Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 183

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 180 Archive 181 Archive 182 Archive 183 Archive 184 Archive 185 → Archive 190

All my edits are being reverted

Hello, I'm a new user from the Armenian Wikipedia. I added information to an organizations page that claims to be a political party in Armenia, but isn't registered as such. The page was also scrubbed clean from any negative information. All of my edits are being reverted by 2 editors, who are filing reports about me to the administrators. I am being called a single purpose account. Is it a crime, that I just started editing and haven't really gotten to editing other articles? How can I make the article neutral if this 2 users assumed ownership of this article and revert everything I add? Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't ownership, you have recently received a message on your talk page explaining it was a bug that keeps on restoring an old version of the page when people edit it, yours was affected by it, nothing you did wrong. (Andrei Marzan as an IP)126.186.28.87 (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about my edits on Hayazn page. Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears Yerevantsi wants you to discuss the content you want to introduce to the talk page prior to introducing it, which seems like a reasonable request. Perhaps you could ask him specifically his objection to the content you wish to introduce. If that proves a dubious section, let us/me know. Thanks! Go Phightins! 14:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to update my fathers Wikipedia page.

75.74.113.243 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I appreciate your interest in editing here. To edit a page, just click the "Edit" button at the top of every page. I see you've already made a few constructive edits yourself. Just one thing I want to say: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, meaning you can't include content that flatters or disparages a subject. Be extra careful about this when updating your father's article. Don't use words like "inspiring" or "talented". Instead, neutrally describe the person. Can I ask which article specifically you want to edit? Thanks, --Mz7 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
To expand on the advice from Mz7, please read the advice on editing where you have a close involvement or conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
A little advice from someone who maintains both their fathers' and grandfathers' articles: close attention to sourcing and avoiding WP:PEACOCK words is the key. There will always be hundreds of things I want to put in those articles but can't because they're personal knowledge and not covered in the independent reliable sources on them. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
At this time I want to find ou how I can insert a picture of my fatherJjcgrey (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
To upload an image, create an account at the Wikimedia Commons. That is where most images used for Wikipedia are hosted. Make sure that you are the copyright holder for the image you want to upload. This usually mean you created the image yourself. Do not use images you find using the internet as most of them are copyrighted. Wikipedia takes copyrights very seriously, and we only accept images that are free to use or suitably licensed. After you've created a Commons account, just go to the Commons Upload Wizard and it will guide you through the steps. --Mz7 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've made a number of edits to the Charles Gossage Grey page. I've added some Wikilinks for the various medals (could we clarify what the "American Field Service Medal" he received was? Wikipedia has articles about most major U.S. medals so it would be good to clarify the link).
I've also used the predefined sources to inline reference many of the facts of the article. Those I could not I have marked as "citation needed". If you are able, please provide citations for these facts, I presume such information can be found in American Aces of World War 1 and Over the Front: A Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the United States and French Air Services. --LukeSurl t c 15:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Kindle books

Can kindle books be added to the further reading section? (Monkelese (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

One would need a bit more information to give a precise answer. If they are published by recognised publishing houses, and are pertinent to the article, then there's no reason not to add them. If they are CreateSpace publications added to a page about the author, then almost certainly not. Basically, treat them like print books; the same rules apply. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Someone asked this question a little while ago, the answer they received may be useful to you: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_108#Kindle_books. --LukeSurl t c 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible to be credited for an edit I did before I joined?

Hi,

I've been meaning to ask for a long time, but only just have gotten off my butt! I did an edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller#Aircraft_propellers

a long time ago before I joined. I was very pleased with it because there is this ridiculous ongoing antagonism between French/Brazilian and American points of view when it comes to early aviation history. In the intervening years it has only had minor edits, so I think I found a really good middle ground. I happened to be revisiting my student pilots licence at the time. I think I still have the same IP address, which is why I better ask now before that changes!

Thanks, Danny. Danny galaga (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. This was possible before at this page, but unfortunately this is no longer the case. You may make a note of the edit on your userpage if you wish. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
@Danny galaga: Hey Danny. As Anon126 describes, there is no way to actually change the revision history of the article to list your username in place of the IP address you were editing at previously, but you can make a note in the edit history attributing you username to the revision, using a dummy edit. You might use a form not unlike: "Note: edit of 12:32, February 6, 2014‎ was by me before I had created an account". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct removal of citation "box"

