From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:THQ)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

WP teahouse logo.png

Citing U S Patent and Trademark Office database[edit]

I am puzzled about how to present a citation to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database. I have cited two trademarks to confirm dates related to a business in Draft:Susan Mohl Powers. The problem is that when I rechecked the URLs to the trademarks, there was an error message that the session had timed-out. So I replaced the URLs with a link to the search engine, and added a note in the citation on entering the product name in the database. Is there a less clunky way to present this info? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It was difficult for me to find the page based on your search description but I eventually got a page with a blue "TSDR" button to This is also the link produced by {{US trademark|73411973}} which renders as U.S. Trademark 73,411,973. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How to reuse a "{cite book ...}" source multiple times in an article, but with a different page no.[edit]

I add tens of citations a week, but not usually from a book where I reuse the book citation multiple times in a single article. I'm aware that a single use of the {{cite book ...}} template includes a |page= or |pages= parameter -- and that works quite well when I only want to use the citation once in an article, and cite either one page or a range of pages.

I've seen some other editor use some syntax at the end of a citation that allows a different page no. to show. But for the life of me, I cannot locate how to do it just now. It is definitely not in the doc for {{cite book}}. Would appreciate any help or pointers. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi N2e, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source and Help:References and page numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, PrimeHunter! That is exactly what I was looking for. N2e (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Need help formatting[edit]

I'm not sure I quite understand piping (|) yet. Would someone format this for a Reference: Browman, DL. Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, 2013, 360 p.

And then format the same for a Selected Books section: Browman, DL. Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, 2013, 360 p. (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is: <ref name=browman 2013> {{cite book |last1=Bookman|first1=DL |title=Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology |date=2013 |publisher=Univ. Nebraska |location=Lincoln |isbn= |pages=360 }}</ref> Just add this after your statement that is sourced by it, but please add the full ISBN number first. If you need to use it again in the same article, you may source it with just a simple: <ref name=browman 2013/>Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Stuart Styron[edit]

Can someone help out and rewrite some points? Thank you very much. -- Flashfox7 (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flashfox7. Your challenge is to show that this person meets our notability guideline for musicians. I Googled his album release, and didn't find any independent reviews in reliable sources. Though I could be wrong, he doesn't appear notable to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cullen328, he is an artist in an popular independent label calls "Timezone". They sell worldwide and have lots of good german artists. They already are on german wikipedia. Styron is in all online stores and he will publish cd`s elsewell all is upcoming. In social networks he is popular and has a verified facebook page already. He is not over the top or something, but he is also an actor. What do you think is the best way to describe him. I mean he is not only a musician, we can write more neutral things that would be good elsewell. There are some links I found, did you checked it? Thank you. -- Flashfox7 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FlashFox7. It doesn't make any difference how widely he sells, what he publishes, how popular he is, or whether he has a Facebook page: what matters is (only) whether reliable published sources, indepNedent of him, have written at length about him. If they haven't, then there is essentially nothing which can be put in an article, because almost every single piece of information in an article must be backed up by a reliable published source. The links you have given may be enough, but some of them are not useful because they are no more than mentions of him. Please see NMUSIC for more about the criteria for having an article. As for what to say about him, the answer is the same: you may say about him what the independent reliable sources say about him, nothing more. You should not use any description which is not found in them. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the "meta-wiki"[edit]

I was quite unfamiliar with this myself, but I popped a question anyway to

But, does anyone have any idea what the meta wiki is and what they do? NetworkOP (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NetworkOP. Meta-Wiki is the "internal" wiki for the Wikimedia movement and the several hundred worldwide projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is for behind the scenes discussions of everything from Wikimania to grant making to system wide software developments. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
See also meta:Meta:About, linked on "About Meta" at the bottom of each page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not get emails when a page I have marked as “Watch this page” is changed.[edit]

