Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Wikipedia - reliable or not?

So here it is... Recently I corrected some information related to an institute "Bahria College Islamabad". However, another user reverted the changes made and accused me of vandalism. I happen to be in close association with the institute and made the changes for that reason. Now that I am being accused, what should I be doing? I should just quit the goal of correcting information on Wikipedia. If such is the case that one cannot say the truth, why have such an encyclopedia? It's of no use actually. It's useless, it's worthless and it's misleading information. I'm not saying that drawbacks be mentioned, but atleast write the truth, don't exaggerate it please. That's all I have to say. Thanks, H.A.W.T. HAWT (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to disappoint, but no, Wikipedia can't be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. However, you can use a reference of a Wikipedia article as a reference in you article (I've sometimes done that).^King Jakob _C2 17:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, H.A.W.T.! I looked at your edits and I may have seen the problem. It is generally a bad idea for someone to edit an article about a subject they have a close connection with. This can lead to what is called a conflict of interest, which is when you stray from a neutral point of view to promote or demote something. Your information should have a published source to prove it instead of just personal knowledge. Exceptions are common knowledge like "snow melts in summer" or "the sky is blue". I see how there are no references on the other page as well, and that is strongly disapproved of. Maybe you can find some published sources to back up your claims. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

k

HAWT (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel I should add that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability NOT truth. "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The reason for this is we can't validate who you are, your credentials or make a summary judgement about whether what you are saying is honest or accurate. Therefore we rely on verifiable and independent sources as BoRC has stated. On the other hand, what you were doing doesn't look like vandalism and it looks like the person labeling your edits as vandalism is failing to assume good faith. So I wouldn't worry about that accusation moving forward. Nobody is going to take it seriously. -Rushyo ^Talk 12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That has been officialy changed to: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." So, actually that no longer is the threshhold. The difference is subtle, but there. The change simply means that verifiability is a matter of referencing now, not just a matter that the content can be verified. We now require sourcing or the information can be removed. Now, there are many that don't agree with this, but the discussion and the change was done to clarify that we now require information be sourced, not just verifiable.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

True, though I've always held myself to the 'new' definition anyway. Hence why I said "Therefore we rely on verifiable and independent sources as BoRC has stated". I don't generally advise people to work to the minimum standard on Wikipedia and this wasn't an exception. Thanks for bringing the update to my attention though! -Rushyo ^Talk 18:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

does contributes differ for diff languages

Dear Sir,

I have expanded pages in english as well as kannada. but my contributions in english doesnt appear in contributions of kannada and vice versa. can you please tell me why?

Thank you.

Srinidhi S U

Srinidhisu (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Srinidhi, and welcome to the Teahouse! That's just a quirk of the MediaWiki software, it's impossible to show edits on two different wikis through one contributions page on either wiki. Sorry about that! I'm pretty sure there's a special page on MetaWiki that can pull your account's contributions together, but I can't remember it (hopefully another host can help!). Hope this helps! gwickwire^talk_editing 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Global contributions? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank You very much. Srinidhisu (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

PREVIEW and EDIT commands

You advise editors to PREVIEW and SAVE texts they're keying in as they go along.

When the Wiki USER PAGE is displayed, how do I locate the PREVIEW and SAVE commands?

CORREZE (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you are at the edit window you will see these buttons at the bottom of the page.

Save page is used to save the page. Show preview button is used to preview the changes before they are saved. You are recommended to view the preview before saving. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 08:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You will only see those commands when you are editing a page (click the "edit" link). Banaticus (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a log of edits a user makes?

Hello, I wonder if there's a log someplace where I can see all the edits I've made on other pages. I'd like to be able to see the edits my students make, and know when they've reached the 10 edit milestone, allowing them to upload images. RobertK Prods (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robert. The page you want is Special:Contributions; simply fill in your username or those of your students to see their edit history. You can also get to this page by going to any userpage (including yours) and selecting "User contributions" from the Toolbox menu on the left of the screen. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui for your concise and helpful reply. It was exactly what I was looking for!RobertK Prods (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are part of the Wikipedia Education Program, you can direct your students to post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed or perhaps your online or campus ambassador could leave a message for a friendly admin to solve that problem for you. Banaticus (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

new page template

I'm on travel (family medical) and created a new page because of a bad link on today's anglican/episcopal calendar of saints. The page is not completely finished, but I think good enough to go up as a stub. A couple of days ago, I also made a minor correction at the bottom of the page I believe wrongly linked. I thought I could put the new page up with a new article template on it, but forgot how to. I'd appreciate any help you could give. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I figured out what you were trying to do. For the new page template, you needed to say "New page" not "New Page" (don't capitalize the "page"). You have a couple references, so I moved it to John Roberts (missionary). I then removed the note you placed on the other John Roberts page, and fixed the link here. Thanks for creating and working on a new page. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding an image to a page