The article 'Annie Haslam' has a "box" top of page of the type 'This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.' I have made a couple of edits to help resolve the issues, and I believe this warning is no longer justified. What is the most appropriate method to remove the "box", or have it removed by someone else? Can I do it myself?CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! You should first check the talk page of the article (in this case Talk:Annie Haslam) to see if someone gave further details of the problem. If you feel that you have resolved the problems, you can remove the notice yourself. Others may disagree and restore the warning, but they will see that you have made an effort to fix the problems and assume good faith. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Hello, CaesarsPalaceDude. Yes, you can remove it yourself, when you think it is no longer appropriate: click the Edit tab at the top of the page, and remove the {{BLP sources}} from the beginning (make sure you give a sensible edit summary, so that nobody will mistake this for vandalism). However, I don't think it is ready for that yet. The first two references appear to be good, but the third one is to Wikipedia, which is not permitted, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source (anybody may edit it). I suspect that the Yahoo site is not reliable for the same reason, but I'm not sure; in any case, the URL you have given goes to the main Yahoo music page, not to a particular biography. (If I search for Annie Haslam in that site, it takes me to http://music.yahoo.com/artist/annie-haslam/, which is a brief biography, but does not mention breast cancer, which is what it is apparently being used as a reference for, so unless there is another biography of her there somewhere, the reference is invalid for the purpose it has been used for). And the Cherryblossomclinic interview won't open at all for me, so I can't tell whether or not it counts as a reliable source (interviews are primary sources, and so can be used in a limited way, but secondary sources are preferred). So, good start, but find some more reliable sources before removing the tag.--ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, friends, for your very helpful advice. The Wikipedia reference is one of mine, and I will change it to allmusic. The biography & the Cherryblossomclinic interview are from previous editor(s), which I will try to improve. Until then the tag stays, as you have suggested. I will try to implement all of the points raised. Thanks, once again.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Proofreading and stuff

Hi, I hope it's the right place for my question/request.

1) I decided to translate this article, but it occurred to me that it might not fall under the wikipedia rules of significance. It is a pretty popular e-dictionary in Russia and russian speaking countries created by a famous software company ABBYY, but it seems it's not that much widespread in the west. There are a lot of reviews in Russian medias (which prove it's significance) but almost none in English ones. It is sold through Amazon but obviously it cannot be used as a proof of significance. So is it enough to just have Russian language reviews as reliable sources?

2) Well, this was actually the original request. I translated the article into English and I need someone to proofread it. I have created it in my sandbox, did some quick formatting, but I haven't finished editing it because I don't want to spent a time formating it only to find it deleted because of the lack of reliable English sources. So if the article is OK to stay could someone please proofread it, your help would be much appreciated. Thank you. Dante1717mx (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your first question: it does not matter what language sources are in to qualify as "significant coverage" which is needed to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, so we strive to have a worldwide coverage of all topics, and not place systemic bias on underrepresented cultures. If a topic is significant in one country, then it's probably notable here. Now, as for the translated article, it is written in a promotional tone, rather than a neutral one. I would recommend taking out the two sections "ABBYY Lingvo х3" and "ABBYY Lingvo х5", because they look like advertisements. I also suggest rewriting the translation from a neutral point of view. Avoid using peacock words like "leading", "professional", and "comprehensive". Add references to reliable sources to verify the content in the article (as I said before, it's OK to use Russian sources) and to prove its significance for an encyclopedia article. Best, Mz7 (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC), revised 02:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Book reference usage

Hello! I'm referencing a book, but I'm not sure how much of the front cover text is considered the title. It reads, "What Fish? A Buyer's Guide to Marine Fish: Essential Information to Help You Choose the Right Fish for Your Marine Aquarium".

Is it okay to put "What Fish: A Buyer's Guide to Marine Fish" in the reference? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. {{Citation | author1=Lougher, Tristan | title=What fish? : a buyer's guide to marine fish | publication-date=2006 | publisher=Interpet | isbn=978-1-84286-118-9 }} is what my library suggests as a cite .... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The book cover itself is more dispositive than what Google Books says. The inside Title page of the book itself is the best source for the full title. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bananasoldier, check out http://reftag.appspot.com/ and see what it suggests for a title. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's my personal opinion: I prefer including the complete title and subtitle. For example, in the 19th century, books and other sources often had ridiculously long titles or subtitles. I think fully citing the complete title and subtitle adds information for the reader, and helps convey the flavor of the original source. For example, in an article I expanded called Harry Yount, I cited a source called, Message from the President of the United States to the Two Houses of Congress at the Commencement of the First Session of the Forty-Seventh Congress with the Reports of the Heads of Departments and Selections from Accompanying Documents. I cited the whole darned thing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm on board with citing the whole thing. I think shortened titles are an artifact of manual typesetting, and manual typewriters; editors and typesetters opting for a space and time saving approach. With copy and paste, coupled with the fact that space is virtually free, there is little need to save the space, and it probably takes more time to shorten than to use the whole title. There might be some odd exception, for example , this book title:

Long title

Selected Works of Nigel Tomm (2006/2007) (Shakespeare's Sonnets Remixed 2006 / Shakespeare's Hamlet Remixed 2007 / Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet Remixed 2007 / Including Previously Unpublished Elvis Presley's Love Me Tender Remix 2007) Nigel Tomm is The Winner of The Anonymous Writers Club Award 2006 for The Best Anonymous Writer / Deconstructed Poetry Award 2006 for Innovations and Teamwork in Poetry / Decadence Prize 2007 for The Lifestyle / Flashy Rococo Coco Award 2006 for Flashy Thoughts / Baby Boomers Award 2006 for The Best Marketing / Anonymous Artists Prize 2007 for The Best Anonymous Artist / Life Academy Award 2006 for Ignorance of Some Aspects of Life / Graphomania Award 2007 for Writing / Formal English Institute Award 2006 for English Grammar Improvements / House of Original Remixes Award 2006 for Creativity / WordKillers Award 2006 for Killing Some Words Sometimes in Some Books / iStyle Award 2006 for Being Unnamed Style Icon / Librarians Under Sixty Award 2007 for Staying Young / Comedy Association Award 2007 for The Best Drama / Happy Dramatists Award 2006 for The Realest Reality Show / New Forms Award 2006 for Rediscovering Something Old / Best of The Best Award 2007 for Being The Best of The Bests / Alaska Lifetime Achievement Prize 2006 for Bringing The Sun to Canada / Flaming Unisex Award 2007 for Coming to Flaming Unisex Awards / Random Books Award 2006 for Random Words Which Sometimes Sell / Happy Housekeepers Award 2007 for Being an Example to Follow / Wild Foresters Award 2006 for Saving Trees from Book Lovers / Writing Bodybuilders Award 2007 for Keeping Nice Forms / Life Coaching Without Words Award 2006 for Bringing New Life to Some Words / Writing for Writing Foundation Award 2007 for Rewriting Some Writings / Speaking Parrots Award 2007 for Some Fresh Phrases / CopyPasters Award 2007 for Recopying Shakespeare / Silent People Award 2006 for Talking about Silence / Strange Books Award 2006 for The Best Back Cover Text / I Don't Care Award 2006 for Something We All Don't Care / Happy Clowns Award 2006 for The Biggest Sad Smile / Nonexistence Award 2007 for Trying to Believe in Existence / MTV eBooks Award 2007 for The Best Male Reader / Bicycle Fans Award 2006 for not Writing About Bicycles / Cool Firemen Award 2006 for New Flames in Literature / Penguin Lovers Prize 2007 for Being Vegetarian / Green Grass Award 2006 for Frustrated Ecology in Hamlet Remixed / Vintage Love Award 2006 for Writing About Old School Love / New Letters Award 2006 for Some Useless Innovations / Retired Encyclopedists Award 2007 for Universality in Rewriting / Nice Web Developers Award 2007 for Fresh Look / Space Lovers Award 2006 for Exploration of Literary Cosmos / Monotony Award 2006 for The Best Performance / Homemade Video Award 2007 for The Best Home Interior / Illusory Zoo Committee Prize 2007 for The Best Animal Character / Degenerated Politicians Award 2006 for Belief in Moral Norms / F***ing Teenagers Award 2007 for The Best Kiss / Tomorrow Morning's Fragrances Association Award 2006 for Smelling Words / London Punks Foundation Award 2007 for Ultra Cool Book with Hip Ending / Pessimistic Bankers Prize 2007 for Fresh Ideas on Pessimism / Soft-Hardcore Erotica Award 2006 for Remixed Feelings / Slow Talking Runners Award 2007 for Some Sweet Chats about Nothing / Honest Jet-Setters Prize 2006 for Being Honest to Honest People / Good Looking Pop Stars Award 2006 for The Best Interview Act / Disorientated Literary Agents Award 2006 for Trusting Nobody / Archaic Victorian Baroque Award 2007 for Crossing Borders Between Borders / Multicultural Context Prize 2006 for Multiculturalism in Books / Two Happy People Award 2007 for Mixed Palette of Happiness / Fragile Machines Prize 2007 for The Best Text on Robotic Psychology / Passionate Red Cherries Award 2006 for Dynamic Use of The Word 'Cool' / Late 1950s Award 2007 for Neutrality on Some Remixed Questions / Classical Counterculture Award 2006 for Development of Remix Cult

is on the long side, but generally, I'd opt for the whole thing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all! Thanks for replying. How do I know how much of What Fish? A Buyer's Guide to Marine Fish Essential Information to Help You Choose the Right Fish for Your Marine Aquarium is title and how much is description? Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bananasoldier. Referring back to your original post, the part before the colon ":" is considered the title, and the part after is the subtitle. In my opinion, both, including the colon, should normally be included as the full title in a Wikipedia reference. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Cullen328. The colon from my original post was added by me, but does not actually appear on the book cover. The cover appears as this. The title from Google Books does not include the phrase "Essential information to help you choose the right fish for your marine aquarium". Should I include it anyway? It wouldn't hurt to do so. :P Thank you, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont know how to change my username Flaming Blaze (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Can Anyone please tell me how to change my usernameFlaming Blaze (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Refer to WP:CHU. Soham 13:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Citing publications in a Biograpy

I am working on the autobiography of an individual in the science field. He has several publications that appear in other books as a single article, or they were presented at seminars as white papers. I can't find the correct place to list them-- Footnotes, citations, etc. They are not references for the Wiki page because the page is about the person, not about the science subjects themselves.Zephyr7575 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I have a similar question regarding his patents that were awarded. Is it Ok to list them?Zephyr7575 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Autobiographies are not recommended on Wikipedia, for the reasons outlines at WP:Autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant to say Biography, not Autobiography. The subject person in not aliveZephyr7575 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest having a ==Selected works== section. However, such a list should not usually be exhaustive; it should list their most significant works as mentioned by independent reliable sources. Likewise, lists of the patents someone has filed are not really necessary. One should mention significant ones, as for example our article on Alexander Graham Bell mentions that he patented the telephone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank log

