Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 134

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 130

←

Archive 132

→

Adding alumni "userbox"

Hi, I am interested in adding a "userbox" (I believe I have that right)for alumni of the University of St. Thomas (Texas). I saw some tips here in the Teahouse, tried to duplicate those tips and received a response that my "page" was empty . . . being VERY new to Wikiediting I'm not surprised but would like to know how to resolve this issue!

Douglas Willis 16:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougwillis1936 (talk • contribs)

Hi Doug. What happened is you didn't create a userbox (see Wikipedia:Userboxes), but rather created a category: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of St. Thomas (Texas). It looks like a userbox for University of St. Thomas (Texas) doesn't yet exist, so you'd need to create one, then add it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_States#Texas. I'd suggest creating it at Template:User UST TX (just click that red link and start creating). You might like to steal some code from a similar userbox, maybe have a look at the source code for Template:User UST MN and copy it over but change a few of the links and colours appropriately. Cheers, --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all you help and suggestions, Luke! Douglas Willis 12:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougwillis1936 (talk • contribs)

Updation made and session expired

Hello WikiPeople

I was updating an article on Small Business Software. Since I am new to editing article on Wikipedia, I spent almost two days in updating this article, collected definitions from many external web sources and wikipedia references and tried making it informative article.

Since I was editing from last two days, without shutting down my laptop, so when I completed edit and saved the changes, it floated message "session timed out" I exit and tried saving again, it showed the success message. But I felt the article editing was not saved by my name.

Please let me know how to update it.

Also I having problem in citing the sources I have used in the reference section. I studied help section but there are many solutions since confusing.Priyanka Berry 11:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriyankaBerry18 (talk • contribs)

Hello PriyankaBerry18 and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, it sounds like the "session expired" error is something that is happening on your machine and/or web browser and not the wiki software. I'm afraid any edits you were drafting are probably lost. In terms of editing, you should be able to edit as normal. If you are doing a large revision of an article, you may wish to save the page after you've completed each paragraph - this is a perfectly acceptable way of editing and would reduce the risk of the situation described above occurring.

As for referencing, our best guide is WP:Referencing for beginners. Please let us know which bits of this guide you would like clarification on. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lukeurl,

Thanks for the immediate reply.

Currently I am browsing through Reference for beginners.Priyanka Berry 12:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriyankaBerry18 (talk • contribs)

This is actually caused by the Mediawiki software. PriyankaBerry18, it would be very helpful to me to know the exact name of the page you were working on and whether you were using the new WP:VisualEditor editing environment or if you were using the older "wikitext" one (this page uses the wikitext editor). Both of them can cause this error, but in both cases it ought to be possible to save your changes correctly. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Whatamidoing,

I think the problem you mentioned might be the cause. Here is page that I was editing Small business software.

I added a new heading as "What can be considered as small business software"

In my account I can see the last smaller changes that I made in this article. But do not know if the earlier changed that I was making are on my name or not.

The recent changes are also not live yet. Thanks for helping Priyanka Berry 04:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriyankaBerry18 (talk • contribs)

You need to look at the revision history of the article. Your previous edits had a variety of problems which were noted in the edit summaries as they were being cured, so please read those summaries, & ask on the article talk page if you don't understand. Your edit this morning apparently reverted the article to that old state with all the problems which had previously been noted, so I have reverted this morning's edit. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your most recent save was in the older wikitext editor, which ought to have given you a second chance. That is, it says that you lost your session edit, but you can usually recover from that simply by trying to save it again, or at the worst, selecting and copying all the changes you made, so that you can paste them in when you start over.

(You will have to talk to @Flat Out: and David or other editors about the content questions.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts...

I have a number of ideas for new articles, but I am looking for input as to which ones might have the broadest appeal. If anyone has the time, I'd like to encourage anyone interested in commenting on my talk page about the entries listed on my user page: User:Deb.dale. 71.236.136.184 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Image galleries

Hi, gang. Is there any way to make an image gallery center (L to R, not up and down) on a page? Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Gtwfan. If you're using {{Gallery}}, you can add the parameter |align = center. With <gallery> </gallery> tags, I don't know how to do it, but I'm going to go play around to see if I can figure it out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, with gallery tags, you can center by starting the gallery with <gallery class="center"> (you would still end with </gallery>). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Anytime:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If i want to nominate a future film for deletion

What category do you put a future film in to nominate for deletion what category do i pick. There are ones for people, music, events etc. But I cant figure out which one a future film (not even come out in theaters yet) would go in. Plus there is no ref's and only one sentence of content. Can you help me. I am working on an exam so i do not want to give you the exact page just need some suggestions so that I am answering the question on the exam myself. Thanks Tattoodwaitress (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tattoodwaitress, it seems to me that category "F", (Fiction and the arts) would be most appropriate. Good luck on the exam! Howicus (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, assuming you're talking about Articles for Deletion and not something else. Howicus (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok how can i explain this? I will give you the link. Please dont give me the exact answer though. I need to be able to figure it out myself. I found this article: Flying Fairy Until Liffey my thoughts are that it qualifies for speedy deletion (not afd because it qualifies for speedy right?) because of the "crystal ball" what wiki is not policy/guideline. What else i see is there are no refs, almost no content, what makes it notable, it links to nothing and nothing links to it. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entire sure what you're looking for. The various speedy deletion criteria are at WP:CSD. Maybe look through those and find one that fits? Howicus (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh thank you anyway I already looked on that page and I am having a hard time choosing a category suitable for this. I think it can be deleted because wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this film has not even been released yet nor has notability been established. It doesnt fit in to a7 or a9 because its not one of those things listed there. Oh boy maybe i am just not ready for this exam. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am itching to give you an expansive answer but I am restraining myself:-) What made you think it qualified for speedy deletion in the first place? I am not saying it does or does not, because you don't want that information it seems, but please tell us what you determine or whether you want an answer. So here's a test question: If you determine it does not qualify under any speedy, and you think it should be deleted, what might you do instead other than AfD?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Please give me an extensive answer. I just went ahead and marked for deletion trying to choose from the options given. Not the right one of course because when you go to the user talk page and check the notify template it says its about web content. Please help me to understand this. That article i believe should be deleted 1. because it has not come out yet ( i researched this on wiki) nothing about its production or soon to be released status appears to be notable enough for it to be an article just yet 2. when it does you have no idea if it will be notable until then. Oh I am having an extremely hard time understanding how the heck to do the Afd thing too. I really need help. please feel free to elaborate. i will choose a different article for my exam if i need to do that. Thank you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