Hello: Although I checked the box “Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed” in the ‘preferences’ – Wikipedia page, I do not get emails when a page I have marked as “Watch this page” is changed. Is there anything else I need to do in order to ‘watch’ (receive emails) when an edited page is changed? Please let me know. Thanks! Nandinik (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What settings do you have set in the "e-mail options" under the "Notifications" tab?
This has four options:- Do not send me e-mail notifications, Individual notifications as they come in, a daily summary and a weekly summary. - Arjayay (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! For e-mail options, I have the default setting of ‘Individual notifications as they come in’ – should I change that? Nandinik (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the notification email options work the same as the option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal for "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed". As far as I can tell, the way that works is that once an email is sent for a page on your watchlist after a change is made, you will not get another email for any future change until you view the page while logged in (not its history or a diff but the actual page), and you will only be informed by email of the first change that occurs after the last logged in viewing. See meta:Help:Watching pages#E-mail notification. Maybe someone can confirm if it works the same and thus that you are getting the notifications emailed, but the issue is that you are looking for notifications for every change, even though you haven't visited the page while logged in after receiving a notification. Again, take this with a grain of salt, because I'm not sure the notifications emails work the same way (and see nothing at wmf:Echo (Notifications) to confirm yes or no).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Make sure it does not go to your spam folder.NetworkOP (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I do have "email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" checked. I plan to carefully read the links and see what the problem might be. Thanks again for all the help! Nandinik (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you please tell me where to start[edit]

Hi, my name is Arnold Sean and I am interested in wikipedia's network and traffic management. I want to contribute to building a successful wikipedia, but I want to do so via more behind the scenes means. However, I am not aware what type of servers or what platform wikipedia uses and am wondering what type of a syntax "wikicode" is.

Thank you for reading and I would highly appreciate a response.

Yours truly

NetworkOP (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings NetworkOP There are people who are a lot more technical about the details of Wikipedia than I am but I can't resist a technical question so here are some of my thoughts. The Wiki markup language... what I'm using right here... is a markup language similar to HTML. However, Wiki markup is simpler than HTML. There is probably a way to do scripting in Wiki markup but I've never done it and for the most part articles don't need and shouldn't use advanced features like scripting. The design goal of HTML is to be a very powerful markup language that can be used for all sorts of sites, from the most basic to real time video. The design goal for Wiki markup is to provide a simple standardized language to edit the encyclopedia and to provide a consistent look and feel for the site. It is possible to escape from Wikicode to HTML if there is something really specialized that an editor needs to do but in my several years as an editor I've never seen a justified example of someone doing that and it is something I would strongly discourage a fellow editor from doing unless they had a really compelling argument. You might also want to check out the Wikipedia:Village_pump It's a place where new technical ideas are discussed and proposed. You might find this section of particular interest: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) Another great site for techies is this one: You can find all sorts of real time statistics there about how the site (and various companion sites) are being used and have been used over history. As far as the servers go that is a good question and I don't have a clue. My guess is that like most large sites Wikipedia uses some third party service and that the actual platform is heterogeneous, i.e. some language like Java that runs on multiple platforms and can take advantage of things like distributed processing. But that's just a guess, I would be interested in what other people have to say. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
NetworkOP here are a couple of fairly recent articles about the infrastructure. I don't know this site so have no idea how reliable this info is but just fyi: A Look Inside Wikipedia’s Infrastructure Closer Look: Wikipedia’s Internet Infrastructure --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
One last link. But I think this is probably more relevant than some of the others. This is the site for the software that Wikipedia uses which is Open Source and freely available for others to use as well: --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I lied, THESE are the last links... couldn't resist just came across these while working on something else: --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think the editing toolbar is a little outdated, it looks like something from 2005, while you are the 6th most popular website in the world.NetworkOP (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@NetworkOP: Hey NetworkOP It is a testament to the model that Wikipedia is. Google, at number one (according to Alexa [which places Wikipedia at seventh]) has 55,030 employees (according to its 2014 Financial Tables) and budgeted $569 million just for ads and had revenue of almost $7 billion. Twitter, at ninth, has about 3,600 according to their about page. Wikipedia has 241 by my count, only some of which are in the technology end, and which includes 20 fellowships, i.e., not full time and full salaried employees, and a budget of just over $50 million, which is equal to its revenue since its a not-for-profit company. If you want to volunteer and try to design something better, see mw:How to contribute. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
NetworkOP Regarding the UI, I'm the wrong person to ask. I always prefer something that is simple and functional to something that is flashy. I agree the editing toolbar looks like something from VB but it works, is easy to use, and is consistent across several different browsers and operating systems that I use. I'm actually a major fan of the Wikipedia technology. I've worked with far more sophisticated groupware environments with all sorts of bells and whistles such as Lotus Notes and IMO Wikipedia is far better and more scalable. But there is a project to develop a more up to date Wikipedia:VisualEditor If you want to help make that happen I'm sure they would welcome extra help. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When should I welcome people?[edit]

