Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Can I cite a Wiki Commons Photo?

I have a photo of the subject I am working on for my wiki page (the mobile trauma bay). The photo has associated text that I would like to bring into my article, but I am not sure this is possible.

Here is the photo:

The Mobile Trauma Bay

.

The caption in Commons I would like to cite is: "From the time it was proposed to the time it was completed, 914 concept drawings in four months resulted in what was unveiled today." There is a link to the source but that does not work. It does give the author.

If anyone out there can help, I'd greatly appreciate it. GMarin 04:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Way to solve issue related to speedy deletion and edit war

Hi, recently I created a new article, an English version of the article in Japanese. Then speed deletion was tagged by another user. I contested that deletion, but I got no reaction from that. So I created the article again. Next the article was edited to be redirected to another article. The redirected article is related to the original article, but just a part of it. So I edited again, then I got a message to warn that I am engaged in edit war. I put comments to validate the purpose of the article, but I have not received any response so far. I need advice how to exit from this circumstance where I am totally stuck. JUPITER8 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,JUPITER8! I presume that you are talking about the article called Celsys. Asking at this forum is a good start. From what I understand, Celsys is a software company that has made a product called Mango Studio, which has an article. I read the article that you wrote about Celsys, but it didn't include any references to independent sources such as news reports, computer magazine articles, books, etc., to show that this is a notable company. If Mango Studio is its only well known product, then the redirect to the Mango Studio page is correct, and you can add material about Celsys there. If you do find a number of news articles (not press releases) or other published material about Celsys which has not been created by the company, then you can show them on the article's talk page, and see if the editors who previously thought that the article would not do will then change their minds. It's the presence of good, reliable, independent sources to verify your information that will make the difference. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello JUPITER8, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, stop edit warring. You must stop, or you will be blocked. Stop, and discuss things.

You created an unreferenced article about a Japanese software company. Wikipedia articles should be referenced to reliable, independent sources. Experienced editors have redirected the article to an existing article about well-known software issued by the company. Drmies, a highly experienced editor and administrator, explained that to you back on September 6. Instead of adding references, you have edit warred to create the article all over again. Your comparison to Microsoft and Windows in previous discussions is invalid, as both of those topics have received significant coverage in thousands of reliable sources, and the topics are indisputably notable. Where are the reliable sources for your article?

So, the way to exit is to stop edit warring. If you have reliable sources that show the notability of the topic, bring them forth on the talk page for the redirect. Do not fight with highly experienced editors who know what they are doing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Cullen. I have little to add, just one thing. The article now has a reference supposedly verifying the METI award (supposedly, because my Japanese is very rusty). Note that I just created a redirect for that award. That in itself might be enough to hold off speedy deletion since it is some kind of claim of importance; if that had been added earlier, this back-and-forthing might not have happened. But I see that JUPITER has restored the redirect, which kind of puts a stop on this discussion. I don't know what the best solution is; if there's nothing else on the subject that's reliable and important, a section in the main article, Manga Studio, is probably the way to go. Thank you, and enjoy Hawai, Drmies (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these advices. I follow you and put several sources related the article in the talk page of Celsys. I will wait for the feedback to see how it will work. JUPITER8 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How to avoid copyrighting problems

Hi i wanted to make sure i didnt plagiarize. What are the rules on using others' information on wikipedia. Can i paraphrase it as long as I cite the link? Can anyone get sued from paraphrasing with citation01:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingforspecies (talk • contribs)

Hello Fishingforspecies, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can quote a sentence or two (or maybe three sentences) from a source, but you must put quotation marks around the quote, or set it off in another fashion that makes it clear that it is a quote, and reference the quote properly.

As for paraphrasing, we do not want a close paraphrase of a source. You can't take a source and replace words with synonyms, and maybe trim a few clauses and rearrange a sentence or two, and expect that to be acceptable. You should be condensing and summarizing the source in your own words. I read a source and think about it for a while. I read it again, and write a list of very brief key words as a memory device. Then, after another break, I write a summary in my own words. Of course, I reference the source. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How can I just add a new section here, without the form?

I want to ask a question here on the teahouse, but I want to be able to use the preview feature as I assemble my thoughts, but the form doesn't allow me to do that. I don't want to edit the whole darn page — there should be an "add section" option or something, but I can't see it. The form on this page seems to be broken too, as the left-hand edge goes over the navigation bar on the left of the screen, obscuring part of my text as I type it. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 00:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm....If it's a long complicated question, you could try working on it in your sandbox, with the preview, and then pasting it here when you are done. I don't seem to have the problem with the cut-off text in the form. Have you tried zooming out a little with your browser? The problem with the "add section" is that it adds the section at the bottom of the page instead of the top. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey AugurNZ. You could click "edit source" at the top and then manually create a new section (using doubled equal signs on either side of the header). If you click that edit source link you will see that there are instructions in edit mode for where a manually created new thread starts (near but not quite at the top of the page). You could also start you post just about anywhere else on Wikipedia, previewing, and once satisfied, transfer it to the form. But I agree, it's not ideal. Also, the ask a question button obscures part of a thread's header unless it's short, until the thread moves down the page. These are some of the tradeoffs of the arrangement here that is the opposite of the rest of Wikipedia, where new posts go at the bottom of the page, which is where the new section link automatically places a post. I personally am against it for a number of reasons, most importantly because in my opinion it teaches people in a way of doing something that is confounded everywhere else, so it can actively mis-instruct, but we've had the discussion on the talk page a few times and no consensus has been reached to change it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, both of you. I agree that putting the most recent post at the top is counter-intuitive and teaches new editors bad habits which, for a page designed to assist new editors, is probably not ideal. Going off to another page to create my question then pasting it here when complete is a solution, sure, but as you say, not a very good one either. As for editing the whole page just to get a new section, that is fraught with problems too, such as the higher risk of causing an {{edit conflict}}.

Now that this new section has been created, I might as well ask my question here too. I am in the process of creating my first new article on Wikipedia, using the WikiProject Disability Sandbox, as the article is going to be disability-related. My article has stalled at the very first citation, as the citation, verifiability and notability rules here are so complex. My first citation was to be from this page which cites the current NZ Minister of Disability Issues, Tariana Turia. The problem is I have no idea how to format the citation, being that I want to quote the Minister, "as cited in..." but the author's name is a company name (Core Communications Ltd), and it is all a bit confusing. I understand that this is a "press release" so it may not meet Wikipedia's stringent rules as a reliable source anyway, even though the press release has been picked up by CCS Disability Action (a frontline support and services organisation with 16 branches throughout New Zealand), Scoop (New Zealand's leading news resource for news-makers and the people that influence the news, as opposed to a news site for "news consumers"), and HealthPages (a leading online reference resource used by those within the wider health industry in NZ and the general public). To me, this all lends credence to the citation, but I have no experience with Wikipedia's policies on such things.

