Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, 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

lack of information concerning python docstring and risk of conflict of interest

Hi, I am interested in Python docstring and I wrote a tuto about them. When I looked to the Wikipedia article I noticed that there was still a lack of information. I added a paragraph providing the link to my tuto but I get a message concerning conflict of interest. And reading the concern, I think it could be indeed a kind of as I provide a link to my tuto. But my concern is to enhance knowledge and provide material that I can. I wrote my tuto for me at the beginning because I didn't find this information. Now I want to share it. So I'd like to know if I can do this (note that I provide the links in references). Thanks to the community. Daouzli (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this sourcing sufficient?

Howdy! I'm working on creating my first article, but I'm running in to some sourcing issues for amounts. Specifically, I have a primary source for an exact amount (say, $2,123.96), but all the secondary sources I can find round it off ("over $2,100"). Would it be OK to use both primary and secondary as refs for the exact amount, or would it be better to ditch the primary source and just say the rounded amount in the article? Thanks, Organics^LRO 14:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean, with the pricing. Do you mean your buying sources?Mirror Freak 14:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh no no, I didn't explain it very well. I'm creating an article about a charity fundraiser, which includes the amount of money raised during the fundraising event. I'm talking about sources which discuss the amount of money raised. The fundraisers' own website states the exact amount they raised, but several news articles about the fundraiser round that figure to the nearest $100 or $1,000. Organics^LRO 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just go with the average number I guess. For example, if they raised $5,684 then you could say that they raised over $5600. Do you know what I mean?Mirror Freak 14:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New article on Hans Ris (zoologist, EM scientist)

Hey there, I found out that the guy who coined the term genophore, Hans Ris, who has had an interesting life (rip), does not have an article on wikipedia. I never created one from scratch, so I thought that maybe there are editors out there interested in this topic that would like to participate in writing the article. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hans_Ris . Currently I am searching for sources. Thanks! -Truyopx (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm up for it. Mirror Freak 13:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I submitted the draft for review, but it says "This may take several weeks, to over a month. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2633 submissions waiting for review.". D'uh.. :/ -Truyopx (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Linking to wiktionary entries

If I stumble upon phrases which may be unfamiliar to the reader and of which no wikipedia article exists but a wiktionary entry - am I "allowed" to link directly to that entry? Ideally, the reader would hover over unknown phrases to see articles or dictionary entries without leaving the article he/she's currently reading. Thanks. -Truyopx (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Truyopx:, welcome to the Teahouse! This article states that links to sister projects, such as Wiktionary, are highly encouraged whenever it would be helpful to a reader. In other words, go right ahead! H:IW might be a good place to check how to format, cheers ~Helicopter Llama~ 12:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Unfortunately the Hovercards beta feature doesn't support wiktionary links, so one would have to open a new page for that. -Truyopx (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

section edit links disappearing

Hi folks - I've been editing WP for 8 years, but I've come across a new problem. In my sandbox, I separate potential articles I'm working on with sections designated by just one equal sign: = section head = Yesterday I found that the section edit links in the article I'm working on have disappeared -- not just the top level (one equal sign) but all of them (two and three equal signs). I've tried copying the section to another sandbox and the same thing occurs - no edit links for the sections. Can someone explain what's happening and what I can do to rectify it? Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kosboot. I fixed it by removing an open {{.[1] Open tags can have odd effects on the following code so when something goes wrong, it's a good idea to look for open tags where it started to go bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, PrimeHunter! Now I appreciate those bot notifications of broken brackets or parentheses. -- kosboot (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of an article I created

I want to delete an article I have created. Pl. help me in deleting that article. Sravani Krishnamraj (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Sravani Krishnamraj, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article which you wish to delete, Bhargava Rama Krishna, is already being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhargava Rama Krishna. If you agree that the article should be deleted, you should go to the page and write your opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• where should i write my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sravani Krishnamraj (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhargava Rama Krishna. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

List of acceptable sources

I find looking for Wikipedia guidelines a nightmare. So, instead of searching for fifteen minutes, I'll ask the friendly folks here: Where is the list of acceptable/unacceptable sources? I ask this for general information but also because on the talk page for the movie "21," some-one wrote that "Asian Week" is not a reliable source, which surprised me.Kdammers (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kdammers: Hey Kdammers, thanks for your question. There's not really a hard-and-fast list of reliable sources that we maintain. The closest thing is that when there is a dispute about whether a source is reliable or not, there is sometimes a discussion and resolution about it at the reliable sources noticeboard, but those discussions are contextualized to specific articles and content.

What we do have are a number of guidelines by which to judge whether a source is reliable or not. These include things like:

• Is the source, its creator, and its publisher independent of its subject?
• Is the source appropriate for the claim it is sourcing? (i.e. context matters)
• Does the author express opinions on the subject, and are they considered an authority on it?

Some projects on Wikipedia do maintain their own guidelines and lists of generally reliable sources for relevant topics (e.g. WikiProject Video Games has this resource). I can't speak to your specific circumstances for 21, but if someone challenged Asian Week, you should see whether it fits the criteria for reliable sources, and if it does, describe why. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kdammers. That mention about AsianWeek not being a reliable source took place in 2008, and it didn't even start a discussion. It was just one IP editor's opinion. And there has been one brief discussion about the source on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where concerns were expressed. But consider the context, which was a controversy about casting white actors in a fictonalized movie based on a real life incident involving Asians. The writer of the AsianWeek piece does not appear to be a professional film critic, and we prefer the opinions of professionals regarding films. Millions have opinions on Hollywood films, and 99.9% of those opinions are not reliable enough for Wikipedia film articles. The source does not constitute in-depth coverage of issues regarding the film, but is a blog style opinion column tossing off a quick criticism and moving on. I will not say that AsianWeek is always unreliable. In certain contexts, it may be a good source for uncontroversial factual assertions. But the publication, now available only online, has had a reputation for sensationism regarding racial issues, especially in the time period we are discussing.

The broader issue is that Wikipedia editors need to be able to judge whether or not a source is reliable. Developing the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate the reliability of a given source in the context of the assertion it supports is something that every editor needs to work on. No source is 100% reliable in every context and even a horribly unreliable source like the Weekly World News is reliable enough for perhaps the name of its managing "editor" and the city where it is published. There will always be debate and disagreement about the reliability of various sources, but improving the quality of our sourcing is a goal that most editors share. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just chiming in here on your question - it is suggested above that: you make a judgement call and have some decision-making 'right' to consider your reference to be reliable/good. After all, that is what non-Wikipedia editors do. Read the guidelines, even though they are excruciatingly long and detailed and full of exceptions. Then, importantly, be ready to defend your opinion that the reference should remain in the article. If it is considered a 'bad' reference by another editor they will kindly let you know, in polite circles. In not so polite circles discussions could get more heated. Some editors are so passionate about what they do they sometimes they forget that expressions of zeal can appear combative. Come back to the teahouse if things happen that are not mentioned in this message to you. Best Regards,

Bfpage (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor linguistic question

In editing articles, is there a certain tense that should be used when quoting or referring to positions of those cited? Should things be written as, 'he/she said' or 'Bob wrote' rather than 'Sally argues X' or 'Susie claims Y'? I figure if either is acceptable, consistency in tense used is the key, but thought I'd ask before I change things. Huxley G (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Huxley G I don't think it matters terribly as long as it's neutral and matches what actually happened (I mean, you wouldn't say "Bob wrote" if he said it in a speech). There are also subtle differences between argued, said, and claimed, so use the word that fits the scenario. For instance, if I was describing a criminal case, I would use "The defense argues...", if it was the defendant, I'd say "The defendant claims...", "The prosecutor alleges...", and "The witness said..." because those words more accurately describe what was happening. I like to mix up words instead of just saying "said" all the time. The only one that I've seen mentioned was "claims", because depending on the scenario, it can make it seem like you're doubting what they're saying. It just depends on usage. I use claim in appropriate situations. Bali88 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized my response was less clear than I intended. I got distracted (kids) and lost my train of thought. As long as it matches what is going on is fine. Like, if you're sure they're still arguing X as opposed to they just argued it at the time in the past, tense is no biggie. Bali88 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello everyone, I'm a complete novice and must admit I'm not good at wikipedia editing at all (or using this site in general! Eek!). I'm definitely interested in learning for my own benefits though. Lately I discovered an article in Japanese that didn't have an English page so I felt like contributing. However, the name for the title was blocked and could not be used so I was hoping to write a new unbiased and decent article and get it submitted. I wrote a sample in my sandbox. If someone could take a look (is that possible?) and give me some feedback, I'd really appreciate it! Thank you in advance!

Pondeponde (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pondeponde, welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft at User:Pondeponde/sandbox is currently awaiting review under the Articles for Creation process. If a reviewer accepts it, that reviewer should take care of the remaining required work, which would involve requesting an administrator to unblock ("unsalt") the title. If a reviewer declines it, then you will normally be given further opportunity to refine and resubmit the draft (multiple times if necessary) to hopefully get it accepted. So there is nothing further you need to do right now, although unfortunately drafts are taking several weeks to be reviewed at the moment because there is a very large backlog. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Pondeponde! I looked at your draft and made a few minor changes that I think improve readability. One issue I spotted is that one of your references links to a facebook page. You'll need to find another source for that information. I'll look again and see if I can find any other issues. Bali88 (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I suspect you may have an issue with notability and the reviewer may decline the submission on that basis. The sources that aren't primary (the company's website) only make very minor mentions of the company. That probably won't be enough to meet notability standards. You probably need to look for some additional sources. If additional sources aren't available, you may need to wait until they become available to submit the article. Bali88 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Pondeponde: I've moved your article to the Draft space as this is the preferred location for AfC submissions. Don't worry, you can still access the page via your sandbox or directly at Draft:Kotobukiya.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bali88, Thank you for your reply and help! I will look for more resources though some may not be in English. It's a bit hard to find primary resources on this article but I will do my best!