I'm just curious about when to welcome users, would it be okay to do any newly created users or should I wait until they do some edits? Thanks! ~HackedBotato (Chat with meContribs) 16:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@HackedBotato: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm sure the new users would appreciate a welcome right away.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! ~HackedBotato (Chat with meContribs) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Writing a article[edit]

Hello I'm trying to write an article like this -

For an organisation in England, i'm finding it quite confusing how to add all the info and logo as well as keep people etc


ReganHull (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ReganHull, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, off, please don't use the dreadful article United Kingdom Skateboarding Association as a model. It is an example of an article that was created several years ago, and would not be accepted now, because it has no inline references whatever, and is full of non-neutral language. if you want to write a new article, my next advice after the above would be to spend some time editing existing articles: creating a new article is hard. Then read your first article, to find out how to tell whether your subject should have an article at all: if it has not been written about at length in multiple reliable published sources which are independent of the subject, then it should not have one. If, after reading that, and finding sufficient independent published sources, you want to go ahead, I strongly recommend you use the article wizard, so that your draft is somewhere that you can work on it until you are ready to have it reviewed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I have just nominated that article for deletion: I can't find any substantial references to it, so I believe it is unsaveable. --ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Tools for analyzing page edits[edit]

I'm hunting for a tool that might give me some insight into how many unique editors are responsible for a given page but, I'm having some trouble finding something like this. Basically I would like to be able to see how many active (and unique) editors (users/admins/IPs) are working on a specific page -- and ideally-- within a specific amount of time and, if possible, how many edits have been preformed by each editor. I know there are some studies discussing this (unique editors to overall edits made, etc) for the whole of Wikipedia but, I'm curious to find some information for specific pages. Any tools, articles or studies that exist on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Aloblivion (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aloblivion. You can click the "View history" tab on a page at the English Wikipedia and then "Revision history statistics" near the top. The tool has however been unstable for some time and isn't currently responding for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Aloblivion: welcome to The Teahouse. You could try WP:VPT to see if anyone knows whether what you want to do can be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When to reply to talk page posts?[edit]

How old should a talk page post be before it's too old to reply to? I would guess that if it was posted two or three years ago, it would probably be too old for sure, but should I reply to something someone said six months ago?Zgialor (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I go right ahead in such cases; no need to fuss. Wikipedians are sometimes grouchy but not about this kind of thing. If nobody's listening anymore, it's merely a small waste of time. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zgialor: You can use {{ping}} to notify registered users of your reply. You can check their user contributions see whether they are still active. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zgialor: I just want to add that for some editors six months is not a long time at all. More than once I've added some comments to a talk page, then gone on to work on something else and forgot about it, then come back to that page six months or more later because someone replied to my talk page comment or I just stumbled back on it as a result of other editing. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter, MadScientistX11: So, if someone said something five years ago, but they're still active and what they said is still relevant, I could still reply to them? Zgialor (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zgialor: Everyone has different editing styles and I don't want to claim my way is the right or best way but for me I don't really care how old a comment on a talk page is. If it makes a cogent point that hasn't been fixed and that I have something constructive to say about I think it's fine, in fact it's a good idea, to reply regardless of how old the comment is. Even if the person who made the comment is no longer paying attention there may be others that are. I'm also a software developer. When you develop software one of the counter intuitive things you learn is that defining the requirements and maintaining the application takes up a lot more time than actually writing the code. That's how I got in the habit of over communicating. I view talk pages as meta-data about the article, they represent a history of why decisions were made and capture the rationales for making them. I will document things on talk pages even when no one else is replying just so that if someone comes along later and asks why a certain edit was done I can point back to the talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: OK, that makes sense. Thanks! Zgialor (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything I do is wrong[edit]

I tried to write an article, and it was deleted as non-significant. I tried again, and it was pulled for copyright. I said the organization I was writing about would help me with details, and I was then told I had a conflict of interest. I was told the organization wasn't "notable" enough anyway and had already been rejected for inclusion. I've been warned by two "editors" not to make legal threats, even though I haven't -- I've simply pointed out that there's a Supreme Court ruling in place that covers the name of the organization, and I'm told that's irrelevant.

