Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

Click here to ask a question »

archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

External Links to Youtube are Banned

This is pretty outrageous. I got message from XLinkBot saying that a external link to a video on Youtube I added was reverted. I have been adding links to videos showing original folk music and dances throughout the world. How can there be a copyright problem? Since everything on the Internet has some rights attached, all external links would violate the wikipedia's policy, except for the fact that no content is copied - merely linked to. If the hyperlink is a violation of something then the Internet itself is invalid. We don't validate the copyright of other external links let alone ban them. Wikipedia can't be responsible for youtube's content. I would add that the videos I use are amateur performances in public of traditional music and dance, not composed or choreographed pop or classical works. Dear old anon has no copyright.

If it is a problem of original research. I am only linking to actual examples. Including an image of a painting by a particular painter is not original research, it is merely an example. Using "un-original research" for these examples perverts their authenticity. It's like saying you can't add a photo of Mount Rushmore, you have to have a university professor make a copy of it and then add that. Cases where unauthentic performances are used are the sad situations where the art is lost. I have not been able to find a single example of a native speaker of the Ladino language on the Internet. This is sad. But there are dying examples of ancient singing styles available. Why would those people not want them online? And don't they have a right to complain to Youtube?

Bots can help here and there, but the basic idea of a wiki is to let the users write and edit the content. The whole project is based on user judgment and correction of mistakes. Wikipedia is becoming anti-culture. Do they not like Google? I actually don't. Have they been threatened by a suit or warned by Youtube? I doubt that. I would never put doubtful content on wikipedia.

There was a proposal rejected about this: Wikipedia:External links/YouTube

So how can I get around this bot? Cellorando (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a space template?

Hi, i recently encountered an editor asking if there was a template for spaces, a bit like the {{!}} for | and {{(}} for {, etc. Apparently the french WP has one (see fr:Modèle:Espace). If someone knows of one please reply here or on my/nnemo's talk page, that would be grand.

Note: i must say your script for asking questions looks great, but it doesn't have the editing toolbar and preview which is a pity. Also, i had to add this question manually 'cause the Ask my question button doesn't work for me (unclickable) :P Cheers ~ benzband (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several templates for spaces {{sp}} will insert a single space into your text. {{in}} allows you to insert up to 50 breaking spaces and {{space}} will introduce up to 30 non-breaking spaces for you. NtheP (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the swift reply!!! benzband (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK for editors to delete all references to an unpopular decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals?

The editors who control the article on pro se litigation won't allow decisions of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to be referenced. Doesn't this violate the rule against censorship? Researcher47 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Researcher47 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not well enough up on US law to comment on the issue but it looks like the issue is that the 11 Circuit decision isn't clear cut and that inferences are being made that break Wikipedia policy on Original research. To compound things the edits in favour of quoting the decision have been added by one editor using multiple accounts - a Sockpuppet - and as a result the page has been protected from editing except by editors who have a certain number of edits. It's not censorship but an attempt to maintain the integrity of the page. I would suggest that the way forward is to continue to discuss at Talk:Pro se legal representation the validity or otherwise of the decision in question in an attempt to reach a concensus. NtheP (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this is quite probably another sock of the same user (SPI is here). Due to her continued socking, the article has been semi-protected so she's now branching out a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three different 11th Circuit decisions addressing the same subject and they were all deleted. One was an En Banc decision. All concern injunctions against pro se litigation. Why should anyone have to reveal their identity and respond to personal attacks, just in order to refer to a court opinion? How could this not be censorship? Researcher47 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question now is: how do I respond to your very appreciated help, Charles and/or NtheP

I've spent a half hour clicking on "(talk)" and "Charles" and "NtheP" and I don't see any place where I can type a response. I've been fluent on the internet for 20 years but this is truly an arcane site. I can't even figure out whether Charles and NtheP are the same person? Clicking on Charles' link only leads to top of the Teahouse page so, if there's a message for me from Charles, I can't find it. Clicking on NtheP does lead right to one of my questions and a wonderfully articulate and fully informative answer. It's enough to remove much of my doubt as to Wikipedia's credibility. I see now that there are meaningful guidelines and that many like yourself are exerting valiant efforts to maintain this resource. I sincerely thank you! But I see that I have no future on Wikipedia as I do not have the time to try and crack the way the site operates. Template:Shudder!!! And now, assuming this is the bizarre but correct custom: Celticrayne (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Celticrayne! I'm sorry to hear that you're having trouble navigating the interface; it can be a bit tricky at times. What's happening is that the things you see on your talk page are called "talkbacks"; it's basically just to let you know that your question has been answered. Basically, for the purposes of the Teahouse, all you have to do is find the question you asked earlier to see the answer; the table of contents is useful for this. If you remember what you named your question, you can just find it on the table of contents, click on the name, and it'll take you right to your question, where you'll be able to see the answer posted right below it (just like this answer now is!) If you don't remember what you called your question, the easiest thing to do is probably just do a ctrl+F search for your username; if you've been signing your posts, then the search will take you to all the questions you've asked, and you can then look for the answers.

