesn't show on wikipedia search ,but they do show on google search , the only way for them to show on wiki search is to write their title Literally ,, like i cant put sumu epuh or Sumu-epuh search bar and instead i should write Sumu-Epuh and even then the page will not show with the rest of the result and instead THE SEARCH WILL INDICATE on the top of the search results : There is a page named "Sumu-Epuh" on Wikipedia ,, im going to creat pages for the rest of yamhad king but what should i do to make them show on wiki search .. i know i should wait after creating a page but its been 4 days .. thank you and sorry for making this long Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Attar. The difference between google search and the search here on wikipedia is that Wikipedia search is case sensitive. This means that if you search for articles in a different case, or without dashes for example, the page won't show up immediately. To fix this you will need to make redirects on the pages you think people might type. A good example of that is Sumu epuh and Sumu Epuh. To create the redirect, create these pages and just write #REDIRECT [[Sumu-Epuh]] in them. Then whenever anyone tries to search for those terms they will be redirected to the correct page. You can do the same for other pages, but be careful not to make too many, only chose the misspellings that you think will be common. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

interested in enVoyage/nlVoyage

Hi! I'm interested in enVoyage/nlVoyage. Is there anyone who can help me with that, to explain etc.? Maartje77 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to WikiVoyage. This Teahouse is for the english wikipedia unfortunately, and to get help with Voyage, see their help section here. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am from Southside, TN 37171, and my Facebook account uses Wikipedia, You say that Southside is in Hardin County, TN.

What can I do to resolve this delimma?Wyatt147 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Southside, TN 37171 has been Southside, TN over 100years, I think? It was Collinsville but they changed it to Southside at some time.Wyatt147 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia has articles for two places called "Southside" in Tennessee: Southside, Hardin County, Tennessee and Southside, Montgomery County, Tennessee. Does one of these match your hometown? --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Southside is about 15 miles southeast of Clarksville, TN. It was once a thriving farming, banking, tobacco warehouse, community.Wyatt147 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Southside, Montgomery County, Tennessee! Tell Facebook that!Wyatt147 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the zip code for Southside, Hardin County, Tennessee?Wyatt147 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Southside is about 15 miles southeast of Clarksville, TN. It was once a thriving farming, banking, tobacco warehouse, community.Yes, Southside, Montgomery County, Tennessee! Tell Facebook that! What is the zip code for Southside, Hardin County, Tennessee?Wyatt147 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia. Please understand Wyatt that we at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections at their Help Center. For zip code (and other information), see this page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of people on Facebook, from Southside, TN 37171, that don't know that everyone on Facebook, thinks they are from Hardin County, and not Montgomery County.Wyatt147 (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks fuhghettaboutit!Wyatt147 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has replied to my question. What is the zip code for Southside, Hardin County, Tennessee?Wyatt147 (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look up Southside, TN on Google Earth it will take you to Southside,TN zip code 37171, Montgomery County, not Hardin County! If you look up Southside, TN in the zip code finder it goes to Southside, TN, Montgomery County, TN. Not Hardin County! So why on earth does Facebook think that I am from Hardin County?Wyatt147 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As Fuhghettaboutit said, we have no control over what Facebook or Google does, including what it does with Wikipedia data and how they link to Wikipedia. As the stub nature of the Southside, Hardin County, Tennessee article suggests, we know very little about this place - we do not know its ZIP code. If you happen to know of publications discussing Southside, please help us improve Wikipedia by expanding the article and referencing those sources. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

How to find out the articles created by a particular user.

Hello, I want to know how we can find out all the articles created by a particular user. Is there any way? Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the tea-house. Simply go to the relevant users "Contributions" page, and in the bottom box one of the options is "Articles created" - click on this. In your case this tells me you ceated one article :- Bangkok_MICE_City. Arjayay (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Which population figure do I use?

The standard format for county pages is to have the population listed in the first paragraph. Right now most counties use the 2010 census count, while some have more recent figures. Every year estimates are produced by the Census Bureau in cooperation with state governments for every county and city in the United States. Would it make sense to use more recent population totals from the Census Bureau instead of the 2010 number? The more recent numbers are already used instead of the 2010 number for most government work.Hamiltonl (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hamiltonl: Hey Hamiltonl. I see this question is languishing so I'll attempt an answer but I think is that you need to find a targeted place to discuss this with people who are involved in the subject area. The most targeted I could find was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. counties but that page is not very active at all. I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States might be your best bet; feel free to transfer the question and this answer there for further discussion. Anyway, one thing that strikes me immediately about the issue is that, as you say, the Census provides a count, whereas the more recent figures are an estimate. So they're different levels of information. On the other hand, the more time that passes since the Census was taken, the more we can assume its numbers are out of date. Maybe articles listing such census data should provide both items of information? Say "Per the 2010 US Census, ____ had ___ people.^[1] The estimate as of 2014 by the U.S. Census Bureau was ____.^[2]" Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a good idea. I'll check the U.S page. --Hamiltonl (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Advertizing?

Hi, I am an avid collector of the LEGO Legends of Chima sets. I came across the Wikipedia article to find an unofficial link, chimalegos.com - I am not sure whether the editor is advertising or not as it is not the official website. The sentence it is in is also grammatically incorrect. May I delete the sentence? Thanks. Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I fully agree - clear advertising, and an external link in the bodytext - It's not there any longer. Arjayay (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

How to create a disambiguation page

I would like to create Mating (disambiguation). A search says there is already a page with this name, however, it is a redirect to Mate (disambiguation). I feel the two are sufficiently different to deserve seperate articles, so how do I create Mating (disambiguation)? __DrChrissy (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The answer would be "Very carefully", it's not straightforward and needs a little bit of planning :) I'd suggest you base it on an identical format to the Mate (disambiguation) page, starting with "Mating may refer to:" and ending with a disambiguation page template. You can create it by editing the redirect Mating (disambiguation). After it's been created I'd suggest you add a link to the 'See also' section on Mate (disambiguation) and add a hatnote to the Mating article. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks very much for the advice. I am actually quite an experienced editor but I always get a bit nervous about moving entire articles or re-directs.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you'd been editing for a couple of years. There would be no moving of articles involved, you can simple edit the existing redirect which, in my view, is not a lot of use as a redirect (there are no articles linked to that redirect apart from Mate (disambiguation). I'm sure if there are any errors or omissions to the new disambiguation page they will be corrected in good time. That's the beauty of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article

I recently created an article but some information is available and I would like to include it in the original page. How can i change the title of the an article? Rotich Giddie (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rotich, to rename a page you need to move it to the new page name. To do this use the Move button found in the drop down menu next to View History on the article :) Samwalton9 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have moved the page to a new title. But I till have a problem. The main link still shows the original title i.e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_Awards_for_Entrepreneurship; instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Leadership_Network.

How do i go about it? Or can you change the links for me and tell me how you change them? Rotich Giddie (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'the main link'? Samwalton9 (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Africa Awards for Entrepreneurship is a redirect to African Leadership Network; when a page is moved, a redirect is automatically placed from the old title. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)