All I really want to do is get a redirect corrected so that when you type in the name of a specific church, it doesn't bring up the page of a white supremacist hate group that once used a similar form of the church's name in its own title.

I've read the rules. I understand COI and copyright. I get that you won't allow an article. So be it.

What I *don't* get is why the redirect can't be corrected? Since all of the brick walls I'm hitting are the result of Wikipedia's proclaimed effort to be accurate, why is this INaccuracy allowed to continue?

I understand WHY the redirect is in place and WHY it points the way it does -- but that doesn't make it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohemian Gal (talkcontribs) 02:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly not trying to be a PITA, but how is it OK that a legitimate (albeit "flaky") church continues to be tied to a hate group here -- despite the fact that there is not now, and never has been a connection between them -- and no one sees that as a problem?

Bohemian Gal (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you try the dispute resolution noticeboard. By the way, I happen to agree that the creation of the disambiguation page was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Since every editor tells me that the redirect is fine the way it is, I'm not sure what good dispute resolution will do.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I find no evidence that the Supreme Court ever ruled on this issue, Bohemian Gal. Can you please furnish a citation to the ruling? I do see that lower levels of federal courts ruled in favor of TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation in this case, and against the Hale hate group. But if the Hale group is notable (which it is) and the TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation group isn't (I see no evidence that it is), then what are we to do? Imagine some poor obscure innocent fellow named Charles Manson who is upset that an article about a murderous cult leader comes up when people search for his name. Nothing can be done about that. Wikipedia covers notable topics, even though that may be uncomfortable to those with the same or similar names. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
But the hate group isn't "Church of the Creator" -- it was formerly called "WORLD Church of the Creator". Why not add THAT as the link, and delete "Church of the Creator"? If there's to be no article on Church of the Creator (and I get it, I really do), then when people type in that phrase, they should get one of those pages that says "This page doesn't exist". Right?

All the court rulings are here:

It looks like the Supreme Court sent the case back to lower court, but the decision was that the hate group is NOT allowed to use "Church of the Creator".

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You really need to be careful about the claims you make, Bohemian Gal. Don't say the Supreme Court ruled, when instead they deferred to the lower court. That is not a ruling. Wikipedia paraphrases and summarizes what reliable, independent sources say. And my Google search shows that most coverage of "Church of the Creator" is in connection with the hate group which used the name for over 20 years before adding "World" to its name in the 1990s. The best source I see is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, so maybe your complaint should be directed to them, not to Wikipedia. In their defense, they mention the Oregon group as well, describing it as "peace loving". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: your Charles Manson example -- his name isn't protected by Registered Trademark, and Church of the Creator's name is.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a legal scholar, but the gist is that the name is copyrighted by Church of the Creator, NOT the hate group.

And again, the best solution would simply be to remove the redirect completely so that "this page doesn't exist" comes up when people search here.

But I see that I'm going to get nowhere with this appeal. Again.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not consider current trademark status when evaluating the notability of a topic, as we look at the entire history. The hate group did not add "World" to its name until about 22 years after it was formed. Please describe things accurately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the best solution is to change the redirect to WORLD church of the creator and then add something within the article about the hate group's name change.

I just maintain that, to be fair and *accurate*, "Church of the Creator" shouldn't lead to the Creativity Movement.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See? Everything I do is wrong. I'm upset, I'm frustrated, feeling utterly defeated and incredibly disappointed that no one cares about this.

