Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 47

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 40

←

Archive 45

newbie question - how to change a title on an uploaded pic

I contributed a photo with an inappropriate title. I titled a photo of the FDR Memorial the FDR Monument. No one has linked to it yet. How can I change title? Thanks. Markdiaz (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Easily done:

Go to the file's page on Wikimedia Commons.
Next to the search bar in the top right is a little down arrow with a drop-down menu, under which you need to select "Move".
In the box that pops up, enter the new name and choose "Uploader request" as the reason.
Hit "Request renaming" and you're done.

Hope that helps. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

List of dog breeds

Hi, Sorry to bother you on here again! I noticed this morning that an IP has altered the List of dog breeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds), which I don't think is correct? At the same time the IP also altered the List of donkey breeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_donkey_breeds&diff=515911050&oldid=510630109) but I don't know anything about donkeys, so can't comment on that. I do know how to revert edits but at the moment I am weary of doing anything on Wiki, particularly reverting stuff. This brings me to my second question (apologies if I shouldn't be asking it here, or perhaps at all but it's causing me a disproportionate amount of concern - silly, I know!). There is a sock puppet investigation that I have been accused as being part of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KoKingsmill); it seems to have been 'on hold' for a while although others have been resolved. I don't want to post anything on the page itself as I'm worried it will result in further problems with one of the editors involved. If I wanted to contact someone about it, what should I do? Sagaciousphil (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phil, thanks for visiting the Teahouse. The IP's edits appear to be clear-cut vandalism, so I've reverted them and placed warnings on their talkpage - well spotted! As for the SPI, I wouldn't worry - it looks very much like a frivolous report, given User:AinsworthAussie's contributions... Sooner or later an SPI clerk will file it away; I can't see that there's anything actionable against you there. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your very quick response, it's very much appreciated. ;-)

Re the SPI though, I appreciate my account has not been blocked or suspended while the matter is being checked and even if others don't realise it, I know I'm not a sock puppet! However, it's making me feel I shouldn't be doing any changes at all on Wiki until it's sorted out. I've been ferreting some item/references away in my sandbox that I feel will help improve articles but I'm now too reticent to put them in just in case it sets things off or causes upset to others. Sorry, the frustration is driving me to distraction!

Sagaciousphil (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless a checkuser showed you to be a sockpuppet (which seems extremely unlikely) I can see nothing in your pattern of edits that would suggest to me that you were. If I were the administrator clerking the case (although I'm an admin, I'm not an SPI clerk so can't actually do that for you), I would judge the report itself to be in bad faith and close it. SPI reports like this happen from time to time; you can ignore it and continue editing as normal. You don't need to wait for the case to be closed. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt help and advice; Wikipedia can be a very daunting place at times, so it's nice to know there is somewhere to get help! :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reaching out to hajatvrc, Sarah and NtheP ...

Hi folks: From your encouragement, I have completed my draft of my first article. Still don't understand why the reference area where the hyperlinks are, come out in blue. I know they were black on my text ... how to fix that?

Thanks to hajatvrc, I know how to do superscript, will take care of that later after I have all your input.

Hope you enjoy this article as I have enjoyed in researching it, and learning much in the process. Sarah, thanks to you, this is totally different from the list that I first presented by doing a direct translation on dates and posts. Thank You all for your time and any feedback you may have for me. CHHistory (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

CHHistory's article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luo Xian Xiang>

Hello CHHistory, your draft is getting close! There are a few formatting issues that could make your life a lot easier though. Instead of using superscript for footnotes, you can footnote automatically like so (thanks to Yunshui for giving this example below):

Gledden started his tennis career relatively late, not picking up a racket until the age of 12 years old in 1986.<ref>Gledden Gets off to winning start / Gledden stars for Yorkshire'' 22nd May 1981 Sheffield Star & Sheffield Telegraph</ref>

Simply type <ref>(Footnote goes here)</ref> after the fact you're footnoting, and make sure you have {{Reflist}} at the end of the article, and your footnotes will automatically file themselves. To give you an example, I fixed the first footnote in your article as a demonstration. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi CHHistory. There is a more automated way to insert inline citations. Click the brackets icon at the top of the edit window and you get a drop down choice of cite templates such as cite web and cite journal. Click one of these and you get a form to fill in. Submit this and the citation is formatted and inserted into the text where the cursor is.--Charles (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew and Charles, will make a note of that. Learning continues ... easiest way is best for me as I am a doofus when it comes to coding Many thanks CHHistory (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, I do not understand what's happened. I will have to do this the hard way for now, by inserting superscript as I go along. Thanks for your advice though this is all Greek to me :-( -- the coding that is. CHHistory (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello CHHistory, if you're not clear on something, let us know what it is and we can clarify. You really do not want to keep using the superscript: it is way harder than using the "ref" tags, because every time you move text around you have to change all the numbers by hand. With ref, I could take Footnote #1 and move it to the middle of the page, and #2 will automatically become #1, and #1 will now be #17 because it's in the middle of the page. All you have to do for the moment is go down to the References where you put, for example #7, and go paste it in place of <sup>7</sup> up in the text, and put <ref> and </ref> tags around it. It will then automatically function as a footnote. Take a look at your page, I have fixed #1 for you as an example to follow. It will make more sense when you see the example.

