Open main menu
Archive 25 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35


Need a hand moving new section into existing wiki

Good day, I was wondering if a friendly administrator could help me with this? If memory serves, only admins can move new sections (table & text) into an existing wiki right? (If I do it, I loose all my edit history, right?) If this is so, would you please move the new Recognition: Awards & Achievements section into Jimi Hendrix's wiki just above the Death section - to become Section 3 ("Death" will become 4, etc.)? I've waited over a week for comments - and have some - and have made changes as have other editors. If you think I should wait longer before moving it, just let me know - but my sense is there's nothing contentious or controversial about this mostly new research (It adds key info that's not in the current article - about six posthumously awarded Grammys, for instance.) If you think it's ok to move, here's the original draft don't want to loose my edits - so I'd grateful if you'd move them too.) And here's the revised version (with the additional changes). Thanks very much :D Charlie Inks (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Charlie! The merging of histories is a touchy subject. Generally, if someone (against the rules) does a full "copy-and-paste move" of a whole article to an entirely different name, an administrator is required to merge the histories of the articles. But in the case of just moving a section into an article, the history of the creation of that section is not as important. This is especially true in this case because you are the sole author of the new content. When you add this new content to the actual article, it will register in the page history that you are the one who put it there. That is really what is important. An administrator cannot (to my knowledge) merge the histories of two pages that were being edited at the same time, and it would not be necessary for them to do so in this case.
I can see that you really put a lot of work into that section! Don't worry, the history of your sandbox will still be there for your own reference. But as far as the history of the article is concerned, people make substantial single edits to articles all the time, and it not really necessary to know all the steps that it took to make that single edit. Anyone, including you, will still be able to make changes to the section if it needs to be fixed. I hope this answers your question. If you still have more questions on this, ask away! hajatvrc @ 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hajatvrc is correct that this isn't entirely necessary; however, it is possible. This is an example of a history merge. You could ask Reaper Eternal if you really want the history merge. Ryan Vesey 18:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Hajatvrc! Thanks very much for this! As usual when you answer questions, the detail is very much appreciated. A couple of followup questions, if I may: why is a copy-and-paste-move "touchy"? especially if I had in a sandbox over a week, for comments, open to anyone? 2ndly, if I delete it from both sandboxes (the place where I did the original draft and where I posted it for other editors to make revisions - and one did - for over a week) will that delete this history? I know it's bit silly perhaps, but 1. yes, I did put a lot of work into it - and also, 2. I don't want the input of the 2nd editor to be lost. I don't want him to think that I'm just taking credit for his input. But maybe this is how stuff is done here, post sandbox? I'm asking 'bout this 'specially b/c it is possible that future content maybe controversial. And I really do in all good faith & humility, want to make sure that other editors know that I do listen to their input - and at least try to find some kind of agreement. No, I may not include everything they suggest, but yes, I try to stay open - always - to listening. Does that make sense? (I'm just trying to defuse conflict - not debate, not free expression - but conflict, before it occurs.
Also, yes, I realize anyone, including me, will be able to make changes to the section once it's incorporated into the section.
Finally, I think - if memory serves - you were the editor who suggested to me to do it this way - draft in sandbox, post in talk, w/ link. Take a Bow! Your advice was greatly appreciated - and clearly by the other editors watching that page! Thank you, Mr. H.!
3. Lastly, do you think a week plus a few days on a back burner is enuf or should I give it a couple few more days?
Appreciate you being on here, Mr. H. Thank you for the guidance, Charlie Inks (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ryan! Thank you for this! :D You are another person whose presence here I really appreciate! :D I am going to wait 2 c what Mr. H. has to say in response to my followup questions, but I thank you for this. I'm still trying to understand so many things about how this world works - wikipedia I mean, although yes, you know what? There's always something new to understand about the real-time real-life world too, yeah? :) - but it's good to see this and get another view of what it's all about here. Thank you once again, Ryan - Mr. V.! - for helping me.... :D And - no less important - showing me another dimension to this world - the link to ReaperEternal - what a stunning username! (I'm not Christian - although some of my ancestors, So Deeply Beloved, in every shade of purple that could be imagined, were, but do I have to go to Church now? That's no problem, but, you know? This is another time I am really going to have to think about this!) Okay - but forget my questions, Ryan, Thank You, Mr. V.! :D Charlie Inks (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Hello again. When I said the merging of page histories is "touchy" I meant that it is a little confusing and ambiguous. The kind of cut-and-paste that you are doing is not touchy at all. It is when an entire article is cut-and-pasted to a new name—as opposed to going through the proper "move page" channels, which automatically moves the page history along too—that the move becomes problematic. I'm sorry, I did not realize that someone else had contributed to the work in your sandbox. But no, if you remove all of the content from your sandbox, the history will not disappear. If you look at my sandbox, it is currently empty but you can still view the entire history of it. If you really want the other editors to get the "credit" for their contributions in your sandbox, it is understandable to want to merge the histories. hajatvrc @ 00:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Charlie, I'd be happy to perform the histmerge for you; it would be a little tricky but since you do have to attribute everything for the copyright stuff, it'd be pretty much the only way to add the content you want. Just give me a heads-up! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 00:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hajatvrc & Keilana, thank you both for your comments here. I get the sense from this that usually, it's cut and paste for this type of situation - and as you explain Keilana, it's trickier to conserve the history on the article page. That's no problem. I'll do a cut and paste - I just wanted to be absolutely sure that I wasn't breaking any rules here! Thank you both! :D Charlie Inks (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Any good wikipedia extensions?