I give up -- you guys win.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I care, and this isn't about "winning", Bohemian Gal. It is about improving the encyclopedia within our policies and guidelines. What you need to do at this point is to create a very brief article, scrupulously neutral, and referenced to the best available independent sources. Start in your sandbox. Do not include any "preaching" language whatsoever. Exactly the opposite of your first effort. I will help. Ask on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Cullen, I have left a long message on Bohemian Gal's talk page, hoping that everything will end well. Face-smile.svg Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Nahnah4. Thanks for trying to build bridges. But unfortunately you're giving Bohemian Gal misinformation. Notability is not about whether 1 in 5 people, or 1 in 50, or 1 in 5000, have heard of the subject: it is about whether reliable source have been interested enough to write about it. It is often the case that these go together, but not always: certainly there are bands who have many followers but haven't been noticed by writers; and conversely there are subjects known to very few who have been written about at length. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
ColinFine Oops, sorry, help me correct it. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 11:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been told -- repeatedly -- that Church of the Creator is not notable enough for inclusion, so I'm going to waste my time trying to write an article that's just going to be rejected again.

As I've said, though, the only reason I was trying to write an article was so the redirect could be changed. If someone wants to do the right thing and make that change that would pretty much take care of everything.

I understand what everyone is saying about how the hate group is more important, how they used to use the name, etc., etc., etc., but I think I've offered a suitable "compromise" -- make their redirect WORLD church of the creator, put a blurb on their page that they used to use the church's current name, and make it so if someone types in just "church of the creator" they get a "no page found" response. It doesn't "erase" the hate group, it doesn't clutter up the site with an article about an insignificant little church group, and it still gives readers the information they're seeking.

Thanks to those of you who've tried to be helpful.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What to do with an article whose title includes a blatant typo?[edit]

Neocollyris subtilef1avescens should obviously be Neocollyris subtileflavescens, to anyone who has some knowledge of Latin, especially biological Latin (flavis = yellow). (For the avoidance of doubt - 'l' not '1'.) (1) The latter article does not yet exist. (2) The typo in the existing article name is so unlikely that a rename/redirect seems pointless. What best to do? Narky Blert (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: You move the page to the new title! I've done that now and unchecked the option to leave a redirect since it's hardly a likely search term. Sam Walton (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term BCE[edit]

When and who decided to substitute the abbreviation of Before Christ (BC), with Before Common Era (BCE),which I see from time to time in articles? 2602:304:B21C:1650:F52F:E85:21E6:6979 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The correct place to ask this kind of question is over at the reference desk, this page is for help with editing Wikipedia. That said, our article Anno Domini seems to contain some information on this question which you might find interesting. Sam Walton (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Internet user. Welcome to the teahouse. The short answer is that, and there are other conventions that this applies to such as the differences between American and British English spellings, what is important is that any article uses the term consistently. Also, the other important point is that unless there is a very good reason to choose BC over BCE (or vice versa) editors should not argue or change the convention in any one article. I.e., if it currently uses BC stick with BC if it uses BCE stick with that unless it's a rare case where there is some important scholarly reason to choose one over the other. Here is some relevant documentation: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Both styles are used as you can see in the link that MadScientistX11 provided. There has apparently been several votings about this where you can read the discussions. Most things on the Wikipedia are not "decided" by one person, if a proposal is made, then the community will vote about it. w.carter-Talk 17:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The history of the use of "CE" and "BCE" is described in our article Common Era. Such usage has been common in Jewish academic literature since the mid-19th century. It should be obvious that Jews would not want to use an abbreviation for "Christ" in their literature. The usage has spread to adherents of other religions, to agnostics and atheists, and to those who prefer to refrain from religious references in secular contexts. Either the traditional "BC" and "AD", or the secular "BCE" and "CE" are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. There should be consistent usage (with the exception of direct quotations) within a given article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think there has been some discussion whether current academic use prefers one over the other in general today, but since sources even differ, just be consistent within the article but never change it if using direct quotes.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

How to make a category[edit]