How do you add an image to a wiki page with the image link? Cole.pujara (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cole. The standard unadorned code is to add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. Our picture tutorial has lots more information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How to ask to delete an article in Articles for Creation

Is there a way to ask for an article in Articles for Creation to be deleted, rather than accepting it or declining it? For example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Caitlin Robertson is probably one schoolgirl commenting about another, but it shouldn't hang around for people to see. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome! Since the page in question appears to be an attack page, then you can but the code {{db-g10}} on the page, and an administrator will delete it shortly.^King Jakob _C2 00:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

With issues like this it is always better to ask an admin to step in and immediatly dlete the page. It should not stick around long enough for the tag to eventually be noticed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the procedure for asking an administrator? StarryGrandma (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#When to decline a submission includes instructions I added some time ago for immediate tagging of attack pages, blatant vandalism and unambiguous copyright infringements for speedy deletion. If you want immediate action on something like this, which is indeed especially critical for attack pages, you can tag and then drop a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but the speedy deletion category for attack pages is closely monitored and emptied fast. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Medical References at User:G2003/DermaBlade

Hi there, I've been working on an article about a medical instrument and I'm struggling with demonstrating notability and quoting medical references correctly - any advice or guidance available please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2003/DermaBlade G2003 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. You might try WP:BIOSCITE (a description of a method I prefer), though there are others (see WP:MEDHOW, for example). Quoting is discouraged with medical and scientific writing, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you G2003 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I do have concerns over the draft, which I've shared on the user talk page of the author. Biosthmors (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article: User:G2003/Rickie_Sehgal

Hi there, I've started work on a new article and am struggling a bit with the references - I was trying to use the Reference short-cut but I'm not quite sure how to get the formatting right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2003/Rickie_Sehgal G2003 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! I took a look at the article and in looks like you've almost got it. However, if you want a link in a reference to have a title other than a url, the best thing to write is {{Cite web|url = www.something.com|title = Something}} Also, for ease of writing, you can click the cite button in the edit window (it's on the far right of the row with the Bold and Italics buttons). If you do this, you'll get a dropdown menu saying "Templates", and if you click on the cite web option, it'll give you a form with url, title, etc. to fill out. After that, you just click insert on the form and you get a reference. The dropdown menu saying "Templates" is right below the bold and italics buttons. Good luck with the article and happy editing.^King Jakob _C2 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you G2003 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Writing up references in advance

Dear editors: I have some books, magazines, newsletters, festival programs, etc. that would make good sources for Bluegrass music articles. Some of them have a lot of information. I think it would be more efficient to write up a reference about a source, and then search for articles mentioned in the source and paste the reference in the appropriate spot. It would take far less time to improve the articles than working one article at a time. The same thing could work with a news website. Of course, eventually someone would still have to review the articles to see how they were coming along. Is there some disadvantage to this approach that I'm not seeing? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Anne, that kind of thing is exactly what a user sandbox is designed for - where you can work on anything related to Wikipedia, including compiling references for future use. --ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good practical idea. I was just going to use a word processor. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WHO JUDGES A SUBJECT'S NOTABILITY

Right, I'd like to get stuck into a really meaty subject which is presently un-represented on Wikipedia. Probably 'Teach Yourself Brain Surgery' and 'Quantum Physics for Numpties' are both no-no's, but I have a hankering (and 25 years solid experience as an architectural journalist) to write something edifying about architecture. So when I've found a handful (say 4 or 5) topics that don't appear when put in the Wiki search box, who do I ask to adjudicate on their 'notability'?CORREZE (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTABLE. Basically, if there are reliable sources that talk about the subject in more than passing mention, they count as notable. Happy editing! — nerdfighter^(academy) 17:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are things like .gov, .edu, many .org websites, newspapers, encyclopedias, and books written by experts; but not (most) blogs, (most) YouTube videos, Twitter, or Facebook. If you're unsure about the article, you can write a draft at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and someone else will review it there.^King Jakob _C2 17:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately the Wikipedia community decides if a subject is notable, via an articles for deletion discussion. In theory an article can get through the AFC process, survive speedy deletion and proposed deletion, and then be nominated at WP:AFD where the community decides.--ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture where there is a guide, and outline. you will find like minded folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Members. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 17:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

article submission

Hi, I was working on an article yesterday, I came back to it today and finished it up. I went to save and I was notified that I had signed out and that the changes were being recorded for my IP address but if I wanted them attributed to my profile that I needed to sign in. I clicked the "sign in" link, signed in and my article is gone! Is it somewhere in cyber space? Has it been submitted for review? Is it gone? How do I find it? Any advice much appreciated! Rasa.dawson (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting.. The only contribution you have listed is posting this question. Could you have been logged out accidentally when making it? — nerdfighter^(academy) 16:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ack. It's possible. I'll just redraft it. I didn't want to submit twice, but if you can't find it anywhere either, I guess I'll just have to put it in again! Thanks.Rasa.dawson (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How about you log out and post here. I can look at your contribs for the IP and find the article you were working on. Good luck! — nerdfighter^(academy) 16:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing a new article

I am currently working on an article as part of a group University assignment. We have submitted it for review, however was wondering if people could have a look at the article in the mean time, and possibly give feedback at to whether the article so far is formatted OK, and also if the content is likely to be OK'd.