You mention "I do not understand what's happened". Is this about the changes to your page? I went and cleanup up the intro, but you came back and undid my changes. I understand this is a mistake, but please understand that other editors are trying to help on the page. If someone changes some code/format, it's likely because they are experienced with the standards, so please just trust us on these. :)

To see what other editors are doing to help you, read the "AFC Comments" added to the page, and click the "History" tab to see a list of all the changes made. When you make your own changes, be sure to fill out the "Edit Summary" below your editing window every time to explain what you changed, like "Changed to 1961 photo" or "added footnotes from Smith book". That way other folks helping out can follow changes over time. The article does need some work, but this is a great way for you to learn about the wiki process, and we're here to help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I emphasise that overall this is an article worth keeping and improving on. However, your sourcing needs some work, and a read of WP:Reliable sources. A large number of your cites are to blogs, and both en.wiki and zh.wiki cites, none of which are authoritative. You should never cite to Wikipedia itself, but instead use WP:Wikilinks to link to other articles as appropriate. Have you checked GoogleBooks and similar sites for references? Ideally, your footnotes should come from established academic or journalistic sources. I've marked your suspect footnotes (as best as I can tell, since I don't speak Chinese). It will take some time to replace them with WP:RS cites, but again this is definitely an article worth having, and a great chance for you to develop the skills which lead to more and more great articles on Chinese history! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew: Many thanks for taking the time with the explanation. Looks like I need a lot more help than I first thought. Modern Chinese history currently does not have a lot of references, especially in English. As noted, I am citing from official releases by the Chinese archives, general rosters, war telegrams and logs whenever I can. I understand that memoirs are still a good source of information, especially for those who participated in that time period are all dying or dead already. That is why I cut and paste portions of the Chinese texts where Law Hin-Cheung was mentioned, so that for those who don't read Chinese, at least could compare the Chinese characters and, as the dates are like ours, they are self evident.

Citation 1 was from a site hosted by a librarian in Denmark. He had been building content for this since 2000; though he was unable to gather much information regarding WWII Chinese Generals, except for the 4 or 5 stars, such as Chiang Kai Shek. The lesser generals or those who lost the struggle, such as, Chan Jiong ming,Governor of Guangdong, and those who were in the trenches fighting the wars, did not have much archived about them in English. Streen, the librarian, does not read Chinese either. It was from than point that I embarked on the journey to hopefully make a difference in that area. I do read, write and understand Chinese fluently.

Questions: • Could I cite from the citations from the same wiki article? • How to change the color from blue for some hyperlinks into black? When in text, the entire article including ref. was in black. Next, why some texts are in red, when colors were never used? How to change all to black to meet wiki standard? • Could I include pdf for citations? For example, with war telegrams, perhaps I can copy and make it into a pdf and included that in the article? Though uncertain what color it will come out. If ok, how should I approach that?

Why the subheading Name? Do i need to do anything?

In reference to below, just type that in at the beginning and the end? Type ::

Article start to finish... and end with this? </ref>

The 4 dots mean something?

Gledden started his tennis career relatively late, not picking up a racket until the age of 12 years old in 1986.<ref>Gledden Gets off to winning start / Gledden stars for Yorkshire'' 22nd May 1981 Sheffield Star & Sheffield Telegraph</ref>

How about your following example? Do I have to change anything for the string below? Where do I place this? Under References? Footnote what does that refer to? all the citations?

Simply type <ref>(Footnote goes here)</ref> after the fact you're footnoting, and make sure you have {{Reflist}}

Sorry to have so many questions... bet I will have more … Memoirs can help and be an integral part of understanding what really went on ... I certainly don't know all the facts, but based on extensive reading of close to 100 sources, mainly in Chinese, I gained knowledge. For citation, I only select where Law Hin-Cheung's name was mentioned, because they will serve as proof or verifiable fact about him. From researching this article, I got some insight on a few of the major characters who got China to where it is today ... Thanks for your help, encouragement and patience. CHHistory (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, you asked that I do not revise your changes. But, Your revision actually took out Law Hin-Cheung's name. Law spoke Cantonese because he was from Guangdong Province. Guangzhou, the capital city, was formerly known as Canton (under British influence and colonization at the time).

The reason why Law or Luo (Last name Cantonese/Mandarin) Hin-Cheung or Xian-Xiang (his given name) is used now because all documents coming out from China, Taiwan use Mandarin Chinese for English phonics. So it is important that both Cantonese Chinese and Mandarin Chinese are used in the beginning.

Further, under the photo, you remove most of his name-- xiang alone does not mean anything. I have put it back. Wonder why you also remove the meaning of his name? Advice please. thx CHHistory (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Article to write about

I need to write an article but i have no clue on what to write since most of the articles are want to write about are already on Wikipedia. Please help PSHaikali 200724622 (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You could take a look here [1] at the large list of requested articles and see if anything takes your fancy.Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the whole "requested articles" list to be a bit big and vague. Many of the Wikiprojects have their own more specialised lists of requested articles. I often find myself looking at the shorter lists like this one:Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Requested Articles to find articles I'm more interested in.

Another tip is to write a missing article. Search for topics you're interested in, and see if there are some you can't find.

Yet another approach (how I mostly work) is to write articles about things I have good sources for. If I read a good book about a suitable topic, I might then write about that topic, while the subject is fresh and I have the sources to hand.

I think you're in Namibia? How about something on Namibian or African topics? en:WP has a big bias towards European and US topics, so it's good to work on balancing that out.