This is only the first citation that I plan to add to my new article. I understand that for notability I need to provide many more verifiable sources. Any help and advice would be appreciated. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 03:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding the press release to your article is okay, but if your topic is the festival it is promoting it doesn't help in establishing notability. The festival will have to have been written about by independent journalists and other authors, reporting and/or reviewing the event. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Anne. Can you explain why the press release is considered deficient? It is not a press release from the festival organizers themselves. The source cites a Minister of the Crown (Hon Tariana Turia), and a representative of the venue (Martin Sutcliffe), along with the festival organiser (Paula Crimmens). It seems to be balanced and neutral. What is so bad about this source that "it doesn't help in establishing notability" of itself? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 04:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How can I italicize a link

On the "Gulf Toadfish" page I would like to make the genus italicized but I can not get the links and the italics. Also random brackets appear and when I delete them the taxobox disappears. Fishingforspecies (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Put two apostrophes and then the link, and close it with two apostrophes. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Fishingforspecies, welcome to the Teahouse! As Konveyor Belt says, the double quotes go outside the link brackets. Also, the stray curly braces you were seeing were actually due to your removal of the orphan tag; there was another set of braces from that that were hanging around. I think I've fixed the prob;ems now, so let me know if you have any more issues. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Proper fiction tag?

What is the proper tag to use if an entry reads like fiction? I've seen it somewhere but forgot it. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you be looking for {{story}} by any chance? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 21:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What's in violation?

Hi, I recently got a message saying "Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and have to be changed." How do I see what specifically was in violation? Thanks, OrbitDive (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You could ask the editor who placed the notice; I agree that such a vague notice isn't very useful. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Matter is now addressed on the user's talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiTable

I gave another format to the Filmography WikiTable here, but I couldn't find a way to not repeat the word himself everytime it appears. Can anybody help me? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also spelt incorrectly ;) Theroadislong (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup I hadn't noticed that until Luke fixed it, it happens when you copy/paste things xP... sorry Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What I meant to say is this:

• Jane Doe made two films at the same year, so you have to add this |align="center" rowspan="2"|1999 to place both films into the same year, without repeating the number.

The question is, what should I do to do the same with the role played by Jane Doe? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OK as it is. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is ok to repeat himself so many times? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's descriptive and accurate. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem with my article?

There are dozens of articles like this scattered throughout wikipedia worldwide! see: Theia (planet) # Theia Vulcan (hypothetical planet) http://wikipedia.qwika.com/it2en/X-Proserpina_ (astrology) it:X-Proserpina pt:Tyche (planet) de:Tyche (Planet) de::Transpluto

I can not go beyond what I wrote in the article. Put more information would make him a personal essay. And my interest is only presented facts. Quantity is not quality. There are small items that say it all and are perfect, and large items that are a drug. This article has reached its limit information. Furthermore they are all grounded. Are certain facts of astrology.

AdAstra2013 (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of your links above were broken, so I've tried to repair them & to replace external internet URLs by internal wikilinks (though one is still broken because I don't know where you're trying to go with it). - David Biddulph (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AdAstra. I can tell that you are frustrated, The problem with the article, in my view, is that not one single piece of information in it is referenced; and without solid references, it is impossible to determine whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You have a list of "references" at the end, but they are useless because they are not bibliographic (they do not help the reader find or evaluate the source) they do not give specific page or even chapter references, and they do not say what in the article they are supporting.

In order to save the article, you need to show that several reliable published sources have written in depth about the subject, by summarising what they have said, with references. In this case, because the subject is in a fringe field, references to a primary source - Morpurgo - would not be enough to establish notability: you would have to show that others have written about Morpurgo or about Aeolus.

Finally, there is unfortunately much in Wikipedia which does not meet the criteria of best practice; for this reason, arguments like "But xxx article is like this" are not regarded as useful. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Would like additional feedback/approval of new article...

Would like additional feedback/approval of new article...here's my link to it in the sandbox (have addressed the feedback issues received so far). Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deirdremcglynn/sandbox&oldid=573646269

Deirdremcglynn 14:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deirdremcglynn (talk • contribs)

Firstly as you work for the company involved you should read this Wikipedia's Plain and simple conflict of interest guide secondly you have used many in-line external links which are not required and need to be converted to references. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

... and there are some useful links in the feedback you have twice received on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Center for Deployment Psychology, which you seem to have been working on in parallel with the sandbox version. You have twice resubmitted that without addressing the original problem. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Change Username

Hi everyone, I just wanted to know what's the process to change my username and if my contributions will be still under my new username or under the former? Thanks... Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! To change your username, it depends on if the name is already taken or if it isn't. If it isn't, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and fill out the form. If you're taking the name of an old editor, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. As long as the new name isn't appropriate, you should be allowed to change it, and all your contributions from your old account name will stay. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono, can I add that WP:RENAME might be of some use, though I hope you decide to keep your username :) Flat Out let's discuss it 13:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sort of dumb question about name display/project participation

Hello, everyone. I recently joined the percussion project under the music portal, and I added my name to the list of editors. However, my name was listed in red, and actually everywhere I see it, it is red. How do i change this? And when I join a project do I only work on pieces where editors are needed? Thank you very much. Qzply Qzply (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason that your name shows in red is that you haven't yet created a user page at User:Qzply. You can do so now, see the user page link. Regardless of membership of any projects, you are allowed to edit any page (except those few that have been fully protected for particular reasons). Hopefully you've read some of the links on your user talk page, to give you some of the basics. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Not only are you allowed to edit any page, you are positively encouraged to do so! :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How to spot a troll

Recently due to my lack of ability of identifying trolls I got into trouble, therefore to avoid such troubles I want deeper knowledge about trolls. How can I identify them and consequently don't feed them? What's the difference between trolling and vandalism? Sohambanerjee1998 08:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sohambanerjee1998, see meta:What is a troll? and Wikipedia:Vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, thanks I am a CVUA student therefore already read Wikipedia:Vandalism, meta:What is a troll and have a fair idea of what a troll is but how to identify one is the main query of mine. Thanks for the reply though. Sohambanerjee1998 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone looks like a troll, behaves like a troll, and tastes like a troll, he or she is most likely a troll. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this thing of the It's a duck apply here? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I usually try to tell the difference by seeing what the person's goal was. If they were trying to make people mad, or if they seem to think that they're clever, they're a troll. At least, that's my view of it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Now I am in a pretty sticky situation. I can't describe the scenario I was in (which was darn confusing) because of some restrictions. I cannot reveal anymore than this as it might lead to block. Thanks anyway guys. Looks like the best thing to do when your confused about a troll, leave him alone or ignore him. Best, Sohambanerjee1998 17:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The best advice is, whether someone is a) a troll whose sole purpose is to mess with you and ruin your day or b) a person who isn't trolling, but though well intentioned, is just impossible to work with because of some personality issue; it doesn't really matter. It's best to just disengage and move on to something else. --Jayron32 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes goddamn that troll ruined my day in the worst possible manner. Plus I am just cramping under the load of both Wiki-work (1 DYK, 2 Articles and one article in the sandbox, CVUA) and Real life. So I have lot of matters to concentrate on instead of that @#$&^!. Sohambanerjee1998 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sohambanerjee1998, focus on the content and not in attempting to identify a label. A troll is someone who's sole purpose is disruption for no other purpose than creating havoc. While the use of the term may seem appropriate, it could also be seen as name calling. Best not to use terms such as that unless you feel you have enough evidence for an AN/I complaint seeking intervention. For that, you need not have specific reason to assume their reason for being here as long as you can demonstrate they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest seeking further advice from a administrator.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I want the title of this article to be changed

Sexual violence in South Africa, i want it to be changed into "Rape in South Africa", as now we are having many article with the same subject, such as "Rape in Egypt", "Rape in Saudi Arabia", "Rape in India" and others.