Pondeponde (talk) Pondeponde (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Pondeponde, foreign language sources are just fine! :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I have a draft out for William Rothwell and his work with Organizational Development and Succession Planning. However I must not have sources that would be considered aligned with GNG. I am just wondering if that is all I need to fix. The references. I could simply delete those sources and places in the text they are referenced to. Or should I be changing more within this doc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_J._Rothwell

Jaengerman (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jaengerman, welcome to the Teahouse. No, deleting unreliable or non-independent references would not fix the issues already mentioned on the draft page. You need to address the issues mentioned on the draft page, which in this case are a failure to meet Wikipedia:VRS because of not providing references to multiple independent reliable sources that discuss Rothwell in detail.

Of course, making the draft a great deal shorter may also help any potential reviewer to see such references more easily! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about sources related to two or more articles.

Where is the best place to ask that question? Nothingknewunderthesun (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nothingknewunderthesun, welcome to the Teahouse! The first place you should go to discuss an article is the article's talk page. But if there are not enough people monitoring that page, you could start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (not at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; I believe another editor gave you the wrong page). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

PAM HOGG CITATIONS

Hello I am doing my best at the stage I am at, and some strange problems have cropped up when I do the citations by hand. Obviously I know there are different ones for different types of websites, is there a page that can help. Also as she is prominent, I do not want any mistakes, so any ideas to get further help in the Fashion side of Wikipedia, would be great.Spikequeen (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Spikequeen, welcome back to the Teahouse. The introduction to referencing is a quick tutorial that will show you how to add references with an automated tool called the RefToolbar. If you want to enter them manually, you can read referencing for beginners. Adding references can be tricky, so if you still need help, feel free to come back here. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot: If you want to help improve fashion-related articles on Wikipedia, you can join WikiProject Fashion. (A WikiProject is a place where editors can collaborate on a certain subject area. There's lots to do, but you can participate as much or as little as you like.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC):

Thank you for this. The Tea house is so helpful. In a week I cannot believe how much I have learnt. Found the cite and with time I am sure it will be easier.

I looked at the Fashion site so shall try to start helping them. Spikequeen (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My article was declined due to references? Would you please assist?

Malinda Gilmore......Article is titled Kevin Arthur Rolle18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maliwilson (talk • contribs)

Hello, Malinda, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every piece of information in a Wikipedia article, and especially in an article about a living person, must be referenced to a published reliable source; and most of it must be referenced to sources which are independent of the subject. So, for example "has gained over 20 years of progressive administrative experience in various governmental, public and private organizations" in Draft:Kevin Arthur Rolle must be followed by a reference to a reliable published source which says this; and similarly throughout the article. (The reason for this is precisely because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia which anybody can edit: somebody might come along next week or next year and change the information, whether by mistake or maliciously. Only with a reference to a reliable source can a reader trust what is there). Please look at referencing for beginners for how to insert references. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Malinda, The problem is that you put your citations in inline external links with the cryptic text, “Link label.” I have converted the first two of them to proper references. See what I did at Draft:Kevin Arthur Rolle.

While I have your attention, on File:Kevinrolle.jpg you credit the photo to O. J. Rice Photography in Huntsville, Al, but you claim you are the copyright owner. How did the copyright get transferred to you personally? Ordinarily professional photographers do not give up their copyright. —teb728 t c 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to add reference and sources. Please help in getting the page activate. I am even unable to upload picture. Nayab Sami 14:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to add reference and sources in the page. Please help in getting the page activated. there is a prefix coming as user in the stating of the title. I am even unable to upload picture Nayab Sami 14:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayabsami (talk • contribs)

I don't see any other saved edits from your account, so I can't diagnose your problems precisely. But I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article, Help:Introduction to uploading images, and Help:Referencing for beginners. You might also want to consider enabling the VisualEditor under Preferences (then select Beta and check the box for VisualEditor) at the top right of the page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think he is referring to something in his now-deleted contribs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nayabsami: Now that I see your deleted contributions, the problem is that you were using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Wikipedia is not for advertising. In addition, at this point in your career, you do not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, so you do not qualify for a non-advertising Wikipedia article either. If you would like to become a Wikipedia editor generally, you are welcome to put some information about yourself, your interests, and your contributions to Wikipedia at User:Nayabsami, but not self-promotional content. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What should i ideally post on my user page?

Hello, I am new to editing on Wikipedia and i want to know what to put on my user page. I have put my name, hobbies, articles edited on wikipedia what more should i add on my user page. Thanks! Vihaandoshi05 (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Try looking at WP:UP and the pages of other wikipedians for ideas. MY general rule of thumb would be that your page should be a bit about you and the work you do on wikipedia, but that isn't set in stone. good luck! Ryan shell (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Vihaandoshi05 Hello! Personally, I include wikilinks to the articles I post so people may view the articles easily. I only include the articles that I have either created or rewritten considerably, because after awhile, if you include ALL the articles you edit, it gets really long! lol Personally, I don't prefer to put my real name on the page. If I were to get into a spat with another editor, I don't want them cyber stalking me, but it's personal preference. Take a look at other people's pages and see what you like. Bali88 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Creating Article about Company - Want to get it right

Hi Teahouse.

I am trying to create a page about Contentful (A company) and I am currently an employee there. I know about the conflict of interest and I am trying to write as neutrally as possible. I have started a very brief draft as a subpage (user:samsharif8/contentful draft) in my user page and it would be really great to have an editor see that I am writing within the rules.

I plan on adding more about the technology and a list of competitors to ensure that it is more neutral.

Thanks! Samsharif8 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Samsharif8. I think that User:Samsharif8/contentful draft is a good start. Your references seem to be good, and establish notability. The only cautious note I would sound about what you have written so far is that "Its platform agnostic, API-first approach means that content can be distributed ... " reads rather like promotional material rather than an encyclopaedia article. It's partly that these phrases "platform agnostic" and "API-first" sound a bit promotional (though the second of these is in the source, I admit - the first isn't, by the way, and the source says something which looks to be a bit different); but it's more that tricky word "means". As well as sounding promotional, this actually makes the sentence original research - which is not permitted in Wikipedia.

I appreciate that you are talking about listing competitors in order to maintain neutrality; but actually I don't think it is appropriate, unless you are referencing an article which compares Contentful and its competitors. It is more important that the language used about the company and the product is neutral, and that any negative coverage is not omitted. What you should do is put it in at least one category - and if there are articles about competitors, there should be a category which contains them all.

One more thing: thanks for disclosing your COI here: you should also do so on your user page or on the article's talk page User talk:Samsharif8/contentful draft. --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Samsharif8, and welcome to the Teahouse. Just to add to ColinFine’s sage advice —

I've also reviewed your draft, and also note that you have requested assistance at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. First, you have formatted your draft well, and your three citations are documented well. So you have the hang of editing on Wikipedia, a good start.

You may need more sources (reliable, independent third-party) that provide a published analysis of the company. One of your challenges is that the company is only 15 months old, and the more established companies evidence success and notability over time. The progammableweb article has a little analysis, but it relies heavily on an interview with the founder, so it represents his point of view more than a neutral point of view. The 451 Research article may be more neutral analysis, but it's subscription-only — I didn't subscribe, but if you have access that article would possibly be good to selectively quote and summarize. You've listed some famous clients, but that, too, begins to sound promotional.

Also, consider the content of an article about a company — You can mention the products/services in passing, but if you describe them like a catalog, with trademarked brand names, it is difficult to avoid sounding promotional. It needs to be less about the products of the company, and more about the company itself. For example, who founded the company? When? Where? What is the vision of the company? How is the company capitalized? What is its history? Has it filed any patents? Has it had challenges or setbacks? Has it won any awards? Has it been involved in any litigation? If you wanted to know the facts about the company, what would you want to read? When you answer these types of questions, you will be on your way to a worthy encyclopedic article.

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for such detailed reviews! It is very helpful. One thing I would ask, Grand'mere Eugene is, am I allowed to cite from the contents of the 451 research article? I do have access to it but I did not think it would be allowed because most editors will not. Also, I may change the article to be about the software rather than the company, similar to how some competitors have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal. Once again, Thanks! 62.96.221.138 (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How do i add citation to data that is in public domain but not necessarily online or in a book form ?

Hi, I'm trying to build the wiki page for my village, the problem with this is that although i know most of the data to be true either through personal experience or through the government records displayed at the local village office notice board(data such as population, road construction etc., is usually painted on the notice board outside the village administrative office building), being a small village there is no authoritative online source to cite from.

For example i know that some of the villagers think that name of the village came from a religiously significant tree, but there is no authoritative website to quote the same. I also know the exact population but their is no known source that lists the population of my village as a single entity, but there are government websites that show the population of a much larger administrative division in which my village is a part

How can i add citation for things like this ?

Some random entity (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Some random entity, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm going to divide your question into three parts: verifiability, original research, and notability.

First, the information that you are citing must come from a reliable source. Generally speaking, a reliable source is a third-party (not directly related to the information that they are publishing), published (made available to the public in some form), and has 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' (WP:SOURCE). Government publications are usually considered reliable; in this particular case, you might wish to see whether your administrative office building has published information elsewhere, such as a report available to the public or even a website. Please see WP:REFB for instructions on referencing using sources.

Second, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Original Research refers to 'material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.' Relating to this case, the villagers' thoughts about the name of the village will fall under original research. You must be able to attribute to a reliable source to add the information.

Thirdly, stand-alone articles on Wikipedia must indicate notability. The general notability guideline is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has ' received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' (WP:GNG). If the village in question does not meet the notability guideline, you might want to consider adding the information as a section in a bigger topic, possibly the district.