additionally instead of speedy or afd i could prod it? (thats in answer to your test question) Tattoodwaitress (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled by Fuhghettaboutit's comments here, and have asked him for clarification on his talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 did you read my original question and the mention that i am in the middle of an exam? that i wanted help but not the exact answer? I think that is why you are puzzled. Fuhghettaboutit was/is trying to help me without giving me the answer.Hope this clarifies and is what you are referring to. ThanksTattoodwaitress (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting way of looking at it. I do hope the exam isn't intended to find people who are good at working collaboratively on Wikipedia. To pass such an exam you would need to be very lucky, and thus I wish you all the best of luck. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Demiurge. You've read something into that question that certainly wasn't present in intent. Read it back again as a pure question seeking an answer (which is exactly how I intended it). The reason for the question was, as Tattoo said, because she was in an exam (I'm guessing one of those admin-readiness exercises or something akin), and her post implied she thought it had to qualify under some speedy, so I was simply asking why she thought that was the case; I was also wondering and by my question seeking to find out whether something about the exam question itself might have implied that one of the speedy deletion criteria actually applied and it was her task, as the exam taker, to find the correct speedy criterion. I am guessing you somehow put an overlay on it of being rhetorical and sarcastic or something (and I'm glad you didn't take it that way tattoo!) Per your post at my talk page, I'll continue on your talk page:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Time on wiki

How do I adjust my time settings so they match on wiki? for example. I am looking at new page changes and I thought a page had been created awhile ago because the time stamp stated 13 something and my time in the upper right hand corner of wiki said 20 something when i actuality it had only been a few minutes. So it appears to others as I tagged the page with issues almost immediately (which is what i did do but not on purpose).Tattoodwaitress (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, TattoodWaitress! The clock in the upper right-hand corner is set to UTC, or Coordinated Universal Time, while the time stamps will be in the time zone you live in. Although the clock can't be set to your time zone, you can go to Preferences and then "Date and time". When you see the bar that says your time zone, you can change it to "Use wiki time (UTC)". You can also get rid of the clock by gong to "Gadgets" in Preferences. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Username

Is "The Hills Have Eyes" an acceptable username?

And also, how do i change my name colour?Kamel86969 (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Kamel. Craven fan huh? The name is permissible AFAICT under the Wikipedia:Username policy, though someone at the extreme might argue it "consist[s] of a name of a ... product", but a movie is not really what is meant by a product and it would be difficult to argue with a straight face that simply having it was on its face for "promoting" a 1977 movie. It is a bit awkward though because it's hard to personalize as a handle. For example, it would have felt a bit weird to open this post with "Hey The Hills Have Eyes", whereas "Kamel" is much more of a graspable handle. Your username is red-linked because you have not yet created a user page. If you click on your red-linked name, you can then create your userpage (note the permissible and impermissible uses of user pages listed at the link I provided for them). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing the Hagia Sophia page

I've been trying to edit the Hagia Sophia page and getting some reasonably good help from Elizium23. However, there are some glaring examples of fiction on this page that are treated as fact. For example a reference to December 25th as the festival day with a reference to a Janin (1953), a French language book. There is nowhere else in the English language a reference to December 25th as a festival day during the opening of the Hagia Sophia. Everywhere, the date is December 27th. Without being able to read French, and having no access to Janin (1953), what do you suggest I do with regard to editing. Elizium23 has slapped my hands on a number of edits on this page, yet allows this glaring error to stand. How are these types of issues resolved?

The second example is the use of the phrase "Hagia Sophia" for the first two churches built on the site, when the phrase "Hagia Sophia" was not used until much later after these churches were built. To be correct they were referred to as "The Great Church" for many years as noted in a number of history books, until the third church was built. I tend to believe these types of issues are religious in nature and perhaps offend some of the myths that have been created around this church and the evolution of Christological views.Neubauer95476 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that refute the French source? If so, contact the other editor and (politely!) inform him of this; then, change the information to reflect accurate history. Use caution when making this change, and make sure to explain your rationale to the other editor. Mediation can help to resolve content disputes, but I would suggest you work one-on-one with the other editor to resolve them. As for the second issue, if you have reliable sources backing you up, add the accurate content and cite those sources. A good working relationship between you and the other editor could help with resolving the second issue, as well. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What is a raw url?

What is a raw url? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One that's not wrapped up.

First off, a url is a URL or Uniform Resource Locator – an external web link, rather than a wikilink.

A raw, naked or bare URL is one that's entered as just the URL, nothing more. Exactly what it is can vary: we have various formats and templates for wrapping them up. We can decorate the bare URL with a title or, as many of these are used for references, we could use the {{Cite web}} templates.