Does anybody know of any good sites that build on wikipedia? For example, my favorites are:

CurtisSV (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. While these aren't strictly sites, there are a number of things out there that build on the Wikipedia experience in different ways. There is, for example, a plethora of iPhone apps which aim to make reading Wikipedia easier on mobile devices. Some of these apps, like "Articles" (for iPhone) include additional functionality, ranging from creating a list of articles to read later to things like showing nearby locations that have Wikipedia articles on a map (tapping a pin placed on the map opens the corresponding article).  dalahäst (let's talk!) 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How many speculative possibly fictional statements can remain on a wiki b4 they get deleted?

Hello there, I have some questions about speculative, unsourced content. I'm doing something of a copyedit/citation adding/content adding cleanup(?) to Jimi Hendrix's wiki. I've noticed - for some time now - that there's quite a bit of unsourced content, entire paragraphs. I would be Very Grateful for Your Guidance on what to do about this. Yesterday, after I deleted something, another editor suggested I add in "Citation Needed." Well, I checked the Admin categories for this page, and there's (drum roll....) Lo and Behold - only Three Years' Worth of Unsourced Content on this page. Well, hell yes, speaking frankly here. I'm quite ready to be the cleaning lady for this - if you think it's okay. When I've got time - just being honest - and I'm looking at something, I will try and find citations. I've actually done quite a bit of that on this page (You can check the revision history - you'll see.). How many "citations needed" on one article is reasonable? Honestly. At what point - after a reasonable search for a citation - can I delete/alter it if none can be found? (I know - not everything's online - but I have managed to find just a few things no one else did (check revision history). So when I say I do try and find citations - that is what I'm doing, before I delete.) Look - obviously, I don't want a bullet through my head for deleting unsourced, unqualified, fictional statements about A Great dead Artist who happens to be considered black. But on the other hand, we're talking about Jimi Hendrix! The man's been dead for over 40 years. I myself know and see there's lots of times where there's conflicting sources on his life and times. I Totally See That - no contest. But if there's No Source - can I just delete it if there's nothing relevant in it? (I try to find at least TWO sources for unsourced content, based on advice on one of your colleagues, Mr. H.) I'm just starting to feel like this page is just AWASH in Speculative, likely Fictional commentary/statements, possibly original w/out any published sources, What-Ever...about Jimi Hendrix. And I'm feeling like it's time to...let this stuff Kiss the Sky (goodbye) - sorry, I had to that somewhere in here. Dear Tea House Editors, you're always so Nice to Me. Would you please help me figure this out w/out getting a bullet through my head? Not trying to be dramatic here, but I know many people care about what's said about Jimi here. Would you please help me understand: what's the best way to approach this? I Really Appreciate You All Being Here - I Have To Say, yeah? :D Charlie Inks (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dearest Charlie! Welcome back. You rock and your dedication to the Wikipedia is evident :) If you cannot find good reliable sources for something, you can remove it. Seriously. Go for it - clean house! just make sure you state why you are removing the content (i.e. "I spent hours looking for reliable sources, for the love of god, there are none!!"). That article is probably prone to people just adding stuff that they "know" to it. Clean house! SarahStierch (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Charlie! Sarah's advice is good, but I wanted to add some information: at WP:Verifiability it says:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself...

There are a few key points here that mirror what Sarah said:
  1. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This basically means that if someone undoes your removal of the content, it is they that then have to provide the evidence that supports the material.
  2. consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. You have already taken "interim steps" and the information has been up for a while, giving the people who put it there plenty of time to add sources.
  3. try to find and cite supporting sources yourself You have already done this!
I hope this info gives you some more confidence. You already know what to do. If someone gets angry, you have documentation to back yourself up! hajatvrc @ 23:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Dearest Sarah! Well God Bless You! Thank you for this Serious Advice Here! You know? I'm trying to Do The Right Thing - Respect the Rules, and All the People Who Contributed - because All Of Those Things Really Are Important! Honestly - not just words. But (paradox - courtesy Mr. H. - whom I see has also Stepped Up here) Let's Get Real! The speculation - it's Got To Go - it doesn't just damage Jimi it damages the whole encyclopedia's credibility, you know what I'm saying? It's so not right. I'm grateful to receive Your Blessing in particular. Why?
I still remember hearing your interview on my little tiny radio that used to belong to my late Dad. You were talking to me, and thousands, if not millions of other listeners, about a special event to add wikis about women scientists. I remember thinking, why should my Sisters have to fix those problems? Maybe their interests lie elsewhere? Or not? But, I digress.
As you've explained, under all the advisement you've given me (Thank you!!! I'm looking for some reassurance, you know?) :D You Rock Too!!! My Goodness! I remember you and what You Said in that interview! :D Thank You Sistah!!!!
When I think of Great Scientists like Marie Curie, who sacrificed, unknowingly (?), her own health to unlock radioactivity/radiation, She is Completely Part of My Milky Way - right up their with Jimi, and all sorts of colours and genders, shapes and sizes of People. People in my family have died from cancer. Where would their treatment have been, how would even I have had x-rays for some of the things I've had to deal with, w/out Marie Curie's Sacrifices? My Goodness!!! It just doesn't bear thinking about, you know?
God Bless You for Bringing Women To LIFE on Here in Every Colour! And helping me on my way. :D Charlie Inks (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Hajatvrc, Thank you for Stepping up here to provide a little more detail. I see how what you say mirrors Sarah's advice. I've said it before, and yes, I'm going to say it again: I really do appreciate the detailed advice you give me on here, especially when I'm trying to solve problems, you know? The edits are not about "contests" as I've read in some of the rules here - for me at this point, it is very much about Jimi and What Is Proven To Be True, if one can humbly aspire to such a thing. And if aint so - True, w/ Citation(s) - what's it doing up here - know what I mean?
All that said, not for the first time, look, I have constraints, limits, things that don't work so well for me - dyslexia, coding, for example, yes, even Time - maybe other editors have their constraints. And that's all good. I'm not perfect - there are probably gaps in what I've seen and researched. And I welcome anyone stepping in to show me what those are because that is going to round out what is said about Jimi Hendrix here - And That's What I Care About!
I do appreciate you itemizing the kinds of things I could do to mitigate and defuse a conflict before it begins. When I'm feeling particularly cynical, I wonder who I think I am making all these edits to the wiki of one Mr. Jimi Hendrix. But then, I remind myself, the details of his life that I identify with and relate to, those are private and belong to me and Jimi's spirit. If they help fuel the fire of my desire to understand him, who he was, what he was about, what he was trying to do, all the research I've done, what is wrong with that? And what people like you are helping realize is, Nothing. There's Nothing wrong with That.
You're The Business!! Thank you for helping me feel a little bit more confident about all this. I will proceed, with caution, as you suggest, but I will proceed. :D
God Bless, Charlie Inks (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