One thing I would suggest though is that, even if you're on a college course asking you to create an article, then don't create an article just yet! Start out (a couple of dozen edits) by learning to edit well first, through making edits to existing articles. It's hard to create a good article straightaway, so it'll be easier if you're already a bit more experienced.

Remember too that a user sandbox, like User:PSHaikali 200724622/My article, is a good place to start a new article. Get it roughly formatted there and list the source materials before you throw it to the wolves in main article space! It can be a bit bitey out there, if your article isn't thought to be well referenced or notable right from the start.

Good luck with it, and please post links to your work here, if you'd like some advice on how they're going. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello PSHaikali, one other possible way to find article ideas is to read about topics you already enjoy, and watch for "redlinks". That is, wikilinks that show up as red rather than blue, which means they don't have an article to go to. You can go to articles about topics you like, watch for redlinks, and create new articles to expand that topic further and further out, and connecting it to more and more articles. Just one more way of doing it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the above suggestion, I'll note that one of my favorite areas on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. It has a little bit of an advantage over WP:RA in that most if not all of the needed articles listed there are notable. That said, coincidentally, I created an article yesterday from WP:RA, so it can be done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Or, you could improve the articles that are already on Wikipedia. There are many articles that are stubs, meaning that they only have about one paragraph and are sometimes little more than a dictionary definition. Those articles aren't really complete articles, so I guess you could call it writing a new article :) –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I add pictures to an article?

I can't seem to figure out how to post pictures. There have been a few articles that I have wanted to add pictures to and I can't. I've read through the Help information,but either it isn't there, or (much more likely) I'm missing it. Can someone help this newbie?Krueg (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Krueg! Welcome to the Teahouse! Yeah, pictures at Wikipedia are a bit tricky the first few times. Have you found Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial yet? The first gives details on how to get a picture from your computer to Wikipedia's servers, and the second covers how to put that picture into an article and format it after it has been uploaded. Do either of those help, or do you have more specific questions? --Jayron32 03:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How to add citation? Any rule book regarding [[]] < > and the logic behind this?

Have been following Matthew's example, unsuccessful. Is there a method in developing a ref. list based on Matthew V. suggestions? For example, for ref 1 how should it be set up? for ref 10, how should it be set up?? I understand the hyperlink will be the content between those [ ] > < etc.,

Please explain logic, that should help tremendously. Also, in the edit area, I have the ==Name== section, however, when go into read, it does not show. Why? ThanksCHHistory (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You just need to add the citation at the end of the statement which it supports. The ref list automatically lists all the refs in the article in the order in which they appear. The {{Reflist}} under the references section will automatically do this. "[]" will display a bare url. It is advised to use the {{cite}} template. In either case use it betweeen <ref> and </ref>. For further help, please refer Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In every place where you have <sup>number</sup> replace that with <ref>Your reference text, URL, whatever</ref> and then all your references will appear at the bottom where you have added {{reflist}}. When you've done that you can delete all the number entries you made at the bottom. I've done number 46 for you as an example, you can see what I did by clicking here The reason that the Name section isn't showing is that before it you opened a reference with <ref> but didn't close it with </ref>. You do have a problem that a lot of the references you have used are not considered reliable by wikipedia standards and those will need to be addressed before the article will be accepted. NtheP (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi CH! You'll notice I also fixed footnotes #1,2,3 for you when I did that cleanup of the intro, so you have a few examples now to check out. Like NtheP mentioned, you always have to match <ref> with a closing </ref> at the end, or it throws the whole page off. In HTML and Wiki coding, "/" generally means "done" or "off", so it tells the program that you're done using whatever code you started earlier.

I would suggest that before you fix the URLs and screen the refs, that you first just focus on turning all the "sup" manual footnotes into "ref" automatic ones, and then we can advise you on the rest setp-by-step. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks for your time... Matthew, please also read my reply to you under "Reaching out to hajatvrc, Sarah and NtheP ..."... though some of the issues have been answered. I have researched and reviewed over 100 sources, don't know if I can do much improvement where I would be able to locate Luo Xian Xiang within modern history books, which aren't much. English or not... I understand there are standards to adhere, so I will send it out to a couple of historians/professors at Universities for their comment... meanwhile, might as well try to learn the mechanics ... Thx again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Where are the editing codes on the site?

Long-time editor looking for code for "out-of-date links" to add to a story. thanksAichikawa (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Aichikawa, old or new, all are welcome at the Teahouse. I think the template you are looking for is {{out of date}} or one of the related series. NtheP (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This and many other tags are shown at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I see you posted feedback for Help:Wiki markup. That page is mainly for markup features built into the MediaWiki software which powers Wikipedia and thousands of other wikis. Most things in {{...}} are templates created by editors at the English Wikipedia. There are far too many (tens or hundreds of thousands) to show on one page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability issues

I came through the Teahouse a few weeks ago when I was working on my first article - for the person Leila Gurruwiwi. At that time I had included 3 separate newspaper profiles of her, which seemed to me to satisfy the notability requirement of "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," and a host here confirmed that it looked good. I submitted it to Articles for Creation, but it just got rejected for lack of notability. I've just added several more sources, and I was wondering if someone could take another look at it and tell me if I've fixed the problem? It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Leila_Gurruwiwi