As far as the "~~~~" thing is concerned, it's actually pretty important. As you can see from the post above you, when you save a page that you've edited, the four tildes get turned into a signature for you, that lists your name, provides a link to your user page and user talk page, where people can easily contact you, and a timestamp that lets people know when you posted. Without doing that, it becomes really hard to track who has said what in a conversation, so signing your posts is a pretty important thing. (So important that, if you forget to sign your posts, a bot will come along and do it for you.) Typing "~~~~" is really just a shortcut for putting your name to your posts, that's all.

Finally, to reply to a question, just click on the little "[edit]" link at the upper-right corner of the section, right across from the title of the question. This'll bring up an edit window with the text of the question and answer already inside; just add your reply to the bottom, and hit "Save page". That'll let you post a reply to any of these questions.

I hope this helps! If you're still confused, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page, by just following the link, hitting the "New section" tab in the upper-right corner, filling in what you want to say, and hitting "Save page". Of course, you can always just ask another question on the Teahouse, too! I know it's a little frustrating to learn it at first, but hang in there! You'll be editing with the best of them soon enough, I assure you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names split improperly

I am working on a table, one column of which contains list of names. The names need to be one per line; for most names this works fine, but for longer names such as Catherine Zeta-Jones it is split into two lines. I use line-breaks between names, which helps, but I still have some names being split. Is there any solution which doesn't involve nasty underscores or similar fudging? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table in question: List_of_films_about_the_RMS_Titanic

Btw, to see my future intentions, check out that page's 'talk', re: Example ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(P.s.: Please leave a response tag on my talk page, I need to start closing some tabs before my browser explodes)~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't responded on Eric's talk page, but perhaps he's looking for the non-breaking space? I don't use that myself, so I don't know how it works or if it's what he wants. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the {{nowrap}} template might be better in this case since the non-breaking space would require a space between the parts of her last name, which is what's wrapping onto a new line. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The nowrap template should work, but the instructions are unclear on one point: would I be able to put the template at the beginning of the page and include a list of names there, or would each name require its own template. Keep in mind that the names are already nested within table template, and may (later) be nested within a collapse template. In other words, where would I use the template? Actually, the "non-breaking space" sounds intriguing, is that a character that looks like a space, but acts like a regular character? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The non-breaking space is normally used when a date... 7 April 2012 ... is prevented from splitting into two lines of text. The style guideline is at WP:NBSP.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! I have enough information to figure out how to do this now.

Done ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I import HTML markup into an article, I've done it in my own version of MediaWiki (installed the widget extension)? But I don't know how to do it here were I am not an admin.

How do I import HTML markup into an article, I've done it in my own version of MediaWiki (installed the widget extension)? But I don't know how to do it here were I am not an admin, please. Editor0000001 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)editor0000001[reply]

Hi. It's probably best to have a play in the sandbox! Wiki markup is simpler than HTML so, personally, I'd choose to rewrite rather than try to import. -- Trevj (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic links to user talk archives?

Hi. I set up auto-archiving of my talk page with MiszaBot by adding the template (below) to my talk page. Archiving works, and today the bot did the right thing.

But now, I'm trying to figure out how to set up an archive box that links to those archives. Per this help page, I tried {{archivebox | auto=yes}}, but it can't seem to find the March 2012 or April 2012 archives that the bot created.

I must be missing something. How can I make {{archivebox}} find these archives? Or, how can I make MiszaBot add links to the archives automatically?