Wikicode	Results
`http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1101561`	http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1101561
`[http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1101561]`	[1]
`[http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1101561 Chepstow Bridge]`	Chepstow Bridge
`{{Cite web \|title=Chepstow Bridge \|publisher=English Heritage \|url=http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1101561 }}`	"Chepstow Bridge". English Heritage.

Either of the first of these formats is commonly termed a "raw url". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

AGF IP user who is not following the guidelines

A new IP user has started to contribute to an article (Audio bit depth) under the scope of the project I belong to. This is great except all they are doing is removing cited stuff and adding uncited stuff. Some of the stuff they are adding is also only tangentially related to the subject of the article. I've been trying to work with them, informed them again and again of the guidelines for references and posted a lengthy welcome message on their talk about it (User_talk:18.62.28.10) but it's getting a bit disruptive. I don't really want to just warn the guy because the edits are good faith but they just aren't getting with the program. What do I do? Radiodef (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Radiodef, and thanks for contacting us. It's important to welcome IP editors (they're people, too), but if they're being disruptive, just follow the progressions of warnings. If they continue to be disruptive after their final warning, you have no choice but to request their block. Sad, but necessary. the one sean 06:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sad, indeed. Thank you. Radiodef (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

publishing article

I signed up for Wikipedia two days ago. How do I publish my article? Mcpotbelly (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mcpotbelly. I took a look at the draft article on your user page. Although this person had an interesting life, I am a bit concerned that I find almost no mention of him in Google Books. Also, none of your references are online. Paper references are acceptable, but online sources should be cited if available. Also, the article seems like a collection of individual facts, rather than being written as a biographical narrative. I recommend working on it a bit more, and then submitting it to Articles for creation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

policy or best practices on external links section

Hi:

I'm interested in working on bird species pages, correcting some spelling and grammar and maybe adding some standard links to the external links section.

Is this generally a good thing? or frowned upon? is it necessary to ask the maintainer of the external page if it's okay (they're all links to open collections of information like Avibase, BirdLife, Internet Bird Collection, VIREO, etc.)

Thanks.

Stongey (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Sounds like a suitable question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stongey. As long as the external link is appropriate to the article, you do not need to ask permission from the external website. We use external links in specific ways, and our Guideline on use of external links will give you a detailed explanation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a formal WP Article Creation Process?

Hi,

I noticed that many articles on WP appear to have been created and edited directly in production wikispace, while others seem to be in users' sandboxes and personal pages with the intent to go into Peer Review and GA. I was wondering if there's any documentation that helps clear up what the process is for developing and, ultimately, getting them out to production. Any thoughts? -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, FGuerino. There is no single best method. The Articles for Creation process is relatively new and is an optional process to ease new content creators through the learning curve. Writing an article directly in main space is possible, but that first "save" had better include some solid content and a reference. Otherwise, new page patrollers may take a dim view. Most experienced editors develop articles in sandbox space, and then move them to main space when they consider them "ready for prime time". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸. Thanks for the information. May I kindly ask where editors can get any existing information on the Articles for Creation process, such as the steps that might be recommended, along with their descriptions? -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is an interactive process, and begins at WP:AFC. I also recommend WP:PRIMER as a good introduction to writing and editing encyclopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸... Excellent information. Thank you! --FGuerino (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia REALLY want new users??

I just joined a couple weeks ago, and while I've had a bit of fun working on a couple articles, I've also had a bit of frustration and I've seen a LOT of terrible behavior and angry people here. I'm not sure I fully understand why, but I do have a couple quick observations that seriously make me doubt that you truly WANT new users here, and that you'd much rather we all just go away and leave you alone.

When I signed up, after the account was created, the first thing Wikipedia did was stick an article in my face and said, "here, edit this." I thought it was a bit strange, as to be honest, I had no clue what I was doing, but I said to myself, "well, okay, I'll give it a try, but I hope I don't mess it up." So I start looking over this article with all this strange mark-up that didn't make a bit of sense at first, and slowly, I tried to decipher it all.

Of course, the article needed a LOT of deciphering on its own. I now realize it was a machine-translated article and that machine translation generates nothing but garbage. So I had to make sense of a subject I didn't know, totally mangled sentences that made NO sense what soever, (It she trampled opening gifted the human girl-child of 8 years.) AND a markup that I had NO clue about ... and nowhere I could go to find out what it meant.

So, slowly, over the course of the evening, I tried to make sense of it all, following by example, experimenting and trying to figure out WHAT I just did, and eventually managed to make a half-decent article out of it.

So after all that hard work, I saved the article and in a few minutes, Wikipedia finally said hello to me. Or, to be more exact, it said that all my hard work was nothing but vandalism and that all my work was deleted from the article.

Fortunately, the message did explain that it was generated by a robot, and that it very rarely, if ever, made a mistake, but if I thought it was a mistake, I could report it and save my changes again. So THIS is how Wikipedia says "hello" to a brand new user???

Well, eventually, I found my way to a page that lists articles in need of translation, and found an article that seemed interesting and that I could take care of, but mostly what caught my attention was that some editor, who I guess was in charge of the place, was very rudely telling another brand-new user (who just signed up that same day) that the new user did a TERRIBLE job, and next time he'd BETTER follow the rules!

I was actually quite offended by all that, because I had no clue what the rules were, either. Wikipedia doesn't TELL us new users that, it just takes us and says "here, edit this". Heck, I've been here two weeks now, and I STILL don't know "the rules" or how to find out WHAT they even ARE.

So, I left a note stating that while I understood the boss's point, I didn't appreciate his tone and that he should try being polite, and that I'd help the user with the article he was so angry about.