The article can be found at Caroline Hathornthwaite

Thanks Nickjhanson (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. There are numerous tweaks that need to be made, but the one overriding concern is the total lack of independent sources - there's no way the article will be accepted without them. You need to find, and cite, multiple sources which are not Caroline Haythornthwaite (or anyone associated with her, like her University) that talk about her in detail. These can be newspaper articles about her, books that discuss her work, scholarly papers that refer to her and her publications and so on. Deal with that before you do anything else with the article; it's far and away the most important thing. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions Yunshui, they are very much appreciated. Nickjhanson (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct way of using Talk.

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia, we are using it as part of a university assignment.

I am working in a small group and we are trying to work out the correct way to use Talk. We have has a few test goes however are not sure if we are doing it correctly.

Sending a new message:

I am going to the recipients Talk page and creating a new section. I am then adding our message.

Replying to a message received:

I am going to my talk page then I am adding a new section with the same subject as the message received. But adding RE: before it. (Should I go in to the message using edit and add my reply here)

I am then going to the senders talk page and creating a new section and adding: {{Talkback|username|section}}

Thanks for any help!

Matthew Dunne (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, welcome to the Teahouse. Looks like you've pretty much got the idea, save that you don't need to create a new section if you're replying to a message - just respond directly beneath and indent your reply by placing a colon at the start of the first line, just as I've done in replying to you here. Talkback isn't mandatory (most editors watch talk pages where they've left messages) - but it's polite, and it looks as though you're doing it right. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Yunshui

Thanks for the reply that all makes sense now.

Matthew Dunne (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help when my content with sources is being removed

Hi, I have started contributing recently. It really started when I was doing some research on the star biographer Mohan Deep as I am writing a paper on him for my doctrate. I noticed that there was a lot of one sides info - in Madhubala page - and corrected it with sources. Yet, I saw today that someone removed the material though I'd provided sources and links.

I also plan to do such additions in two other articles - Meena Kumari and Rekha. More important, I am writing an article (with sources and references) on Mohan Deep. But what do I do if someone who, for whatever reasons, removes my content?

I have already written the draft but have yet to submit the article. I understand the requirements for being neutral, sources and references. Would like help.

Thanks. F.Balsara (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! It's a good question about a common problem where editors disagree about what is appropriate for an article. I see from the other editor's edit history comments that they believed you were adding content to promote Mohan Deep and his book. To be honest I can understand their concerns. You added several links to Deep's website and several thousand words about Deep's biography of Madhubala. If Deep published a biography about Madhubala then I expect it will be a good source for the Madhubala article, but the subject of the article is Madhubala, not Deep's book. I hope you can see the difference.

On the positive side, if the publication has been widely reviewed it will add to Mohan Deep's notability and be a great addition to your draft article about him. Good luck with your new article! Sionk (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There was no question of promoting his book though I have become his admirer. Mohan Deep's book on 'Madhubala' was published in 1996 and I don't have to promote it now!

Moreover, I notice that there are needless defamatory comments on him and either they should be removed or answered

I have mentioned respectable sources (Sunday magazine) to show that there was a feud between two publishing giants which caused the hatchet job.

115.246.242.91 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

you might want to engage in dialogue on the talk page with your concerns. you might want to add the biography as a source using template:cite book per wp:citing sources. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 18:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How to check on a submitted subject?

About 3 weeks ago, I submitted a very specifically formatted article on a recording artist (just as Wiki requested),but I have no way to follow up to inquire about it's posting. It's very important, as the artist will be releasing a new CD and a wiki page is often referenced by all the media and music buyers as well. Can you direct me?

MikeHey Listen To This Music (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking your question at the Teahouse.

I can see your article in your sandbox but there is no indication you clicked the link in the top box where it says 'request its creation'.

Please look at WP:MUSIC and be sure to indicate in the article that the subject of the article is important. Citations WP:CITE supporting this are needed. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not important at all in the sense that you mean - Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any person, product, organisation or cause. Roger (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

IS A PICTURE NEEDED TO SUPPORT A TEXT DESCRIPTION?

I'm new here and a total novice, so please bear with me. Last weekend I laboriously keyed in an exceptionally complicated (and thoroughly researched) architectural feature which runs to just over 1000w. It opens with a reference to a 15th century Italian painting, giving the picture's title, artist and the briefest of descriptions. If you want to check me out go to CHURCH REORDERING.