My MiszaBot config:

{{User:MiszaBot/config |minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(5d) |archive = User talk:Blevintron/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s }}

Thank you, Blevintron (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Blevintron. The problem is that the archive box templates are pretty picky about what the archive subpages are named; your naming scheme doesn't quite fit. I'm not sure there's a way to configure Miszabot to automatically populate the archive box, based on its documentation. I'm not an expert on Miszabot, to be honest; I use ClueBot III for my talk page, and I know there is a way to automatically populate an archive with ClueBot. Perhaps another host who's a Miszabot wizard will have more insight? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused about the archive boxes. I read all the information and I don't know how it works still! Please help me!! Thepoodlechef (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thePoodleChef, welcome to the Teahouse! I see that you've tried the archive archive box, but the thing is, you don't have any archives yet! Your archive box has nothing to link to yet, so it just has nothing to do. To set up automatic archiving, you need to add something to your talk page to tell either of the two archiving bots (Miszabot or ClueBot III) that you want it done. You do this by using the templates; you can either use the one that Blevintron has posted above, changing his username to yours, or you can use this (which is cribbed from the one I use on my own talk page):

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:Thepoodlechef/Archives/ |format=%%i |age=168 |index=yes |maxarchsize=100000 |archivebox=yes |box-advert=yes }}

If you use the template I've posted, the bot will automatically create and update the archive box for you. Hope this helps; if you have any questions about what any of the above stuff means, feel free to ask; I'd be happy to explain in more detail! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I manually archive something? How does the bot know when something needs to be archived? Thanks Thepoodlechef (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To manually archive, you just cut and paste to the archive you want to store the information in - this is the way I do my archives because I find it easier and I get to choose what to archive and when. The bots know to archive by the way you set them up, in the MiszaBot example above it will archive every thread where the last entry was over 5 days old (that's the |algo=old(5d) bit) but by changing |algo= you can change this to whatever period you want. In the ClueBot III example the relevant parameter is |age=168 which is setup to archive everything where 168 hours have elapsed since the last posting to that thread. The important part to note is that both bots base their rules on time since the thread was last added to, not when a thread began - this avoids leaving part threads on you talk pages. NtheP (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget Author

This teahouse gadget is great. Can I know who the author is? Am planning to port it to Tamil :) PS: Liked the idea of making users type ~~~~ to enable the ask button :) Srikanth (Logic) 09:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not actually sure. I believe it's J-Mo; I think he did most or all of the coding for the Teahouse pages. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srikanth! The awesome gadget was written by the even more awesome User:Werdna. heather walls (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, egg on my face. ;P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried.

I'm new. I started by making a few updates and corrections on facts on pages on which I had direct knowledge of and had 100% confidence of their accuracy. That seemed to work. Then I created an entry page on my own, very carefully, following the guidelines and listing three solid reference pages -- IMDb, Star Trek Wiki, etc. But when I searched for the page I had created, it didn't come up. (I know now it was because I hadn't noticed that you need to capitalize first, middle, and last names of a person manually and I was searching with capitalized names.) But I assumed it just had not gone through so I started over. So then there were TWO entries that were almost identical, except for capitalization. So I discovered how critical it was to title a page with the capitalization that searchers would naturally use. One administrator seemed happy with the first version and thanked me for the submission. Another administrator decided the nearly identical second submission was not worthy -- though he did note the duplication as well. He marked it for quick deletion. Now I see the other one has been deleted also. I suspect the duplication might haave had a lot to do with the deletions but can't be sure. When I bring up the list of actions or contributions in my account, even when I look under "deleted only", they both are missing? It's as if neither ever existed! Should I re-submit? Celticrayne (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celticryne. I do not see anything on your contributions list that does not still exist. Do you mean John Carter of Mars and John Carter (film)?

Celticrayne, I think we're talking about Ian Ray Hawke? As you've found out capitalisation is important and there were two articles in existence ian ray hawke and Ian ray hawke. An administrator deleted one as a duplicate on the other and then another administrator deleted the second as lacking notability. The notability guidelines for actors etc are set out at WP:ENTERTAINER but the criteria are:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Hawke might meet these criteria (I haven't looked so please don't take this statement of endorsement of his notability) but I suspect that you hadn't backed it up with Reliable sources - sites like IMDB & Star Trek Wiki are not considered reliable as they rely on user generated content, so you're going to need more to establish that he is genuinely notable. If you want the text of your deleted article please contact one of the users on this list and they can put the text on your user page. Sorry this isn't the greatest start for you but please don't give up, even if Ian Hawke isn't notable (yet) there are thousands of articles out there that need attention and I'm sure you can find something to work on. NtheP (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing trouble