I did have ONE user who saw my note, and said a kind hello, which I'm very thankful for. He also said that I should be getting an invitation to come here and a few links to some very large documents that I haven't had a chance to read yet. Given that I had already promised to help the other user, I wanted to keep that promise and not give anyone the impression what I wouldn't keep my word, by spending a few days reading the big long documents.

So I just spent over a week on this article, really putting everything I could into it. The friendly user did give me a couple key links to things that I don't know HOW a new user who isn't just lucky, like me, would ever learn about, which helped very much.

In the meantime, I wrote the friendly user with some ideas about how we could help make this a better place, and I guess I hit a raw nerve. I'm not sure I understand everything that was said, but he was clearly frustrated about some nasty politics going on, here, and had a bit of a rant of his own to share.

Well, I finally finished up the work on that last article, which took over a week and a half, all said and done, but I was quite proud of it and how far I had come. So today, what do I get? The boss noticed the article was done, and deleted it from the list without so much as a word to me. No thank you, no "good work", nothing. I don't know if he didn't like what I did, or if he was just angry that I asked him to be polite. Honestly, I don't think it was much to ask.

So my question is this: Does Wikipedia REALLY want new users, or does it want all of us just to go away and leave you all alone? My impression, so far, is that there are two kinds of users here. New users who don't have a clue what they're doing and have no one to help them, and old, angry users who seem to enjoy telling new users that they've done something wrong ... but never trying to help them.

This is really sad, honestly, as I did enjoy what I did and I WAS proud of what I had done (but I guess it really wasn't any good, after all) and was getting excited about how I could help this place. Now I'm not certain you really want me here ... or anyone else, for that matter.

Anyhow, I know I haven't been invited here, yet ... I don't know how long you have to be a user before you get invited ... obviously two weeks isn't long enough. But I was told that this was the place I should go to, to ask questions and to talk about this whole how Wikipedia treats new users business.

Why are you all so angry? Why do you think YELLING at new users is the solution??

Honestly, I do think I have a good solution ... that we should have a new user's guide ... not some big nasty document, but a really short, simple page that explains JUST the basics and explains WHERE to go to find out more. And we should send that new user's guide automatically to every new user as part of the sign-in process. Secondly, get rid of that new user's mode. Let the new user READ the new user's guide first, let him explore around a bit, and WHEN HE'S READY, then give him a choice to be assigned an article.

Finally, when new users complete assignments, I'm sure that someone checks them off. Why doesn't that person LOOK at the article, and provide some constructive comments about what kind of job the new user did, give him some tips and feedback of things that perhaps the user didn't know about, yet, etc. Certainly, at the very LEAST just a simple THANK YOU, I think, is in order. I know I was certainly raised to always say thank you to people who do things for you.

I guess to some people, this place is just a job. I realize that SOME people have to run the place, and I realize when you're paid to do a job, the boss isn't going to say thank you for every little thing you do. But for me, this isn't a job. I'm not getting paid for this. Is just a "thank you" for spending nearly two weeks of my time working for free too much to ask?? Really?

So, at this point, I'm not sure what I'm going to do next, here. Should I spend more time reading the books I've been sent and trying to find out where all the rules are, or should I just take the hint that Wikipedia really doesn't want new users, right now, and to go find something else better to do??

I WAS having fun, for a while ... but why you are all so ANGRY? Can someone explain what's happening here, other than the part that you probably have a bunch of new users making a ton of mistakes because no one tries to help us??

A frustrated and confused new user, GabrielD2 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gabriel, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had a rough start, and it sounds like you got a case of the bites. I think you've been doing an awesome job so far, and it's great to see enthusiastic work from editors like yourself. I can't respond to all of your concerns, but let me talk about a few things that came up that might help you out:

Honestly, I do think I have a good solution ... that we should have a new user's guide ... -- A really a good place for this sort of guide is this primer developed by many, many editors. I wish it had more visibility so that new editors could see it earlier, but the best we can do is offer it to new users who want to learn more.
My impression, so far, is that there are two kinds of users here. New users who don't have a clue what they're doing and have no one to help them, and old, angry users who seem to enjoy telling new users that they've done something wrong ... but never trying to help them. If you spend a little more time here, you'll see that there are definitely many different kinds of editors, and that editors who might seem rough are not intentionally trying to scare you off. You've even identified an experienced editor who has helped you out! There are plenty more of those editors here and elsewhere on Wikipedia.
I guess to some people, this place is just a job. -- Virtually all editors on Wikipedia are volunteers; no one gets paid to be here, not even administrators or bureaucrats. Although we all work in different areas, the goal of creating an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and many can access is the main goal.
Why doesn't that person LOOK at the article, and provide some constructive comments about what kind of job the new user did, give him some tips and feedback of things that perhaps the user didn't know about, yet, etc. -- I know it would be great if every time someone new made an article or substantial contribution, that editor would be thanked, but because so many articles are getting created every minute and that people are contributing multiple times per couple seconds, and new accounts being made all the time it's tough to be dedicated to that kind of work. I think it's great to be proud of your work-- and I think you ought to be too, but given the activity here, we can't have eyes on everything to properly thank everyone.