Alongside the painting reference, another Editor has put 'citation needed'. Does this mean that he/she is saying readers will only believe my description of the picture if I upload it to appear alongside the text?CORREZE (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally, a {{citation needed}} template is saying is that you need a reliable source to support the rest of your text -- it's difficult to use information from a picture.

I must say though, that editor asked why that information was relevant -- if I am looking at the correct diff, you may wish to clarify that. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

'That editor' here. I added the {{clarify}} tag to the newly added paragraph (about a painting of a saint at his desk) because I couldn't understand it's relevance to the Church reordering article. But generally (as another editor has pointed out) it will help greatly if you can add some inline citations to the article to support the various statements and claims. By all means join in the discussion on the article's Talk page. It's potentially a very useful article! Sionk (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, please don't take it personally, Sionk :) It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 23:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No probs. I should have put a 'winky grin' after my first 3 words ;) Sionk (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sionk: The easiest way to understand the picture's relevance to my piece, I would suggest (and I'm not being sarchastic) is to take a look at the painting: just go to the LondonNational Gallery's website and put 'St Jerome in his Study' in the search box. This 15th century painting clearly shows a figure seated at a desk which is not contemporaneous with the stone-built church in which it has been placed. Ergo: St Jerome (or one of his followers) was 'onto' the idea of church reordering 700 years ago.CORREZE (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that drawing your own conclusion ("Ergo..." etc) is original research. One could also say that it is proof that someone used a time machine and that would be also original research, though less probable. What is important here are the conclusions that reliable sources draw from the primary sources and other materials, not how we interpret them.--ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

New user looking for help with compiling a new page.

Hi. I'm a new user to Wikipedia and have a group assignment for one of my university modules which encompasses creating a new entry about a scholar of our choosing. I was wondering if there were any set rules with regards to making a start on a new entry (i.e. should information be added in chronological order according to the scholar's career, or can each group member upload as and when new information is discovered/researched?)

Apologies for this simplistic question, I am looking to contribute to this article in the most credible way possible.

Thanks in advance

Bellsniff123 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're concerned about formatting issues, the manual of style may help you. Articles do have a structure, and if I remember correctly, chronological order is a good structure.

To create an article, you may want to use the article wizard. This will help you make sure your article meets certain Wikipedia guidelines, such as those for notability.

It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, James. I suggest you try a time-saving shortcut. Choose the scholar whose biography you want to create. Then:

• 1) Wander over to WikiProject Biography/Science and academia.
• 2) Look at the table of articles by quality and importance and click on any number in the rows to the right of FA (featured article) or GA (good article).
• 3) Scan through the list of featured and good articles, then scan a few of them and pick one to emulate. On that article's page, click the 'Edit' tab at the top. Bingo, there's all the code that made the article.
• 4) Right-click on "Sandbox" in the far upper right of your screen and choose "Open in new window". (Works even better if you have dual monitors.)
• 5) Copy all the wikicode and text from the article you chose to your sandbox (choose the red 'Create this page' if there isn't an existing sandbox). Save it. I recommend you also save it on your local hard drive by pasting it into Notepad, too. Nothing worse than losing a lot of work because of a simple error.

Now you have a structure from which to work. Click the 'Show preview' button at the bottom of your sandbox page. Type over the information in the featured or good article with information on your selected scholar. You will learn by doing. Putting the name inside the three single quotes makes the name in the lead paragraph bold. Those double equals signs make a heading with a horizontal rule under it. One of the existing headings doesn't fit? Delete it or type over it with a more suitable heading. Don't have a photograph for the infobox? Just delete the existing photo name but leave the empty "image =" and such so that missing elements can be added later, perhaps years later.

When I do this, I like to delete all the existing text. Also delete the categories and such at the bottom of your draft article unless they clearly relate to your chosen scholar. That prevents accidently leaving some unrelated cruft in your final version.

This isn't cheating. You learn wikicode but you learn while doing; more efficient and less painful than reading lots of tutorial pages and starting from scratch. Your article will probably be more polished than one created using the article wizard. From now on, whenever you see something you like in a Wikipedia article, click that edit tab and see how an experienced editor created it. Copy it to your sandbox and experiment with how you can use it in your own article(s). Hope this helps. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks guys for the clear and friendly responses . . . Feel a lot more comfortable being able to tackle this assignment now.

Kind regards Bellsniff123 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Havard Referencing

Hi all,

I am new here, using Wikipedia for a University assignment, and have a question regarding citation.

I would like to use the Harvard referencing style in my article, however am not 100% sure of how to do so using the Wikipedia markup.

Below is a copy of what I am using so far, however am not quite sure if (a) I should be doing it completely differently, or if (b) I am pretty much on track and maybe missing something.