Is there any thank log -- the people/edits I/someone else has thanked? Tito☸Dutta 01:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Free or not free image

I have been spending a lot of time trying to understand what images can or cannot be used. I have recently been editing a page on Jerry Bresler and thought it would be nice to add a photo of him. I searched the Internet and found a nice one on the Corbis website. The image is one of the thumbnails they use to show an example of the full-sized image (dated 1955). I sent an email to them asking if the image could be used on Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, I didn't get an answer

The Corbis website offered the following information under the title "Restrictions" which I was unable to decipher as to what it meant: "This is a publicly distributed film, television or publicity photograph. Non-editorial use may require additional clearances."

Setting that meaning aside, I thought about the possibility that it might fall under the category of images of deceased people.

Here is the URL to the image: http://www.corbisimages.com/Search#q=jerry+bresler

If you should go to the website, click on the small thumbnail and a window with a larger image and more info on the picture will open.

Thanks, Murray Mursimon (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • @Mursimon: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry, but Wikipedia content must be reusable by anyone, for any purpose at all, even non-editorial use. However, if the person is deceased, then the image can be uploaded under fair use regardless of the restrictions of the source website. Just be sure to upload it here on Wikipedia instead of on Wikimedia Commons. Happy editing! --Jakob (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Welcome to the Teahouse, Mursimon. The image in question is copyrighted by Bettmann/CORBIS, so it can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Since Bresler is dead, a low resolution version of the image can be uploaded to Wikipedia for use only in that article under the terms of our policies and guidelines regarding non-free content which allows "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Use the image upload wizard and select that option. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Desirability of Pictures

I reformatted your question by removing the leading spaces; that doesn't work well at Wikipedia, as you probably saw--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm working on a page that is about a living artist (Painter). It is my intent to use multiple pictures of her art. But when I browse other artists' pages, I couldn't help but notice they a large number of the ones I saw had no samples of the artists work but all other topics are well illustrated. Does Wikipedia discourage the use of pictures of artists' work or is this just a coincidence and perhaps the authors of those pages weren't able to get free-use images? It is my view that, though the various accomplishments of the artist, such as exhibitions, awards and teaching experience, are important, it really their work that identifies them. Thanks for giving consideration to my question, Murray Mursimon (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Murray, and welcome to the Teahouse! Although illustrations of an artist's work are desirable, a major limitation is that the works by the artist you are writing about remain protected by copyright (unless freely licensed by the copyright holder, most likely the artist). As such, any use of images will have to follow our non-free content guidelines, which limits the number of images which you can use. If the artist has done one or more self-portraits, you can choose to represent both the artist and his/her work with a single painting (see Frida Kahlo for an example). Otherwise it depends on how much a particular work or style is discussed (see criteria number 8 here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Murray. Pictures are greatly desirable but also strictly limited because of the fair use policy, unless an artist has released their work under a compatible free copyright license or into the public domain. Such release is fairly rare, as you would expect from a person protecting the rights to their own work. A rule of thumb is one fair use image only per page (a great oversimplification). So, when you visit wildlife/nature/fauna/flora articles, for example, you'll often find lots of images because there are lots of free images available. And when you visit Vincent van Gogh and Claude Monet you'll find lots of paintings because their paintings have aged out into the public domain. But when you go to articles on movies; maybe one fair use poster is sustained. Living people, often no image (generally we cannot use images of living person at all under fair use because of replaceability), or if there is one, it will be crappy because the only free image available was one snapped on the fly at an autograph signing and then uploaded by the taker who released there copyright to that candid. And artists whose works are still protected, usually no more than one image. All this is to say, unless Cynthia Carlson has released the copyright on multiple pieces, you will not be permitted to use multiple images of her art. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Adding to the excellent information given above, it is OK to have an external link to the artist's official website, or to a non-commercial website or two such as museum pages documenting the artist's work. That gives readers an easy opportunity to see examples of the artist's work. Do not link to a website that exists only to promote and sell art work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the quick and informative responses. I don't think I'll have any problem getting permission from the artist. Regarding the artist's website, I did include a link to it but felt that anything external to Wikipedia is temporary, at best, and though the personal website may eventually disappear, Wikipedia will not & be here for a long time to come.
@Mursimon:. Hey again Murray. I just want to clarify something, based on your comment above. If the artist gives her permission for our use here, without releasing the copyright (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a bit about that process), we can't use the images and it's little different than if she gave no consent at all. Outside of fair use (as detailed above), we require that our free content be free not for our use alone, but for our end users; our readers. So the copyright license itself must be freely-licensed to the world, thus allowing all people who come here to take the image and use it even for commercial purposes. Such copyright release is irrevocable. It is not something I would think most painters would want to do with their work (I certainly wouldn't with my art).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting a duplicate/misnamed Archive page?