programming in c

please someone can help me how to cover language in c as soon as possible with short notes Mihirgoswami2012 (talkcontribs) 17:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Question moved to top of page. NtheP (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  You might find what you are looking for in the article C (programming language). If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for).For your convenience, you may click here to post your question. I hope this helps. benzband (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Mihirgoswami2012! I do know some good C resources but which one is appropriate for you will depend on any prior programming knowledge you have and what exactly you are needing it for. Are you just trying to learn an overview, or are you programming for a specific task? hajatvrc @ 22:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Translation Template

I've seen before a template placed at the top of an article that says something like "This article could be improved by translating text from the corrosponding article in X Wikipedia", and wish to add it to Isuzu River, but cannot find it. Any ideas?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gilderien! I think this is it? (For Japanese): Template:Expand_Japanese SarahStierch (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one. Thanks :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to add you can see all the templates of this type at Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates including {{import}} which is the generic template. NtheP (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


If I am currently waiting for an article to be reviewed and have submitted it from my sandbox, can I start creating another article in my sandbox whilst I wait or would that delete the article waiting to be created? Alternatively, is there a way to have multiple sandboxes at the same time? Jengawiki (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jengawiki, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. You can have multiple sandboxes, you already have one User:Jengawiki/sandbox which is currently just a redirect to your submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Warranty Direct - that was an automated consequence of submitting your article for review, it got moved to a new page. So you can either edit User:Jengawiki/sandbox and start your new article in there or you can create a new sandbox, for example, User:Jengawiki/sandbox2 by clicking on the link.
If you do have multiple sandboxes then at any time you can see a list of what subpages you have by going to My Contributions and clicking on the link at the bottom of the page that says Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jengawiki/subpages. Many people make a list of the subpages they have on their Userpage either by a series of links or by using code. I use this code
{| class="toccolours collapsible " width={{{width|50%}}} align=center
! colspan="2" |Subpages of [[{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}]]
to give me a table of my subpages on my userpage. NtheP (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Nthep, following up on this, I added that code snippet to my main page and rediscovered several sandbox pages that I'm no longer using. What's the preferred method for deleting them? GaramondLethe 15:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
tag them with {{db-u1}} and an admin will delete them for you. NtheP (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Reader feedback on articles

I have noticed that sometimes the Article Feedback 5 box appears in articles even though Category:Article Feedback 5 (with brackets) is not included in the article. I was curious as to why this is. Also, I want to know if it is a problem for me to go through adding this feedback category to articles. AutomaticStrikeout 22:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey :). So, we've upped to 10 percent of Wikipedia articles, and are holding steady at the moment. Obviously to go to 100 percent we'd have to add the category to every article, and that'd be rather disruptive, so we've switched from "add a category and it appears" to "if it wins the 1-in-10 chance in a randomised lottery, it will appear". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
On the category front; can you hold for now? :(. We actually had to turn the tool off a couple of days ago when it got laggy - I'm trying to minimise additions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do NOT add [[Category:Article Feedback 5]] to articles on your own. The Article Feedback V5 page doesn't make it clear but there are background chores to create the related history pages where editors can look at, comment on and react to the feedback. Unless things changed since Wikimania 2012, some of those chores still have to be done or at least checked manually. There's a video and more information at WP:Article feedback. If all goes well, FeedbackV5 will be fully implemented in September with most (or all?) background chores done automatically by bots. Okeyes (WMF) is among the developers and experts who are doing the creating and testing. What he says really counts. DocTree (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an expert - I'm just an editor who gets to shout at the developers more often :P. But thank you! Actually, there aren't any background chores - adding the category should create the feedback page and suchlike automatically. But I'd be really grateful if people held off anyway so we don't overburden the system :). We're still having to tweak the code so that going higher than 10 percent doesn't make the four horsemen cross the horizon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, in that case I will stop adding the category. AutomaticStrikeout 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Up until now i thought that could be achieved by adding [[Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles]] to the article. But maybe that's no longer the case… benzband (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No, that should still work :S. If it's not, gimme a poke. In either case I'd rather people didn't for the moment :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay :) benzband (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetups

How can I meet real wikipedians? I want to talk to real people, but it doesn't seem like there are any meetups nearby or soon.