<ref name="Work, Learning, and Social Interaction"> {{cite web|last=Haythornthwaite |first=Caroline | title =Work, Learning, and Social Interaction | url =http://haythorn.wordpress.com/research/ |accessdate=23 February 2013}} </ref>

Any guidance is appreciated, Nickjhanson (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you are on the right track. This is one of the many citation styles. You might want to note though that Wordpress is generally not a reliable source. (If you use it outside of this example.) you might also wish too add the publisher's name using the field |publisher= . The publisher in this example would be Wordpress. Good luck and happy editing! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks for you help and quick response.

Nickjhanson (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome and best of luck for your assignment. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Wikipedia has a specific template for Harvard referencing; the details and instructions for using it can be found here. You can use this in articles, however, please only use it in new articles - if you're working on a page that already exists, it's appropriate to use whatever citation style is already present there. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. Yeah, I appreciate the style used in an article should be consistent. This is a new article I am working on and would like to use the Harvard style referencing, so many thanks for the link. 150.237.110.155 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the comment about Wordpress. Although some Wordpress sites are just blogs, the software has also become popular with some serious content providers. If the Wordpress site is password protected so that the "postings" are kept separate from the static content pages, I see no reason why a web site should be called unreliable just because Wordpress is hosting it. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it's self published. It's not a traditional newspaper/magazine where there's an editor, there's no real impetus other than self pride or something like that to make sure that what is published is correct. That being said, there's no rule which prevent wordpress sites from being reputable sources, but there are guidelines which suggest that they should be carefully considered before being used as a source, kind of for the same reason that it's not really appropriate to link to another Wikipedia article as a primary source. Banaticus (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nickjhanson! Did you know that you need not type the harvard referencing in yourself or use a template? That's right. The editing window has a number of tools located at the top. The last one is "Cite". When you select that the template choices are shown as "cite web", "cite news", "cite book" and "cite journal". Choose the appropriate one for the reference you are using and it will display a number of empty spaces to fill out with all the information from the source, Author, publisher, title, year, ISBN etc.. After you fill everything out, just hit "insert" and there you go. I just discovered this myself this past year and it makes referencing so much easier! Try it. It should make working on Wikipedia a great joy. it did for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Um - actually the standard templates provided by the Cite menu don't support Harvard (which uses parenthetical citations); they're based on the Chicago Manual of Style and APA. You could use it for creating templates in the references section of a Harvard-cited page, but you'd still have to manually remove the <ref> tags. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I confuse this alot actually. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Other Accounts through SUL

Hi. I recently had my username changed on the English Wikipedia. However my old username was attached to a lot of other accounts in other sites (of WMF). Even though they are mostly inactive and are not contributing, I would like to either delete/move the old pages on all the sites to my new username (They are mostly only my userpage and/or talk page). Is there any easy way to do this? Or do I need to go to each site and delete them all individually? Rajanala Samyak (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rajanala and welcome to the Teahouse! I would ask whatever bureaucrat changed your username here, but if I had to guess, I would guess that a bureaucrat would have to do it individually on each site . I don't know for sure; perhaps a steward or someone from WMF could help? Good question! Go Phightins! 13:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Go Phightins!, for answering. When renaming the account, as the bot managed to check all the wikis for other accounts by the name, can't all the previous accounts on all wikis be transferred to the new name? This SUL has simplified things to a great extent, and this feature must be added, to avoid unnecessary complications like creating the old account again by mistake 117.219.69.163 (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing "bare URLs for citations" notice at top of article

Hello Teahousers! After seeing the notation at the above of my new article, I have changed my bare URLs to full citations, now correctly formatted I THINK. Is it now possible to have that notation removed? If so, how? THANKS VERY MUCH! Blurbadeeblurb (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. Yes. Just delete it yourself. Once you have addressed the issues you may do so as an uncontroversial tag deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Blurbadeeblurb, whenever you see a tag that is no longer applicable, simply remove it with an explanation of why in the edit summary. I just did it for you on the article you wrote, but any editor acting in good faith is welcome to remove these tags. For example, if you see an article tagged as a stub, and you expand it and reference it so that it has good encyclopedic content, go ahead and remove the stub tag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I format a football club logo?

Hi. In the articles on specific football clubs like Chelsea Football Club there is a boxed portion containing the team logo/crest and overview details about the club like their webpage, date founded, etc. May I know where I may find instructions or tips on how to do it if I am writing for a different sports club? Thank you. Wpolido (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to click the edit window for the article you want to emulate, in this case Chelsea Football Club. You can copy all of the Wikicode for the infobox and then paste it into your personal sandbox. Now, you can re-edit it for the other sports club whose article you want to improve. You can change all of the information fields to information accurate for the second club. Once you've got it looking just as you want, copy it and paste it into the article for the second club. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The overview is called an {{infobox}}. In this case, it is {{infobox football club}}. If you click on that last link, there is some guidance on using it. To get started, you can just copy all the text in the grey box under "Usage" and paste it into your article (at the top). Then you can fill in the bits you want (the guidance is useful for this and looking at articles like Chelsea can help--you can copy bits you want for your article). AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

This user got the Teahouse First Birthday Badge.
Earn one at: Teahouse Badges

{{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/First|size=2}}

(you can place this badge code in your userspace, or use a larger versions at WP:Teahouse/Badge/First.)

