Wikipedia:Teahouse

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
1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238

Do Talk entries remain pending for approval?

Or is there some kind of caching going on?

I made an entry in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dirichlet_integral#Complex_Integration yesterday, and I could see it immediately. I forwarded that link to the person I had been discussing it with, but she could only see the old comments. I realised that when I cleared my browser history and refreshed I could only see the old comments myself. Logging in and refreshing made the new comment appear.

I would expect Talk to be unfiltered - and anyway the topic is hardly a controversial one. And if there is some kind of pending status, it would be nice to know.86.24.142.189 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Pages

Hi there, I speak more than one language and would like to contribute to Wikipedia by translating some English articles to Portuguese. I was wondering, is there a specific way to do that? Or should I just log in the PT Wiki and edit? I wouldn't like it to seem like I am coming up with material, rather than just translating existing content. Thank you very much! Kind Regards, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on unsourced lists?

I'm a longtime editor but I can't seem to find the right policy here. I came upon the article List of Iraqi technical colleges and institutes, which is a list with almost all red links and no sources. Is that grounds to proposing an article for deletion? What is the right course of action? Andrew³²⁷ 07:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. Unsourced lists are covered under What Wikipedia is not, specifically Not a directory and Not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Manual of Style also requires list entries to meet Wikipedia's usual requirements for inclusion; see WP:Source list for the appropriate section. Regarding the page in question, I would definitely consider taking it to Articles for deletion; with only one entry having a linked article, this list doesn't need to exist. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, another option is to consider converting it into a navigation template if, and only if, you think it is a topic area where you think the number of redlinked articles is likely to decrease. NtheP (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clackamas Town Center Transit Center

Hi it is Dfgg again i saw that someone redid my edits to Clackamas Town Center Transit Centersection fare zone from none back to 3 and whoever did that made a mistake because trimet got rid of zones for good in fall 2012 so what if this happens again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfgg (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dfgg! Welcome back. It appears your change to the zone field got removed along with several other edits. The editer left an explanation, "Revert messed-up edits". I know that doesn't say much, but the reverting of your edits was correct. He did it per WP:OVERLINKING. That policy has many parts, but the one that applies here is you don't link something like a city name when the city name is being used as a title for something else, like in this case, a bus line. In regard to the zone thing, you would have to cite a source for that, as the article doesn't discuss it. So, just search The Oregonian website for a reference to cite before you put it back. It should be there! Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted National Newspaper articles for a certain article for references, but its not approved. How do i go about it?

Hello. I have posted an article about an upcoming project of great importance, a first ever in the country, but its being turned down, even though i have cited 3-4 references from National and Regional Newspapers. How do i go about it ? Puneexclusive (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Puneexclusive! Welcome to Teahouse. I assume the article you are talking about is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Woodstock Heliport And Trauma Centre?Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doah, me! That is the only article you've edited, so that must be it. My bad! You have four references on your article, two (three?) from newspapers and a .pdf from a government agency. The ? article is in a foreign alphabet and I can't read it. The other two newspaper articles are primarily about the expressway and not considered sources for the heliport. The government document is a primary source and does nothing to show notability. The biggest problem tho, and it kinda surprises me that neither of the reviews mentioned it, is we have a policy here at Wikipedia called WP:CRYSTAL that in short says that we don't publish articles about things until we have a firm date for their completion. As the project progresses you should be able to find more secondary sources like newspaper articles, and once the date of completion is firm, you should be able to do a fine article. I do want to compliment you on the very nice neutral tone you wrote in. That is kinda unusual for a first article and greatly appreciated. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Resubmission

Hi there,

I recently submitted an article about KC Cole, a longtime author, professor and journalist in Los Angeles, CA.

This was my first article. I went ahead and read all of the supporting Wiki articles on how to create and entry and then submitted it. A user, CAWylie [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CAWylie ] told me that if I wanted my article to be approved, I need some more references and less external links. I've gone ahead and made the necessary changes.

What is my next step to have this article approved?

Thanks, Ben

Benjamin max (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benjamin max and welcome to the Teahouse! I will look over the article to make sure it establishes notability and that the sources are reliable. I'm just testing to see if this link works: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KC Cole. JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 02:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. The main problem is the lack of reliable sources. I willl break it down for you. #1 is not reliable because it is an autobiography, #2 is not reliable because it only mentions her name, which is not verifiable. Again, I'm not saying this is a bad article or that the sources are unreliable, I'm just stating my opinion. Also, it's okay if you disagree with me. #3 is not reliable because the facts stated are hard to verify, #4 is not reliable because again, the acts stated are hard to verify, and #8 is not reliable simply because Amazon is unreliable. I'm sorry for going on and on, and I probably sound obnoxious, but I'm afraid that the subject is not notable. JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ben. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. In other words, we only publish what others are writing about. The problem is that there are many many articles out there that she has written, but none written about her. The articles she wrote are only useful for vetting notability if she won a major (think Pulitzer) award for them. The specific notability criteria for authors is at WP:AUTHOR. And I agree with JHUbal that the sources on the article now do not show her notability. I am thinking that your best bet might be to try to vet her academic accomplishments. The standards are at WP:PROF (I would explain them to you, but to be truthful, I don't really understand them. sorry. Hope someone else will pick up the ball and run with it.) Good Luck!Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a hard time getting an image properly authorized and categorized for use on a pending Wiki Page

Hi there,

I am writing/editing a Wiki Page for an actor who owns the head shot that I am using on his Wiki page. What kind of license do I need in this instance? I'm not sure if I selected the correct license. And if there is some sort of form or format that I should follow (or send to the actor that I am building a Wiki page for) if I could get a direct link to that form that would be great. Having a hard time knowing where to go to find the info that I need and navigate my way the the UI.