CurtisSV (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Curtis, welcome to the Teahouse! I guess it depends on where you live. Wikimania (which appears to be The Big One) was a few weeks ago, so you just missed it. It was in DC this year; great fun, and we even had an unofficial Teahouse meetup! You can see the photo evidence (including me!) here. Not the same as meeting us in real life, I know, but at least maybe you can put some faces to names, which helps, I find. If you do live in San Francisco, I suppose you could always barge into the WMF headquarters there, although I'm not sure how well they'd take that. ;) Writ Keeper 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Curtis! Yes, DC was quite fun. We don't have anything lined up in SF right now, but it doesn't mean you can't be bold and throw your own meet up =) I live in the Bay Area, and if I can come, I surely will! SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving SF on the 10th and going to Purdue to study CS and so I don't really think I'll be throwing my own meetup between now and then. Though, I'm sure I'll be back in SF eventually. I suppose for now I'll just have to settle for messaging and maybe skyping and waiting for the next wikipedia event. Maybe I'll start a wikipedians club at Purdue. I'd love to see students writing the textbooks rather than stodgy publishing companies. I think most old textbooks basically suffer from the Curse of Knowledge. CurtisSV (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

helpful hints

Hello, I'm brand new to wikipedia so hope this question isn't too dumb! A friend pointed out that I can use four tildas (~) when I want to enter my user name on a page (e.g. to add myself to a list of participants in a wikiproject) and if I'm looking for wikiprojects its helpful to put 'WP:' in the search field. I wondered if there was a general place on Wikipedia to read about helpful hints like that? Thanks! Kitfox32 (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Kitfox32, and welcome to the Teahouse. Right now, there isn't one place to find helpful hints. Wikipedia started a Help Project to improve and simplify things, both for newcomers and experienced editors. The results of that project will hopefully include helpful hints for newcomers. For now, I recommend trying adoption pages. I liked Pluma's adoption pages as a quick start to becoming a Wikipedian. Pluma is busy and not taking adoptees but you can work through his lessons and exercises on your own. His fun stuff exercises really are fun. Right now, WormTT is the most active adoptor. Even if he isn't currently taking any more adoptees (but don't be afraid to ask), you can work through his lessons and exercises. His program is more thorough than Pluma's. Hope this helps, DocTree (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You will learn about many such tips by taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. After You learn basics of editing and wikimarkup, you might bookmark the WP:CHEATSHEET for ease of reference to remind yourself. To view a list of precisely what you're hear about, various types of tips, see Wikipedia:Tips. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If you haven't seen this already, you might want to check this out as well: Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Mdebellis (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kitfox, just to add, that you can always ask here on anything you're unsure about. NtheP (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If you go to the main help page Help:Contents, you will see a Tip of the Day in the lower right. I think these qualify as helpful hints.
You don't have to wait until the next day to see a new one, you can click on the Prior tip or next tip links to see others.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow that's all really helpful! Thanks very much DocTree, Mdebellis, NtheP and Sphilbrick. I'm sure those pages will be great. Thanks for helping me get started on Wikipedia and thanks very much for making me feel so welcome! Kitfox32 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
and thank you Fuhghettaboutit, I somehow missed you off the thank yous!Kitfox32 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki article doesn't show up on google

"Free-free absorption" is another term for "bremsstrahlung". Both terms direct to the same wiki page:

The first result for a "bremsstrahlung" search, in google, is the wiki article for it. a search for ' "free-free absorption" wiki' doesn't give the wikipedia result in any of the first 5 pages, however. Is there anything about the structure of the wiki pages that could help fix this? All Clues Key (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really an answer to your question unfortunately, hopefully people who know more than me will comment further, but I just wanted to add what little I can. Where a page shows up on a Google search isn't something that can be completely controlled. Google has search algorithms that they won't divulge. Also, it takes time between a page being published and that page being indexed by the Google engine. Also, a big part of it is dictated by what people search for and what they click on. However, one thing you can do to help Google's (and other) search engine is add meta-data to a page. Meta-data is data about data, e.g., keywords that tell a search engine that you think your page is relevant to people using those words in a search. So my refinement of your question is: how does one add meta-data to Wikimarkup? I know how to do it to HTML but, and I'm probably just missing something obvious, I couldn't find anyting in the Wiki documentation about how to add metadata. Mdebellis (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't see any mention of "Free-free absorption" in the "Bremsstrahlung" article, so I can't see any reason why Google would associate the two terms with one another. Google normally seems to be very quick indeed to index Wikpedia main articles and their subsequent edits. I expect someone would need to add a mention of "Free-free absorption" to the article, to give Google a helping hand.Sionk (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That Free-free absorption is a redirect probably has something to do with it not showing highly on Google as there is no text on the Free-free absorption page for web crawlers to pick up on. Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing also explains why some areas of wikipedia are unlikely to show up at all. NtheP (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi NtheP, I looked at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing but that page seems to be more about how not to get things indexed rather than how to make sure they are. I know very little about search index optimization but from what I know I would think a much better approach to this and similar problems is not just to make sure that "free-free absorption" occurs in the text but to make sure it is included in the meta data tags for the page. And I haven't been able to find a page that really describes how Wikipedia articles generate meta-data or more generally strategies to ensure that certain keywords that are relevant to your article are flagged as highly relevant for search engines. If you or anyone else could explain in a sentence or point me to the right page I would appreciate it. Mdebellis (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to be harsh, Mdeb, but we very strongly discourage anything which looks like search engine optimization in Wikipedia; it is too easily abused as a tool for spammers and the like. We are an encyclopedia, and search engine results are irrelevant to what we do. Our articles do not generate meta-data in the SEO sense. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a comment on the Bremsstrahlung talk page to incorporate a discussion and description of free-free absorption explicitly. If no one takes it up, I'll try to add something myself. Thanks for all of your feedback! All Clues Key (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