The other thing is, I want to link to an article in The City Weekly, but the article is not currently available on the newspaper's own website. So I've linked in the article to a copy of the article which is available at this website: http://kathrynkernohan.com/2012/09/27/life-goals/ Is this acceptable? Angelbird72 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Angelbird72, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've looked over the article and, whilst none of the sources is exactly outstanding, there seems to be enough there to justify an article. I've therefore moved it into mainspace at Leila Gurruwiwi. Linking to a copy of an article is fine, but the original should be cited as well - I'm going to sort out the citations for you now. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia; I hope you'll continue to edit this and other articles. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, thanks very much for your help - I look forward to contributing more! Angelbird72 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Contribute to Wikipedia in two different languages

Hello, I've created my account on English Wikipedia, but I'm also interested in collaborating with the Spanish version. Is this possible? My user page appears as "non existent" in the latter. I've tried to merge my accounts... to no avail. Thanks, Cocolacoste 09:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolacoste (talk • contribs)

Hi Cocolacoste, welcome to the Teahouse. I removed leading spaces in your post because they cause special formatting. You have already created your account at the Spanish Wikipedia simply by visiting http://es.wikipedia.org while being logged in. You are welcome to edit there and any other Wikipedia language. It's optional for editors to create a user page. See Wikipedia:User pages and es:Wikipedia:Página de usuario for what you can put on a user page. If a user page or any other page has not been created then it appears as a red link. The link turns blue if you save something on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for your quick reply and apologies for the formatting mess-up (I'm a newbie on Wikipedia, so I still have to learn lots of things). cocolacoste (talk)Cocolacoste 10:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it's a common mistake, and easy to fix if you see an article/page that has that mistake.

if you see text like this...

... where it's clearly not the intent, it's because there's an extra space before that line. Sometimes new editors do that while trying to manually indent a line. Wikipedia doesn't generally indent for paragraphs (unlike what we learned in school), but if you need to indent for a specific reason, such as to separate your comments from someone elses (as PrimeHunter and I are doing here), just put a colon (:) before the start of a paragraph. If you want to indent further, add more colons. If you're making a list of things and want to bullet and indent the list, use an asterisk (*) for that. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

creating English version of an existing article in German

How do I do this?Williamodom (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Williamodom, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Translation. The English article can be written and edited independently without being a direct translation. Place the code [[de:foreigntitle]] at the bottom of the English article, where foreigntitle is the title of the German article. Wikipedia:Your first article shows a way to create a page. If you post the German title and wanted English title then we can perhaps help more. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

what do these mean

what do "link rot" and "coord missing|Texas" mean, they showed up with the {} things around them on the editing of that same article Atems and I don't know what to do. Zeroro (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Put simply, link rot means that you used bare links for citations. Bare links are not preferred, because the URL could change, and then the source is not findable. I went ahead and fixed these for you. In the future, click on the "cite" button in the top of your editing window, then click under templates and follow the instructions. The coord missing message means that it is about an article that is a specific place, but does not have latitude and longitude coordinates. These can be found by simply going to Google Maps or your favorite maps program, and then addint them to the article with Template:coord. Thanks for your contributions! gwickwire | Leave a message 03:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroro (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is looking better and better! Nice work on the infobox, and you've already got a good habit of using Edit Summary so that we can see how the article is developing. One small habit that it'd be good to add: instead of making a small edit and Saving to see how it came out, use Preview instead. That way you don't have a bunch of saved versions with only tiny differences. We're all human, and sometimes don't notice a mistake until after Saving, but overall Preview helps avoid unnecessary Saves, and makes the article easier to track.

Looking great so far, the next priorities should probably be getting a photo, adding coordinates, and then the biggie is finding sources that are not from the school itself, but from outside, neutral sources. Of course, it's fine to quote the school about real basics like what district they're in, when founded, etc. But for any perspective on the school and how it functions, ideally you want newspaper articles, academic books, etc.

Not saying every article has to be a rockstar, but if you want to check out some very good articles on schools to get some ideas of how to make ATEMS stronger and stronger, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Featured_articles and see what articles have been recognised as exceptional. You can also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines for the "checklist" of things to include and things to avoid. It's great to see you're so willing to learn how WP works and ask the questions, and the rapid improvement of your article is the benefit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No response from RFC is there another option?

A few months ago I wrote an article regarding a sporting/technological controversy. Since then there has been intense debate and disagreement regarding its inclusion, content and location within Wikipedia. It has also been subjected to a RfC without any additional outside comments. Views still remain polarized.

I have voiced concerns regarding the over-liberal interpretation of synthesis and the misuse of other rules in an attempt to remove the article. However, my view is that the root of the problem is nothing other than nationalistic biases, and unless we are allowed to address this issue no further progress will be made. I have suggested various solutions such as 3rd party mediation by a neutral party, and a disclosure of any national or sporting interests by all editors, but these have not been meet with much enthusiasm.

Has anyone any suggestions how to proceed?

PS Sorry I can't seem to get the question box to work, hope I have not posted multiple entries!--Andromedean (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics? A number of comments on the issue were received and most seemed to disagree with your addition, from what I can see. Sionk (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that entire article seems like it stands in contravention of Wikipedia:Criticism, personally I'd be looking to disperse and integrate the content to appropriate specific pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There was an Articles for Deletion discussion which decided overwhelmingly to keep the article. It was a very busy article a few weeks ago at the height of the Olympics! I tend to agree with you that many 'controversies' will be seen as less important as time passes. Many have already been removed, from what I remember. Sionk (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought no new editors came on board after the RfC but if you spotted one I would like to know who. Myself and another editor agreed on a version, whilst another editor wanted the most controversial sentences taken out, or the article removed to another location. Another wanted it removed altogether.