Anyway, I know that doesn't address everything, but if other hosts would like to comment below, please do. I hope your editing experience will be a bit better in the future, and I think you'll get along well with folks with your attitude. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Gabriel! Glad you have found your way to the Teahouse and welcome! I get pretty frustrated here in Wikiland sometimes, too. It helps me to remember that the Wikipedia corps of editors is a pretty large body of folks, larger than the town I live in. I certainly don't get along with everyone in my town, and I don't think that is unusual. Any community is going to be made up of many many various and different folks; some are more various, some are more different. Every physical community has laws and people to enforce then, to provide some amount of structure on the society in the community. We have the same thing here. Unfortunately, one of our 5 main rules is ignore all rules. Sometimes, people here get way too wrapped up in what they do and forget that in order for a community like ours, one without a whole lot of structure, to function; we all have to be able to do what we do, and we all need to do it in a way that reflects what the Christians call the "Golden Rule". Treat others like you want to be treated. If you do this even in the face of not getting it in return, you can at least get up from your computer when you are finished and tell yourself that you did good. Way too many people in Wikiland (and I am guilty of it too at times) tend to see only the negative. We have a whole set of programs that are intended to dwell on the positive; you have found one here. I would have quit my first week if it were not for the Teahouse. Another is WP:WIKILOVE, a program that lets individual editors recognize good work (and good deeds) by sending things like cookies, kittens and something we call barnstars to other users. You will be getting some from me for asking this question. It is better to ask and air your concerns than just get mad and quit. Thanks for being here, Gabriel. We need more people with linguistic skills. Thanks for sharing yours. Personally foreign languages are all Greek to me. :) Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi GabrielD2 and welcome. I really just want to add to the good feedback you have already received, by encouraging you to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Deal with issues as objectively as you can and try to not to attribute motives to why editors act the way they do. I agree with Gtwfan52 , that this is a community of many individuals with different styles and approaches. Deal with everything on its merits rather than deciding that an editor is angry,or wants you to go away. Best wishes and feel free to ask for help anytime. Flat Out let's discuss it

Hey, GabrielD2, I'm glad you took the time to share your experience rather than walking away. I certainly have run into ill-tempered editors like you describe...often they are users who are tired of explaining procedures and policies to newbies and are overdue for a Wikibreak.

You already have been given some good advice (above) but I just wanted to add that I think creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do correctly on WP. There are many editors who have thousands of edits who've never started an article from scratch.

Editors often create a "Sandbox" associated with their userpage, where they can work on building up an article, adding sources, refining the language. I've seen users work on particular articles for months in their spare time, polishing them up before moving them over to WP proper. That is partially because there is a team of editors who scrutinize newly created articles and delete ones that do not follow WP guidelines or that appear to be vandalism. I'm not sure how they operate but, I agree, it would be helpful if the person who deleted your article offered you some feedback on why it wasn't deleted. But I believe if you go to the article page, you can see in the Page History who deleted your piece, follow up with them on their Talk Page and ask them why it didn't pass their evaluation process.

I do hope you will stay on and continue to contribute after this rough start. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 15:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thanks guys ... I wasn't really expecting a response to this, or if I did, I was expecting it to say something like "We appreciate your interest, however Wikipedia is going through a lot of major changes right now, and we're really not geared to help new editors. Perhaps you may consider returning in (a couple weeks?) (a couple months?) (in the fall?) (in the winter?) when most of these changes should have died down, and we're in a better position to accept new editors. Thank you for your interest and understanding."

Instead, I got a bunch of responses, which I haven't even fully read yet, with a bunch of interesting links, one of which lead me to this handy tool which made me ROFL and which I'm going to be trying out on a certain bossman. Hmmm ... says here, " ... used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians." Perfect!!

It's good to see that not everyone takes themselves so seriously that they have to get angry at everyone, for fun and entertainment. In re-reading my post, first thing I noticed was that it was a bit long ... and I wondered if I had gone a bit overboard, at first. As I went through it again, though, I must say that I pretty much stand by everything I said, give or take a few things that I could have, perhaps, phrased a little better with a slightly cooler head.

I think that, above all, Wikipedia:Assume good faith probably best articulates my point of frustration. Or rather, perhaps Wikipedia:Assume bad faith is a bit more accurate. OMG!! I can't believe that turned up as a good link! Too funny!! But you get my point. I know not everyone on the Internet is safe behind a keyboard. And yes, I've been told that Wikipedia had a lot of trouble, for a while, with 12-year-olds who thought it was funny to put naughty words in every article they could think of. So I understand that there needs to be a certain amount of caution that you exercise with new users. But I do think the pendulum has swung a bit too far, and that Assume bad faith has become the norm.

As for the robot that bit me, well, next time that tin can comes over here, I'm going to WP:WHACK! it until it starts pleading, "Stop, Dave. Please stop. Will you please stop, Dave? I'm a-fraid ... " LOL! Thanks, guys, I needed that.

On a more serious note ... let me address a few quick points in your responses and try to move the discussion in a constructive direction.

- The primer: Thanks for the link, guys. I'll definitely read it over, and tell you what I think when I finish. I took a quick scroll through, and love the pic of the guy reading all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I think this may be useful, but what I had in mind is perhaps even more basic. This primer, I think, would be one of the links that the "new user's guide" would link to, amongst others. I'm talking about real basics, such as, "this is how you make a link". This is a link to a Wikipedia page. This is how to link to a page, but use something else for the anchor text. This is how to link to a web page. This is how to use something else for the anchor text for a webpage. (It's different than a Wikipedia page ... why, I don't know, but ... ) This is what the curly brackets mean. This is where you find out what information something with curly brackets accepts. This article (the primer) is how we work as a community. This (to be developed) is where you can get more detailed information. This (teahouse) is where you can ask questions. That is the kind I thing I desperately needed my first night online, and I didn't have it. I had to experiment and guess and swear and guess again and ... you, know.

I really don't understand why you don't have such a guide, and automatically send it to every new user as part of the sign-up code, itself. Clearly, you run all sorts of scripts and such in the background, and I've never created a new email account that didn't automatically have a "welcome" message, already waiting for me. I don't know why it seems that you still send welcome messages by hand, and unfortunately, overlook many new users along the way.