How do I create the category for Soviet paleontologists? Paleontologists are not usually in the main category, but are sub-categorized by nationality. However, unlike biologists and geologists, there is only a category for Russian paleontologists, so people have been putting Soviet paleontologists (Alexey Bystrow, and Georgii Frederiks, Afrikan Nikolaevich Krishtofovich) into the category "Russian paleontologists." I would like to create "Soviet paleontologists" and move the Soviet-era scientists into this category. How do I do this? Thank you. (MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi MicroPaLeo, welcome to the Teahouse. I have created Category:Soviet paleontologists. You create a category by simply creating the category page with any content. You can get inspiration by clicking edit on similar categories to see their source. I adapted the source of Category:Russian paleontologists and Category:American paleontologists. See more at Help:Category#Category pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I understand how to do it, but I appreciate that you went ahead and created the category. Thank you! MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

IT Recruitment - details[edit]

Hi, Hope you doing well, i would like to publish my article in wikipedia, about IT Recruitment , expecting feedback from your side, thanks (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor 223. I highly recommend that you open a Wikipedia account, which offers many benefits and (in my opinion) no negatives. Then, begin by familiarizing yourself with all of our existing articles about information technology as a career, and corporate recruiting. It may well be that this topic is already covered in existing articles. If so, your efforts might be better devoted to improving those existing articles as opposed to writing a new one. That being said, I will recommend two good resources for new editors trying to write new articles. Please study Your first article and A primer for newcomers. Feel free to return to the Teahouse at any time with more specific questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello IP user, reading your question it sounds like you have written an article somewhere else, perhaps in a paper or on a website, and would now like to publish it in the Wikipedia. Is that so? If it is please read Wikipedia:No original research. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I create new Article in Wikipedia[edit]

How can I create new Article in WikipediaAbhayWriter (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AbhayWriter, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest that before you try and create a new article (which is not easy to do) you get familiar with how Wikipedia works by editing existing articles. (If you are not familiar with editing it at all, The Wikipedia Adventure is a way to learn about it). When you do decide to try your hand at making a new article, please read Your first article carefully: this will take you through the process, including the absolutely most important step of making sure that there are enough reliable independent published sources about the subject of the article (if you cannot find these, do not waste your time trying to create an article, as it won't be accepted). Then use the article wizard to get started,. --ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
If you know what title your article should have, type it exactly as you want it to appear (with correct capitalization, though if there is more than one word the first word will always be capitalized regardless), and if there is no article by that name, with the message that there is no such article, you will get a red link. Click on that. Then click on "Special:Mypage/What you want to call your article". For me that appears on the fifth line at the top of the page. You will get the formatting you need.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Article creation[edit]

Can I write an article about someone who is a celebrities parents, wife, husband, child or sibling, or any other relative? I assure that it will have a lot of source of information and referances. The only thing I am asking that will it be variable. Ikhtiar H (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A person must be independently notable in order to be the subject of a Wikipedia biography. A common phrase among experienced editors is that notability is not inherited. If coverage in reliable sources about a person describes them pretty much only as the parent, sibling or child of a more famous person, then there is no need for a separate article. But many such relatives may be independently notable. Robert Todd Lincoln, for example, is nowhere near as famous as his father, but is independently notable as a prominent government official for many years after his father's death. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
If the person you are referring to isn't notable then you shouldn't write an article about him/her. There's a case where a user created an article for Mark Zuckerberg's wife Priscilla Chan (Zuckerberg), it's now being considered for deletion. Perhaps it will be deleted by the end of the week. Like Cullen328 said notability is not inherited.--Chamith (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Need work[edit]