I accidentally created a misnamed archive page for my usertalk (I named it "Archives 1"instead of "Archive 1", which won't work with the archive box template), and I'd like to have it deleted, but I'm having a bit of trouble deciding how to go about it. Would this page qualify for speedy deletion, since it's an unneeded duplicate and doesn't contain much info (I just moved the Teahouse invite there, as I was tired of looking at it on my user talk page), or do I have to go through the nominate for deletion process because it's technically a talk page? - Bardbom (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bardbom, what if you moved the page (Archives 1) and renamed it to Archive 2? Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
That may be one way to handle it, but at the rate I get messages on my talk page it may never be used. Seems like it would be needlessly taking up server space, albeit not a whole lot of it. The only reason I created an archive page in the first place was because I was tired of looking at the Teahouse invite. ;) - Bardbom (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@Bardbom: Hey Bardbom. All done. We don't normally interpret a user talk subpage as a user talk page for purposes of CSD U1, but in any event, we are not a bureaucracy. {{Db-userreq}} would have worked just fine, as would any of any of {{db|explanation}} or {{db-g6}} with an edit summary, or posting here – which just did. By the way, not that there's anything wrong with creating the archive for it, and it might become populated in the future, but I don't think anyone need bother creating an archive to contain a notice, which is not substantive discussion. In fact, I generally clean out notices like that (and especially automated notices) before I archive. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Much thanks. - Bardbom (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I created a page for a (movie)...?

Thank goodness for this teahouse!

I have a few questions for an article I wrote about an independent movie I made and created a page on here for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bank_Roll_(movie)

So there's the page. I'm confused why all images got tagged as "not mine" when I clicked all the right buttons to say I own them, took the pictures, made graphics, etc. My question is, do you know if IMDb is a site for sharing images, can reference IMDb as the source? I tried Flickr & photos and graphics were tagged as "too new" for them to be approved. Would referencing Facebook do the trick?

Okay, lastly -- what's in the subject line: I look at all the other "movie" pages and they're listed as, for instance, Avatar (film). I don't remember putting Bank Roll (movie), but is there a way to change the header to Bank Roll (film) before someone looks it over and thinks it's done "wrong" from the very start?

Oh, very lastly: would anyone mind taking a peek at the page? I spent many nights on it and would love input…

71.189.214.28 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are Dougmaguire but logged out? If you did indeed make the images yourself, you can "donate" them, in which case you release them under a free license (meaning that anyone can use the images with few restrictions). If you are not willing or able to "donate" the images in this way, then you will have to wait until your article is accepted to upload them on Wikipedia (not Commons). --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about getting the title wrong. When the article is accepted, the title can be changed. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Dougmaguire (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"When the article is accepted, the title can be changed…" -- I like your attitude, "when", not "if". Thank you for clearing that up… Dougmaguire (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Doug and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm not clear on what you're trying to do with imdb and Facebook, but in general you would not reference them. But since this is about photos there may be some policy or guideline I don't know about.
And you really shouldn't be writing the article about the film you made, but that will surely become an issue when your article is reviewed, if it needs to. WP:COI and WP:NPOV tell you the relevant information. In general, you don't want to write an article in order to promote what you've done, and even if that's not what you're doing, it's hard to write with a neutral point of view if it's your movie.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I took a quick look and can't see any problems. It seems reasonably well sourced.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw that later about not writing it yourself -- after I put in all the work. I really did keep a neutral point of view. It's not a promotional thing, but like you said, "doesn't matter & it's going to be an issue." I'm really not expecting much at this point. Well, that's not true. I'm expecting it to get bounced back, so "oh well" -- I got some practice writing a Wikipedia page. Good effort, but oh well... 71.189.214.28 (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments of reviewer - where to find?

Dear Teahousers, My article had been rejected, and I go a message (in a yellow box) that I woudl find the explanation in the comments of the reviewer... Yet I did not find any such comments in any message or when opening my article draft. Where are these "comments of the reviewer" to be found? Thanks Marici Punarvasu (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Marici PunarvasuMarici Punarvasu (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The comments can be seen here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon_Controversy and they say "It's not clear what the article's actually about. There's a controversies section in the Ram Bahadur Bomjon article already, but most of these statements are unreferenced, and will never be accepted into the encyclopaedia as they are presented." Theroadislong (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

103.26.194.127 (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am a fairly experienced editor, but have never heard of a "featured question". On the other hand, Wikipedia is a large, complex project. Can you clarify? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
On the chance that you're referring to the questions shown on the main Wikipedia:Teahouse page, I believe a template is used to generate them randomly from among the recently asked questions. Deor (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent for details. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Citing publications in an biography

I am working on the biography of a deceased individual in the science field. He has several publications that appear in other books as a single article, or they were presented at seminars as white papers. I can't find the correct place to list them-- Footnotes, citations, etc. They are not references for the Wiki page because the page is about the person, not about the science subjects themselves. A similar question for their patents. Should they be listed and if so, how?Zephyr7575 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Try looking at the answers in section #Citing publications in a Biograpy below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Buugeng - Juggling_prop