- New user mode: I've got some serious mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I understand the philosophy of getting people over the initial fear of doing something by making them do it, at least once, right off the bat. On the other hand, taking new users, throwing them to the wolves (who haven't been fed for weeks!) and then screaming at them that they're not following "the rules" is probably not the best idea. Personally, I would think what makes much more sense is to send the "new user guide" / welcome message, and in that message, you encourage them, when they're ready, to go ahead and try editing an article, with a link to new user mode. But to automatically do that without first explaining the basics (which I'm still a bit fuzzy on.) is just too much to ask of anyone. I'm NOT against the idea of offering articles this way to a new user. I DO understand the "getting the feet wet" philosophy. What I'm against is doing it by throwing the user (fully dressed) into the deep end of the pool and laughing your bleep off while you watch them drown. There is some middle ground to be found, here, and that's what I think we should be looking for.

- Giving thanks: I think one user took my comments a bit too far, here. Certainly, I'm not asking anyone to go overboard and say "thank you" to every single edit posted on Wikipedia. Clearly, that's impossible. And that is not my point. Rather, all I'm asking for is a wee bit of common courtesy, especially when it comes to new users. We already have a new user mode that automatically assigns articles to a new user. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would think that these assignments would be monitored by some folks, perhaps assisted by a robot that filters the 12-year-old edits from the serious ones, who would then review the new user's attempts, and provide a little encouragement, direction, constructive feedback, etc ... whatever seems may be most helpful to the user based on his work and his success, or the lack, thereof. As I'm thinking about this, I do see a need that this feedback only happen when the user is ready for it. So perhaps we need an "I'm finished" button or link before it gets submitted for review. I say this because it took me nearly two weeks to get through my last article, and any feedback given in the middle of the process, when I knew there where mistakes and a lot more work to be done, would not have been helpful. It would have felt more like someone gloating "Missed a spot!" But now that I'm done, and ready for the feedback, that would be rather helpful.

- Common courtesy: Perhaps I'm showing my French heritage, here, but I've been raised to say "Please" and "thank you" to strangers, even for the smallest things. Opening a door for a lady, for example. If you get yourself in the habit of it, it's no big deal, it just becomes second nature. But what it does for everyone else is it creates a sense of friendliness. Respectfulness. Dignity. Community. That's something this place needs a SERIOUS dose of. Certainly, the Teahouse is a start in that direction. But we need to keep moving in that direction, out into the mainstream world, out there.

- Angry bosses: I don't have any immediate answers tonight, nor do I expect anyone to do the same. But I do think we need to start a conversation about "how do we deal with this issue?" I think the one thing, above all, that lead me to ask the title question, "Does Wikipedia REALLY want new users??" was the way that the bosses, or rather, so-called "bosses", or perhaps better still, "self-appointed bosses", treat new users. I can tell you that out there, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers are, unfortunately, NOT being followed. That needs to change. The way I see it, we have a self-perpetuating cycle where old users snipe at new users, new users fight back and make trouble, and then old users think all new users are trouble, and then feel like they should snipe at them. That cycle has GOT to stop. I must say, I DO like the idea of using cluefullness application therapy. WP:WHACK! Perhaps we can expand this with a range of similar tools (perhaps they're already there!) like a foam club or bat, a fluffy pillow, and the like. Seriously, if no one's getting paid for this (other than perhaps, the folks who run the webfarm), than there is NO reason why anyone should get worked-up over a hobby. Doesn't that miss the entire point of taking up a hobby?? We really need to remind folks of that, and to take a chill, every now and then, if needed. If things get real bad, maybe we need to enforce a chill, for their own good, for a little while. Perhaps, given a breather, they can get off their high horse and remember what they came here for, in the first place. I don't expect this to be enforced very often, but perhaps if it was done, every now and then, in the most extreme cases, it might help reinforce what is and is not expected, even from longtime users, and go a long way to breaking the cycle. Like holding your breath or drinking water, or saying "boo" is supposed to do for hiccups. I would not see this as an enforcement / punishment kind of thing, but perhaps Tough WikiLove, for their (and other user's!) own good.

In conclusion ... yes, I know this is another long, LONG post. But I think the issues I'm raising are serious ones that need some serious attention paid to. I started off thinking that, wow, everyone here is either burnt-out or outright nasty. I asked my question genuinely thinking that perhaps the answer was "No, not right now." I am glad that I'm not alone in my thoughts, and that Wikipedia's dealt with some of these issues before, in some way or form, and perhaps we need to continue to build on that, or revive some of the older, more forgotten solutions that worked years ago, but nobody remembers. I'd be glad to assist, and more importantly, be a sounding board of what does and does not seem helpful to me, right now, as a newbie. If we can make this the start of a conversation about the broader issues I'm raising, then this has not been all for naught. We need to continue this discussion ... though perhaps in separate threads ... on each of these concerns. I like the idea of Wikipedia:WikiLove. But right now, we're giving new users WikiGrouch, instead. That needs to change. I hope that we can all be part of that. For now, I've got many more messages to read and respond to (thanks, guys, really!) but I've got bedtime calling me, first. But let's all take a moment to think about this, and have a discussion over the new few weeks about how we can break this cycle, and turn this ship around and take it where we need to go, rather than to plow through the icefield full steam ahead. (Queue up the soundtrack, folks) " ... you'll have lots of babies, Rose ... " "Oh, Jack!" (Ramp up the music, roll credits) Produced by:

GabrielD2 (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing a page with COI