Lastly, Wikipedia:Your first article might be handy for you. Good luck, and remember you can always ask for help here or to any experienced Wikipedians. KJ ^Discuss? 10:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, all settlements of village size (and even many smaller ones) are generally considered notable by default, so long as a reliable source confirms that the settlement actually exists. Thus they seem not to need to meet Wikipedia:GNG for there to be an article about them. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) says "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a small correction to KJ's excellent advice: Reliable sources do not need to be independent of the subject. In fact, for some data, we have to use primary sources. It's confusing because primary sources can't be used to demonstrate notability -- we need secondary sources for that. But if you're trying to source the population of a town, the town itself is a perfectly good source for that information.

If the information you want to include is on public display, you could try taking a photograph of the display. Depending on the data in question, that could be enough for another editor to verify the information, which is all we ask.

-- Powers ^T 12:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Want to create a temlate page..

Hi there, I want to create a template page of a city.. As only the one city don't have template in my district..Please help me out as I am new to wiki.. Sunnyvijay (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, Sunnyvijay. It may help me to find an answer to your question if you could tell me the name of your district and another city in your district that already has a template used in its article. We can alter the already existing template by inserting information about your city to put in the article for your city. bpage (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I have added successfully. Sunnyvijay (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing Classes

To become a better editor do you have classes? On Line or off?Spikequeen (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Spikequeen and thanks for the message. At the moment we don't have that sort of thing available. There is quite a lot of documentation available though, so if you tell me what you're interested in learning, I'll try and point you in the right direction. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is the Adopt a user process, which is kind of similar. (And there is specialized training for certain types of editing) --Jakob (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK do a great many in person training and editing sessions in a wide variety of places in the UK. Have a look around their website for more details. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Alerts and notifications -- linking

How can I link to "thank you" alerts? I enjoy making a small collection of interesting occurrences on my user page. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: According to WP:THANK#What the feature is not, only the complementary user gets the alert and the thanks are noted in Special:Log/thanks. I think you might be able to link to the log, but it would only show who thanked you, not what the thanks was about. You might be able to take a screenshot if you really want. Regards. KJ ^Discuss? 09:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Swearing on Wikipedia

Hi. If I was to insert a certain word beginning with F into my posts what would happen? OUT OF CURIOSITY. Don't accuse me of something. Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for such things as profanity and blasphemy. The encyclopedia includes that and just about every other word many times, in encyclopedic contexts. A lot of people swear in their talk page posts, as well. As long as the invective is not directed at another person, it usually passes without comment.

But you asked "what would happen?" What would happen is that you would mark yourself as someone incapable of having a reasonable discussion with other contributors without resorting to offensive language. What would happen is that your post might be the final straw that causes a contributor tired of the base level of discourse such language represents to leave Wikipedia behind for good. What would happen is that the chances of the encyclopedia being diminished by the choice to use that word are greater than the chances of the encyclopedia being improved.

Choose wisely. -- Powers ^T 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your not accusing me of something are you? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed LtPowers is not accusing you of anything. They merely answered your question. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Swearing depends on context. I invite editors to take a look at Fuck tha Police which contains said word numerous times. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD It depends on the context. Fuck itself has its own article, so it's certainly not wrong to use the word in wikipedia articles if it is appropriate. If you are quoting someone who has used the word or using a song title that contains the word, go right ahead and use it. If you are discussing something with another editor on a talk page and you tell someone to "fuck off", that may not bode well for you. You should not use the word in that context as you may find yourself blocked. Bali88 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I am too thick for this? Sorry to be painful. I just want to get it right.

I had not thought about the urls all being different, now I have learnt they are, or that citations can be covered in different ways. I have just added about 50 links to about 5 articles so I will be thoroughly un popular if I do not cover them. It will take me several days to grasp fully which one to use. I was going to do this but I noticed it might not work. so should I use <ref=dateinameIarticle> Any body out there who can explain this in a few sentences I would be most grateful.Thank youSpikequeen (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Spikequeen, unfortunately it will take more than "a few sentences" to explain. But you can read all about it in Help:Referencing for beginners. You can also look at the answer I gave another editor a bit further down the page at question Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#citation_templates. It is also about references. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Hiya Spikequeen. If I understand what you're asking, these are two forms of the same thing. The first is for when you are citing a source only once. The latter is, you guessed it, when you're going to be citing the source twice or more. So, if you were going to use a source just once, it can just be <ref>attribution for source</ref>. If you are going to use it multiple times, however, you can give it a logical name at the beginning. Let's use a Wall Street Journal article as as example. The first time you use it, give a name, in the form:

<ref name="WSJ">attribution for source</ref>

The next time you want to use that citation to the same source, in the same article, you need only type:

<ref name="WSJ"/> (Please note the forward slash (/) near the end.)

The reference will then appear only once in the reference section, even if you use it many times. See this as an example of how a reference appears after multiple "named" uses in the text.

I hope to not overwhelm you but there really is something else you should consider. A naked URL is not very good attribution to a source. It's much better to provide details about it, inside of the ref tags. There are templates to do this but I won't get into that here. Just provide enough information so that, even if the URL goes dead, someone else might be able to still look up the source, either in paper (if a paper source) or an alternative URL. Using The Wall Street Journal again, say it was an article named "Maple Syrup is Sweet", published on August 1, 2014, was by George Harrison, and was at the URL http://www.FakeURL.com. You could type:

<ref>Harrison, George (August 1, 2014). "[http://www.FakeURL.com Maple Syrup is Sweet]. ''The Wall Street Journal''</ref>

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the ideal length of an article?

Obviously some people have more than others, and are of greater import. What is the ideal length? I am finding that the articles I am working on are naturally the same length, but I just wanted to ask. I just wanted to be appropriate. Can anyone help.Spikequeen (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Spikequeen, maybe the guideline on Wikipedia:Article size is what you are looking for. —teb728 t c 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks that is really helpful, thanks will study tomorrow.Spikequeen (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, something like the BBC One article. I remember seeing that on its talk page when some guy wanted to split it. Lil Vipt 19:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for your Help

Jean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)I was wondering if I used the Approach of a Biography, it would be allowed to write my Life Story...

Thank you so much for your precious assistance

Jean LambertJean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jean Lambert, writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. —teb728 t c 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, Jean. If you meet the notability guidelines for athletes, someone can write an article about you. You can make a request at WP:RA and show that you are the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources with a neutral point of view.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And it has been pointed out to you that you need to change your username, since it appears to be that of a company. Jean Lambert would be a good choice.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been here before. So I see your problem isn't as simple as I thought. Good luck solving it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interests?

Hello! I'm the recipient of a fellowship from the Vanderbilt Special Collections Library. As part of my fellowship, I'm supposed to learn how to edit/create Wikipedia articles and help train others as well. I have total freedom regarding the subject matter of articles I author but, my question is, if I want to write articles about Vanderbilt Special Collections and their holdings, is this a conflict of interests? I don't want to violate the rules against bias but I'm having trouble distinguishing the line. Any advice? Thanks so much! (Nikilada (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nikilada: Hey Nikilada. First off, congrats on the fellowship, that's quite an achievement! Second, thanks for asking this question before getting started. I think it's generally a better idea to focus on efforts to use the resources in the special collection to improve Wikipedia articles, rather than writing on the special collection or institution itself. Because you're currently being compensated by the institution, it might indeed be considered a conflict of interest to write content about it. That said, I think something you can consider doing is creating a draft in your userspace and asking a few editors (from here, for instance) to look it over and make corrections knowing your position. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nikilada: Hey Nikilada. I believe that what you're looking for is Wikipedia:GLAM, which is an interface between wikipedia and "galleries, libraries, archives, and museums" Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Help required to edit a table

I wonder if anyone can help. I am a fairly novice editor but a quick learner!

Anyway there is a table in the following article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchegeri_Sampradaya

And the table appears towards the end of the article it is entitled:

"Overview of the Inchegiri Sampradaya"

However when I click on edit beside the title all I get is:

==Overview of the Inchegiri Sampradaya== {{Navnath Sampradaya - Inchegiri Sampradaya}}

However the table consists of several rows and columns of information and I wish to insert an update into one of the cells. I cannot figure out how to do this. Can anyone assist with this?

Many Thanks!

NemoNemoshaw (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nemo. That table is in a template, and you would have to edit the template. Goto Template:Navnath Sampradaya - Inchegiri Sampradaya, and you can edit it like any other page. But please consider that templates by their nature are usually used in many articles, and a change to the template will appear in all the articles which use it. If you change is likely to be even a little bit controversial, I advise you to discuss it on the template's talk page first. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia allow Videos and photographic links|?

Hello, I just wanted to know if Wikipedia allows video links? What are their views on photographic agencies. Sometimes the article only has photographs, saying the event happened? I don't want to put a foot wrong, Thank youSpikequeen (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Spikequeen. Wikipedia does not link to images or videos outside Wikipedia/Wikimedia at all. In some circumstances an article may link to a web page which contains an image or a video: this will be either if the page is a reliable source being used as a reference (for example, if a reliable newspaper posts an interview or a lecture on its website or on YouTube), or if the link is permitted under the quite strict conditions for external links. I think it will be rare that a link to a photo page will be appropriate, but as I say a video sometimes can be. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wondering what is Wrong

Jean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)I wrote an Article on my Memoirs in the Sandbox, explaining what as been my Life as a Researcher and Producer of Knowledge Systems over the last 20 years and I received the following message from Wikipedia:

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a disto...