I didn´t find neither "S-staff", nor "Buugeng", so I wanted to create it as stub and met this deletion.
Yet the diskussion seems to have omitted, that the "Buugeng" or "S-staff" is not restricted to usage and handling as martial-arts prop, but also a - young - and popular juggling prop Category:Juggling_Props. It exists in Variations as fire-buugeng, glow-buugeng (~S-staff resp.) and both - this context, and its eastern traditional use as manipulation object (Category:Object_manipulation) (which category it or to Category:Physical_activity_and_dexterity_toys or to Category:Juggling_props it should be added to) - contribute to it being absolutely notable. --84.137.119.111 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Now, how to revive a deleted article? ((there´s no editing possible) .. And is there a list of new-article-wishes / new-article-request or an extra room for unfinished articles / article-candidates, so as "Buugeng" would be there as yet unedited red article or stub (with the starting informations above) for I can't edit it? thk advanced! --84.137.119.111 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)   Done .. found it .. wasn't logged in :] --RoNeunzig (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving a Page

I have just tried to move my page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nancy_Buchanan

to the regular Wikipedia, but can't find it in the search engine. HELP please making sure I get my page moved to the right space. What shall I pick from the pull-down menu that will get it to the right space. Thanks.

Marilyn Nix (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have moved Wikipedia:Nancy Buchanan (which was not mainspace) back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nancy Buchanan and submitted it for review for you. Moving it to mainspace yourself would have put undue scrutiny on the article as there will likely be NPOV and COI issues. I also see that there is a lot of work that needs to be done with references on the article and whether or not they are NOTABLE. So, it should be reviewed and either moved to mainspace for you or a note placed on it telling you what needs to be fixed. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandboxes

My first attempt at a Wikipedia article is still sitting in my sandbox, and I can't seem to find a way to start another article while it's there. Can anyone please help? Thank you Icuraj (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can start further user subpages. Just call it User:Icuraj/whatever you want the next title to be. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
... and another option is that as User:Icuraj/sandbox is now just a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rusty's Markets you could replace [User:Icuraj/sandbox the redirect] by whatever you want the content of your new draft to be. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How to delete a page

I made a page, Uncle Kokua, thinking that if I move it to Uncle Kokua (reality show) it may redirect there. I now know I can't, and need to delete the page. How do I do this? And can you also help me with redirecting the page? Thanks, Lovecherry (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The code for a redirect looks like this:
#REDIRECT [[Where this redirect leads]]

However, because there is no Uncle Kokua that is not a reality show on Wikipedia, an administrator may delete Uncle Kokua and move Uncle Kokua (reality show) to the title without parentheses. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! .Lovecherry (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cannot see that my article is visible on Wikipedia?

Have made a small article about a brand EVITA PERONI and tried to launch it on wikipedia but without success? What have I done wrong? Can see that my account is ok so that is not the problem. Thank you in advance.Pernilletage (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't created an article. You have created a user page and a sandbox. Neither would be appropriate for an article. There are few useful links on your user talk page, and in particular you should read WP:Your first article. The editor who provided those links has given you further advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I have marked both pages for speedy deletion as unambiguous copyright infringements of the company's own website. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
And I have deleted them. Please don't copy text from other webpages into Wikipedia; it's against policy and against the law. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Creation of account - username letter "case"

How do I change my username so it starts with a LOWER case letter? When I registered, I specifically made sure my username did NOT start with a capital letter (which is always how I use my name). Nevertheless, when my "profile" page became visible, everywhere my name was referenced, it began with a capital letter (not how I created it). How do I change my username from starting with a capital "C" to a lower case letter "c"?

10:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Citywildcat (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically you can't (usernames always start with a capital letter). However, you can do the following: first, go to your preferences and set your signature (on the first tab) to [[User:Citywildcat|citywildcat]] ([[User talk:Citywildcat|talk]], making sure to tick the box marked "Treat the above as wikimarkup", and save the changes. Then add the following code to the top of your userpage: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:citywildcat}}. This will make it appear, to all intents and purposes, as though your username is all lowercase. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and your user talkpage will need {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:citywildcat}} at the top, for consistency... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

cite error

Hi there I've spent about 1 hour trying sort out

"^ Cite error: The named reference chris1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."

Can you take me through it? Gomez050 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Gomez, welcome to the Teahouse. These cite errors sometimes aren't the easiest things to define or explain but tryng as best I can you've got a ref that you've named Chris1, the only problem was that you used the template ({{reflist}}) in the article before the point at which you defined Chris1, so when the software was tryng to work out what to display it was getting confused because reflist was trying to explain a reference that it had no data for. Removing the first use of reflist - it wasn't need there anyway - and the problem goes away. See this diff. Incidentally you also have Chris1 as the first item of code at the top of the page, you don't need that either. Nthep (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Nthep, much appreciatedGomez050 (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute with editor who fails to engage on talk page