How do I answer/decode pings and figure out who's trying to contact me? Thanks :D Charlie Inks (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "pings": could you clarify? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
@Orangemike:I think he means the talkback templates that we've been posting on his talk page.
@Charlie Inks: The way the talkback templates work is that they're posted by the same person who responded to you, so the signature on the talkback template will tell you the "who". The "where" can be found in the link that, for the Teahouse talkback, reads "Teahouse Q&A board"; it'll actually take you directly to the section that was replied to. I'll admit that that might not be really clear, though. We're always looking for ways to make the Teahouse more user-friendly: is there anything you think we could do to make this clearer? I'm thinking that actually including the name of the section within the talkback (not just as a link) would help; do you have any thoughts or ideas? Writ Keeper 15:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice on formatting

Hi, I am new user here (have done some small edits here and there over the years though). I am looking for advice on how I should format my first article. The article is going to be very extensive and would take me a few months to complete. It has thousands of uses, both for me, viewers and other users. Other users may link my article as a referance,to confirm if a particular music release exists. If is is listed in the aricle then it means that I have personally tracked it down (how could I track it down if it didnt exist?). Anyways here is a link to said article, and my question will follow: Should I link each Band/Artist to a new subpage? Or have them all as drop down lists? Or does anyone have a better Idea? Simdude1990 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Simdude, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure that what you are attempting to create is really suitable for Wikipedia. This page, as a list of albums you own, is not really appropriate for your userspace. Wikipedia already contains a large amount of information on notable bands and albums, so I would suggest working to expand this coverage by writing about bands and albums that you enjoy. There are other websites that allow you to record the albums you own, like Moswento talky 10:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Simdude. I second Moswento, and am quite certain this is not appropriate as an article and also not appropriate to be held even in your userspace; that even if not deleted immediately, it will be taken to miscellany for deletion eventually if kept in your userspace and deleted, so please don't use your valuable time compiling this here. That being said, there may be alternative places for you to keep this, off of Wikipedia. You could I think, for example, create this at Wikia, and though I don't know a great deal about creating content there, I believe you can still fairly easily link the albums you include to their articles here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid I must add my confirming voice, that this would be swiftly rejected, since Wikipedia is not a webhost and is not to be used to house your personal projects. That sort of thing belongs on your personal website, not here (not even in userspace). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Editorial Delay


I'm new here, as you probably can tell. Was wondering how long it usually takes for something to be reviewed. The page I wrote ( has been awaiting a review for 10+ days.

Golombjesse (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Jesse

Hi Jesse, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! We're glad you're here. There's a fairly significant backlog, of over 400 articles, at Articles for Creation right now. Usually, submissions wait 1-3 weeks before being reviewed. I hope this helps, and if you need anything else, please do ask here. We love questions! Happy editing, Keilana|Parlez ici 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jesse! Keilana already responded, but I'm just going to say that while you are waiting, you can edit other articles, add to your userspace, design a template, or write another article! And always come back to the Teahouse if you have another question. Brambleberry of RiverClan MewTail 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi and Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm an AFC Reviewer myself and there are only about 50 of us and a ton of submissions. I'll review it now, for you. Best, Electric Catfish 01:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC).
Someone already declined it for having a lack of a formal tone. That's fine. Many people make that mistake. If you want, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help you clean it up. Best, Electric Catfish 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC).
That sounds great. I'd love that, thanks for your help...Golombjesse (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I found image from News website and I want to Upload on Wikipedia But I don't know their License. How can I know their License?

Sgxi (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the image of? Did you create the image yourself? If not where did you get the image? MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Question was continued on Morgankevin's talk page. heather walls (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing a Redirect

The words "Christian Doctrine" redirect to "Christian Theology", but the two are distinctly different from each other. "Christian doctrine" is the body of doctrines established by Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament. While it is open to interpretation by various sects, it is established in the whole of the text of the New Testament. "Christian theology" on the other hand, is not only any particular religion's interpretation of the text, but arose out of the study, not of the text, but of the nature of God. The word "theology" means "study of God", not of Christian texts. It is a philosophical practice born from neoplatonism, not a doctrine.

Thus, I would like to know how to change the redirect. "Christian doctrine" is its own subject entirely. Unfortunately, the page "Christian Theology" thoroughly confuses the difference throughout the page. Corjay (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Corjay, welcome to the Teahouse. Redirect pages like any other can be edited, so if you want to convert Christian Doctrine into an article in it's own right you can simply edit it to that effect. I suspect that Christian Doctrine is not a short topic so you might want to create and article on a sandbox page of your own and move it over when you are ready. NtheP (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Corjay. I have many time run across users who did not know how to access the redirect page to edit it, so following on from what Nthep says above, after you are redirected to Christian Theology, you will see just below the article's title: "(Redirected from Christian Doctrine)". Click on that link to reach the redirect page. The direct link is Christian doctrine but I though you'd want to know how to reach the redirect yourself for future reference. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Corjay (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Resubmission!