I am not finding any work to do here on wikipedia. Can I get some suggestions about how to enjoy? Ikhtiar H (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Ikhtiar H: a few questions have gone unanswered here so I'll try this one. It's nice to find someone with too little to do in Wikipedia, as I always have too much. Wikipedia has grown greatly in the past few years and has filled many of the gaps. However, the page Wikipedia:Backlog shows that much remains to be done. One of the small things I do is WP:SPLIT or WP:MERGE for articles that are too big or too small, or too many covering the same topic. You can look at articles on those backlog lists and decide whether to carry out the suggested actions, or cancel them. Either way, you should mention it first in the talk page of the articles. If you are interested in a particular subject area, there are over a thousand Wikipedia:WikiProjects and one of them might have good things for you to do. I participate on the WikiProjects for my home town and for astronomy, bicycling and telecommunications. Always there is much to do. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Greetings @Ikhtiar H: Well Jim.henderson already gave you a ton of great ideas but here are a couple more. Look here: Wikipedia:Community_portal and scroll down to where it says "help out". You will see several categories of kinds of improvements that need to be made and specific articles that need them. So for example the first one is "Fix spelling and grammar". Also, for people who haven't done a lot of editing there is a link next to each category that says "Learn how" and will give you suggestions as to how to make those kinds of edits. Also, one of my favorite little known gems on Wikipedia is User:SuggestBot SuggestBot is an automated program that can give you suggestions tailored to your specific editing history. The more you edit the more SuggestBot has to work with and can tailor suggestions specifically for you. That article has info about how to request that SuggestBot send you ideas. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did I get so much hostility today?[edit]

I tried to help with an article about the real life event of the chocolate shop hostage situation (on Wikipedia as 2014 Sydney hostage crisis), and in reading about it there were a lot of people talking about it being terrorism, when it was described quite definitively in news and analysis as not being anywhere near being terrorism. I then saw that someone had created a page on the hashtag that was used to stop backlash against the Muslim community, called "illridewithyou" and the page was nominated to be deleted. When looking at that, I discovered that the guy who had created the article had been blocked for 48 hours, based on the accusation that he had violated the Biographies of Living Persons policy. And yet he very clearly hadn't done it, certainly not with the edit that he made on illridewithyou. He was one word different to quoting word for word what was said in the article! And we are supposed to summarise! I put the edit back in, as it was so obviously a mistake, and I had 3 different administrators threaten to ban me over it. So I put it up on the Biographies of Living Person's Noticeboard and had goodness knows how many threats and quite horrific behaviour directed at me. I asked them to stop but every request to get them to calm down just seems to make it worse and get more people involved.

I just find this confusing, as when I was editing The Strain and people disagreed, I didn't get threats like this, and when I asked people to calm down, they did. So what is the difference? Why are people so hostile with this article and this topic? I don't see any difference to how I approached it, so it couldn't be anything I did wrong, so the question is why are they behaving like that? And how can I get them to stop it?

Or do I just restrict myself to editing TV shows?

That's all fine and good and all, but that article on the hostage situation is really inaccurate, as it seems to be quoting all of the worst media reports on it and ignoring the good quality ones.

Any help is appreciated. KrampusC (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings KrampusC welcome to the teahouse. I notice no one has responded. I think because it's not that clear what specific question you are asking. It sounds like you are saying that you think some other editors are wrong and (forgive my language) it's kind of pissing you off. This doesn't help but for what it's worth I can definitely relate. I can't tell you how angry I get at times when I see someone has reverted my hard work. Once I could literally feel my blood pressure rising -- and this was over an article about Frames in Artificial Intelligence! At times like that I ponder what I call my Cartman solution and usually just say (to myself): Screw you guys, I'm going home! Seriously, there have been more than one occasions where I was sure I was right about something but I just felt like I was getting dumber having to argue with the other person and just gave up. There are always other articles to edit. Or as one of my favorite unofficial Wikipedia articles says: sometimes the best response is to just not give a fuck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

what happened to my submission?[edit]

I submitted an article on the literary critic and historian Victor Brombert. I assume it was reviewed by a committee before being uploaded into Wikipedia, but I have not heard back. How can I find out what happened to it? (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't log in before posting and there is currently no page about Victor Brombert so this was a little tricky but I discovered that a page at Draft:Victor Brombert has been deleted as a copyright infringement of The page was created by User:Lgossman who was notified at User talk:Lgossman#Draft:Victor Brombert. If you are Lgossman and have logged in during the last two days then you should have received a notification about the message. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi person editing from May I assume you are the same person who has the account under the name Lgossman and that the page in question is Draft:Victor Brombert? If so by clicking on that red link you will see that the draft was deleted yesterday for unambiguously infringing on the copyright of the owner of the content at the URL shown in the deletion summary. Having just checked the deleted content, it was indeed in large part identical to the external content, and the external site does not show that the material bears a free copyright license that would allow you to copy and paste it (even if it did, you could not use it except with attribution to that source, as doing so would be plagiarism). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
On the question of the notability of Victor Brombert, I believe that he is notable as an eminent academic and the holder of named chairs at both Princeton and Yale, and an academic author whose prolific work goes back over 60 years. Any editor with some spare time can produce a useful addition to this encyclopedia by writing a well-referenced article about Brombert built by summarizing, paraphrasing and referencing reliable sources, not copying and pasting them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to those who responded to my inquiry. The entry clearly needs to be reworded or permission has to be obtained from the copyright holder, which should not be difficult, since the information is available to the general public online. The source was in fact cited in the entry. (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