Any suggestions on more balance would be welcome, but we have had the sentence regarding the bikes being legal from the start. We also included the view of the GB technical director, although he reinforces the text.

The controversy of differences in bike technology in championships has been running for 20 years so it is unlikely to go away, not least because it fundamentally contradicts the governing bodies principle. However, I think it was brought to a head in this Olympics due to the substantially improved performance of the team since the World Championships in April after which the bikes were changed (those details have been taken out).

The history is rather complicated due to the number of edits. So the criticisms may vary depending upon the version. Anyway, it has just been removed completely again, with a suggestion for dispute resolution! Doesn't it have to be viewable for dispute resolution noticeboard? Do you think that is the best course of action? --Andromedean (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I will instigate an Dispute Resolution then --Andromedean (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a PR professional wishing to suggest changes to a client page. Can someone advise

Hello

My names is Paul Smith, I am the content director of an independent PR agency in the UK.

In line with CIPR guidelines I wish to suggest amends to a client page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_(company)

Could an editor advise? The current content is a stub so what I wish to suggest should enhance it. It has been written in an independent fashion, not as marketing material.

Paul PaulSmith77 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Paul! Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse! We definitely appreciate that you wish to help improve any articles here. You're taking the correct approach in declaring your conflict-of-interest here (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and it looks like you wish to go about this the correct way. The thing Wikipedia needs is references so that any information in the article can be verified. So, if you have suggestions you'd like to make about changes or additions to the article, the absolute best thing you can do is provide links to source material so we can verify the sorts of additions or changes you'd like to make. The best sort of sources are reliable and independent sources; that is sources which have a long-standing reputation for reliability (Well respected newspapers, journals, magazines, books written by recognized experts, websites of equivalent standing) and sources which aren't written by someone affiliated with the subject. Some basic information (such as basic data, like where they are located, the number of employees, who the CEO is, etc.) can probably be cited to the company's own press releases and documentation, but for any of the really in-depth writing that makes a quality encyclopedia article, it should come from truly independent sources. Does this all help answer your questions? --Jayron32 16:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. Thank you. I will get independent sources. Where do I then submit text and sources? PaulSmith77 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

When will I get a response?

I entered a site called Ziff Properties Inc. about a month ago and was told then that my site was #603 to be reviewed. Should I wait, or have I not entered the material correctly? sghoffius Sghoffius (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sghoffius, welcome to the Teahouse! I don't see anything in your contributions list related to an article named that (and no deleted contributions, either); did you perhaps create it while you were logged out, or under a different username? It'll be hard for us to help without being able to track down and look at the article itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You also asked at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 September 5#Has my submission been accepted? There is still no sign you saved the page. Maybe you only clicked "Preview", or maybe you clicked "Save page" but didn't perform a second step you are asked for in some circumstances. You can see your saved edits by clicking "My contributions" at top of any page. It doesn't show edits to deleted pages but as an administrator I can see you don't have any. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't get a reference to work properly...

Hey hosts, I need a hand trying to get a weird reference to display properly using the ref tags on the page for Edundja. The source is from The Namibian and the URL includes [brackets like these] which really messes up the syntax so that the reference won't actually display properly (and so no one can reach it just by reading the article). I've tried a variety of methods to use <nowiki> tags in different parts of the ref and {{cite news}} templates, but with no success yet. Any help would be most appreciated. The source is [tt_news=51226&no_cache=1 here], but since it won't display, the raw URL is http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=51226&no_cache=1. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Try http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=51226&no_cache=1 It replaces [ with %5b and ] with %5d. See {{Cite news#URL}} for full details. NtheP (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good call. Thank you! I forgot about those. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

TeaHouse talkback user talkback tracking not functioning

All of a sudden, user talkback for me seems to have lost its tracking. For instance, when I go to Mytalk, it showed a list of my questions and answers from senior editors. Last recorded user talkback of a couple of weeks ago. How to reactivate? Thanks CHHistory 17:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talk • contribs)

Don't worry, there's nothing deactivated. It's just some of us not putting a talkback template on your talk page every time we reply to a question. (I have placed one for this reply) NtheP (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I thought I unwittingly had decoded stuff :-) CHHistory (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks Seems like I now also know how to put Thanks in a box, unwittingly, of course.

Question

Do you enjoy editing Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashbeckjonathan (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashbeckjonathan, interesting question. Authors on wikipedia are almost entirely volunteers so if they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. NtheP (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan-- I also think this is an excellent question. Sometimes editing on Wikipedia can be tense, and there are times when it can be hard for editors to keep cool when the editing gets hot, because many editors have strong opinions about article content or policy. But we are all contributing to a project to make knowledge more accessible to people around the world, or in the case of The Teahouse, to help others make effective contribution, and I think that is what drives many of us and at least makes my work very enjoyable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My article is in pending for review

how much time it takes for review of an article ?? 2ndly how can make this review process fast?? ... thnkyew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farwah khan (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Farwah, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there are over 1200 articles awaiting review at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation and all reviewers are volunteers, like the hosts here. You'll just have to be patient but somebody will get round to it. NtheP (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Farwah, welcome to The Teahouse. Articles for Creation is very backlogged right now, and there are only so many people who are helping out with reviewing right now as well. However, many of us here at The Teahouse regularly review articles, so we can certainly help you if you need it. It looks like your article, Nadia Khan Show, was declined about two hours ago. The reason is because the article has a promotional tone, as it includes phrases like "the show is divided into entertaining and informative segments" and that it was "a huge success." It also contains statements that sound like original research, like "People look at stars for inspiration & follow the trends they set". You'll want to address these in your next revision of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia Accept an Article that have been declined for 2 times if properly edited?