Hey everyone!

I've been working with a bunch of people from across the wiki-sphere to help me touch up and refine my first article since it was first rejected, and I was wondering if someone would be willing to take a look and review it! I'd love to get this one in the can so i can devote my time to writing some more...I've enjoyed this process even more than I thought! The article is here:

Thanks in advance! Golombjesse (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Golombjesse! I do see that you have worked very diligently at removing the "peacock words", or the words that add superfluous promotion to sentences. What is currently in the article is well-written; it is what is not in the article that causes it to still read as an advertisement for the subject. The first user who reviewed your article was probably not as clear as they could have been. they said:
The key word here is "balanced". There are significant aspects of the subject's career that are not talked about in the article. If a subject has significant controversy surrounding their career and the article only talks about the non-controversial stuff, the article is not balanced, and it reads like an attempt to only say good things. Wikipedia is not here to promote a subject, and it has to be written from a neutral point of view. The reviewer provided you with the examples that they would like to see before they accept the article. I think it is good advice.
Thank you so much for submitting and article and really working hard to improve it after it was not accepted! You just have to add a few more details and it will be ready to go. Don't give up, and remember: there is no deadline! hajatvrc @ 18:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for getting back to me. I actually did add the stuff that that reviewer was talking about, and I feel like I have covered all the significant parts of his career. Was wondering if you could take a look, or maybe tell me what should still be added? (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it hidden in there, it must not have registered for me the first time. It does not say much about it, but it may be enough. I only have a little experience at Articles for Creation, so I can not tell for sure whether they will accept it. If you really want to be sure, you may want to add a section entitled "Lawsuits" (with === on each side, not a full new section with ==) and talk about the three lawsuits in a bit more detail. I see you have good sources for those details, so it should not be difficult. It is just that there is currently a very long list of all of the partnerships he has landed and only two sentences on the lawsuits. You do not have to go overboard, maybe just another sentence or two! hajatvrc @ 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, just a small piece of advice. Your sources are formatted very well, but it is a good idea to link to the sites within the citations when the citation is of a website. This makes it a bit easier to find the material. You can do this without changing the text that appears in citation, just adding a link to the domain names. Just change "" to "[]" and this will do the job. hajatvrc @ 18:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added some and switched up the .com's (though it looks like you or someone else helped me out a bit first!). Any chance you could give another look, maybe even review? Or perhaps someone else can? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golombjesse (talkcontribs) 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

EXCELLENT! I have move the page to the main namespace Brandon Steiner. hajatvrc @ 19:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Change title of article?


I made a mistake and posted an article with a mistake in the title.

Forgot to capitalize the "Loveless" and can't figure out how to rectify.

Would like to change or even delete the whole article and start over.

Please advise.

John. Johnomalleysf (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey John, and thank you for your question! It is actually pretty easy to change the name of an article. This process is called "page moving". The only requirement is that your account is autoconfirmed. I see that you only have 8 edits. In usual circumstances, an account is autoconfirmed when it has 10 edits and is at least 4 days old (which yours is). You can go through a process to request that your account be confirmed manually by an administrator, but since you only have 2 edits to go, it is probably easier to just make two more edits!
After that, you just have to find the "move" link at the top of the article you want to move and follow the intructions that appear. The picture below shows you where you can locate this link:
If you have any trouble, just reply here and we will help you! hajatvrc @ 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
John, what Hajatvrc won't work in the case as someone else has created Mister Loveless by copying your article. A bit of pity as it would have been easy to move the article from one to the other. I've requested that an adminstrator delete Mister Loveless (uppercase) and then rename Mister loveless to Mister Lovelass. Because all the old edits on Mister loveless need to be attributed, this seemingly long winded way of doing it, is the best way. NtheP (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
All resolved now. NtheP (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Image rotation

Hi again, The problem with this page being so useful yesterday is that I am going to keep using it now!! I have put an image onto my page waiting for creation but it's been added on one side and needs to be rotated 270 degrees. I've put the command


which is supposed to attract the attention of a bot to rotate it. However, I was wondering how long this would take or even better; if there was a way I could do it myself? Thanks in advance Jengawiki (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jengawiki. The template you used, {{rotate}} is not for the issue you had here. What you would have needed to do is go to the image page itself at the Wikimedia Commons where you uploaded it and click on the "request rotation" button just below the image. I have, however, done the rotation directly. The way you could have done this yourself is by downloading an image manipulation program of some sort (there are many), then rotate the image, then re-upload it at the image page (see the link on that page for "Upload a new version of this file"). More specifically, you could download what I used, GIMP, and if you do, the command I used here is ImageTransform → select the requisite rotation from the menu, e.g. "rotate 90° counter-clockwise". I then saved and re-uploaded. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, good thing I asked then or nothing would ever have happened! Thank you very much for your help Jengawiki (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Stub expansion