Hello. An editing dispute (regarding the addition of content I consider both trivial and unsourced) is described at Talk:Trapped! (TV series). The other editor (there is one named editor and several IPs who I presume to be the same individual) is not engaging in the discussion. Can I request help here please? --LukeSurl t c 17:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have good reason to believe the IPs are all the same editor IP hopping to manipulate the local consensus you can request a sock puppet investigation at WP:SPI.--Charles (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any malicious attempt to manipulate consensus - the editor is not engaging in the discussion with any account or IP and there's no indication they're deliberately trying to look like multiple editors. I reckon it's just an editor (with WP:OWN issues) forgetting to log in. Considering the subject matter and the nature of the edits (the named account is TrappedFan and the IPs have made no edits outside of that one article), my guess is the editor is probably quite young and unaware of WP:V and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --LukeSurl t c 18:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete page

Kewicutie (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)How do I delete a pageKewicutie (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This depends which page you want deleted. Do you want to delete User talk:Kewicutie? If so, just remove all content from it. However user talk pages are meant for people to leave you messages, so if you continue to edit Wikipedia it is likely people will send you new messages there. --LukeSurl t c 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have recently completed researching my fathers professional football career in 40's and 50's Ireland. Using mostly old Irish newspaper reports both online and on microfilm in local libraries, I have compiled quite a sizeable piece on my father's career. I had always intended to post the info on Wikipedia but I'm not sure about posting copies of old newspaper photos as part of the piece. I do have a few original pics to use but most of the rest of the pics come from the pages of local newspapers. Any advice would be more than welcome.

Many thanks in advance !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokev007 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jokev007 and welcome to Wikipedia! Uploading or publishing photos that you do not have permission to publish would violate Wikipedia's copyright policies. However, photos that you have taken, especially ones you are willing to submit as works for public use will be gratefully accepted. You can read more about this in detail at WP:Image use policy.
You can also get more information about how to submit an article at WP:Article wizard. Please keep in mind that once you submit an article it may be edited, cut back, changed, reformatted etc by other WP editors in ways that you may not agree with. So be prepared to discuss and collaborate with others as the process continues. Also please read WP:Athlete to be sure your father qualifies for a WP article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How can i show the importance of my Wikipedia Article?

My Wikipedia page on NYX Cosmetics has been deleted for the 4th time even though I believe it is well written and has noted sources and accurate facts. How can I change my article so that it is not deleted in the future.

Paulacarolina24 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You need multiple mentions in reliable sources independent of the articles subject. Facebook references are not considered reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The WP:Notability is proved by citing multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that significantly cover the subject of the article. (see: WP:42). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What to consider "Reviewed"

I've been going through the new pages on Wikipedia and have been using the page curator tool. There is an option to mark an article as "reviewed." What does that mean? Should I mark it as reviewed after tagging/looking over it or after it is problem free? Science Saturdays (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. It doesn't have to be problem free, as brand new Wikipedia articles will always need lots of improvement. It's just to check new articles so that they don't have obvious problems, things that would require deletion like vandalism, patent nonsense, test pages, advertisements, non-notable, etc. --Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Science Saturdays. If you tag an article for issues, or you propose it for deletion, the page curation tool automatically marks the article as "reviewed". The "mark as reviewed" button is only intended to be used when you look the article and you do not find any significant issues, or when the article is already tagged for issues, but not using the page curation tool. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your editors need to self police each other like Skookum1

I don't feel welcome

Your editors need to self police each other like Skookum1 here erased a days work. I listed trees in Whistler's 3 major climatic zones all with refs he eased all. I made the mistake of mentioning a few rock faces in whistler had pondersa pine & were micro-climates of Sonaron type with out realizing it was a pet peeve of his. He erased a days worth of citations when he says he erases because of lack of citations!PemGateway (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have edited your entry above to make it a bit more understandable. I hope that is helpful. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Even if the references are good a list of all the species growing in Whistler is just too much information for an encyclopedia page. Anybody who wants to know can look up the reference sources. Wikipedia does not include everything.--Charles (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, PemGateway. Skookum1 removed your contribution ([1]) because it was pretty much not understandable. Grammar was very poor and the style was very bad. You did include citations, but they were just bare URLs, hard to verify. And most important, you did not explain why an article about a town needs a list of all tree species in the town. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This removal of the content by Skookum1 was totally justified. You promptly accused him of having "irrational bias" ([2]). That is not a good way to communicate in Wikipedia. If some editor makes an edit you disapprove, that does not mean that he is "having bias". You always have to assume good faith! Vanjagenije (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, PemGateway. I'm sorry you don't feel welcome: Wikipedia can be a frustrating place to hang out sometimes, especially for newcomers who haven't yet become familiar with the way it works. As others have said, Skookum1's action seems to have been appropriate, according to Wikipedia's policies: please don't take this personally. Another point is that your work hasn't been destroyed: it has been deleted from the current version of the page, but it is still there in the history. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm downloading material to enhance a large stamp collection. Links on a geographical page, say Ecuador, are far more than one needs to know for such purposes. I often omit parts, even from the Ecuador page itself. This is to help the largely geographically-illiterate American friends of the owner.

The huge number of links in such articles makes them very difficult to manage. I am talking about the links indicated by a word(S) underlined in blue, not the internal references to the footnotes.