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 23:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bluegrass portal

Dear editors: On the page Progressive bluegrass there is a Portal section at the bottom. I went to the list of portals at Portal:Contents/Portals, but the Bluegrass portal is not there. I have two questions: (1) Where can I find this portal's info page? and (2) Is it appropriate for me to add this portal to pages about bluegrass music and bluegrass bands that don't have it? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Anne. I believe the reason you are not finding it listed is because it is not a portal at all. Its actually a navigation template. WP:NAVBOX.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I should also address you other questions. Yes, you may add this navbox to the bottum of all Bluegrass articles in a similar manner. As for the "info page", if you look at that template you will see at the top left three letters seperated by dashes or dots. These letters, V, T and E, are links to View the template page itsef, the Talkpage of the tamplate and a direct link to Edit the template. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was confused by the word Portal at the bottom of the box, but I see now that it is just a link. However, this Navigation box Template:Bluegrassmusic is full of red links. Is it appropriate for them to be there, or should they be removed until the articles are created? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent question Anne. Generally speaking red links are acceptable as they highlight to the involved participants some key articles that have not yet been created. per our actual policy:

Text colors in a navigation template should be consistent with Wikipedia text color conventions, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text. Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers.

This is just saying not to use colored text in the navbox as they are reserved for the "link". Blue for existing and red for a dead link. The essay on navboxes states something a little different but I do not believe it is best to use this essay as it overrides the policy which clearly states that red linked articles in the navbox are accpetable, but...this is a matter of consensus. I would begin a discussion at the talkpage or ask one of the major contributers if this has already been discussed.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am trying to get some bluegrass enthusiasts interested in working together to improve the many sketchy bluegrass articles. The red links look like good items for the task list.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good for you! I love a good collaboration!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk Button

Hi,

I was wondering if the talk button in the right hand corner should be red, because when I click on it, it just says page not found.

Thanks Zoe Xlucky charmx (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xlucky charmx, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you created the talk page shortly after posting here so the link is blue now. A red link is a link to a page which does not exist currently. If the page exists then the link is blue. See more at Help:Link color. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Teahouse. You have new messages at Xlucky charmx's talk page.
Message added 22:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Problem uploading an image

Sorry--I thought I submitted this question a short time ago but I don't see it now. I'm trying to upload an image via the upload wizard, but the "upload" button isn't becoming active so I can't upload the file. I think I've filled in all the required fields. Am I missing something? Thanks.Cellotown (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It should work now - your edit here was the tenth that you needed for your account to be autoconfirmed. Only autoconfirmed users can upload files to Wikipedia. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh and your previous question was inadvertently removed when I undid another user's edit that had deleted a bunch of recent questions by mistake. I should have added it back manually, apologies!--ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Biography of a band?

Dear editors: I was reading an article about a band called Mountain Heart. The first main section is called "Biography". It seems to me that biographies are of people, not groups. Am I wrong about this? Is there a better heading for this section? I wanted to change it, but can't think of the proper term. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a pet peeve of mine too (even in articles about people - the whole article is a bio). I usually remove the biography heading and promote the headings below it up a level. In Mountain Heart, you could move the bio section up to be the lead section, the current lead really isn't a lead at all.--ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Would like feedback on 1st edit

Hi all... I was working on the page for the company I work for and wanted some guideance before posting it because 1... I'm a new editor 2... I have an obvious conflict of interest (although I really strive for neutrality)

The current public page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes.com The draft I've worked up is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dhoegerm/draft_article_on_Homes.com

Dhoegerm (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tea House! It looks like a good article. However it didn't have any wikilinks so I went ahead and added some. — nerdfighter^(academy) 13:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I had meant to go back and do that but completely forgot. I added the missing citation you highlighted. Dhoegerm (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Several of the sources you've listed are press releases (or re-posted press releases). Some other sources are questionable. You need to be very careful to write an article (particularly about a company) using things people have said in independent, reliable sources (publications with editorial standards, like newspapers or magazines). I see someone tried to delete the current article in November 2012, so I've no doubt there will be people with their eye on it! Sionk (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is already an article about Homes.com. Will this one be merged in, or replacing it? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This would replace the existing article. I cleaned up a couple of the references and replaced the one from an old press release with a journal article which referenced the same same content. Thanks again for all the help!