But how i can get it changed? OccultZone (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

On the tabs at the top, click the arrow, then select move. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks a lot. OccultZone (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My declined page

My wiki-page/article (a bio straight from website[w/permission])was declined. The reason given was "non-notable musical performer or work." Disregarding any heavy debate on elitism or what should be considered notable, what can I do about this? It would be nice to have the info on Wikipedia. Pyrodefect (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC) pyrodefect Pyrodefect (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have marked it for speedy deletion as it is a copyright violation, copied and pasted from here http://www.illrecur.com/bio.html Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pyrodefect and welcome to the Teahouse. If text of an article replicates another webpage, this is considered a copyright infringement.

• We can rarely be sure that someone truly has permission of an organization/individual to release their text under our very permissive copyright license. By necessity, Wikipedia is very cautious when it comes to legal & copyright issues.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even if Wikipedia could legally publish it, text originally written for an individual's website is written for a different (promotional) purpose, and would rarely be appropriate in tone and style for an encyclopedia.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fact is, the text submitted does belong to me. I am the person who wrote it. It was written for myself, my website (illrecur.com), friends, fans, and my music project. I'd say that qualifies for permission. As such, I believe that with me(the author) having submitted the information allots permission to use/display said information. All material I've written in my bio should pretty much be appropriate(ie tone, style) and relevant to any persons searching the web or Wikipedia to learn/gather information concerning myself and/or my projects. So, what do I do?

Pyrodefect (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)pyrodefectPyrodefect (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The page is question is a promo ad that is a bio and sells merchandise, pretty much, self promotion and honestly, after 25+ years in WV and near Morgantown, I have no idea who the hell you are musically. To the best of my knowledge, you cant have a wiki article promoting yourself and selling merchandise unless you can tell ANYONE why you are notable in the musical community, per wiki standards of being notable, its really a non issue, honestCoal town guy (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Pyrodefect. I edit conflicted with the user above and would just note that I think that post is quite inappropriate and hostile and hope you will ignore it. Anyway, what follows is what I wrote before that edit conflict.

There's a misunderstanding here but it's easily made because it's not intuitive. You certainly have the right, as a copyright owner, to provide permission for others to use your copyrighted material, but this does not mean the material's retention of copyright is compatible with the place you wish to give permission for its use. Material at Wikipedia must bear a free copyright license that allows our end users to reuse it (even for commercial purposes). This means that what we need is not permission for our use, but release of the copyright under our licenses (or ones more permissive). The content you posted remains fully-copyrighted, with your copyright notice displayed at the bottom of the page (though without any notice we assume content is fully-copyright unless proven otherwise). The only way we could use the content here is if you release it, and that release is done in a manner that provides good evidence of your actual ownership (while I do believe you, we can't just take anyone's anonymous word for it). For that reason, we would require, for example, that you post on the external website a notice releasing the content (you would replace "© 2013 illrecur, [name redacted]", with a "copyleft" notice, such as:

The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Another way to release the copyright is to send an email from an address associated with the domain name of the website, following the form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Both of these methods provide evidence that you actually have permission for the release we need. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information.

Doing this, though, would only take care of the copyright issue. The other issue is notability, as you referred to in your post. Please understand that notability, as we use that word here, is not the dictionary definition, and it's not about elitism either, but about keeping this an encyclopedia and not some other type of thing. Encyclopedia articles are by definition tertiary sources, reporting knowledge about subjects that the world has already taken note of by publishing substantive material about the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, e.g., newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, etc. (not press releases, Facebook, a person's website, blogs and so on). Wikipedia never announces new things, not already reported by the world. Thus, in order to show notability, you must cite to those reliable sources discussing you in detail to show both that the topic is worthy of inclusion and that the sources exist to verify the information in the article. The simple fact is that most people on the Earth are worthy and unique but not the proper subject of an encyclopedia article; you may be but would need to meet our requirements to show that. Finally, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, relevant here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks you were the most helpful. I appreciate you taking time to give a good answer. I have a much better understanding of why the article was rejected now.

Pyrodefect (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)pyrodefectPyrodefect (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How to add one category as a subcategory of another?

Hi there Teahousers. How do I make one category a subcategory of another one? I can't seem to find any good how-to docs for this. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan! You just paste a parent category into the new red category. I did this recently there. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I found the detail at Wikipedia:Category#Creating_category_pages. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, of course. You categorize the category page itself. Makes perfect sense. Thanks, Biosthmors! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External Links question

I find the WP:EL policy a bit unclear and really really long. Are links such as this acceptable or should those be removed? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir. I reverted the links because external links are not allowed to be embedded in the text. If they were formatted as references the case would be less clear but I would look on them as linkspam. Independent sources are much to be preferred.--Charles (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted a second opinion. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External links should be in their own section at the very end of the article. Links to commercial websites should be limited to articles about that notable commercial entity. For example, we don't add an external link to a Ford website to the Automobile article, but that is perfectly appropriate for the Ford Motor Company article. External links in more general articles should be limited to those "that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary query

Hello, Is it possible to edit an edit summary once it has been published, i.e. without having to revert the whole edit? Any help appreciated. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Maybe you can click the edit link and post an edit summary :) Hope this helps. Happy editing! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't, but you can make a WP:Dummy edit, see that page for details.--ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a dummy edit in this context is to correct, explain or elaborate on an earlier edit summary, or the lack thereof. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting assistance from Wikipedia editors to update an article

Hi there, I have recently joined Wikipedia in my capacity as an employee of my organisation. I have read the guidelines around conflict of interest closely and have declared my aim on my User page to work with the Wikipedia community by suggesting changes on the Talk pages of articles about my organisation.

I have recently proposed an update to an article about my organisation on that article's Talk page: see 'Alpha logo updated as of September 2013' on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_course. An editor did initially engage with me about my suggested change but he or she has since gone silent. In an effort to find editors willing to assist me I posted about my suggested change on the Noticeboard of a WikiProject the article is apparently part of: see 'Requesting editor assistance on the Alpha course article' on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard. Unfortunately no one has responded to me there. Finally I tried asking for assistance on the Wikipedia IRC channel where I was told I was doing the right things and I just needed to be patient.