What does unbiased mean. Is it good if it is? I am a Horse lover 22 (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your question. I think that you are asking about the neutral point of view. That's the style of a good Wikipedia article. We don't write articles to promote our own point of view - instead our articles should summarize what a wide range of reliable sources say about a topic. If the topic is controversial, the article should describe all sides of the issue, rather than promoting what we may believe is the "right" side. I hope that this helps, and please feel free to ask more questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

website deleted

My page has been deleted. The notice says it was not notable. How can I dispute this? The instructions say I should "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag." But I cant see anything of the kind. AHoseason (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ahoseason, welcome back to the Teahouse! Those instructions are for the space in between your page getting marked for deletion and your page actually getting deleted. Now that it has been deleted, what you can do is ask for the page to be "userfied" for you at Requests for Undeletion; this way you can get a draft copy of the article, so that you can improve it and perhaps make it an article again. If you take this route, I'd recommend submitting your finished draft to Articles for Creation to be reviewed; this will give you a chance to get a bit more constructive feedback before the draft becomes an article proper. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AHoseason. You may want to review what "notable" means here on Wikipedia. The general notability guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then it may well be eligible for an article here on Wikipedia. We do have specific guidelines for narrower groups of topics, but that is the basic standard, commonly called the "GNG". So, please consider carefully whether the topic of your article is truly notable. If you think it is, why don't you bring some additional details to this discussion? Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more idea, Ahoseason: An important thing to note is that notability applies to the suitability of a topic for a stand alone article. Some topics may or may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article because there is not enough reliable source material to work from to use to help create the article. For example, Buckingham Palace has a whole lot of books, articles, websites, journals, etc. all written about it. Therefore, we can use those sources to help us research and write a good encyclopedia artoicle about it. Jayron32's house doesn't have any in-depth writing about it at all, so that subject isn't enough to have a good article about, thus there is no reason to have one at Wikipedia, even though my house is very important to me. Also, even if I create a webpage about my own house, that doesn't mean I can then create a Wikipedia article as well; because no one other than me would have written about it. The case with notability at Wikipedia is that something is notable enough for people who are not connected to a subject to have researched and written extensively about it. We use that independent, extensive, and reliable writing to help us write encyclopedia articles. If the source material doesn't exist, however, we can't write an article! Does that make sense? --Jayron32 02:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a picture

Hi for ANdrew Nicholson (basketball) i have found and image to use and have got permission to upload it from the photography how do i go about doin this? RVDSouza (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. You can upload photos at Special:Upload but if permission to use this photo is unlimited I suggest you upload it at Wikimedia Commons using this link commons:Special:UploadWizard so the photo can be used on other wikis as well as this one. As this is a photo which you isn't your but you have permission to use you'll have to use the OTRS system. Have you got the permission from the photographer in an email? If so and it's explicit about the image and what it can be used for then upload your photo but when you get tot he section on licencing select the option called "OTRS pending". Having uploaded the photo forward the email with the permission in it to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org. One of the volunteers who help with OTRS will check that the permission is correct and update the licence accordingly.

To add the image to the article infobox, edit the page and add the name of the picture as you uploaded it at the parameter called |image=, you don't need to use any brackets or the words file or image.

Uploading images is one of the hardest things to get used to, so if you need more help please ask back here again. NtheP (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quoting or linking to a paragraph on another wikipedia page

Within a page I have written I would like to refer the reader to another page (made by someone else). I know how to do that. But the page in question is very long. Is there a way in which I can link so the reader is taken directly to the specific paragraph within that second page? AHoseason (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you cannot link directly to individual paragraphs, you can link to individual sections, if that makes sense. This is done by adding the # symbol after the page name, then putting the section title after that. For example, if I want to link to the History section on the Wikipedia page I will put this: Wikipedia#History. Remember that you can only link to section headers. Does that help? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AHoseason and thanks for stopping by. One more thing... You should be mindful when using the method described by Nolelover that there's the possibility that someone comes along and deletes/changes the section name. For example, if you linked to the biography section of the Wilhelm Sauer article like this Wilhelm Sauer#Biography, and I came along and changed the Biography section name into something else, i.e. Career, the link you created in your original article would no longer link to a particular section but would continue to link to the article. Does that make sense? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to specific paragraphs in a second article by inserting a text anchor into the second article. For example I have a page User:Nthep/testing with a section called "Example section heading", I can link to this section by using the link User:Nthep/testing#Example section heading but if this section is long and I want to point to a specific spot in the section I can use a text anchor for this. On my linked page I have put an anchor into the thrid paragraph of Example section heading called "test" using the template . Now to link directly to that paragraph my link is User:Nthep/testing#test. If you click on these links they both take you to "Example section heading" but the second one takes you further down the article to the paragraph I want to highlight to you. And link other links the user of the page name and the character # isn't the best visual treat so I can make the links piped links by using the code [[User:Nthep/testing#test|text to display]]. Please stop back if this doesn't make sense. NtheP (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Something you might like to consider doing is creating a redirect from the term. This is especially useful if the subject is a relatively common term and you think other editors may also want to link to it. R template index contains some useful templates to categorise such redirects. You can also use {{anchor}} or {{visible anchor}} within the main article subheading. Personally, I'd choose to link to headings rather than paragraphs, to provide context to readers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