Dhoegerm (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: I removed the overview header so that the overview section can be the opening paragraph. Thanks! — nerdfighter^(academy) 16:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Selective bold markup within infobox template per MOS:QUOTEMARKS

Somone experienced in templates can probably help out here. Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, I've been trying to replicate {{Infobox television episode}} within {{Infobox song}}. (I thought I'd just mock it up and then place an {{Edit protected}} request, but must be missing something obvious.) Further details are at Template talk:Infobox song#Quotation marks should not be in boldface. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I was confusing View source for Template:Infobox song/sandbox with Template:Infobox song/sandbox! Thanks to Sesamevoila and GoingBatty for trying to help. -- Trevj (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Arguments for AfD

Very frequently I see administrators shouting WP:WAX, WP:OTHERCRAP, WP:ATA, etc. I just recently realised that the before mentioned rationales for deletion are essays, and not policies. Is it alright to cite essays for AfD discussions? Does it make our points less valid? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Howdy Bonkers! Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it very much does make a difference...if the closing admin is going by our policies for such. Per Wikipedia:Closing discussions: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" This means that, if one is arguing based soley on an essay, they may not be arguing per policy at all. While some essays are based on policy, they are. themselves not policy. The general DR guideline is to always base your arguments on policy and guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That said, the essays at WP:ATA are basically distillations of consensus that has emerged over thousands of AFD discussions - they provide a convenient shorthand for rebutting many of the most common fallacious AFD arguments. Most admins can spot an ATA without having it pointed out, so it's rarely useful from the closer's perspective, but telling another !voter that they are making a spurious argument is more quickly achieved by sending them to that page rather than trying to expound the entire rebuttal on the discussion page. Essays aren't policies, but they can be a handy way of making your point without typing out reams of text. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the essay itself makes it clear that "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Regardless if this is an admin or any other editor, contributers should not be "tagging" with links to this essay alone as they mean absolutely nothing of and by themselves. In fact, it is better to stick to only our polices as these essays are not updated as quickly as our policies and guidelines. It is best practice to never tag or template users in this manner. Just dropping off links is not appropriate in any discussion, especially an AFD.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree - whilst I would expect any arguments in favour of keeping or deleting an article to be based in policy, if someone has posted a !vote claiming that "I don't like it, it should be deleted" then it's far more efficient to point them at WP:IDONTLIKEIT than it is to spend thirty minutes typing out the explanation that is already expounded there. The ATA essay is useless as a pro-keep/delete argument itself, but it's a handy way to explain to new editors (who may not be familiar with the AFD process) why they need to revise their statements. (And of course, if you dismiss the validity of essays, then you can surely dismiss an essay's suggestion that one avoids linking to it!)

All Wikipedia policies are basically distillations of pre-existing community consensus; the difference is that policies and guidelines have been through a more rigorous process of community assessment than essays. In the case of WP:ATA, there is substantial community support for its positions (as evidenced by many, many AFD discussions), so whilst I agree that it's not policy and has no bearing on the outcome of an AFD debate, it's nevertheless a useful tool for explaining the process of the debate to newcomers.

This discussion is probably out of place here; if you and/or Bonkers want to discuss it further, I'm happy to host on my talkpage. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you certainly may disagree but I am basing this on our policies and guidelines, not what others have done for many years. As a DR mediater, I can only tell you that it makes little difference how distilled an essay may seem or how much it may be used in such a manner, we simply do not use templates and tags to replace discussion, especially essay tags. It only confuses new editors and to many people (including me) it simply shows a lack of participation in a discussion. Many editors will ignore them if they do not link to the relevant policy or guideline and during a dispute it is never acceptable to use an essay. Really. An AFD is a dispute and if we cannot take the time to write an argument, an ATA tag isn't going to help. I do apologise if this has become less than friendly sounding. It is not my intention, but this is the advice I have based on my years here and the number of dispute discussions I have participated in. The issue is using essays in an AFD discussion and if it makes points less valid. It really does and I don't advise it. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

With full awareness of the irony involved (and a further suggestion that we take this discussion to a more appropriate forum - I'm only adding this reply here because it's relevant to the original question), I'd point you to Wikipedia:The value of essays, specifically WP:ESSAYDEL. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't at all helpful at the Teahouse to leave links alone. Many new editors will not get the most out of such actions. As the latter essay states, "if expressed well". Tagging is not at all expressing yourself, let alone well. As I said, essays are not as valid as our policies or guidelines and should not be used in a dispute to replace a real discussion or guideline and never by just tagging or templating.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hence the irony... but since neither Bonkers nor yourself are new editors, I'm sure you don't need me to hold your hand through an explanation of what those links contain. I think you and I largely agree on this subject (obviously we both think policies and guidelines trump essays at AFD, and equally obviously neither of us regards a mere wikilink as a suitable argument); we just have a slight difference of opinion on whether to ascribe any validity to essays in ADF debates. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If I can chime in here, I think that referring to essays can have some value in AfD debates, as long as it is in support of a logical point based on policies and guidelines. Clearly, the debate is not won because someone points out a passage in an essay that supports their opinion, but I have learned a lot about the reasoning behind established consensus from reading and discussing essays. In the end, there are many factors that determine whether an editor's opinion in an AfD debate will persuade others or be valued by the closing administrator. I don't think the fact that an editor mentioned a relevant essay ought to detract from the power of the broader argument. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody help me to fix my page Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no References.