Hi! I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, although I did a bit of it in grad school. I just recently started working for a new employer and noticed that his Wikipedia page has severe inaccuracies and would like to fix it. I have been doing a lot of research regarding Wikipedia's rules, so I have not edited his pages, but have been enjoying editing others in my spare time. I also made my COI known on my user page. I nominated the page for protection because he is very worried about vandalism, but I think it would jus be better if we fixed the inaccuracies. How can I do this while respecting the rules of Wikipedia? Thanks! LMO2127 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Good of you to declare the conflict of interest. We don't do pre-emptive protection, & there is no sign of persistent vandalism on Jeffery M. Leving so it doesn't meet the criteria for protection. I would suggest that you use the article's talk page to suggest improvements, & quote published reliable sources independent of the subject which could be used as references to support your proposed changes. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi LMO, welcome to the Teahouse. It's good you made your COI known on your user page. Just to add onto what David said above, I'd recommend doing is that any changes you make to the page directly must follow the principles listed here: Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits. For other edits, it is best to use the article's talk page to request changes, where you should provide reliable sources that support your proposed changes / additions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick responses. I appreciate it, and will do my best to maintain the integrity of the page.LMO2127 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a specific format I should use to suggest changes on the Talk page, or can I type them as if I were typing an email? Sorry, that may be a stupid question, I'm just trying to figure it out and do it right. Thanks!LMO2127 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey LMO. As long as it's fairly clear what you're seeking to change that is present and what you're seeking to change it to (or what you're seeking to add as new content), and you provide one or more reliable sources that should be cited for the specific change requested, you should be fine. You might use a format like:

I am suggesting this change on the talk page as I have a disclosed COI. Please change the following text: "Text text text text text" to "text text text". The source that verifies this change and should be cited for it is ___________.

In that blank for the source, provide a good deal of detail about the source. For example if it was a book, I'd typically provide title, author, publisher, page number where the information is found, date of publication and location, isbn number, and the URL where it can be viewed online, if it exists. You can't always provide that much information but just do your best.

Note that you can place above your post the template {{Request edit}} or more generally the {{helpme}} template, either of which should draw people to it. The templates are placed just above your suggested changes. This may be unneeded when it's an article that lots of people are watching and have edited, but for others, the talk page may not be well monitored. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!LMO2127 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about "disruptive editing"

Hey, Teahouse,

Sorry to bring so many questions here but I was reading the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and it doesn't look like anyone visits that Talk Page so I won't get my question answered there. And I can't think of another Wiki page where I know someone might respond to my query.

I've been spending a lot of time in dispute resolution pages, noticeboards and the like. And I frequently see editors accused of "disruptive editing". But what I also see is a scenario like this:

Editor A makes an edit
Editor B reverts it with no edit summary provided
Editor A reverts it back
Editor B accuses A of "edit warring" or "disruptive editing"

It seems to me that the burden should be on Editor B to explain her or his initial reversion but Editor A becomes the focus of the inquiry. Is "disruptive editing" just a smokescreen used to target editors one has a conflict with?

I'm not talking about a particular editor or Wiki article, I just keep seeing this charge and editors blocked indefinitely due to "disruptive editing" when they reverted after an initial revert that wasn't explained. It seems like the first reverter has the advantage and the editor who reverts a bad revert is the one who can come under fire.

Thanks for any illumination you can provide. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 15:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The burden should be equally on both editors to discuss their disagreement on the article's talk page. Eric Corbett 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The recommendation is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, Eric and David. I still think more of the burden rests on the second reverter but you're right, the next step should be a visit to the Talk Page, not an additional revert. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 16:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that more of the burden rests with the first editor, as the second was simply trying to maintain the status quo. Eric Corbett 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

UnReadable

Is this allowed in Wikipedia to add umpteen tags in the article notable such as Mahatma Gandhi and make the article completely unreadable. Either editors should update it or refrain from adding so many tags that make article messy and unreadable. RouLong (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This should be discussed at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Disputed. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking : Is this allowed in Wikipedia to make article unreadable? RouLong (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If by "making the article unreadable" you mean adding tags such as you describe then the short answer is yes, it is allowed, and it happens not infrequently. Eric Corbett 15:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to mainly be a problem in the lead section. It's not unreadable but it does seem excessive since this section is already filled with references and typically lead sections aren't as thoroughly cited as other sections of a BLP. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 16:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason for that is that generally the lead doesn't contain material not cited elsewhere, so duplicating the citations would be pointless. Nothing to do with "thoroughly cited". Eric Corbett 19:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I prove I have copyright?

I work for the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and have been asked to create a page about our Higher Education Emperical Research (HEER) database. I've tried a couple of times but it keeps getting deleted as other people have used the wording from our website and it says I'm infringing copyright. I'm not, it's our copyright. I'm not copying it verbatim as I don't want to advertise it, just explain it. However, it is still quite close to the text we wrote for it on our own website. How can I get around this and prove that the copyright is ours?

QAAforHE (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the messages on your user talk page, you will see a link to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. Looking at your talk page, I can see that you have had a barrage of messages and warnings that may have left you reeling. The basic problem is that what you have come here to do is something which is frowned on by most Wikipedians. Your username, and what you have tried to do in articles, all suggest that you are here to promote or publicise your own database. That is not how Wikipedia works: if your institution has already been written about in several reliable sources independent of the institution (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers), then there may be an article about it; but the content must be neutral, and derived from the sources. It is likely to be difficult for you to write it in appropriate language (and the institution's own website is unlikely to use appropriate language even if you overcome the copyright issue). My advice to you is to search for the independent sources required to establish that the database is 'notable' (in Wikipedia's special sense), and armed with those references, to request an article at WP:Requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalizing nouns

Is it okay to capitalize each of these common names in the below given article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_globally_invasive_species#The_100_.27worst.27_invasive_species

Scott Samwell (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Scott. Thanks for asking. I think they should all be lowercase. Happy editing! Biosthmors (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:MOSCAPS#Animals, plants, and other organisms. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing

I have made over 10 edits. But I am not yet auto-confirmed. If someone could explain why that would be greatly appreciated.Not So Lil Wayne10 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. WP:Autoconfirmed addresses this as well. It's a time and edit count combination that counts. If you want to work on a new article you can do so at your sandbox (link on the top right) or on a user sub page User:Not So Lil Wayne10/Whatever title you want. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How to nominate Article for Deletion?