image has code around it

I am editing my first page. On adding an image to the right hand information column, words appeared, which I suspect mean the image is too large? Is there a recommended size for images? AHoseason (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

issue resolved, thanks. AHoseason (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AHoeseason. Welcome to the teahouse. Most images should not have a specified size but should just have thumb in the code. This is so that readers can set their own preferred image size in user preferences. The lead image may be set too 300px in landscape format.--Charles (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which CSD to use?

I've been patrolling new articles and looking for ones that fit the CSD, but I'm not sure if I'm categorizing some right. What would you categorize a clearly autobiographical useless article as (for example, someone's name as the title, and then "he is cool" as the body)? Ducknish (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ducknish, welcome to the Teahouse! I usually tag articles like that with {{db-person}}, which is the person version of CSD A7 (that is, no assertion of notability). A tag of A1 or A3 (no context and no content, respectively) would probably work, too, but I find that A7 is usually better if it can be done, because the definitions of A1 and A3 are a bit vague (well, A1 is, anyway).

(tangent) The key to CSDs is to only use them when you're sure that it fits one of the CSD tags. It doesn't matter quite as much whether you get the *right* CSD tag; admins won't reject an obvious speedy-delete just because it's not the right version of the CSD tag. But it's very important to not use a CSD tag on a page that shouldn't be speedy-deleted at all. Remember, the CSDs are relatively narrowly-defined for a reason. My policy is, if it's one of those pages that just doesn't seem to quite fit into any of the categories for CSD, but you're *sure* that it should be deleted, just PROD it. Half the time, an admin will speedy-delete it as WP:SNOW before the seven days are up anyway, and if they don't, it's not that big a deal. You could also tag it for speedy deletion with a custom rationale (in which you would invoke WP:SNOW in some form), but be extremely cautious if you choose to do so. Speedy deletions are not good things to abuse; they're very powerful tools, and must be wielded with great care.

CSDs are one of the things I do frequently on Wikipedia, so if you ever have a question about a specific article and want to ask someone, just let me know on my talk page and I'll take a look, if you'd like. Good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I've only been tagging articles that are clearly CSD material, I just wanted to make sure that tagging the exact right criteria wasn't important. Ducknish (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not special anymore

My user signature tag used to include "Special contributions" -- now it doesn't. Aren't I special anymore? ~Eric F^[ordinary]184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric. Welcome back. When someone (or you!) clicks on your IP address it shows your Special:Contrbutions. So it's still there. Also, just a tip, I'd advise you make an account, but, I'm sure I'm not the only person to tell you that! Sarah (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that's a recent change to reduce clutter. My tag used to look like...~Eric F [Special:Contributions/184.76.225.106|184.76.225.106]] (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

But now it is... ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Eric. The only difference I can see between those two signatures is that the first is malformed. If the first one was written correctly (with two square brackets before the contributions bit, like so ~Eric F [[Special:Contributions/184.76.225.106|184.76.225.106]] (talk)), it would look like this: ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk), which is what you have at the moment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "Special:" in front of Contributions isn't talking about your contributions, per se; it's talking about the page itself. What "Special:" means is that the page is a "special" page, that, instead of just existing in a static state on Wikipedia, is freshly generated by the MediaWiki software each time someone loads the page. Your Contributions page has to be a special page; otherwise, it wouldn't show any of your recent edits. It's a technical thing, so don't worry about it; just know that it's supposed to be there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was mainly just curious as to what "Special" meant. Now that I've read your explanation, I'm... well, somewhat less confused. But seriously, thanks for the effort. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tips and tricks for finding images on Commons?