Hello teatHouse help me and review this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Varpal i have edited that article..what is the problemOkeke Jude (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Okeke Jude, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The criteria for notability in wikipedia is not dependent on the number of attempts it takes to get the article written, so there is still a chance it can be accepted. However, failing twice suggests that you may need to change tactics. I suggest two tactics that are likely to help. Firstly, I notice that English may not be your first language; you may start by writing an article in your first language. Secondly, currently you have three proper sources, [2] [3] and [4], the problem with these is that they aren't independent, although the Guardian one comes close (it fails because it's based on an interview). Look for more references, ideally written by professional journalists based on multiple non-interview sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Okeke! Yes... however please note that if someone repeatedly submits an article without making the required improvements, admins may delete the proposed article for not putting in good faith efforts to improve, and taking up the time of our volunteer reviewers. So first off I would encourage you not to re-submit the article until you are quite sure that you have met the concerns of the previous declining reviewers. I took a look at your page, and there are still some significant concerns:

The article has major issues with copyediting, grammar, spelling, capitalisation etc. You either need to run it through a basic spelling/grammar check like found on most word-processing programs (and probably available on some free websites), and/or have it carefully reviewed by a friend who's a good proofreader.
The article still has somewhat of a promotional tone
The article makes a large number of claims for the business dealings of Varpal, but does not provide any sources. If you can't source it to a neutral, third-party, published source such claims can't be included.
I would strongly advise you read Wikipedia:Notability (web), which lays out the standards for an article about a website to be published. The article will be judged by those standards, so you must know them.
Of your sources, I'm not sure how "Worthofweb" and Alexa are used for citations, so those may be okay to get statistics, but not necessarily to prove Notability. The Guardian of Nigeria is a great source, so keep that and find more like it. The last two cites don't appear to meet WP:Reliable sources, as they're a forum and a news aggregator/blog, so I don't think those are citeable. And again you have a lot of uncited claims (like 50% of the students at a given university using the site) that absolutely need to be cited or removed.

At this point I wouldn't at all say that the article is a lost cause, but you need to do a proper cleanup, remove anything you can't source to a WP:Reliable source (another good guideline to read), and add a few more good sources from reputable newspapers like The Guardian. Please do not resubmit the article until someone experienced, like the editors here, has looked at the article and told you it's good, as resubmitting will just be a misuse of your time and the reviewer's if it's not really ready. But with some effort, this looks like a viable article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Inside an edit

how can you easiely see what is inside an edit, like when you have a reply on this help page, how can i see if it was for me or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 October 2012‎

In this case editors will leave you a talkback tag on your talk page if it is for you. Normally anything directed to you will be left on your talkpage.--Charles (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If a page has been created with a wrongly spelled title, can the title be corrected ?

Yorkshiresoul (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yorkshiresoul. Yes, a page is renamed by moving it to a new title (never by copying and pasting to a new title). This preserves the page history which is needed for copyright and other purposes. When you do so, a redirect will be created from the old title to the new so any links to the old title will not break and anyone making the same spelling error when searching for it will still reach the correctly-titled page. Note that you will not be able to move a page if the correct title already exists as a redirect and has more than one edit to it, or only has one but is not a redirect pointing to the current title. In that case, you can ask an administrator to make the move for you by listing it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves or using the template {{Db-move}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Creative Commons license compatibility

I would like to know where I can find a chart that indicates whether material from another web site that is licensed under a different Creative Commons license can be used on Wikipedia. In other words, if someone finds another website whose content is licensed under CC-BY, can they use it on Wikipedia? Or what if it's licensed under CC-BY-NC? (I believe the answers are Yes and No, respectively, but there ought to be, and probably is, somewhere on Wikipedia where one can look this up easily.) Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the Teahouse! The simple answer to your question is that pretty much any license can be used as a source, as long as it's an acceptable source. However, copy-pasting other content, no matter what license it is released under, is a debatable topic here, depending on the editors who see it first. I would suggest you write your own material, using quotes from the sources and referencing if neccesary. If you have more questions, feel free to ask me! gwickwire | Leave a message 01:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but is there anywhere that that is documented? I would think that a Creative Commons license prohibiting commercial use like CC-BY-NC would be problematic for use here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, you are correct, and I finally found a decent place to start: Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#The short version. Thanks for being so fastidious! heather walls (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Heather, that is the kind of chart I was looking for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that as long as the information isn't copy pasted here, it can be used as a source. Even ones with CCBYNC or other licenses. When you think about it, most of our sources here are from copyrighted academic sources. Thanks for looking out for yourself though! gwickwire | Leave a message 18:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page-centric editors