I'm a newbie and I found a stub I'd like to expand (Marjorie Acker) as a first project. I've asked on the talk page if anyone else is working on it - was that the right thing to do and if not, what should I have done? If so, should I say anything else? Thanks! Mfbjr (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mfbjr! We have a guideline here called Be bold so go ahead and be bold and improve the article! Stubs like that are rarely watched and you never need to ask for permission to improve an article. One aspect of being bold is being prepared for someone to disagree with you. If they do, they may change or undo your edit. At that point, you should discuss it on the talk page. Thanks for volunteering to help! Without editors like you coming along, some of those articles would remain stubs forever. Ryan Vesey 05:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Remember also that when being bold, you don't have to worry about making a mistake during editing. Even if you make a mistake when editing a large, important page with a lot of complex tables or whatever, you (or any other editor) can revert the page to an earlier version. The preview button is there to help you avoid saving a page before you're sure everything works the way you want it to, but even when it doesn't do its job (or you forget to click it, as many of us do sometimes), the version of the page before your edits is always just a few clicks away. After reverting, you can try your edits again, once you've figured out what needs fixing.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 08:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Mfbrg, Welcome to Teahouse! I do a lot of work on stubs, too. One thing I always do is click on the tab that says "View History". Look at the dates of the last few revisions, and you'll know if anyone is currently working on the stub. If they are you can contact them, though you don't have to. Of course, your changes may attract more interest in the article anyway, but this lets you have a better idea how actively it's being edited. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you deal with a page like Tupatu?

I had put a copypaste template on Tupatu like so so

I now find that it's been removed by the page creator. I think this is a fit page for deletion but I am not sure whether I should go with the copyvio template, or PROD or CSD...can the experts in the house help me out

Sesamevoila (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sesamevoila, welcome to the Teahouse! I would say that CSD is definitely the way to go with this, both for G12 (copyright infringement) and also G11 (spam), since even if it's not copyrighted material, it's way too promotional in tone for Wikipedia. Perhaps even db-web ( for websites and/or web content that give no claims of importance or significance). I sww that gtwfan52 has already tagged it, though, so it should be straightened out soo. Thanks! Writ Keeper 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Sesamevoila and welcome to the Teahouse. THANK YOU for bringing this to our attention and for tagging it, sorry the tag got removed. I reviewed and used my magical admin powers to delete the page as it was a copyright violation. Thank you for monitoring such important things :) (Copyright is the most important, IMHO, on Wikipedia, to monitor!!) SarahStierch (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Great:-) I'm surprised, though, that this article managed to stay up on wikipedia all these months Sesamevoila (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page


I'm new here and very confused. I signed up after seeing several errors on a city page. I decided to begin with correcting the name of the mayor (I have verification). Wiki has a former mayor listed.

The problem is that I don't want to Edit anything, being so new, but I can't figure out how to write anything on the Talk page. Do I click on Edit and add my question there?


Inga Wildy 09:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) << bet I don't need that either;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talkcontribs)

Hello and welcome to the tea house Inga Wildy. Yes indeed just click the edit button and add your questions. Can you find local newspaper articles about the new mayor to verify this? Everything on here should have a source for verification. We just love new editors helping with the great task of writing this encyclopedia and you will find most other editors supportive.--Charles (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, on talk pages you can click on the "new section" tab to start a new thread. (see picture below)
Once you have done that, fill in the "subject/headline" field and type your questions/comments in the editing field right below. Then click Save page. benzband (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charles, Thanks for replying & for the cookies:) So, on Wiki you use Edit kinda like a Reply button? I know someday I'll wonder why I thought Wikipedia was so complicated, but for now I'm very lost. Yes, there are numerous newspaper articles I can use for verification. The city has had a new mayor for 15 months:) Maybe Wiki editing will make more sense after I've slept. Thanks so much. Inga Wildy 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talkcontribs)

Just read your second post. Thank you for explaining so much! I'll be back tomorrow & will attempt to add the name of the new mayor. Rather, use Talk to mention it & give the sources. Night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talkcontribs) 09:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@benzband: Thank you for your help. I didn't realize that was your post re "new section". I made two new sections for Talk:Cairo, Illinois. Do I have to tell someone about the additions, or do I wait until someone replies?

Also, am I supposed to be checking "This is a minor edit"? Thanks. Inga Wildy 01:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talkcontribs)

Hi, Inga. Welcome to Wikipedia. You really don't have to discuss things like factual updates, such as when the mayor of a town changes. Just be bold and change it! I went ahead and changed the mayor's name for you and added the citation you gave. If you click the "edit this page" tab, you can see what I did and maybe that will give you a guide as to how to insert a reference when you write the stuff you want to write on the levee break. (Do I hear a Led Zeppelin tune?) You have the right idea when it comes to referencing your work, so I would say, just be bold and do it. One small note---Facebook is not considered a reliable reference on Wikipedia. And come back to the Teahouse with any other questions you might have. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Gtwfan52. I thought I read that we should not do our first edit without someone looking at it:) Also, I knew FB wouldn't be considered a reliable source. I included it on the Talk page to show who the Army Corps of Engineers' press release is attributed to (since the Army didn't state it in their .pdf file). The levee breach info was put there in case someone more experienced wanted to tackle the Edit, but I'll give it a try. Not sure what you meant about Led Zeppelin, but I'm guessing you anticipate a LONG paragraph about the breach?:D Idk, but thanks much! Inga Wildy 04:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talkcontribs)