I would appreciate some advice on how to get editors to review my suggested changes and, hopefully, update the article. I believe my suggested change improves the quality of the article and I have linked to sources that I think verify my claim. Thanks. DaveAtAlpha (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dave for your polite request. I have responded at Talk:Alpha_course#Alpha_logo_updated_as_of_September_2013. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks for your help on this LukeSurl DaveAtAlpha (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia:Lua instead of Javascript?

Hi, as part of my poking around, I came across a WP project that allows embedded code in WikiMedia pages (see Wikipedia:Lua and Lua (programming language)). I'm wondering what the purpose of the language is, and why Javascript wasn't used, instead, especially since Javascript is far more established and rich in the web world? I'm also interesting in learning more, if anyone can point me to more details. Thanks --FGuerino (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, that's an interesting question, and there are some technically minded people who patrol this page who might be able to answer it, but you might receive an answer faster by asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Ryan Vesey 13:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello FGuerino and welcome back to the teahouse! The main difference is that JavaScript is considered a security risk and Lua is not. Lua can be run from any page and is limited in scope to allow it to manipulate the page, but not manipulate the host in any way. JavaScript on the other hand has the potential to be used maliciously to gather information about the host and host's machine that can be sent anywhere. I hope this helps answer your question, although it is not as thorough as I would like it to be, I have to run off to class. Please, feel free to ask for clarification if there is something specific I can help with. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 10:05 am, Today (UTC−4)

FGuearino, I can give you a run-down on why Lua was chosen instead of Javascript. The development team was looking for a way to add more flexibility to the template system in a way that ordinary editors could contribute to. In particular, the citation template was very complicated and was being run multiple times every time a WP article was downloaded, which adds up to an awful lot. Because the template syntax is limited, editors were having to jump through a lot of hoops to add complex features. That rapidly increases the complexity of the code. The important thing to keep in mind here is that the template code runs on the server, not in the web browser. Javascript is king in web development because it is standardized and included on nearly all web browsers. JS can also be used for server-side development, but in this case there were some specific requirements that made it unsuitable. Most importantly, the developers wanted to allow ordinary users to make changes to the server-side code so they could make better templates. Without setting restrictions on CPU time and memory usage, a user could write a malicious script that would reduce the performance of the Wikimedia servers or crash them completely. That would be very bad. Lua included the capability to set those restrictions out of the box. Restrictions could have been added to Javascript, but it was a much more complex project to add them to the interpreter and doing so would have eliminated many of the performance benefits. The developers were also impressed by some of the Lua integrations they saw, particularly World of Warcraft and Celestia. If you'd like to try it out, start with the tutorial. There is also a Lua project page with more documentation including a reference manual. DPRoberts534 (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan and DPRoberts534, thanks for your responses. This is exactly what I was trying to understand and I appreciate your taking the time to detail it. I'll definitely spend time reading up on Lua and its use with WP. It will be interesting to see how it evolves. Thx. --FGuerino (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding a picture

If I want to upload any picture at all to Wikipedia, do I have to upload it first? If so, how do I upload one? Tambelon (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you would need to upload it, having satisfied yourself about its copyright status. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and Wikipedia:Uploading images. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you for your help. Tambelon (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Posting an article

Hi - How do I link and post a profile created a short while ago? How does this become active? I have created a well linked profile at - User:David O Miller thanks, david dm (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:David O Miller should be your user page, with information about yourself. It looks as if it is trying to be an article about someone else, so I would suggest that you move it to a user subpage at (for example) User:David O Miller/Jeffrey Owen Miller. You need to read WP:Your first article, and also need to understand that we don't use in-line WP:external links in the article text. What you need instead are references, so try reading WP:Referencing for beginners. I've given you a few other useful links on your user talk page. May also be worth reading Wikipedia:Biography. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi David- thank you for your time, advice and suggestions here...will follow this and refine article, sub page reallocation, look at links etc cheers,david101.162.133.165 (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why admins keep missing the source ?

Hello, I recently created an article for creation and submitted for review, there is a complete media/newspaper article set for authentication on each word written. and the same is mentioned in references. the Media set is uploaded on a website and link is given but the Admin missed that part and asked that there's no media/newspaper article to support the same and declined the article. and asked to add more info. But the info required is already there which he missed to see and now the status says "on wikibreak till 1st Oct"

So, now i added the newspaper articles on my article itself but they're not even 20% of total thats present on mentioned link.

So how to make the admin have a look at the sources ?? All info on the article is supported by evidence from newspaper articles. Link to article :

Coolvipcandy (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Other users will doubtless reply in due course, but I am worried that you seem to have uploaded copies of newspaper articles to Wikipedia. This looks at first glance to be a blatant copyright violation, and if so you must remove those files immediately. If you wish to use newspaper articles as references, you can cite them giving the relevant details in the cite news template, but you must not copy them to Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I have marked the files for deletion in seven days unless evidence of permission from the actual copyright holders is received. I find it pushing credibility that the press articles and screenshots of news items have actually been released into the public domain by the various news agencies and newspapers involved. There are also a couple of photographs where the uploader - who is also almost certainly the subject of the images - claims to be the author of the images, which seems highly dubious. BlackberrySorbet 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You should also take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines about autobiographies (We have biographies here, not autobiographies. Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact) and Wikipedia's Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. BlackberrySorbet 08:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@David Biddulph : Thank you for info. Images from newspaper articles removed and instead citation added. Coolvipcandy (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletionism?

I would like to understand more about what I can only assume is the deletionist philosophy which I have encountered in my short time on Wikipedia thus far. I first encountered this through an aberrant bot edit that was made on my own talk page, which I challenged and thereby learned about the culture surrounding hard redirects. Fair enough. However, I then followed the bot operator's talk page and came across this issue and the whole AfD process.

I'm curious about why there is such a push to delete content from Wikipedia? Is it getting too full? Is server space limited? Could someone explain the example I gave, in an effort to help me understand it all a bit better? It seems to me that, as a result of this particular AfD, there is now an unlinked entry on this page for "Onverse", the only unlinked entry I can see. Also, this bullet list now contains an unlinked entry. Why was all this necessary? This deletionist philosophy seems to me like a backward step for the encyclopedia as a whole. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, AugurNZ, welcome to Wikipedia! A lot of people have that reaction to what they term deletionism. But then, so-called deletionists would have a similar reaction to the opposite view; they would opine that having a bunch of barely-sourced articles on subjects nobody has ever heard of and about which nobody will ever care cheapens the encyclopedia by distracting from its true purpose as a reference work for "important" subjects. They say that having tiny, unwatched articles just provides more targets for people to sneak in vandalism, libel, pure spam, and the like, and creates an even greater burden on the volunteers, who must patrol that many more articles. They would prefer that the encyclopedia focus on what could be called quality over quantity.