how to create a red link - Is there a standard way?[edit]

I was looking at List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll and noticed the entry for Pomona, a shipwreck: 400 died on 30 April 1859. But clicking on Pomona gives the goddess not the shipwreck.

Google gives a newspaper account of the wreck.

and the story here:

Since there is no article, (or is there?) it should be a red link. How do you achieve that? I suppose change it to Pomona (coffin ship) ? I’m not sure.

Is there a standard way to create red link? - thanks - ClemMacGána (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. :) Technically, to create a red link, you just need to link to an article that does not exist. For example: This is a link to an article that does not exist. However, to create an article, follow the instructions at this page. Regards, --Biblioworm 02:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I just wondered if there was a standard convention, for now I'll change it to Pomona (coffin ship) - regards ClemMacGána (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@ClemMacGána: Red links with a disambiguation in the name should be piped, for example [[Pomona (coffin ship)|Pomona]] to produce Pomona. However, the launch year and not the ship type is usually used per WP:SHIPDAB. It it was launched in 1859 then it would be [[Pomona (1859)|Pomona]]. "Pomona (ship)" alone would be insufficient due to HMS Pomona. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, changed it to [[Pomona (1856)|Pomona]] An article would be preferable. I might put up a stub. Thanks, again ClemMacGána (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
When you put up a stub, you might add it to the Pomona_(disambiguation) page

Hopscotch23 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Real Projective Line Page[edit]

Hello. I was a little confused about why ∞+∞ is not defined but ∞*∞ = ∞. This doesn’t make sense. I believe both should be left undefined (for now) and i think 0*∞ , ∞/∞ , and 0/0 should be defined as C where C is a constant. Idk if this constant could be infinity but I certainly think these should be defined. if a/0 = ∞*b then that implies a/b = ∞*0. A similar proof could be done with the others. Am i allowed to change the page or add a note because this is more of an idea but idk if this is 100% correct (maybe a note to the right of the equation?)

From, Michael Orwin (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Michael, I hate to pass you off to another locale, but you might get better responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is where all the math experts hang out around here. Maybe someone there can help... --Jayron32 04:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
ok. Hopefully someone responds tomorrow or Saturday morning. Don't know how quick wikipedia is. Never used wikipedia beforeJetstream5500 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Michael, every article in Wikipedia has an associated Talk page (pick the 'Talk' tab at the top) and that's the best place to start a discussion about the article. If nobody responds there, then this is one of the places to try, but the talk page is your first port of call. The answer to your question is emphaticaly, Yes, you are allowed to change the page: the worst that can happen (as long as you are not being obviously disruptive) is that omebody disagrees and reverts your change: then you can have a discussion with them on the talk page to try and reach consensus. But here, it doesn't sound like correcting an obvious error, but a difference in approach, so I would recommend the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That was a very informative answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Small graphics or icons[edit]

I'm looking for a bunch of small graphics or icons, such as this one
Outline of the Blue Angle F-18.jpg
They don't have to be just military aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketmaniac2 (talkcontribs)
{{click}} converted to a straight image: as it was, it linked to Main Page, which wasn't helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you look through Wikimedia commons, which has thousands of free images. --ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Millions actually (see commons:Special:MediaStatistics), but I don't know how many would be considered small graphics or icons. The example is in commons:Category:Aircraft profile drawings. The original file is 1,300 × 600 pixels but images can be scaled to other sizes. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)