My Memoirs Article is devided into the following Sections:

Introduction Personal Mission Knowledge Production Systems Developed and Deployed (32 of them are explained) My Manuscript

I do not seek any Publicity as my only Intent is to explain What has been my Life over the last 20 years as a Researcher

Thank you for being my Guide and Advisor

Jean LambertJean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jean Lambert Tennis International: Hi Jean. You got the message you did because the draft you have written is not really appropriate for Wikipedia, even if it's not in the article space and you're just working on a draft. You're not supposed to write about yourself or your work, and you're not allowed to publish original ideas here, even if you're not intending to promote them. I'd recommend putting this material on a personal blog, because I don't think it fits here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Jean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)I have used Jean Lambert Tennis International because I used to have "Jean Lambert" as a User and did not remember my Password

I tried to ask for it but somehow they did not recognized that it was ME, trying to come back into Wikipedia

So that is Why I had to use Jean Lambert Tennis International

I do not at all Seek any Commercial or Publicity...

I just want to be Useful and Show what as been my Life as a Researcher and Knowledge Producer over the last 20 years

How can I regain my User Name "Jean Lambert" without any complication ?

Thank You so much for your Guidance...

Most Respectfully

Jean LambertJean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jean Lambert Tennis International: You can use Special:PasswordReset to reset your password, which will be sent to the e-mail address associated with your last account. If that works, please do not use the Jean Lambert Tennis International account again. Again, I want to reemphasize that writing about your life as a researcher will not be useful to Wikipedia. I encourage you to consider more constructive avenues like adding reliable sources to these articles or helping to copyedit these articles. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

JL--I think that sometimes people can be "unmeaningly" insensitive as to how they express themselves. When someone says "useful" they really should have said advance the basic principles of WP--a volunteer community effort. An article about yourself would be in most instances for us just that, an article about yourself. Some in WP feel that if that were justified then others would write about your life; and when I mean others it is someone that you probably do not know/or vice versa. It is equivalent to a gentleman's agreement. That is why there is an issue concerning people who are hired to develop an article. It really is not what WP wants to become known otherwise it would be as so many 19th century community whos who bio books that so many people may consult for genealogies. Despite the collegiate atmosphere that some may want to prevail in this environment, do not become over dissuaded whenever you do something and someone reacts in a very negative way calling attention that the additional "." in that sentence was tantamount to attempting to ruin WP for all coming time. Again, some people do not realize just how they come across to others--its part of the internet environment. I equate it to communicating with my deaf brother. Sometimes you have to say to them that, "Remember, you are the only deaf one in this conversation." They may not be aware that they are yelling. If they persist there really is not much to be gained of you start to yell back at them. Except, you might try to use the

to get a third party involved that hopefully the other party might be willing to take note from. But if it does not work then--leave it be. There are those that might apply the rules as a convent nun teacher would hit the back of your hand with a ruler or smear the dig's nose into his mess--you have offended them. Those that are easily offended seem to find camaraderie in their ranks so people can come out of the wood work. Beyond that in the end of what you questioned makes it into some change in an article then you've served a WP purpose.66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do i get commonly used templates?

Hello wikipedians. I want to know if there is a page full of templates. 182.65.127.89 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Template messages and its various subpages. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong / is going wrong?

Hello everyone

I was recently editing the Wikipedia article of the Belgian Navy > section: 4 Current Fleet List.I wanted to put the 2 karel-doorman class frigates in a table with a picture so it looked better. In this I succeeded but for some reason my edit appeared in another section of the page which is at the bottom of the page under the section name "6 Future".

When i click to edit the future section my table is not there and when i click on edit of the current fleet section my table is there and still nothing appears under current fleet list but the table does appear under the future section.

This is how my table looks like:

Template:Sclass-

Ship	Type	Builder	Commissioned	Origin	Displacement (tonnes)	Speed (knots)	Photo
F930 Leopold I	Frigate	Schelde Naval Shipbuilding	May 31, 1991	Netherlands	2,800	30
F931 Louise-Marie	Frigate	Schelde Naval Shipbuilding	November 28, 1991	Netherlands	2,800	30

Can anyone help me solve this mystery?

GreetsVerax666 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Verax666, welcome to the Teahouse! You tried to end the table with |-}. Tables must end with |}. I have fixed it in your post here. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Verax666 I have moved the table to desired place

But I am not sure if you meant it, If I am wrong then please undo my edit.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 13:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I DONT KNOW HOW TO EDIT ON THIS WIKIPEDIA:(

how can i edit image? Helrichdiola (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Helrichdiola!!!

You can find help here

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 09:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Helrichdiola, There are two parts to using files on Wikipedia: 1) Upload the file to Wikipedia or Commons (unless it has already been uploaded) and 2) Use the file on a page. Both are summarized at Help:Files. I see you were trying to use a file on the internet without uploading it: that doesn't work. —teb728 t c 10:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User contributions

Hello !!! Some times when I see users contributions, I see these three words in brackets (current) [rollback] [vandalism]. The last one is written in red. what are they meant for? Best wishes, Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 07:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aftabbanoori. I take it you've installed Twinkle, then? These are Twinkle options for reverting the edit they appear next to - rollback allows you to add an edit summary and reverts back to the last version of the page that was not edited by that user, vandalism does the same thing but without an edit summary (and will also open the user's talkpage so that you can give them a warning) and current simply means that this edit is the most recent one made to the article in question. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui

Thanks for your help, now I understand it

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 09:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

VERY confused

User Flyer22 left me a message on my talk page then her talk page. I am confused what they where about. I answered them but can someone explain what she was asking? Also gave me a link to a user she blocked implying she was going to block me, for what? I feel like I am being interigated. So confused. Only time I have not felt happy here on Wikipedia. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an unusual message, isn't it. Reading through the messages on your Talk page and Flyer22's, I think you have responded appropriately - he (or she?) asked a question, and you answered it plainly without getting emotional. Flyer22 is a very experienced editor as he says, and apparently something caught his eye; only he can say what. Looking at his contributions, he seems to focus a lot of attention on reverting vandalism, unconstructive edits, etc. "Sock puppets" can be a real problem on Wikipedia, where one person opens many different accounts so they can unfairly influence votes and give the appearance of having broad support for their ideas. The more controversial the topic, the more of a problem it can be. So it is good that we have people like him looking out for such abuses of the system; without them, it would not work for the rest of us. Unfortunately there is no definite way to tell who is genuine. Admins do have tools to help search for this sort of thing (e.g. multiple user-ids all logging in from the same address), but they are not perfect either. So my suggestion, for what it's worth, is to WP:assume good faith, continue to be open and respectful, and edit to improve the encyclopedia. I am not an admin or even a particularly experienced editor, so perhaps wiser heads can offer a different perspective...--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OOPS - just looked and Flyer22's user page, and found that she is female. Please read "she" for "he" in every instance above. Also, you might get some hint of the sort of thing she looks for at User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet_watch. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So she is acusing me of being a sock puppet, having multiple accounts and comitting vandalsm? Why would someone accuse anyone of this out of nowhere for no apparent reason? I didn't even know what a sock puppet was until you explained it just then, so how can I be one? I can't have multiple accounts because I only started using my phone's internet a few days before I became a Wikipedian so I wouldn't have had enough time to get kicked off or something then make another account, I don't have any "ideas", and finally, I have no history of vandalism nor will I ever. Just weird. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, nobody has said you are a sockpuppet DangerousJXD. Something just caught Flyer22's attention and she became suspicious, and now she is trying to keep the whole matter open and clear. No hidden conversations, no secret agendas. Reading through her history, she has had to deal with a number of people who abuse the system like that. No doubt this is where she developed this habit of documenting it all. She has not mentioned (as far as I can see) any particular edits which are a problem although I see that a couple of your edits in the area of sexual health were reverted recently, and that is an area where Flyer22 specializes. It is also one of the controversial areas where sock puppets are more common. But nobody has suggested there was anything wrong about your edits; they were all treated as good faith. Having an edit reverted is not a criticism; it's a difference of opinion about what improves the article. In general, if somebody reverts your change and you disagree, the best thing is to start a discussion on the Talk page for that article and try to reach general agreement, rather than just putting it back again.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How can I find out what this thing is? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD, if you're looking for any edits you have made that were reverted, the best way I know is to go to your Contributions page (link at the top of every WP page). This lists all the pages you have edited; if your edit was the most recent, there will be the word (current) at the end. If not, you can look at the History of the page to see what has been changed since. While you're on the Contributions page, you can click on "Edit count" (at the bottom of the page) to see your stats, including the number of reverted edits. But I don't know of any more specific way to list just the reverted edits.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to be daunting but if you do not "follow" the rules/procedures some people can become rather disagreeable and outright mean such as calling someone a sock puppet. Being the great- grandchild of an illegitimate child it takes more than just some ruffled feathers and accusations to get me to react to a sock puppet accusation. For some it is like the reflex of someone with battlefield fatigue except the Wikipedian may never had to occasionally bandaged where the bullets just whizzed by and cause heat blisters. If you sign-up, your work is credited to your user name and if you do not then it goes to your IP address. And if it has similar styles to others then you get credited if only by mistaken identity with the work of others. Dose not matter when it is for good credit but otherwise, not such a good feeling afterwards. One thing I can recommend is never edit when you are sleepy because if you attempt to save edits that have timed out you just might be accused of turning every "A" into a "#". I always though just what was someone thinking that someone wanted to change one character into another regardless just where it appeared in the article but everyone can have their reason(s). Remember, there are some people who believe that WP is just one character change away from ending the world as we know it.66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the relationship between a WikiProject and its articles of interest?

I have noticed on Talk:List_of_people_from_Columbus,_Georgia that it is considered an article of interest to the Wikiproject Georgia (Country); the problem is that this is a list about people of a city within the state of Georgia in the USA. Should the link to the Wikiproject Georgia just be edited out of the Talk page or does someone within the Wikiproject Georgia need to be alerted to this list's irrelevance to their project? Plumleaff (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! In this case you can directly remove the relevant template from the page. Adding a note to inform member of Wikiproject Georgia is optional. Keihatsu ^talk 02:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Plumleaff (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I do Date of death when I don't know the exact date?