Both sides have valid points, and neither side is entirely right or wrong. For that matter, no one person has to belong to only one camp, and nobody has to follow one side to its logical extreme. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, Writ Keeper, and thanks for the welcome. In the table I linked to above, there are many examples showing redlinks to pages about, what could arguably be called peers or competitors of this "Onverse" game. Would it not have been appropriate to at least have left the link to the deleted Onverse page, giving the game equal standing with others in the list? Please understand, I have nothing at all to do with this game, I've never played it before, and only heard about it because I was following Salvidrim's talk page. The history of the page in question shows that Czar removed the link, citing the AfD in the edit summary. Why was that necessary? Now one of the entries listed in the table on that page seems, somehow, less than the others because it doesn't have a link, not even a redlink. How is that fair and neutral? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 02:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello AugurNZ and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with pretty much all of what Writ Keeper said, and would like to offer some additional thoughts based on my own participation in 1645 Articles for Deletion debates in the last four years. I recommend that you (and any other new editor) read the Five Pillars, which describes the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia content ought to be verifiable, and should consist of summaries of what the range of reliable sources say about a topic. You could spend hours reading all the links on that page, and it would be time well spent for any serious, long-term editor.

In order to best meet the goals described in the Five Pillars, we need deletion procedures, to get rid of inappropriate content in a consistent and fair way, while keeping and improving appropriate content. We remove copyright violations immediately when they are discovered, and this is non-negotiable. Our notability guidelines, including the General notability guideline and a wide range of subject specific guidelines, are essential tools for evaluating articles. Those of us who participate in deletion debates regularly should have good internet research skills, including the ability to sift the wheat from the chaff, and rapidly find solid sources (if available) among all the crap online.

I am not a "deletionist" and philosophically welcome new content to the encyclopedia, even on what many might consider obscure topics. What is obscure to many readers may be educational, informative and interesting to some readers. If the topic is notable and the information in the article is verifiable, I will recommend keeping the article. Over four years, I have recommended keeping 45.4% of the articles I've evaluated, and deleting 47.6%. The others were mostly recommendations to redirect. So, I tend to be right in the middle.

In my experience, editors with reputations as either strong deletionists or strong inclusionists often find that more mainstream editors give little respect to their predictable opinions. I respect editors who take a nuanced view, and explain their recommendations carefully, with consideration for other opinions, and a willingness to change their minds when new facts come to light. That's how I try to conduct myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As for the specific matter, the deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onverse. Consensus was that this game is not notable by Wikipedia standards. The function of a Red link is to designate what an editor reasonably believes to be a notable and verifiable topic, as a signal that an article should be written on that topic. Since we have already agreed that this topic is not notable for a freestanding article based on currently available information, we shouldn't red link that topic. If someone uncovers significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources, then a new, acceptable version of the article could be written. And if properly written and referenced, it would almost certainly survive attempts to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Cullen, I appreciate the information. As I said in my introduction on the Teahouse, I have plenty of technical experience with wiki's, but I'm a n00b when it comes to the culture and community here on Wikipedia, so I am seeking insights like yours above to help me understand more of what it means to be a "Wikipedian". I guess the concern I had with what I saw in the "Onverse" issue was that it seemed to single out a particular game from the list and place a value on its worth as an article on Wikipedia, which seemed kind of subjective to me. Especially considering the number of similar games in the list which might also fail the test of "notability", yet which still remain, un-altered, un-deleted. Shouldn't such AfD procedures take into consideration the pages that link from / to such an article that is intended for deletion? Had the people reviewing the "Onverse" AfD looked at that list, or similar pages, it would surely have been clear that the "Onverse" page is no more or less deserving of deletion than any of its competitors, would it not? I'm not pushing for a review of this decision or anything, I'm just trying to understand it, as a way of understanding Wikipedia culture. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 03:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that "other, similar articles have sources, therefore it's likely that sources exist for Onverse; we just haven't found them yet" is indeed a decent argument to keep the article. But it is impossible to write a proper encyclopedia article without the reliable third-party sources that have not yet been found for Onverse. We could leave the article as a stub, but without any guarantee that sources will be found in the future, it's usually considered better to delete rather than risk a perpetual stub. Powers ^T 14:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to give factual, founded, lawful and non opionated donations. What a big waste of time and a mistake. There are some pretty nasty individuals on Wiki that have nothing more pleasurable in their lives other than undoing someone’s work.

I am sure when the likes of Jimmy Wales sprang upon Wiki it was to be helpful and friendly site that nurtures education and learning for all.

Sadly individual agendas are rearing there ugly heads, why don't all Wiki users help each other instead of deleting with glee?

No more from me. Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Powers. However, I don't believe that I was Arguing that "other, similar articles have sources, therefore it's likely that sources exist for Onverse; we just haven't found them yet". In fact, I'm pretty sure that I was arguing that there are many similar articles that also DON'T have references but aren't being challenged. Take, for instance, New Centurions which is also on the same list of Machintosh games as "Onverse" was linked from, but it hasn't been edited since 2010, and has no references at all. I'm sure if I went through that list thoroughly I'd find plenty more examples. It leaves me wondering what agenda was behind the deletion of "Onverse" ? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 20:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

While its true that some Wikipedians to have agendas, what happens more often is that an article is made without sources and nobody notices (there are four million on them) and then one day somebody stumbles across it and says "Hey, no references". Then if the editor looks around and doesn't find any, the article will be nominated for deletion. Others will try to find references, and if they fail too, the article will be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for joining this discussion, Anne Delong. A quick Google search for "Onverse" currently reveals about 817,000 results. I'm sure that not all of them are about the game this article was about, and many less would be reliable sources, but surely it wouldn't be that hard to find sources to have brought this article up to the required standards, would it? Also, could someone explain what is meant by — 5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia — in the AfD guidelines? Had that check been done for this AfD proposal, the list of Machintosh games would have surfaced. From there it should have been fairly clear, as I mentioned above, that the "Onverse" page is no more or less deserving of deletion than any of its competitors on that list. Without that check having been done, apparently, the entry for "Onverse" now stands out as being less definitive, or less worthy, on that list than its competitors, and to me that seems unfair. Please understand, I don't play "Onverse", and I don't even own a Machintosh. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 21:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

On encountering this "deletionist" philossophy: Always assume good faith. Don't automatically think someone is against you or an artile if they delete a few things. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 22:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight, Konveyor Belt. What happens when AGF seems to conflict with NPOV? As in this case, singling out a particular game for deletion from a list doesn't seem to be very neutral. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, it does look a little odd. But theoretically the solution is for an editor o trawl though all those redlinks on List of Macintosh games and de-link a whole bunch of them that are not sufficiently notable for articles of their own. It'd be a tough slog however... --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding one of your earlier points AugurNZ, New Centurions does seem to be a comparable case to Onverse. As it does not show any evidence that the game is notable by Wikipedia's standards, I have "PROD"'d it. The article New Centurions should either be improved (showing that the subject is notable) or deleted. Thank you for pointing this out. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't asking for you to delete both, he was asking to improve both. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 23:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletionism? (Edit Break 1)