G'day everyone, I've not been here before, I've been aware that the Teahouse exists but have been merrily editing my little heart out elsewhere until I recently ran into a brick wall. I've been on WP since November last year. Recently I've struck an editor that seems to be keen on identifying what they consider to be deficiencies in an article I recently co-promoted to FA. I feel a level of stewardship towards the article partly because I helped get it there, but also because it is in a space where particular points of view are pretty vociferous. In any case, I hope I am not at the stage of WP:OWN. This particular editor has been on WP a lot longer than me, and they make a lot of criticisms on the talk page, but then essentially refuse to edit in the article space at all. I'm finding this very disruptive, and it is really impacting on my enjoyment of WP. Do you have any suggestions as to how I might deal with this situation? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are the criticisms helpful, i.e. is the other user pointing out valid flaws? If so, then perhaps take is as a friendly (but annoying) bit of criticism and use them as a tool to improve your article. :) If the other user is not pointing out valid flaws, then try just ignoring him. Eventually the other user will likely get bored and go away. Sometimes people have difficulty communicating online, since other online people can't see body language -- sometimes a terse message is all that a given user has time to post. There's no rule against someone pointing out a problem (or problems) then not joining in to fix those problems, Wikipedia takes help where it can get it and if a person only points out problems without fixing them, well, hopefully they're contributing in their own way to making articles better, since there's always room for improvement. I hope this helps. :) Please let me know on my user talk page if you'd like more help from me. Banaticus (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

About the donation I made earlier today.

Hi. I recently tried to donate 5 dollar to wikipedia. During the process, it said that wikipedia cannot accept my credit card as donation. So I was like 'maybe next time'. But when I checked my transaction record, it said that I donated to Wikipedia when 5 dollar was deducted. I was wondering if you guys got the donation. Thanks66.183.202.203 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there! This is a good question, and sadly we're not able to answer it here, since we're volunteers and no money related to donations passes through our hands. However, I did find that Wikimedia has an email set up for questions like yours so you can email : problemsdonating@wikimedia.org - for help. Sorry we can't help here, and thank you for your donation - donations like yours (and ours!) help keep Wikipedia free! SarahStierch (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What to do about a wikipedian who asserts ownership of an article?

Hi,

I'm new-ish.

I'm having a problem with a wikipedian who asserts ownership over Chiropractic.

He/she says I may not edit the article without first getting permission from him/her on the talk page, and reverts my edits if I try.

When I discuss on the talk page, his/her response to every suggestion is to say that it breaches wikipedia policy in one way or another. His/her preferred version is referred to as 'the NPOV version', he/she sees my edits as 'POV' and refuses any change to the article.

I'm feeling really low and frustrated. help?

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mknjbhvgcf! Hmmmm... this is a sticky one, so hopefully you'll get a few interlocking pieces of advice on this one. I will emphasise that you are doing yourself and the article a real favour by laying out clear arguments on the Talk page. No matter how right you are, edit warring, accusations, and pontificating just weaken even the strongest case, so kudos for taking the high ground.

The formal guidelines are found at WP:Dispute resolution, and there are a number of ways to address this. This is made stickier by the fact that User: Puhlaa seems to use Wikipedia mainly to discuss chiropractic issues. That's not disallowed or anything, but it does mean the fellow has some focus, for better or for worse. If at some point you have reason to bring concerns of a pattern of pressing a given POV by that editor, ensure you only discuss the edits, not attempt to define the person. So not "EditorX is clearly a member of the Acme Church and pushing their ideology", but "EditorX has a consistent pattern of taking Ownership of Acme Church articles and eliminating non-Acme perspectives."

Aside from general Dispute Resolution methods, it can also be helpful to get some more specialised opinions. I would suggest considering leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine asking for input. Important: per the rules of WP:Canvassing, you cannot selectively solicit support just from those you expect will take your side, and also posts informing editors of a debate needing further input should be phrased totally neutrally. So not "Come stop EditorX from saying King Foo was illiterate!!!" but instead "Dispute at Talk:King Foo regarding his literacy". These are just some initial descriptions, more about how to approach this than specific methods, but hopefully some other folks can bring in their perspectives. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

An additional set of eyes on a discussion is always of benefit to wikipedia articles, both to ensure policy is followed and to keep other editors in check (things get carried away quickly sometimes). That said, I don’t agree that this is a ‘sticky one’ at all, but rather just the common circumstances surrounding a new editor who is still learning how to collaborate. Please consider that the editor Mknjbhvgcf's who is concerned with my 'ownership' initiated discussion at the chiropractic article (here [5] with the claim that "The most important thing for a reader to know about the field is that it's quackery", which seems to suggest a POV purpose. This was followed by massive removal of sourced text and replacement with original research [6]. Mknjbhvgcf' has been warned already on his talk page, by another editor, about edit-warring warring [7] and is now encouraged to join civil discussions at the chiropractic talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Creating a hyperlink

Someone was already helping me but I can't find it. I believe I have added the information requested to my sandbox page. This is a class project and Prof.Moliterno's Fall 2012 Social Entrepeneurship class needs a hyperlink Sandrasmission (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sandra, welcome back! To make an external link, just use single brackets like this: [http://www.google.com Link to Google]. As you can see, you open with a single bracket, type in the URL, type in the text of the link with a space between the URL and the text, and close with another bracket. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

shoeing location city in map

i want to show my city's location in its wiki page.how do i do that? i checked editing page but i didn't figure out anything.kindly help.thanks in advance.shreyans 11:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drshreyans1986n (talk • contribs)

Hey, Drshreyans1986n! Welcome! There's two options here. The first is that you can create a map by yourself from scratch, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Location maps describes the standard conventions for making maps of the type you are describing, so if you have the skills and know-how, you can create one for yourself and upload it. If you are like me, and have zero skills in this area, then you can request that someone else make a map for you by filing a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop which is where Wikipedia's map-makers will respond to requests to make maps. Does this help answer your question? --Jayron32 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Drshreyans1986n, depending on where your city is, there might be an automatic map setting for your area, in which case all you would need to do is add the coordinates of the city to an WP:Infobox, and it would automatically make a map for you. As a random example, check out the article Pauri: there is an infobox on the right margin, where its map was automatically made just by entering the coding of the latitude and longitude (see WP:Coordinates for how to find these) into the infobox.