I'm working on the Murder of Holly Bobo article and I'm not sure how to do the dates in the lead. We know what day she went missing and she was found this week (three years later). Right now, it says "Holly Bobo (born October 12, 1990) was an American woman who went missing..."

Another editor edited it to say Holly Bobo (October 12, 1990 - September 7, 2014), adding the date she was kidnapped as the date of death. The police theory is that she was kept alive for at least a few hours before she was killed, possibly even longer so we don't really know what day or even month/year she died. Should I leave it as "(born October 12, 1990) or should I clarify that in some other way. I can't think of any other examples of people whose date of death is unknown to check wikipedia convention on this. Does anyone have any opinion on how this should be handled? Bali88 (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't speculate or create a date based on logic. We need a reliable secondary source for something as important as DOD. Just give the birth date (if its backed by a reliable source) and then mention in the lead that she was missing on XYZ date and was found dead on ABC date or whatever the sources say. On WP we just summarize the sources and avoid WP:OR. Thanks for asking this very good question and good luck with the article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. So you think "(born October 12, 1990)" is fine? Bali88 (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is entitled "Murder of..." I would think that would be adequate. Alternatively it could say "Died between XX and YY".

--ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, when you say "that" is adequate, you mean just including her birth date in the parentheses is adequate? Bali88 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete

Hi everybody! I think these two pages should be deleted: Alyssa-Jane Cook, Moira McLean. I don't think they are notable enough. Where do I go to propose this if I can? --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you feel that a page does not belong, you can propose that they be deleted. If you do so, the article will remain up for about 7 days. If nobody objects to the deletion, it can be deleted. If someone does object to deletion and remove the deletion tag, you will have to go through the articles for deletion process. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC) don't worry I'm a host okay i am going to delete okay so good luck with ur other questions (whoever wrote this is NOT me, k6ka!

Can you type that part after your signature again so I can understand what your saying please? You know, with grammar. --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The part after the signature was added by User:Girlrockforever1 who perhaps has not yet learned to sign her posts or how to format posts to talk pages. So that text can be ignored. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping, OK thought so. --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I proposed them to be deleted. Just saying people. --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DangerousJXD. I have removed your proposed deletion from Alyssa-Jane Cook, an actress who has played several significant roles before her current job as a TV presenter. We judge the notability of a person in show business on their entire career, not just their current job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that's fine, I half agree with you on that anyway. Though if someone were to do the same for the other page, I would not agree. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's lovely to see the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in action. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What's that? --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Once a {{proposed deletion}} has been removed, you shouldn't re-add the template regardless of whether you agree with its removal. Cullen328 was considerate enough to explain his reasoning for removing one of the templates, but please note that such an explanation is not required to be given. Any editor who objects to the proposed deletion, even in bad faith, can simply remove the template from the article and the template cannot be re-added. There are certain exceptions of course, but "disagreement" is not one of them.

I understand how tempting it can be to request deletion for a page that you feel doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I think you need to exercise a little caution when doing so. The "proposed deletion" template is, in my opinion, for articles which don't qualify for speedy deletion, but whose deletion would not be disputed by other editors at all. Have you looked at WP:BLPPROD? There are specific steps you need complete before adding this template to an article about a living person. Have you completed all of them? Step 4 says "Check the biography's history to be sure that it was created after March 18, 2010." Moira McLean was created prior to that date so I am not sure that this template can be used on it. Personally, I have come to learn that it is, in many cases, better to try and improve an article, then simply to go straight for the kill and mark it for deletion. Improvement may not always be possible, but it is best to give others at least the chance to discuss whether the article can be saved. A "proposed deletion" template means no discussion is needed, and I'm not entirely sure if that is true in this particular case. Once I nominated an article for deletion that I strongly believed did not belong on Wikipedia at all. Others, however, felt differently and actually improved the article in various ways that I had not even considered. So, if you really feel the article should be deleted, then I personally think it would be better to nominate it for deletion following the steps laid out in WP:AFD. Other editors might actually be able to find sources to improve this article too. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Never doing that again. --DangerousJXD (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: are you sure about that part where anyone can remove a proposed deletion tag? I've never heard that before and I've seen a few people yelled at for removing those tags without consensus at at AFD. Bali88 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bali88: WP:CONTESTED says "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article". --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ColinFine - Oh okay, so you guys are talking about the speedy delete stuff, not regular AFD noms. That makes more sense. Bali88 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not quite, Bali88: there are three separate deletion processes. Speedy deletion, for uncontroversial immediate deletes; proposed deletion for probably uncontroversial deletions; and AFD for normal discussed deletions. See Deletion policy for details.

Wow! I had no idea there was a third. You learn something new every day! Bali88 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding talk pages with no parent page

Is there a special page or category (or some other method, like a database dump) that lists talk pages with no parent page? (they meet CSD G8). Just curious to know. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi K6ka and thanks for the question. There is no such list or dump as far as I am aware. If you're curious as to why the criteria exists, it is so that when an administrator deletes an article (which we do on occasion :) ), it provides a quick "drop down" reason for the deletion of the associated talk page since everything on Wikipedia has an audit trail and everything has to be documented. G8 is not that different to G6 (housekeeping etc.) it's just a little more precise.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Images

How can I post images on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toofania (talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Toofania: See Help:Introduction to uploading images/1, and let us know if you have any follow-up questions! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about copyright?

So I was reviewing an article I edited a while back ("Cajun Cuisine"), and I noticed that I used summarized info from a source (a book) for a significant portion of the "History" section of my article, as I couldn't find much info on the topic elsewhere. I was sure to use footnotes, but even after reading the copyright rules I'm a bit confused about what constitutes violating copyright (since I didn't take portions directly from the text)? I just want to make sure I'm not violating copyright. Thanks. -thezulus

Thezulus (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thezulus: We are allowed to paraphrase, provided we do not use close paraphrasing, to précis, and to summarise. It is likely that you have done it correctly from what you say, I have not inspected your edits to be 100% sure. Fiddle Faddle 19:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@timtrent thanks for the response! so there really isn't a limit when it comes to paraphrasing? I mean clearly you can't take a whole article from one source but a small section is ok?

Thezulus (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE is a thoughtful and informative essay about this that is well worth reading, even though it partly focuses on the usefulness of combining multiple sources, which obviously is not possible in this case. There are two other approaches I find useful when struggling to avoid paraphrasing a source too closely. First, if it is really awkward to render a particular idea, quote with quotation marks a very short piece of the original, and attribute it immediately after the quote. This is not ideal, but it is acceptable. Second, on a slightly different scale, when summarising or paraphrasing a very detailed source, normally one finds that the resultant Wikipedia text should end up much shorter than the original book text. So for example a newspaper review of a novel might be a full page in a broadsheet newspaper, but Wikipedia perhaps only needs to mention whether the review was positive or negative and the main reasons why, perhaps two or three sentences at the most. Likewise a book which is a biography of a person might spend an entire chapter on some small aspect of their life, but the Wikipedia article may only need one or two paragraphs to cover the same material.

The above was not really an answer to your second question, so I will try and work on that now. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Try putting it this way... if you have an entire section in your article that is all based on one book, then that's absolutely fine so long as your section does not paraphrase the book too closely. Being based on one source does not necessarily mean something is too closely paraphrased. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@arthur goes shopping wow that answer was extremely helpful! I took info from about 11 pages about the 17th century to modern times and summed it up in about 16 sentences, with a few other sources used in addition. I will go back and make sure its not too closely paraphrased, though some portions are just pure facts that do have to be worded similarly and I will look to see if I need to quote those things. Thanks for your help!

Thezulus (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there anybody who can check articles?

Thank you

I wondered if like school there was somebody who did not mind checking articles, to see what needs to be improved? I do not want to find I have a problem on the articles I am correcting. So if somebody could help it would be great. ThanksSpikequeen (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Spikequeen, and thanks for your contributions. One thing I can suggest is that you read Citing sources. You have added a few citations with just a bare url in it, which can lead to link rot. I find it helpful to use Citation templates to format the information in a link. I have edited one of your citations in Pam Hogg to give you an example of how it is done. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Learning the ropes

I submitted a profile of Sydney Finkelstein, a chaired professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, with text from his website. It was rightly deleted for unambiguous copyright violation. The profile has been re-written and re-submitted in a format much like other influential academics. Is there anything else I need to do to get the new version accepted? Thanks very much. Imainfp (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iminfp, welcome to the Teahouse. I read over your article, and it's off to a decent start, but it needs some work before it's ready for the article space. It actually hasn't been submitted yet, but that's OK. Here are a few things to consider before resubmitting:

• The information in the article needs to be cited to appropriate sources. These sources should also be independent of the subject (i.e. not a personal website, self-published sources, or an institutional website that Finkelstein is affiliated with) and are reliable (e.g. news sources, books, or articles that have a peer review or editorial process). This is super important for claims like "it was a #1 bestseller in the U.S. and Japan", but also for the descriptions of his works. If you're not sure how to cite sources, this is a good primer to get you started.

• The article sound a bit like a resume, particularly the consulting section. I'd consider dropping this section unless his consulting work has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Try to incorporate feedback from book reviews on his publications, rather than just describe the publications.

• There are too many external links. Choose a single official website for Finkelstein (probably this one), and that's all that's needed.