(edit conflict) Thanks LukeSurl. As an Aspie, I tend to have a heightened sense of right and wrong, and of fairness, so I was interested to see how this would play out in such an example as the "Onverse" issue. Your suggestion that someone should "trawl though all those redlinks on List of Macintosh games and de-link a whole bunch of them" seems like a lot of work, as you implied above. Should this not have been done as part of, or concurrently with, the original AfD request, rather than just singling out one non-complying page? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 23:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no. It would have been nice for the nominator to do so, but it's not required of them. After all, this is a volunteer project; the more restrictions and burdens we place on editors, the less stuff gets actually done. The general tenor of this (e.g. "why is this article being deleted and not that one") comes up regularly on Wikipedia, especially in the context of AfDs; it is reasonably address by the oft-used shortcut WP:OTHERSTUFF. To summarize: other stuff that breaks Wikipedia's rules may happen (usually as a result of limited volunteer resources), but that is not a reason or free pass for this stuff to break the rules. To summarize the summary: two wrongs don't make a right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for bringing that to my attention, Writ Keeper. It would seem then that the OTHERSTUFF policy itself becomes a "free pass", to use your terminology, for biased and non-neutral deletions which Konveyor Belt covered above with the AGF policy. So using the example of "Onverse" again, if the editor requesting the deletion had had a grudge against Onverse ^{(hypothetical scenario)} then the fact that the deletion would have breached NPOV could have been covered by AGF because of OTHERSTUFF, and the bad faith ^{(hypothetical scenario)} deletion would never have been addressed. Is this right? Is that how Wikipedia works? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 00:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If an article is bad enough that an AfD succeeds, then it doesn't matter what the nominator's intentions were: the article should have been, and was, deleted. If the other articles are bad, then they'll eventually get hauled to AfD and deleted too. The nomination may have been biased and non-neutral, but the actual decision to delete almost certainly won't be; if there actually is enough reason for an article to be deleted to persuade an AfD, then it hardly matters what the motivations of the nominator were. That's precisely how Wikipedia works: things generally get done in time. (As an aside, I know that you said you have no stake in it, but you might want to drop the Onverse example and find/make up a new one; statements of disinterest tend to lose their credibility if they get repeated too often.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, Writ Keeper, thanks for explaining how consensus works here. As to your aside, I think that's getting a little petty. I outlined at the start of this discussion how I came across the "Onverse" issue in the first place. I was drawn to Salvidrim's talk page because of an erroneous deletion of my own talk page by his bot, which I challenged. After that I added Salvidrim's talk page to my watch list, and thereby came across this subsequent discussion about Onverse. If you can't follow that logic, then please feel free to try to prove any connection between me and Onverse. I know for a fact you won't find anything, because there is nothing to be found. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 01:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to note that I am aware of being mentionned; the initial reason AugurNZ came to my talk page because of the mistaken deletion of a page in AuguNZ's userspace (which I fixed, as mentionned before). The issue with the deletion of the Onverse article is another matter entirely, and while it is correct that I am the one that deleted the article, I was merely the technical tool that enacted the community's consensus in the AfD discussion; I personally hold no specific opinion for or against an article about Onverse nor do I specifically have an inclination as a deletionist or an inclusionist. I close AfD discussions and implement the community's consensus because I have that technical ability, simply. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that clarification, Salvidrim, and thanks also to everyone who contributed to this discussion. It has been very informative, and I have learned a lot about what it means to be a Wikipedian, during the course of this discourse. I have been reading the relevant policies that people have been linking me to. There is a lot of information here for me to digest. I want to go on and become a valuable editor here, I just need to get a handle on how things are done here. Most of my previous experience with wiki editing has been at the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages (UESP) where I began learning about wiki markup. The community norms there are very different to Wikipedia though. Again, thanks everyone who participated in this discussion. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 18:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How do I delete a page in my sand box that has been submitted for publishing?

I no longer wish to publish on this topic. Chinton521 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Chinton521, and welcome to the teahouse. To get your draft deleted from your sandbox simply replace the page with {{Db-u1}} to have an administrator delete it under CSD:U1 (user requests user page deleted). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

An article I created is flagged as an orphan, when I don't think it is

Hello! Thank you for inviting me into the Teahouse.

My question is that an article I created about "Hedgehog Street" has been flagged as an orphan, but I know there are links I made to it from the "People's Trust for Endangered Species" page and someone else recently linked to it from the "European hedgehog" page. Is there something wrong with it?

Thanks a trillion! Professor Hog (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

--    L o g  X   16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, although another editor fixed it already, anyone can remove a maintenance template (which is what the "orphan" tag is) by simply editing it off the page, as long as the problem has been solved. To check to see if an article is an orphan, just use the link on the left hand side of the page, "What links here". As long as there are two or more articles (not talk pages or project pages) linked to an article, it is not an orphan. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actor or actress?

Hi, Is there a policy on the naming of females who act? Are they called actors, or actresses, or is it optional? Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to vary. For example Judi Dench is described as an actor, whilst Emma Thompson is described as an actress. I would consider whether the woman has been noted to express any preference as to her job description. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You can read an essay expounding on this topic at Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. In short, gender-specific nouns are acceptable as long as they're in common use (words that have fallen into disus, like Negress or aviatrix, are best avoided, except in direct quotations). Powers ^T 18:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, LukeSurl and Powers ^T, your replies are very helpful. Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Per our policy WP:ENGVAR, it *may* also matter what nationality the act(o)r(ess) is. Using "actor" for women seems to be more common in the US, although I don't think it is impossible in the UK. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Review

I stumbled upon articles that have serious issues that I don't know whether to add cleanup tags or nominate for deletion. Can someone take a look and decide? Pooja Vaidyanath and D. Imman -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pooja Vaidyanath has no sources for any fact in the article, and it's a biography of a living person. This is a problem. I've "PROD'd" it, which means it will be erased 10 days from now if nothing is done about this. Thank you for noticing this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

D. Imman on the other hand looks like a better article, though still not good. I would suggest fixing what you can, and then adding cleanup tags. When adding tags, please consider describing in detail the problems in the article's talk page so that other editors can be better informed to help fix the issues. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that experienced. So can I request you to do the needful? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In D. Imman, except for the filmography part, there are no references. Also there are too many images. Even those images seems to be taken from the subject's official website. But they have been uploaded to commons. I think it could be copyvio. If so, please tag the images accordingly. Thanks -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there actually a necessity for these many images? Assuming I'm a notable person willing to share my photos, does wikipedia accept me filling my article page with umpteen images just because they are free? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is an older version of the article that contains more citations. Unclear if the sources are reliable or if the information is correct. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A few of them are dead links. And other few are those that are in filmography now. They too have used multiple times. The subject is definitely notable and reliable independent sources can be found. But the section "musical credibility" is more like a resume. There are too many images without any significance -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to LogX. Its been cleaned up now. I just think a tag could be added for more citations. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

help with vandalism

Please look at the article on Margaret Thatcher. There is some vandalism going on, which I have tried to revert once, but when look at the history it's been made to look as if I'm doing the vandalistic edits. I don't know how to handle this. Gravuritas (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Can you give us a diff for where you think the vandalism is, & where you think the history is making it look as if you are responsible? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[[1]]- hope I've formatted that correctly- is the vandalism diff in question. Apologies because I said the Thatcher page and I should have said the Thatcher talk page.