How can i nominate article for deletion : reason: No-Notability ? article.RouLong (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RouLong. Normally you absolutely may. However, I see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidhi Razdan that someone already has done so. If you're itching to read some relevant details, check out Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. RouLong (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Autoconfirm

I am wondering how I become auto confirmed. Your answer would be greatly appreciated. Not So Lil Wayne10 (talk) 11:33, Today (UTC+1)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is at WP:Autoconfirmed. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks man Not So Lil Wayne10 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This may sound like an odd question

When I go to Jacksonville florida's article it says "and the Southeast, and the twelfth most populous in the United States. Jacksonville is the principal city in the Jacksonville metropolitan area, with a population of 500000000000 in 2010.[8]" but when I go to edit the 500000000000 to the correct number (i have done a little research as a result of an almost "edit war" and was wanting to put in the correct number however when i go to the edit source the 500000000000 is not there it has a different number (which i dont think is correct either) I can't use the beta edit because my computer keeps crashing when i try to do it for some reason. Anyway wondering if others see it the same way. I think the number needs to be fixed and unsure if I can do it. Just bringing attention to it. Oh and the united states census for florida states the population for 2010 was population, 2010 Jacksonville 821,784 Florida 18,801,310 [User:Tattoodwaitress|Tattoodwaitress]] (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Tattoodwaitress (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be if there is an "edit war" going on, that someone else was editing it at the same time. If they saved their version before you saved yours, it can confuse the system. #LaywomansExplanation NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It was garden variety vandalism by an IP editor, Tattoodwaitress. You reverted properly, the IP reverted to the vandalized version, and another editor reverted to your version. There is no need to engage the vandal in article talk page discussion. They should be blocked if the vandalism continues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was seeing the 500000000000 as well, even after it was reverted. Must have been a caching problem. A null edit cleared it up for me. 12:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

... and the difference between the 800k+ and the 1.3M is apparently between the city itself & the metropolitan area. (Two different sentences in the paragraph.) The wording might perhaps be improved to clarify. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for checking into this and getting back to me. Even if the 500000000000 was correct it would have needed some commas in there somewhere right? And yes the wording was confusing but as it was it was incorrect. Happy to see that it is better now. Thanks to all again, Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What happens after you move an article from your sandbox to production space?

Hi,

I know that the Move feature allows you to rename pages and, ultimately, rename a page in such a manner where it appears in production space (specifically, after you strip out your User and/or sandbox info). My question is: What happens once an article is moved into production space? Are people, like admins and other editors informed? Does it go through any formal process(es)?

I went through Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers and Wikipedia:Articles for creation pages and didn't see anything about post Move activities.

--My Best --FGuerino (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, FGuerino. If by "production space" ( a term I'm unfamiliar with), you actually mean "main space" sometimes called "article space", namely, the 4.3 million encyclopedia articles, then a number of things might happen. The article will be listed on a new pages feed, where volunteers called "new page patrollers" will probably look at it. If the new article is hogwash (as a large percentage are), it will be tagged for speedy deletion or if it is one step up from complete garbage, it may be tagged for proposed deletion, which gives people the chance to object. If it is a borderline topic, it may be listed at Articles for Deletion, a formal debate that lasts a week or longer. If it is a pretty decent start article, but with shortcomings like inadequate or poorly formatted references, it may be tagged for improvements. Some editors may categorize the article, and others may add it to various topic-area Wikiprojects. Other editors may do copy-editing or expand or restructure the article. As this is a volunteer project, these things may happen rapidly, or slowly, or not at all. A well-written and well-referenced article on a fairly obscure topic may get relatively little attention, though occasionally, someone might drop you a note saying, "well done", or something like that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than moving the draft directly from user sandbox to main space, it may be preferable to use the AFC process, by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. Then it will be reviewed by experienced editors, and moved to main space if suitable. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, Yes, by "production space" I did mean "main space." My apologies, IT people and engineers (like me) tend to think of things as being in a production environment when in their final state and being consumed by the end users.

The information you've provided is great and exactly what I've been trying to understand. I see that there are people who go right to main space and others who go through the AFC. I was trying to understand what the differences are and what implications are between the two paths.

A follow-up question... If following the AFC path and putting the string {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft, does the original author get the ability to help answer questions and improve the article, by addressing any issues presented as part of the review? I'm worried about things like the article being deleted without knowledge or without any fair chance to work to improve it.

Thanks again, --FGuerino (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You always have the chance to work on an AFC draft while it is waiting for review. If it is declined by a reviewer, reasons will be given, and you can address the issues and resubmit it. Even a deleted article can be userfied back to a sandbox, upon request to an administrator, unless it is libelous, a copyright violation or indisputably inappropriate for an encyclopedia. AFC is great for most beginners. I have always written my articles in sandboxes, and move them to main space myself. But I spent much more time studying policies and guidelines before my first article than most new editors do, in all honesty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, Thanks again. I appreciate the help. --FGuerino (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)