I had hoped I could download a printable version, but don't see anyway to do that. These new 'Print/export' options on the left bar are very helpful, but...

Since this is for private use only, I do not always give extended attribution, but always do indicate the material comes from a certain Wikipedia page. Readers of what I am doing are not likely to pursue more of the geographical info, but rather delve into their philatelic sources. M Lee T41 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse M Lee T41... Have you seen Help:Printable? Does this help?-- Moxy (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I align references so that it's not just one long paragraph?

My references seem to just run on one after another, yet I see others' pages and they have a tidy list format. What am I doing wrong?

KellyETaggart (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello KellyETaggart to Wikipedia! I have read User:KellyETaggart/sandbox and see that you haven't used ref tags. I recommend you have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Inline citation. Best, ///EuroCarGT 01:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but no + sign anywhere that I can seeKellyETaggart (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what your asking so I made 2 edits to your page this one that shows how to use a ref template and this edit that makes columns in certain screen sizes. -- Moxy (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP Auto Suggesting Mode: Articles that need fixed

Hello,

When I first signed up, my account page seemed to feature a pop-up or banner that suggested an article that needed fixed, had copy editing issues or the English was unclear. I enjoyed just taking the suggestion and moving on to the next one suggested after I completed an article. How do I get that back? The last couple of times I logged in, the system does not suggest articles.

Thanks. MTuser14 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey MTuser to Wikipedia! I've seen the suggesting articles for improvement's in the main page of the mobile version website. I do not see an option at the preferences page. ///EuroCarGT 01:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/MTuser14 shows it was something called Getting Started, but the current documentation does not describe the feature you used. That feature was removed about a day after your edits. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 182#I received a Getting Started link in an email from wikipedia about getting started that no longer works. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@MTuser14: As an alternative, you can sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. You can also visit the Wikipedia:Community portal (which is a permanent link under the "interaction" menu on the left hand side of the interface) to see articles in need of work under certain categories, and you can have that list of open tasks always available by transcluding it into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I add categories?

I've read through everything I can find, but I can't seem to manage to add categories to my draft in my sandbox. Or is this something that is done by Wikipedia? KellyETaggart (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again KellyETaggart to Teahouse! Adding categories are located at the bottom of a page, you could click this link to navigate to the bottom. You'll see the Categories bar and on the right you'll see a (+) symbol, click on that to add a category, I recommend you browse categories first to see if they exist currently. There are tools such as HotCat which could make categorizing pages easier which is available at your preferences page. Best, ///EuroCarGT 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, KellyETaggart. Categories should only be added to completed articles in the encyclopedia's main space, and are not allowed in sandbox space. Categories are used by readers doing research on related topics. We do not want such readers to reach unfinished draft articles, but only articles ready for the encyclopedia. When I move an article to main space, the first thing I do after that is add categories. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, KellyETaggart, you can add the Categories temporarily by putting a colon in front of the Category like this [[:Category:Americans]] then when you move your article to the article Mainspace you can remove the colons. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

how to request a review before I submit my article

I have my first article sitting in my sandbox. I have found an appropriate community and an active contributor within that community who looks like he might have an interest in the subject matter. How do I approach him to request an edit/review of my article? Do I simply leave a message on his talkpage or is there a preferred method of contacting him or template to use? And should I approach more than one person within that community to look at it? Pn4Ls (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Pn4Ls. You could list it at Wikipedia:Peer review but this could take months. So I suggest (because its a soldier) to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to a have a look...there a great bunch of people that love to help new editors that like this topic (there always looking for new editors). Post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history linking User:Pn4Ls/sandbox. -- Moxy (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thank you. I have made a request on that page. Please list as Resolved. Pn4Ls (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox visibility?

To whom is my sandbox visible? Can that be changed? Geometricjewels (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Geometricjewels. Your sandbox, like every other page in Wikipedia, is visible to anybody who finds it. However, pages in User space are not normally indexed, so it is unlikely that somebody would find it by chance. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Pages including your sandbox are visible to everyone, and unfortunately there is no way to change that. If you have posted private information and want it to be removed, you may contact oversight. However, looking at your sandbox at User:Geometricjewels/sandbox that doesn't seem to be the case. Yes, this means that others can view and edit your article draft, but generally people will respect it if you do not want them to. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 17:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is visible to anyone within Wikipedia, and no, that can't be changed. Because you have the {{User sandbox}} template on your sandbox, that gives the {{noindex}} function, so your page will not be seen by external search engines (but it will be seen by Wikipedia's own internal search engine if the options allow inclusion of the User: namespace). --David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. In the 'talk' section of 'beadwork' I have referred to my sandbox. So I can expect interested users to find it. Wonderful!

Geometricjewels (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if they are interested enough to track down the link. When you want people to see a page, it's always better to link to it. If you don't want to display the full title at Talk:Beadwork#Second paragraph on 3D beadwork: suggested correction then you can pipe it, for example "In my sandbox ..." (click edit to see the used code). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


(Paul Easter (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_183&oldid=1146549209"