Can somebody help me to fix my page Cite References. cause this is what it keeps saying

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found and i don't know what to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etiennebaheza (talk • contribs) 09:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I've fixed the question, which wasn't being displayed properly because of the unterminated ref tags in it & by the space at the start of a line. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The error message gives you a link to the relevant help page, which should tell you all you need to know about how to fix the problem. Good luck with sorting it out. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Often simply pasting the code <references/> or {{Reflist}} at the bottom of the page will enable the references to be displayed, solving this problem. Otherwise, you may have forgotten to close a reference using a </ref> tag. If you provide a link to the article in question we may be able to help you more though :) benzband (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fraction next to edit count

When you go to the "view history" page of an article and select the external tool "contributors," what does the fraction next to a contributor's edit count represent? CityMorgue (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi CityMorgue! Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not entirely confident in my answer, as it is a question that I've also wondered about. It appears like the second number reflects the number of minor edits made. I'm not sure if those are counted in the first number as well. Ryan Vesey 05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, you've got to be right! I did some counting and it all seems to add up. The first number is just regular edits and the second is minor. Thanks so much for the explanation! CityMorgue (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, clicking "about this tool" and then "User:Duesentrieb/Contributors" says: "The Edits column shows 3 numbers, in the format # (#/#) : user's total edits on the article (# marked minor / # not marked as minor)." PrimeHunter (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Photoshoot images - Free for use or not?

Hi everyone!

An iranian artist has released some pictures online for no other purpose than to promote herself. not to earn money of her pictures but simply to publish some nice pictures. will i as an editor be allowed to use these images in an article when they were just released on her facebook and/or blog without intention of making any monetary earnings? Cause i wont be harming the artist commercially. i will be promoting her as she intended to do when she released the pictures. Ablexsad (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Because copyright infringement can have serious consequences, we require (with very limited exceptions) specific releases of copyright before images can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:Donating copyright materials to see what is required. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Teahouse!

As one of the earliest guests of the Teahouse and a host for about half of it's existence, I wanted to leave a very happy birthday wish to all involved, be they guests, hosts or just drop-ins. I would not still be a Wikipedian if it weren't for the Teahouse, and yesterday was my first Wikipedia birthday, too. A big shout-out to Sarah and Ocaasi and all the others that started this great project, and I hope I can continue with helpful contributions here for a real long time. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

<3 Happy Birthday Teahouse. The project was created by myself, Siko, Heather and J-mo. I couldn't have asked for a better team to work with, and a *remarkable* group of volunteers who helped us through all stages of the project - and continue to make it what it is - an awesome spot for help and support. <3 SarahStierch (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Teahouse and to all who are celebrating its success! I tend to think of this project as something we ALL built together (yes, even guests who just ask one question, those contributions matter) - there would be no Teahouse without each one of you contributing things big and small. I don't write here in the Q&A forum much, but I'm always thinking about this project and scheming about what/how/who we might encourage to do something that makes it even better, and I'm so grateful that we've come together to make this amazing place happen on Wikipedia. When this project was launched one year ago we had NO IDEA IF IT WOULD WORK or it it would still be here today, let alone still be growing as it is. Good job everyone! (Also Gtwfan52 - Happy Wikipedia Birthday to you! The fact that you created your account on Wikipedia one year ago, and here you are hosting now? Awesome. That is Teahouse gold.) Siko (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I activate a page?

I am trying to activate a page which I have added text to. Each time I create a link to the page it does not work. The page remains as "does not exist" although I can see it. I am speaking about the "Marketed Health Products Directrate" page. I would also like each word in the title to begin with a capital letter. Can anyone help me please? ec Marketing Employee (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marketing Employee, welcome to the Teahouse. Is your article Marketed health products directorate? The problem you may be having is that if you do not use the exact title of the article with the exact case as the original, it will show up as a red link. For example: Marketed Health Product Directorate (Health Canada). Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

user boxes

Hi,

I was just wondering how you edit the user boxes because they are along the top instead of down the side, also, the Template:User time zone!UTC!watch one isn't showing up so wondered if the coding is wrong.

Thanks Zoe Xlucky charmx (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. I've partially fixed it for you (not sure what's wrong with the University one yet, give me a couple of minutes) - have a look at the most recent edit to your userpage to see what I did. Be aware that pipes (|) are different to exclamation marks (!); they do different things in wikicode. If you're on a standard PC keyboard, the pipe is above \ in the bottom left (on a Mac it's on the right). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem as though there is a userbox for Hull Uni; give me five minutes and I'll knock one up for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Found one; it just isn't listed in the userbox gallery. I've added {{User hull university}} to your page for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)