Let me know if you need any help! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dapo Ladimeji

Hi

I have uploaded and used the coding to submit at the beginning. I am not seeing the post live. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dapo_Ladimeji Also I cannot figure out how to upload an image. Any directions you can point me to please? Many thanks

Denise D.Ashurst (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@D.Ashursh: You have correctly submitted your article for review. All reviewers are volunteers, so it may take a while before anyone responds to your request. However, after a quick glance, I'll tell you that it is highly likely that a reviewer would decline your article. It is written in a very promotional way. Please rewrite it using a neutral tone and less peacock/flowery language. I'd also recommend significantly shortening the article to hit only the very highlights. If I were writing that article, it would probably be about 75% shorter. As far as uploading images, please see Help:Introduction to uploading images/1. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, @D.Ashursh: It doesn't look to me that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Please see the policy WP:N for the general notability rule. You'll need to collect significant coverage of Ladimeji in reliable independent sources and I really don't see that in the references cited in the article. The closest thing there is in the article is this BBC piece but it isn't really about Ladimeji, it just quotes him in an article about something else. There's also the Bloomberg link but that's a directory listing. Really what you need to find is newspaper articles about Ladimeji (not blog posts, not things Ladimeji has written, not websites affiliated with Ladimeji, etc.). Please do this before you spend more time revising the article, so that your effort is not ultimately wasted. When you think you have collected sufficient sources (go for quality over quantity, look for 3-5 good quality sources), I'd check back here to see if people think the notability rule has been satisfied. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What does a page review mean?

I have on one of my articles that I like, got a message that I was page reviewed? I am accused of sock puppetry, I am getting bullied on one article but not the other articles. I have only just started two weeks ago on Wikipedia? At my stage I am not writing articles just adding to existing ones. Spikequeen (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Spikequeen. I have not reviewed the problems you've mentioned, since it is very close to my bed time. Feel free to ask additional questions. But a message saying a page has been "reviewed" simply means that a moderately experienced editor took a brief look at it, and determined that there was nothing flagrantly wrong. They didn't fact check it or "approve" it. They simply confirmed that it wasn't slander, gibberish or "complete bollocks", as the British say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Spikequeen - to add to Cullen's reply, I would like to point out that your article was not singled out for special treatment. All articles go onto the list for a review, although as you can imagine that has a huge backlog so it can take months for the review to take place. Sorry to read about the rough treatment you received; I encourage you to stick around, because your contributions all help to make this a better encyclopedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I now what to learn what the different colours mean. So much to learn and you really become addicted to editing quickly. Anything I can do or learn let me know. Morning wherever you are.Spikequeen (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What does a page review mean?

I have on one of my articles that I like, got a message that I was page reviewed? I am accused of sock puppetry, I am getting bullied on one article but not the other articles. I have only just started two weeks ago on Wikipedia? At my stage I am not writing articles just adding to existing ones. Spikequeen (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Spikequeen. I have not reviewed the problems you've mentioned, since it is very close to my bed time. Feel free to ask additional questions. But a message saying a page has been "reviewed" simply means that a moderately experienced editor took a brief look at it, and determined that there was nothing flagrantly wrong. They didn't fact check it or "approve" it. They simply confirmed that it wasn't slander, gibberish or "complete bollocks", as the British say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Spikequeen - to add to Cullen's reply, I would like to point out that your article was not singled out for special treatment. All articles go onto the list for a review, although as you can imagine that has a huge backlog so it can take months for the review to take place. Sorry to read about the rough treatment you received; I encourage you to stick around, because your contributions all help to make this a better encyclopedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I now what to learn what the different colours mean. So much to learn and you really become addicted to editing quickly. Anything I can do or learn let me know. Morning wherever you are.Spikequeen (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you open an article with the same name but two different subjects?

I am interested in writing about a woman in Jewellery, which appears to have an article in the same name but a different subject? Spikequeen (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Spikequeen. This is a very common issue here on Wikipedia, we call it "disambiguation", and the various ways to deal with it are described at WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Most simply, you could create an article called Mary Jones (jeweler), for example. There are other methods, depending on the circumstances. Please feel free to ask a more detailed follow-up question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem editing with the [ ] on Mac Book Air

Hello everyone,

I have encountered an issue when editing with the [ ] signs to create links which do not work properly. As I am using a Mac Book Air I need to use alt-gr+shift+( or ) to create the signs []. However, probably due to the way I create them, the edit program does not create the links properly. Fyi, I use Firefox as my browser. As anyone encountered this issue yet? I cannot find anything on the internet. Thank you in advance for your time and help!

Momoquet (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Momoquet, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't have a Mac Bok Air for testing but it sounds and looks like you can create the characters and the problem is using them to make a link, so I wonder whether the issue is the syntax. In [2] you wrote [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Momoquet]]. The correct syntax for a link to your user page (which hasn't been created yet) is [[User:Momoquet]] which produces User:Momoquet. The link will change from red to blue if you create the page. See more at Help:Link. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Momoquet. I am interested in simplifying, so here is the simplest way I can explain it: Single square brackets go around the URL for an internet page off of English Wikipedia, which creates a clickable link. Double square brackets go around the name of a page on English Wikipedia, which creates a clickable link to that Wikipedia page.

To get just slightly more complicated, you can leave a single space after the URL in my first example, and then type in the page title. The result does not display the full URL, but instead the page title. That is more user friendly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that helps me too. I do like the tea house.Spikequeen (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A list of all articles I have edited

Can I do a database search on my user id or something else to get a list of the articles I've edited?AgAustin (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AgAustin and welcome to The Teahouse. At this point it is very simple for you to get this list. Click on "contributions" in the upper right corner of your screen, or simply click here. Someone else may know a better answer for people who, like me, have thousands of contributions and might like to know how to get a list of the different articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello AgAustin, and if you take Vchimpanzee's excellent advice one step further and look at the bottom of the page s(he) linked to, you'll see a long box with some text. Click on "Edit Counts", and you'll get list and charts of everything you have done here. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you.AgAustin (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Help Me Work On The Page 3C's

How Can We Build The Page Properly ?IAm3Cs (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IAm3Cs, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you need to do is find places where reliable source (such as major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers) have written about you. If these places do not yet exist, then I'm afraid you do not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for "notability", and an article about you is not permitted: it does not matter what goes into the article, it will get deleted.

Secondly, assuming you are 3C's, you need to step back from trying to write the article, because you have what we call a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and its articles are required to be written in a neutral tone, and may not be promotional in any way. It is very hard to write that way about oneself, or one's own family, friends, band, company etc, so we strongly discourage people from trying to do so.

Your best course is to look for some references such as I mentioned above. These need to be substantial: not just listings, or mentioning you in passing. Reviews are fine, provided they are substantial, and are published in a reliable place (not a fan-site, forum or blog, or your own website). If you can't find such references, then I'm afraid you need to give up the idea of there being a Wikipedia article about you, for the moment. If you can find some, then I suggest you post a request at requested articles, and maybe somebody will pick it up and decide to write an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

https://bop.fm/a/3csIAm3Cs (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is enforcing Terms of Use

When I look around I see a lot of harassment in breach of the Terms of Use. This is very annoying. Is there any sysop around that actually protects visitors against predatory behaviour? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ad Huikeshoven: With precision, what do you mean? Vague allegations have no place here. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ad Huikeshoven. It is nice to have a visit from such a prominent Dutch Wikipedian. The general issues you raise are a chronic concern here. I suggest that you might try discussing these issues with Drmies, an administrator who is of Dutch origin, though he lives in the U.S. now. He may have some useful observations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ad, the short answer is we are all supposed to do that. The longer answer is, well, kweenie. If harassment is reported, action can be taken. Whether it always is, and whether such is done properly and in a timely manner, that's a different matter. It is no secret that there is broad disagreement about how to enforce civility, for instance, and IMO that's part and parcel of en-Wikipedia's broad cultural diversity. I am interested in particulars; feel free to email me privately if that's more appropriate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: thanks for calling @Drmies:. As I understand Drmies is a very prominent editor of the English Wikipedia, speaks Dutch natively. I'm glad the Teahouse is still operating at enwiki. I experimented as a host a year ago before proposing a Teahouse project on nlwiki. Things start slowly at nlwiki. I'm following the development of Flow. Flow is enabled on a couple of pages on enwiki. In my view Flow could be experimentally tried in the Teahouse. There is some serious opposition against Flow. User Fram vehemently opposes any move in that direction. He is the biting type. Maybe I don't understand the objections. Maybe one of you can explain those to me. The past weeks have been tense. Hundreds of people publically opposed against MediaViewer. Many people don't like MediaViewer and opt-out. Feedback has been collected. From all those feedback so far four cosmetic changes could be distilled, while no one produced a convincing critical issue. A lot of stampede for nothing. So I find this very annoying, hence my post here. At Wikimania London I attend the talk by Fabrice Florin about A culture of kindness. Eventually he calls for being kind to everyone, including the annoying ones. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, prominent--let's not take a poll on that. As for Flow, that's well beyond my payscale. I've caught a whiff occasionally of stuff going on, and a bit of a dispute between the Foundation and some en-wiki folks and all of that, but I don't even know what Flow is since I focus way too much on other things here. I know that Fram rubs plenty of people the wrong way and they're very outspoken, but whether they're right or wrong about all of this, I couldn't possibly tell. What I do know is that Fram is also an editor here that I know as an editor, and I don't know anyone in the Foundation in that way. But I am not the one to explain this particular issue. Let me patch you through to Writ Keeper. He's not Dutch, not by a long shot, but he understands technical stuff better than most people I know here, and he can speak of it intelligently. Perhaps he even has his finger on the pulse of the community, though as a 'crat he's one of the untouchables these days. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I try to keep my fingers to myself, really, Drmies, and the community doesn't like to be poked, which perhaps is part of the problem here. I think I've actually discussed this briefly with Ad before, but the real point is that Flow just isn't ready yet. A lot of the most basic functionality is there, as you've seen, Ad. But there's a lot more that has to be in place for something like Flow to be deployed to real pages. A lot of these missing features are more related to behind-the-scenes management and adminning, so to a normal user, they're not visibly missing. But they're no less important for a system to go into production. For example, one problem is that there isn't a good way to remove threads from public view yet; if someone comes in here and posts something that should not be seen by public eyes, we wouldn't be able to fix it if we were using Flow. Deletion of pages also doesn't work well (though that's not a huge concern to the Teahouse specifically). Flow doesn't integrate with watchlists well yet, nor with Echo notifications; introducing Flow right now would likely cause confusion among both hosts and guests, causing questions to go unseen and therefore unanswered. Histories are also a bit sketchy at the moment. There are simple bugs, too; if you were using the Monobook skin, Flow wouldn't have let you click on any of the tabs that normally appear along the top of the screen, to get to the page history and things like that. (I actually think that particular bug might have been fixed, but the point that there are still bugs in the code remains.) Really, even though it looks good to the casual observer, Flow has a looong way to go before it's ready, especially for a place like the Teahouse; while I think that Flow might actually be really nice for a newbie-friendly place like here, buggy and incomplete software is more likely to hurt than help, especially with new users.
  