This diff [[2]] then makes it look as if I've done the vandalism, but I think I've now worked out that the problem stems from my making an edit after the vandalism, but without noticing that the page had been vandalized. I think that's OK, isn't it?

Gravuritas (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have realised that though your name appears on the left hand side of this diff, it doesn't mean that you were responsible for what is there, merely (as you said) that you were the last person to edit before that diff. As you realised, you need to go further back to see who actually wrote the offending material. Nothing for you to worry about, and you now know a bit more about reading diffs. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and sorry for any bother. Gravuritas (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No bother at all. That's what the Teahouse is here for. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how to separate mass from magnetic current

ok although I have issued several pages of what some might call theories, maybe?as an avid scientist with my discoverys ,I am finding it nessesary that the pages given should be kept complete and in order preferably. as the field of science that I tred in has a lot of words terms and phrases that simply aren't made up yet. as in the terminology of this said subject heading. if you as a scientist would like to learn how the ancients lifted huge blocks, cut stone with persision, and levitated crafts,then I simply find it nessesary to follow in order the pages previously sent, otherwise to follow along or to share becomes quite pointless. im hoping you will consider this request ,and put it all together and in order, everthing leading up to these final pages, this technology is the most advanced knowledge that mankind will know,it was here and used 20 000 years ago by the ancient civilizations. you can believe what you want but this is realRonald sykes (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This question was moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ronald sykes, welcome to the Tea House. It is Wikipedia's policy that articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. You should instead submit your research and findings to a suitable peer-reviewed scientific journal - which Wikipedia is not. BlackberrySorbet 08:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Canning Porn Star

In the featured story about Elizabeth Canning the third sentence seems to have been lifted from some porn magazine.142.197.232.83 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That vandalism was removed at 02:23 (UTC). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how to upload artist page

Hi!

I want to add an artist (musician, composer, singer) page to Wikipedia. It is formatted on my sandbox (without picture since I do not know how to add the right hand square with picture) on page. What do I do to get the info on my sandbox on a wikipedia artist page? The singer/composer's name is Marisela Verena. Please help me! thanks! Georgina FernandezGeorgina Fernandez (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Georgina, thanks for your question. When the article in your sandbox is ready, it can be moved to the article space using the move instructions here. However, I notice that your article is in Spanish, and contains many inappropriate external links. I would suggest submitting your article to Articles for Creation so that an experienced editor can review your article. But before doing so, please write the article in English because otherwise, it will be difficult for many editors to review it properly. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can find the Spanish Wikipedia at es:, so (after checking on their policies on things like external links and references) you may wish to submit your draft for review there. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Making sure my article passes review...

Hi Teahouse! I don't know if this is something that Wiki editing veterans do, but I have written my first Wiki article and I wanted to make sure it passed the review process. Can anyone read and give me suggestions or critique it. I am most concerned about my neutrality. I became familiar with this company and was interested in them. I went to find more info and realized they had no wiki page so I wrote a small page...stub?? When I step back from the article I feel like it's neutral because it's truthful facts, and I have references to support the article. I have read the tips on neutrality....but I've also read wiki editing tips that encourage writers to stand up for their subject. I need an objective eye. I'm hoping to make edits now so it will be in great shape when it finally comes up in the queue. Wiki Page is called "Haute Face" Thank you,Cmhauteps11 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cmhauteps11, welcome back! I read through your article, and unfortunately I see one problem that will prevent the article from being accepted, and another that may mean Wikipedia cannot have an article about the company. First, reviewers are expected to determine if the article content is promotional, and in general they have read a lot of articles and can tell if one stands out as overly promotional. Your article is an excellent advertisement for your company, but it is not encyclopedic in tone. The language used must objectively describe the company, products, and people as documented by independent reliable sources. Second, Wikipedia has guidelines that determine whether the subject warrants an article. In general, the article must reference at least one, but preferably multiple sources that are independent, reliable (not blogs), and provide in-depth coverage of the subject. The requirements for articles about companies are a bit more strict, specifying that product announcements and articles about business deals are not counted. It is not clear to me if the sources you referenced will meet that guideline. If coverage of the company does not meet the guideline, then the article will not be accepted no matter how much work you or I put into it. And that would be unfortunate, because I think that Wikipedia would benefit from having more articles about topics like yours. For detailed information about notability, see the policy page WP:CORP. From the backlog, it looks like you have about two days before your article is reviewed. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much DPRoberts534! I understand. Thank you for the link. I'm going to read the information, edit the text, and look for more external sources...and pray. :) Cmhauteps11 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi DPRoberts534. First -I saw your edits. I SO much appreciate the time and energy you have given to helping me. Thank you!!! One of the reasons I wanted to do this article on this company is because they absolutely fill a long standing need in the cosmetic world. As a woman of color and a consumer, I have found that Haute Face offers products that actually work instead of making promises that are never kept. This is gold to me, and I think it’s worth talking about. The little companies need to be written about while they are on their way to becoming the next Chanels and Revlons of the industry. I want Haute Face to stay around and thrive because, as a women of color who buys and wears makeup, I need Haute Face in the market place to answer a need that has never before been answered correctly for me. Currently, it’s as if my complexion doesn’t even exist, and that’s not fair to me and women all over the world who struggle with this, daily, just like me. So...they deserve a page. I guess truth and passion about a subject may sound...promotional. I get that, but it’s still the truth. In keeping with Wiki’s editing tip to stand up for my subject - I just want to write about the truth. You clearly have so much expertise and experience at this. Can you tell me how I can get this done with the same protections and image protections (because the next thing I want to submit are photos) that Chanel and Revlon have for their company? I read Wiki policies on free use and limitations and such of images and logos, but I see other companies on Wiki that have their protections in place. How can I do that for this company as well? What can I do to make sure this article passes review with all of its protections in place?Cmhauteps11 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how do I close my wikipedia account?

How do I close my wikipedia account? Has anyone ever managed it? 8paxrex (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello :) If you're referring to your Wikipedia login information, it is not possible to delete accounts. You can just stop using it. If you're referring to a page, please see our deletion policy for the reasons a page is deleted. Note that pages are not deleted just because their subject wishes it. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! As Charmle said you can't just delete a Wikipedia account, however you could stop using your account and place Template:Retired({ {retired} }) on your userpage to notify others that you no longer active. ///EuroCarGT 00:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how do I remove italics...