Can you tell us exactly what article it is you want to add a map to? Some countries have automatic maps, others don't. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about Jaysingpur? It already has an automated map in its infobox. Are you talking about a different city, or am I misunderstanding your question? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

what do i do if someone if saying i should edit the simple wiki but i want to edit the this wiki?

they changed a few of my edits and they didnt explain why

the person says "I'm not "stalking you", I'm using a tool called Huggle which help me to revert vandalism. Your edits appear there, that's it. Tbhotch.™ "

i dont think that person should be changing my edits, but that person doesnt seem to be changing my recent edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 October 2012‎

Coginsys, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like other editors think that your edits aren't constructive because they are over simplifying various articles. Sometimes definitions especially of mathematical or computing terms can appear to be complex but the changes you made are, in the opinion of others, making them too simple and not as accurate as they need to be.

Tbhotch happens to have spotted a number of your edits while using Huggle which looks at recent edits that might be vandalism, that is not stalking you. His comment that you maybe you ought to be editing the Simple English Wikipedia may be slightly less civil that perhaps it should have been but I suspect was expressing a frustration at your apparent ignoring of the warnings posted on your talk page. You believe that your edits are making articles clearer and easier to understand, others disagree. I would suggest that before you make any more edits of this type you discuss them on the relevant article talk page first and accept the outcome of the discussion. NtheP (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

it's one person or very few, and they arent doing anything to make them better. what should i do? this person is not discussing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Without speaking for any other user, it could be that they think the wording as it stands before your edits doesn't need improving. I notice that many of your edit summaries are along the lines of "made clearer" and when they are reverted the people making the reverts are basically saying that your edits do not make things clearer. As I said before, I really think you should discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page first rather than get into a cycle of edit, revert, edit etc - a cycle which could find you falling foul of the three revert rule.

As to them not responding to your messages left on talk pages, I'm not totally surprised they are not responding because you are making allegations of stalking without considering that their actions are made in good faith. If all, or at least a majority, of your edits are being reverted because other editors don't think them appropriate, isn't it time you stopped and discussed your edits before making them? Just try one of your edits, for example, Subroutine and explain at Talk:Subroutine why you think the current wording isn't clear and what you suggest it should be changed to. See what other editors think and then see if a consensus can be reached before making an edit to the article itself. NtheP (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

what cycle? i didnt change anything, they were just changing all my edits

also they didnt respond from the beginning

your msg is not helping

also the editor is broken you need mutiple spaces just to get a space, this is annoying

ok i posted to the talk page................

I didn't say you had got into a revert cyclce but to try and avoid getting into one. You can't force other editors to respond but thank you for starting a dialogue. Adding the {{technical}} tag to articles is not a bad thing to do but you should add on the talk page why you think the articles are too technical and what you think they should be changed to. Your comment at Talk:Subroutine doesn't do this and therefore doesn't really help as you haven't said why the article is unclear. Unless you are going to explain your reasoning it's unlikely that you are going to get much response. And finally please remember to sign your posts here and on talk pages with ~~~~ so we know who has made a comment. NtheP (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

if no1 repsonds that means no1 has a problem and i can make the articles clearer so that's good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 11:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In theory yes but

) It's good manners to tell people you think might be interested by leaving a note either on their own talk page or at a relevant project talk page that you have started a discussion and where the discussion can be found. For example Subroutine is tagged as being within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science so you might want to post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science that you have started a discussion at Talk:Subroutine about the way the opening paragraph is written.
) You need to wait several days for people to respond before acting.

its ok tho since if someone makes an article unclear i can just edit it back and then they can put why put their change on that talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 11:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but again if what you are changing has been the established version of the article for some time, then don't just change it saying it's unclear. That it has been a stable version for some time is an indicator that the text is accepted as being adequate for most needs.

Just to sum up - if anything you do is likely to be contentious be it making an edit or reverting someone else's edit then discuss it first. NtheP (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Approving of an article

Hello there, I'm having a little trouble getting an article approved, saying that I haven't referenced it properly or enough. At the moment as I am discussing a fairly new company, there is not much online content that i can use as reference, especially from external sources. If this is the case then I will revisit establishing the wiki page in a few months when the company has a stronger online platform. Not too sure what to do next..? Thank you! :) Stevedewildemac (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Stevedewildemac! Are you talking about Volkanik? If so, here are some recommendations:

Is the article notable? If the article does not conform to Wikipedia's notability requirements, it may not be accepted. Since the company you are talking about is new, it may not be notable enough yet to have its own article.
The article might need some extra stuff, such as an infobox, logo, charts, and other graphics to better demonstrate the topic.
The article could be split up into several smaller sections instead of just one "History" section

If anyone else has anything else that might help, feel free to comment here.

You might want to wait for the company to grow/mature before the article is moved to the article namespace (moved to where readers can read it). Until then, you can continue to improve/expand the article.

Hope this helps.

–– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)