Hi everyone! As a followup to Sarah's question about favorite images on Commons, I'm wondering what sort of magical tips and tricks everyone uses to FIND images on Commons (when you are looking for an image to add to an article, say, but don't have the URL or know the right Commons category already). I find paging through categories to be pretty tedious, and search to not always be fruitful, though my current method is to do a keyword search, then look at the category that the most interesting search result is in and browse from there. I'll bet you have a better way, though :-) Siko (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Seeeko! I think, in my opinion, the best trick to find images on Commons is to search first on Wikipedia. I would search for a specific article and then search for the same media files on Commons. Browsing through categories can be tedious, as you said. I think the best place to start is on Wikipedia. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 01:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that searching Commons can be difficult, and I've done a lot of it. Commons does not have the advantage that Wikipedia has where you can do great searches easily with your browser. If I am just looking for nice images in general, Picture_of_the_day has some beautiful ones. If I want something specific I try to find some good Category:Categories. heather walls (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas, Luke and Heather! I guess for some things there is no magical solution, but its always helpful to hear how others go about this. Siko (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No deadline

I want to ask my fellow editors about their opinions on WP:TIND. To me, used with projects and deadlines in my day to day life, it's probably the most problematic aspect of wikipedia. Would anyone think of an alternative solution to that? Markerdryer (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ugh, computer crashed while I was typing out a reply) ANYWAY:

Hey, Markerdryer, welcome to the Teahouse! I confess that I'm a little confused about your question; There is no deadline is supposed to relieve stress, not cause it! I'm not sure what problem there is that you want an alternative solution to. I think "there is no deadline" is a good thing!

This is my take on it: our articles are never "finished;" there's no point at which we say, "okay, this article is done, you can't add anything more to it." There's *always* time to improve an article. While we encourage being bold, there's no reason to edit-war or otherwise try to make your edits to "go live" early by force. You have time! Relax, take a deep breath, and enter in conversations and discussions about what is the best way to change the article. the article will always be there once you've finished the discussion, and it will be better for the talk.

The other thing I take from "there is no deadline" is that there's no rush to start new articles. This interpretation affects my work in the CSD arena quite a bit. Many people try to create articles on subjects that aren't notable yet, because they are convinced that "they will be notable." Well, we have no deadline; no reason not to wait until we have material to write about, before we start trying to write it! Trying to rush it only gets a bunch of unverifiable info at best and wild, ridiculous speculation at worst, neither of which we want. Since we're in no rush to get the article in early, we have the freedom to wait until we write a great one.

That's just my 2 cents; I have a feeling this is a thing a lot of other hosts and editors will disagree with me about. But that's fine too. We don't need to rush to make up our minds, there is no deadline. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Writ! And as someone who spends a lot of time on Wikipedia (probably more time than any human being should), it's nice to know that no matter how much I love Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not life, and it'll be here (unless we have another blackout) and people can wait. And yes, articles are never complete, there are always tasks to do and things to achieve. It's one of the few places in my life that DOES NOT have a deadline, and that is quite nice, actually. :) Sarah (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to add/expand on one point: we are all volunteers. I know this sounds odd, but there are days that I get stressed because I feel that I am "obligated" to someone or something to complete a task. It's always nice to realize that if I decide to hit Ctl-W (or Alt-F4, whatever) I won't get fired, and Wikipedia will still be there in the morning. I would be interested in knowing why you think this is problematic though. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess Wikiprojects, wikicups, good article or featured article ratings, DYKs, are all systems which track certain articles or represent milestones, and indirectly deal with WP:TIND, in order to incentivate content production, so they are all countering the essay of "no deadline". That gives me comfort, :-). To answer Nolelover's question: I believe the essay is a little discouraging to people who want to take an approach of staying in Wikipedia for a certain amount of time, give their contribution, and then move on. Markerdryer (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally fond TIND to be very helpful. I have at times left articles unfinished when I go to bed, when this concerns me, I am able to remind myself that it doesn't matter, because I can finish the article tomorrow (or next month, depending on how busy my life is). As you said, the article rating systems are very useful. I think I am similar to you - I find it much, much easier to work when I have a specific goal, so I often struggle to being when I find a new article to improve. I really like the Good Article system we have, as it allows me to set myself a goal which I can achieve - it feels that the work I am doing is contributing to an end result. It does have its downsides, I have in the past worked too closely to the Good Article guidelines and missed out on further improvements I could have done, but that's the beauty of a wiki - someone else, who might work in a completely different way to me, will pick that up. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]