  As for Fram: well, as Drmies says, Fram is very passionate about protecting the encyclopedia. I actually agree with you that several people, Fram included, are overreacting to the creation of these new test pages. But you have to understand that there's a history here; the conflict between the community and the WMF didn't start with the MediaViewer or even with Flow. These issues go back a long time, years even, and with all that history of bad decision and bad blood (on both sides), tempers are bound to flare more easily than perhaps they should. I don't like how far they've gone here, but I can respect that they're just doing what they think is right by Wikipedia, which is all we can ask of any editor. And indeed, even though I don't agree with their conclusions, I can understand how they arrived at them. You just have to learn to roll with the punches sometimes, I'm afraid. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• As for Fram, indeed--read "Fram", since we shouldn't be talking about them behind their back. And now, hopefully, he gets one of those irritating pings that I've been getting from them every half an hour for the past week and a half (WK, can you fix that???). Drmies (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am glad that a productive conversation has developed here. In response to the original question, I believe that the best way for me to advance civility is to try to conduct myself in a friendly, helpful collaborative fashion whenever possible. I recommend that course to others as well. I try to say a few friendly words to editors having a tough time. Even when dealing with people clearly here to do damage, it is best to be businesslike and polite. I don't always meet the standard I set for myself, but when I find myself getting angry, I take a step back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Flow test, a page where Ad Huikeshoven was acting rudely and annoying towards other editors, like User:Cyberpower678. Thanks to the o-so-readiness of Flow, that page history is now unaccessible for everyone, including admins, so I can't present any diffs; but the total lack of competence and clue presented there by Ad Huikeshoven was amazing, certainly coming from someone who has (or had) his positions in Wikimedia, so should know better. The only conclusion I could draw (and still can) was that we are being trolled here. Fram (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sort order for authors' works

Hi all! I was just wondering whether lists of authors' works should be sorted in any particular chronological manner. That is, should they be listed from oldest to newest, or vice versa? My inclination is that more recent works should be at the top of such lists, but I might be wrong. Huxley G (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Huxley G: Hey Huxkley, thanks for your question. I've edited a handful of author articles, and as I recall, their works are generally listed from oldest to newest. That said, I don't believe there are any Manual of Style guidelines on this particular matter, so it's really up to you. If you're starting a new article, it's really up to you, but if another article already has an oldest-to-newest system set, I'd refrain from changing it because both are sensible options. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Echoing the greetings of I JethroBT, welcome @Huxley G:! Just to add something to Jethro's answer, there IS a manual of style guideline for this. You can find it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. The first section titled Ordering states: "Items should normally be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first." It also lists a few exceptions to that basic rule, but generally, listing is done chronologically, from the oldest first. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, the MOS always gets me. Thanks for the clarification, Jayron32. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'll adhere to the style guide mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huxley G (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How to find other editors from the same geographic region for editing an article related to that region.

Hello,

This is Anwar and I am very happily editing articles. I have been editing and creating new articles related to various places in Jammu and Kashmir, India. Now, my problem is, I hardly find others who may help me out with some of the articles especially those pertaining to my home place Kargil, Leh and Ladakh.

Many a times I have to give refernces from books and when I do so I get the following tag on the page.

Can I remove it if I have the source with me and can provide whenever the need may be?

Any help would be highly appreciated. Thank You ~ A n w a r a j Urdu: انوراج ‎ 11:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Anwaraj. It looks like you have two questions, whether you can find anyone who can help you edit the articles about Indian cities and what to do with the 'reference needed' tag. For the first question, you might be interested in the Wikiprojects Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities, or more generally, Wikipedia:WikiProject India. You can leave a message on the talk page of the Wikiprojects to see if anyone responds, or you can leave individual messages on the talk pages of active members.

As for the second question, the tag means that the article itself needs more citations to be added. If you have the book, I suggest that you add the citations in the article by yourself, preferably using inline citations. Template:Cite book might be useful if you will be citing books. KJ ^Discuss? 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kkj11210 Many thanks for responding.

As you talked of the wikiprojects I have joined some of them. And have also posted it on the wall of some of the active users but am yet to get any response. Anyhow I'll try again.

As for the question regarding the reference tag, I have already cited the book inline using the Template:Cite book even then some unregistered user from some IP address put up the reference banner on the page Kacho Sikander Khan. For the time being I have removed the reference banner and have started a discussion at the talk page and am waiting if someone turns up there. Can you please look into the page Kacho Sikander Khan and see if there is some problem with the references.

Thanks~ A n w a r a j Urdu: انوراج ‎ 12:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the addition of the banner was fine. In general, most sentences in an article should have footnotes. Right now it looks like there is only about one footnote per paragraph. Where did the other information in the article come from? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"

User:Calliopejen1, Hi and Thanks for the clarification but as I have already stated that most of the information comes from the book the author wrote. In his first book there is this chapter titled "Introduction". That has been the source for the informations. However to support the facts regarding the dates and the number of books he has published, I have cited two journals that carried relevant information regarding the author. So, for a stub won't that be enough sources to refer to. I'll, however, try my best to search for more sources and include them. Would that be fine to keep the banner at bay for now? ~ A n w a r a j Urdu: انوراج ‎ 18:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Anwaraj: If you feel that there are enough information cited to remove the citations needed tag, you are welcome to do so. However, I would advise you to make sure that all the facts in the articles could be traced to a reliable source (using inline citations) and discuss the issue on the talk page of the article if any user raises the issue of citations for the article. Regards. KJ ^Discuss? 11:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Explanatory notes / citations order within the body of an article

I posted this on the Help talk:Footnotes page and then realized there's not much activity on that page. So, trying here:

Hello,

I haven't seen anything about the order of explanatory notes and citations in the body of an article.

• [nb 5][53]

vs

• [53][nb 5]

It's been my practice to use the second approach, but maybe that's my and some other's personal preference.

Is there a guideline about this?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen this specific question, but there is a standard order for the "end matter" of the article, which has Notes before References (see WP:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections). So at first blush, it looks reasonable (to me, at least) to put the inline citations in the same order.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I like where you're going with that - makes sense! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand about the deletion after 7 days. I did secure permission and did email it to the indicated address. It may well be that it arrived after 7 days, and thereby resulted in deletion of the picture, but as soon as I am able to re-insert the picture I will be able to simultaneously re-send the necessary copyright permission. However, I hope that you can now address the second aspect of my question: "When I attempted to upload it again, the forms I was asked to complete indicated that an image cannot be uploaded if its purpose is simply to illustrate what the subject looks like. Is this a new policy? Especially since I simply updated an old image, why can I not get the new image uploaded. Your help is eagerly sought"

Please advise as to how I may be able to insert the new photograph.

With thanks,

Byron Laursen 50.143.181.123 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can YOU answer this?

(I changed the name of this from bugginess to what it is now.) Hi. I have this bug, using mobile, no app, yes browser. OK on certain occations, (I think it's when one section of an article has lots of words.) I try to edit something, (Right at the bottom.) and it won't let me. I can backspace, but can't type. It's only for article that have long sections. Examples! On Deadpool, Mystique and Deal or No Deal Australian game show pages, I'm trying to, change Deadpool will be getting married to got married in publication section, change appeared in Lego Marvel to is a playable character, thats in video game section, and add a fantastic four part in the featured section of those articles respectively. It's like on phone the character limit is shorter than on an actual computer. And is there a place where I can ask someone to do stuff like this that I can't do? If you wan't you can change the first 2 yourself for me. (I dought anyone would know about the third one.) Thanks everyone. Soz for typos. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day again, DangerousJXD. No, I can't answer the problem, sorry. But it might help our more technically minded colleagues to know a bit more about your equipment. Is it an iPhone, or Android, or something else? Make and model could be relevant. Are you connecting over a Wireless LAN, or a 3G or 4G data connection? Which ISP? --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Details: 3G, android, Samsung Galaxy Gio, (I'm not sure what you mean by ISP but I'll assume your talking about what company I am with.) Optus. Can you report the bug? I know you can but I'm not sure how. Thanks Gronk Oz. --DangerousJXD (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - I did a bit of digging, and apparently bugs should be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I have not used it myself, but I expect that if you pull all the relevant details from the discussion above into a single list for easy reference and post it there, and then we all keep our fingers crossed ... we'll see! --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks matey mate. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

References and punctuation

Full points end sentences, including in scientific articles.

Therefore, references, which are attached to certain words without space, may not be discriminated should the word be inside or at the end of the sentence. All other typo rule makes WIKIPEDIA look ridiculously altering the common and universal rule.