How to Best Express Thanks to Helpful Editors

Dear Teahouse Editors, I have all sorts of questions floating around to ask you, but it would be lovely to express my gratefulness to a couple of the people who are being so helpful to me here. How would I do that? Is there like a WikiAngelica Barnstar awarded to editors who Perennially Practice Random Acts of Kindness & Support on here or something like that? And what colours do they come in? And where do I find it? (I did see a list of some barnstars but I didn't go through it all.) Thanks!! Charlie Inks (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Charlie! Welcome to the Teahouse! There are a ton of barnstars out there - here's the complete list (that you mentioned). In this case, you might want to give The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, but feel free to give whichever you'd like! :) Theopolisme TALK 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Charlie,
What a great question! It is very nice to hear editors trying to figure out the best way to thank other editors. In addition to barnstars, there are many other Wikilove options described on the Wikilove Templates page. Now go share the love! Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Theopolisme! Thanks for getting to me so quickly on this! I've asked questions here so many times. Initially, I didn't think T-House would work for me, but I really was quite wrong about that. You've All Shown Me! :D I haven't visited the T-House yet (I know I'm bad - I told DocTree I'd stop by, but I'm Too Busy - Life, Everything and now Jimi H.! But I'll try to soon.). Thank you for this list! I'll check it for sure. This can be a challenging place for a number of reasons (not all of which I especially care to talk about), but (putting on my new (FREE!) virtual Jimi Hussar jacket for protection, :D ) some days, I feel like, so what? So is life, right? Anyways, I do feel I have more than one Guardian Angel here in this incarnation, you know? I feel it. I know it. And I see that. People get to stay alive b/c other people help them stay alive by explaining how things work here or how to do things so that they'll work within the culture to some degree at least. So I appreciate this Very Much, yeah? Cheers! :D Charlie Inks (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ebikeguy! Thank you for this also! More options are always appreciated. Re me thinking about his, I'm not a saint - and not trying to be one. But like I said to Theopolisme, I'm a big believer in giving people credit where credit is due. Also, culture is one of those intangibles that sometimes it's immediate, sometimes it takes time to understand how it feels to Be somewhere. I know wikipedia has issues - just sayin' - but it's great to have a place like this, you know, where people can talk and get feedback and suggestions, especially on problem solving. I do very much appreciate all the advice that I receive here. I've been close to my wits-end a couple of times, and The T-House Tribe has totally helped me stay alive. All of Yous, Take A Bow!!!! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Inks (talkcontribs) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Language Infobox and Personaldata

Hello, Am new here. I'm fluent in Swahili and I would like to expand Swahili articles. I cannot seem to find any Infobox in Swahili, or Personaldata either and I would like to make a few. Any idea on how I would start, how I can find people to collaborate with etc.

Thanks Raymachira (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Raymachira, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Translators are always welcome, you haven't found many items in Swahili because this is th English language wiki so articles need eventually to be in English. However some articles do start of in Swahili and if they are noticed will be categorised in Category:Articles needing translation from Swahili Wikipedia. At the moment there is just one, ironically the article on the Swahili Wikipedia. 06:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Another good task for multilingual users is to translate content from one Wikipedia to add it to another. You could look for articles on Swahili Wikipedia that are more detailed and comprehensive than their English-language counterparts (these will likely be articles on subjects important to Swahili speakers, like places in Mozambique), and translate missing information from the Swahili articles. Oh, and when/if you make a userpage, don't forget to add a Babel box to it, to let others know what languages you speak.    dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You could also work on the Swahili Wikipedia (as i see you already have been doing), by creating/expanding articles that interest you and translating material from the English Wikipedia into Swahili. benzband (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Raymachira, I know almost no Swahili, but I do work on the Swahili Wikipedia from time to time. There are certainly things you can help me with. Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

Anybody like writing leads???

The state of children's literature finally got to me, and I've been revising it -- mostly the intro, illustration and history sections. I expect to be through all my material in the next week, and I'm going to list it for copy editing then, as I'm too close to it. The thought of writing an adequate lead gives me a headache, though. Is there anyone around here who'd like to give it a try? I haven't found anyone else in children's lit who wants to help. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have suggested WikiProject Introductions but they are inactive :( and there are many articles in need of attention at Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. benzband (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature? I'll have a quick look if I get time. Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC).
I think that's what she meant by "children's lit" ;-) benzband (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant the article titled children's literature, not the state of publishing as a whole or anything. :) It's too bad about the Introductions Wikiproject. It seems like there should be some folks out there who just LOVE writing leads... I have asked around the children's lit Wikiproject without luck; its not really active. But if someone else has better luck, you know where to find me, right? Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Best way to submit a new article

I'm not a new editor, but an infrequent one. Is it better to create a new article page, then wait for review or submit it through the sandbox? Iambosco (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for stopping in at the Teahouse. The sandbox is actually mostly for test edits, so you can experiment freely with formatting and whatnot (this is especially useful for learning how to do tables and things like that). Once you've written your article, you are of course welcome to submit it as a new page right away. Provided that the article is at least enough to stand on its own as a stub, you shouldn't have any problems. If you'd like to have someone look over your article first before it is published, to make sure that everything is alright (it's written neutrally, not too short, good tone and all that), you can submit it to Articles for Creation. Someone there will go over it for you and, if there are any problems with it, they will let you know so that they can be fixed, and then you can resubmit it for a second looking-over. Many of the reviewers there are willing to help you make improvements, too, and it's a good way to make sure your page is well-written before it gets created.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Iambosco. I'm not sure but I think you are referring to creating an article through a user sandbox (a subpage), verses as an article draft, i.e., the two options provided through the article wizard, and not starting it in the Wikipedia:Sandbox as Dalahäst is speaking of above. (There is a third option of creating it directly.) I think you should start it in a personal sandbox because when you posted your last article you worked out a bunch of kinks immediately after posting it. Also the article was tagged as an advertisement, and if submitted directly, might have flirted with being tagged for speedy deletion on that basis. So it's probably better that you get it into the form where you think it's ready for review first and then move it to the article mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you all for the great advice. Iambosco (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)