I am an instructor editing my course Wikipage and cannot seem to remove italics from any of the text I am editing. It shows up correctly when I save changes, but then returns to italic when I click "return to mainpage." Any thoughts/suggestions would be greatly appreciated... Emilykayhanks (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing your browser's cache? Eric Corbett 22:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Emily! Agreeing with Eric that that's likely the issue—your computer is storing a local version of parts of the page in cache memory to save processing and increase speed so what you are seeing is the old version—please see WP:BYPASS for a page that provides instruction, if needed, on clearing it. If that does not work, then it could be a cache issue on the other end – the cache of the Wikipedia page itself, though this is more rarely the issue when this type of matter comes up. One way to purge the page cache is to click "edit source" at the top of the page and then change the url at the end from &action=edit to &action=purge and hit return. See WP:PURGE for more information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't give a link to the page and without seeing the page it was impossible to say what the problem was, so the above guess is wrong. I looked at your contributions and saw the italics were on Education Program:Texas State University/POSI 5336 (Fall 2013). It was because you accidentally removed an apostrophe in the "You made it!" heading in [3]. That meant the ending italics code '' in the heading instead became a start of italics. The heading is displayed in the table of contents at Education Program:Texas State University/POSI 5336 (Fall 2013) so everything after that became italics. I have fixed it.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

we should update people's careers

on soap characters wiki's we should update there careers to show people what company the chacaters work at and keep the public updated on there current careersDavonct (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davonct! Here at Wikipedia, one of our core beliefs is being bold. If you think something should be changed, then go right ahead and change it! Of course, being bold means that other people can "revert" your changes, or get rid of them. If you disagree with that, you may gently ask about it on their talk page. Remember to always be polite and assume that the person who reverted your changes is trying to improve Wikipedia as much as you are. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Davonct. Make sure you have reliable sources and don't put too much trivia.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about linking other Wikis

How can I link something to the Spanish Wikipedia. I know I knew it but I forgot. Thanks. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

H:IW should get you your answer eventually! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to inline links or the inter wiki list in the sidebar? DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This requires editing Wikidata. From your previous comments, I believe this is impossible given your restricted connection. If you list which articles need linking, we can do this for you. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I am responding to a Signpost interview and I need to link a quote to Wikiproyecto:U2 (at the Spanish Wikipedia) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to link to a page on another project, you do it in the following form [[:language code:Page]], In this case [[:es:Wikiproyecto:U2]] yields es:Wikiproyecto:U2. Make sure you have the initial colon. If by "quote" you mean you need to link to a diff, you do that the same way you do in english Wikipedia, by putting the URL of the diff in between brackets. Ryan Vesey 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What are some ways that I can contribute and integrate myself into Wikipedia culture and etiquette?

Hello,

I've been a long time passionate user, and I recently decided to create an account. I want to find what I can do as a new editor to help the community achieve its goals, as well as to become familiarized with the nature of such goals. It's a vague objective, but WIkipedia is a very large project and I need somewhere to start. Thanks!--Qzply 16:27, 16 September 2013Qzply (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qzply, welcome to the Teahouse! There are a lot of things you can do to get started. The Community portal has some good places to start (check out the "Help Out" section farther down the page). One thing that you might want to look in to is joining a Wikiproject, a group of editors working on a specific topic. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking that at the Teahouse Qzply! If you want to create or shape content, I suggest picking something you're interested in or something you're determined to help educate the world about. Recently I created a very very beginning draft at User:Biosthmors/Money and politics in the United States because I think it's an important topic. I want to learn more. And I want to teach the world about it. About 900 articles get created a day. And we have over 4.3 million so far. It is a gigantic project! Thanks for asking. =) Jackson Peebles was running a new page patrol school if I remember correctly. And he's listed at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. You could find someone to mentor you there! Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Qzply! There are plenty of articles out there that need more citations to reliable sources. If you have access to a source that others may not have, such as a book that's not on line, or a newspaper with a paywall, consider finding articles that are mentioned in it and adding references to the source, or improving the article with information from the source. Good luck! It's great to see new people becoming involved. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out with adoption! If you're interested, just shoot me a message on my talk page. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm also a new user, where do you find groupings of article that you can work on?

Money and politics isn't my cup of tea (jokes on jokes), but I'd like to find categories that do interest me.

Thanks!

HuronHal85 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How to cite newspaper references

I want to make a new article on a defunct marine engine factory. The references I have are old newspaper articles. How do I insert these as references. I know the name of the publications, but I do not know the excact date they were published. Allsidius (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't know the date they were published then it makes it virtually impossible for any reader to verify what you have included. Hence you may well have to delay your new article until you can find references that enable verification. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Allsidius You might try choosing a unique phrase and typing it into a search engine. Google scanned many newspapers, and while they stopped that project, you might get lucky. If so, it will identify the date, name of the newspaper and page numbers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

References citing the whole book vs. using the sfn template

When I only need to cite 1-2 pages from a book, I use the full cite book template, specifying the pages. However, in some cases, I may use several pages from the same source, in which case I use the sfn or Harvcoltxt templates, and I put the full book citation after the reference list. Is that Ok? or should I use sfn in every citation (even if only used once) and put all the books in a list? Example: is this OK? Thanks!--Fauban 13:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fauban, welcome to the Teahouse. Consistency is probably the best thing to achieve, personally I use sfn widely and use it for all books even if I only refer to a particular text only once, example North Staffordshire Regiment. There are times when it doesn't work as other templates are better, as an example quoting the London Gazette, where the template {{London Gazette}} is better than cite web or cite news. I aim to stick to one style as much as possible, not only for the benefit of readers but also for other editors as a mish-mash of styles gets very confusing for all. NtheP (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That was very useful. thanks!!--Fauban 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Are Guestbooks spam??

A user deleted my guestbook because he/she thought it was spam? It is correct? If not, I want my book back, it is not spam, even JImbo has one. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a user added a spam link to your page just before it was deleted so maybe the deleting admin User:Legoktm made a mistake?Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. User:Miss Bono/Guestbook seems to be there. What was deleted? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what was deleted User talk:Miss Bono/Guestbook looks like someone created a fake guestbook on Miss bono's talk page, which was spotted and deleted by User:Legoktm very quickly Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Miss Bono. I'm confused. You have a guest book at User:Miss Bono/Guestbook that has not been deleted and it does not appear anyone has asked to be deleted. The page that was deleted was at User talk:Miss Bono/Guestbook (deletion log entry), was created by an IP that geolocates to Beijing China (making me think it was not you since If I remember, you are in Cuba), with an edit summary pointing to what looks like a "QVC" type website selling jewelry, and had content like "Buying a Motor:" "Comparison shopping:", "Consider buying a employed car", each followed by content on that subject, and had never been edited by anyone but the IP who created the page. i.e., not one sign-in by a guest. Can you clarify whether the page that was actually deleted is the one you think was deleted, or is it possible when you saw this deletion you thought your still functioning, untouched guestbook was gone?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I am so so so sorry, when I saw that someone deleted my page, I thought it was my real guestbook (I wasn't around since last Friday). And I tried to follow the link before noticing it was a duplicated talk page. But now I notice the talk thingy. Sorry guys! :D It was a misunderstanding. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Same?

Are editing rules on Wikia the same as on wikipedia? Pass a Method talk 03:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a "wikia". Our guidelines and policies are set by the editing community.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can Wikia be used as a source?

Norawashere (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how wikia is a wiki like Wikipedia, I would say no. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)