Examples taken from http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/:

"Meissner's corpuscles of the prepuce may be compared with similar nerve-endings in the finger-tips and lips, which respond in a fraction of a second to contact with light objects that bring about deformation of their capsules [14]."

"However, complex sensation, at least in the glans penis, may be mediated by free nerve-endings rather than by specialized end-organs [15]."

Now, users "Arthur goes shopping" and "Powers", who appallingly contest that universal rule must be warned to stop that insidious edit warring. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau. Wikipedia's manual of style, says "Any punctuation (see exceptions below) must precede the ref tags", so the examples you give do not match Wikipedia's rules. The MOS, like most things in Wikipedia, is determined by consensus. If you think this should be changed, you are welcome to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:manual of style; but changing the consensus requires enrolling other people to you view, so you are very unlikely to succeed by making bald assertions, calling things ridiculous, or being rude about well-established editors. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All right, thank you; the issue was that my first post was abruptly archived without my being warned of the answers done as usual in my e-mail box, so that I was shocked.

Since discriminating references in the middle of the sentence and at the end of it is highly illogical and therefore "appalling" indeed in an encyclopedia, I'm rising the question where you indicated me, hoping that, in this place, examples taken from scientific litterature ("other people") will be taken into account.

At last, may the users be well-established or not, first, I did not call them but the thing they were doing "ridiculous". I do not see anything rude in emphasizing that they contested by mere affiming the contrary of what I was affirming, without any justification. And this, according to the wiki rule, is called "edit warring". Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read MOS:REFSPACE Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau: Hi Michel. How did you come to the conclusion this was the universal rule? Please see, just as a sample:

 • [3]: University of Washington School of Pharmacy:
          “How are citations done in the biomedical literature? ... The citation number goes outside of punctuation..."

 • [4]: American Medical Association (AMA) & Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (ADA) Styles:
          "To format the superscript numerals, follow these guidelines: place outside of punctuation comma, period."

 • [5]: MLA Format Guide:
          “The citation is placed at the end of the quote, outside the closing punctuation.”

 • [6]: Chicago Style Reference Sheet:
          “The endnote reference number always appears ‘outside of punctuation.”

 • [7] World Meteorological Organization:
          "Footnote references in a text are always placed outside of punctuation"

 • [8]: Hawai‘i Journal of Medicine & Public Health:
          "Place citations outside of punctuation marks."

--Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit! First, I've always noticed that American standards in matter of editing, and even orthograph (for instance the use of which that is different, and much more logical, in England English), are complicated and unusual by comparison with European ones, so that you will easily find hundreds of such journals to which I do not care. I've created my own standard in my scientific articles (https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau) and it is exactly the same as that of BJU International, the famous English urological review. Now, I've started a discussion in manual of style, we'll see what happens though I doubt that the likely American majority will follow me; I have given two very logical reasons for my point. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau: I'll say it again. Establishing (or changing) consensus does not depend only on logic. This is a community of people working together. Taking a combative position, writing as though yours is the only possible view and anybody who disagrees with you must be stupid, and assuming that there is an American bias, are not ways of winning support for your argument. --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your fueling assumptions are simply libelling, indeed, I am not taking a combative position; I am giving mine, that's all:

1/ The encyclopedist mind is a universal one, for which reason logic must be our main ground.

2/ Thank you very much to confirm that view by your: "writing as though yours is the only possible view".

3/ However, you are right again saying that consensus is based upon other reasons than logic, but then, it seems to me that you are walking upon very slippery ground; indeed, among many other examples, the Nazis, for instance, as well as those who committed the genocide of American Indians, established a formidable consensus in favour of the logic of invasion and extermination, still alive today in the American policy of aid to Israel.

4/ I do not think that giving a reference to the logic of the British journal or urology may be called "only logic".

5/ I hate combative positions, war, weapons and violence, particularly upon the child whom I defend in my site at academia.edu (bertaux). So, I do not intend to indulge in edit warring, all the more about this trifle question.

6/ I have written nowhere - you have - that different positions than mine are stupid; they obey to a different logic, that's all.

7/ Each culture has its biases, the American ones, well documented, consist in a Puritanism inherited from the Pilgrim fathers. It led to the now famous circumcision bias (the PACE has voted in a great majority in favour of the right of the child to physical integrity) and its dratic outcome: the country is the first for AIDS and also the first world consumer of viagra. Other biases are racism, an appalling attachment to guns and weapons inherited from the "Far-West" conquest, and their uncontrolate use even by the police itself, at last a ridiculous and dangerous for the child male repulsion to breast-feeding...!

The above call to censorship needs to be signed and denounced by administrators!

8/ Since I have raised the debate in the proper place according to our friend's advice, debating here is pointless and I will not answer you any more. I "will not say it again". Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Once you mention "the Nazis" you loose the argument and any assumption of good faith.Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your judgment but I'm not interested in wining or losing, I'm far too old for that. I'm only interested in telling the truth as I see it. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• The problem with that, @Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau: is the "truth as I see it" part. First is the "I" part. Wikipedia is not the work of a singular person, it is a work of collaboration, and a part of collaboration is to sometimes put the "I" aside in favor of the "we". To understand that sometimes, reasonable people disagree, and to realize that sometimes, your viewpoint is not going to be the only valid one. When competing valid viewpoints exist, not everyone gets their way. The second part of that is the "see it" part. That implies it is coming from your perspective. At Wikipedia, we don't judge truth on one's internal thought processes. We can't see the inside of your brain. Instead, we base our view of the truth on verifiability: that is, the "ifiability" part is what is important. Of course we care about the truth (veritas after all is the same root as verifiability) but it's not the truth as you see it or feel it, it's the truth you can prove from sources. We provide written, reliable sources anyone can check, and we base decisions on what those sources say. That's the "ifiability" part of "verifiability". It's not what you assert is true based on your perceptions, it is what you can demonstrate to others is true based on what is written in reliable sources. I hope that helps clear up the source of your conflict here. --Jayron32 19:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"LIKE"; you state the obvious but you state well. As for the "I", I'm a democrat and respect the law, even if I find it stupid. As for verifiability, editing rules, since they are an issue of taste and aesthetics, do not need to be verified. They are a peculiar case and each editor has its own rules, each one with its small differences. We are editors, we are free to chose our own editing rules. My two cent point of view is that the BJU International footnote rule is simple and elegant; nothing prevents us to adopt it. If we do, considering the immmense population that reads us, it's likely that other editors will imitate us. Indeed, as for editing rules, one source should be enough to put down a thousand agreeing ones if that one is simple and regular, and therefore reasonable and elegant rather than complicated and variable, and therefore overruling and snobish-like.

Funny my argument begins and ends with "like"! Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

References may well depend upon the type of article. My question is how one references photographs for pathology articles.

"LIKE" Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia is exactly what a pathology textbook is. A pathology textbook is a special type of encyclopedia because the person who reads a pathology textbook is using the information to better practice his or her skill. Wikipedia is ideal for this purpose because the pathologists who would create the pathology textbooks on it, which would be defined as a series of articles, can upload the photographs from their own practice with almost no effort these days. Other pathologist editors would, of course, correct any errors in the photographs, but the information is strictly derived from well established, & hopefully constantly updated sources. It is this continuous updating that renders Wikipedia especially wonderful. Another great feature is that editors can add as many photographs as needed to flesh out the matter with different examples. This has been done in several articles, but I will work with the Anatomic Pathology group to better produce things.

The reference question in this case is for the photographs. Certainly, all photographs from journals should 1) ensure the journal is either freely & publicly available or 2) get permission from the journal for this purpose. With respect to photographs of diseases, should one specifically reference those photos not made at one's own microscope? If so, how should this be done. Also, how, if reference is needed, should one reference one's own photographs?TexasPathologist1 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to be qualified to anser you. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to know about language features, but it seems that there isn't a page called language features

What do I do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ababcdc (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Ababcdc (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ababcdc. We have a page called feature (linguistics). Is this what you mean, or do you mean something else? --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply to ColonFine: Thanks, but by language feature I mean like repetition or rhythm. -- Ababcdc (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2014.

He, Ababcdc. The problem is that "feature" is such a general word that there's no way of telling what kind of features you mean (and, as I indicated, it also has a technical meaning in linguistics). You might find that one or more of the pages linked from prosody are of interest to you. --ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. --Ababcdc (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Host

Can I become a host cause I am really helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlrockforever1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Girlrockforever, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you think perhaps it might be a good idea to get more experience in editing Wikipedia before becoming a host? Have you edited many Wikipedia articles, and which articles do you feel benefitted most from your contributions? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not being rude or anything but don't you think you should know to sign your posts before being a host? --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you go to talk pages on mobile devices?

I cannot figure it out myself so can someone help me? -- Ababcdc (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find a way to do it either. I haven't found a clear list of the features in the mobile app, but mw:Wikimedia Engineering/2014-15 Goals#Mobile contains the line "Tablets: test of talk page links and redlinks in stable for tablet users to provide data for article creation work and talk page usage on mobile", which I think means that talk page links and redlinks are not currently available. --ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hosts

What are hosts and how can I become a host? (I know that some of my edits are not helpful to the page) -- Ababcdc (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hosts are experienced users that answer questions at the Teahouse. You can be a host at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start. TranquilHope (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

How do you reference a article? -- Ababcdc (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

For example, the when I tap "edit" in the references section of the article Mule, all that came up was

==References=={{reflist|35em}{{refbegin}* {{EB1911}{{refend} -- Ababcdc (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Ababcdc. As you have found, all that appears in the references section is a few templates that make the references appear. The content of the references is inserted where they are used. If you edit an earlier section that contains referenced information, you will see that where the superscript number appears in the displayed page, the source contains something between <ref> and </ref>. That is the definition of the reference, and can be just text, but I prefer to use one of the reference templates, such as {{cite web}}. Please see Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)