Thank you for the help. TheUmbrellaAgencyBP (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheUmbrellaAgencyBP and welcome to the Teahouse! I think you would need direct permission from the actor, but I will be back with the link to the license I think is appropriate. Someone else may have to clarify, as I'm not that experienced. JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI, TheUmbrellaAgencyBP. Generally, when it comes to release of copyright, the subject of a photo does not own the copyright. Generally, headshots for actors are sold to them by the photographer under a limited license. To be used on Wikipedia, all rights have to be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or GFDL. This effectively removes any way for the photographer to charge anyone for that image. So, long story short, you will probably need the photographer to release it.Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life

Is life a precious gift? FantasyGirl21 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The Teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia only. Please ask your question at the reference desk. However, I'll answer your (very hard) question. I believe that every one of God's children is a precious gift because He gave us the joy of life. He has a plan for each and every one of us. We get to decide what to do with that life, and every one of us has different talents and abilities. Life is a precious gift because from fertilization, we began the joy of life. (I'm no writer or motivational speaker and my thoughts are very randomized). JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 02:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FantasyGirl21, I certainly believe that life is a precious gift, but that is neither here nor there, as Wikipedia is not a forum. You are welcome to edit and improve articles related to Life and Meaning of life however! We can always use help in those areas. Thank you! If you have any questions about how to edit articles, that is what we can help with here.

Go Phightins! 03:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

adding images to just one page

Dear editors: A helpful user added the official logo of the Ontario Genealogical Society to the page that I am working on for that organization. I'd been wanting to do that, but I understand that images in Wikipedia have to be public domain or licensed by the owner. I know that this organization has a policy that the logo is not to be used without permission. I'm sure that I could get permission to have this image on the page, but I know that they would not give a general license for any use whatsoever, since it's the corporation logo.

Is there a way to add an image to just one page without licensing it for general use? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I uploaded the image pursuant to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria so it does not require the consent of the copyright owner. Obviously freely licensed images are preferred but if the copyright owner does not wish to license on acceptable terms, we have to fall back on non-free use.--ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Anne, in cases like this you can upload images under the Non-free content criteria or as it's commonly known "fair use". The upload process is no different except that you must upload to Wikipedia not Commons (Commons is only for free content) and instead of a licence you add a non-free use rationale - for a log this would be {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. The other very important point is that the fair use criteria have ten components, all of which must be met for the fair use to be allowed. It's no good meeting nine if you can't make out the tenth. For an organisation's logo it's not difficult to make out the rationale but if you feel unsure please come back here and ask for someone to check it out for you. NtheP (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that answers my concerns. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing file details regarding licensing

Hi, I just uploaded an image on wikimedia called "Esben-the-witch1.jpg", using the "old form", I put my licensing information which was to use as long as I am named as author. Then I edited the relevant page and added my image, but when I click the image now in wikipedia, the author is simply stated as the username (my wikimedia one: Kashk) and not my real name which I did put in that old form as K Karimi. It also does not allow me to edit this in wikipedia. Can someone please help. Thanks. The.Filsouf (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The only place you can edit the file is at Wikimedia Commons - where you uploaded it. If you go to that page commons:File:Esben-the-witch1.jpg you can edit the file description to add whatever name you want - I'd suggest [[User:Kashk|K Karimi]] so that people understand that you are the person who took the image. NtheP (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :) Please also note that by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons, you agreed that all that is needed for attribution is a link to the Commons page. Any reuser is not required to use your name. To this extent, you may wish to enable your e-mail on Commons, so those that reuse it can notify you in a timely fashion. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting references

Dear editors: I have been making a page about the Ontario Genealogical Society. When it was accepted a comment was made that the references were not properly formatted. Could someone check and see what's wrong with them? I used the YYYY-MM-DD date format, which is one of the formats allowed in the style manual, but appears to be less popular. Is it that, or something else? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the suggestion is to use one of the citation templates such as {{Cite news}}, {{Cite web}} or {{Cite book}} as appropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I properly do footnote 3 on the entry Static Mixer? Thank you for your assistance.

How do I properly do footnote 3 on the entry Static Mixer? It is an independent lab report, called a white paper, that exists only on a website. Thank you for your assistance.Sageanne (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question. You should probably use the {{Cite web}} template.--ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Sageanne (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a BLP policy on ascribing nationality?

Is there a Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy on ascribing nationality, either within the article text or by using categories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Cameron_(linguist) This article has been ascribed both the "Scottish feminists" and the "English people stubs" categories. Although the linguist in question was born in Scotland, she has lived in England most of her life and speaks with an English accent.

Phil Champ (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, welcome to the Teahouse. The British/English/Scottish/Irish argument is a long running one on Wikipedia, and there's no set policy as to what's correct. The nearest we get is the Manual of Style for Biographies, which says that "In most modern-day cases [nationality] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Make of that what you will... There's also an essay analysing the subject here, which you might find helpful. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if reliable sources describe someone as Scottish, Welsh, English or Irish (or if they identify themselves that way) then that may be a good reason to describe them as such. If its a grey area (like Cameron above) then British is a reasonably safe catch-all! In other cases, I've often seen people described as German-American, Uruguayan-Venezuelan etc. if they're identified with more than one nation. Sionk (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit) appears when you google our company name

hi there when you search Hookson in the para underneath (edit) appears - how do you remove that?

Hooked30 (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hooked30. I've tried doing the suggested Google search and I'm not seeing what you mean - is the word "edit" in square brackets, like this: [edit]? If so, it may be that Google is somehow pulling a section edit link into its text sample - as far as I know, that's not something that can be fixed from Wikipedia's end. However, as I said, I can't see this in Google searches on either of my browsers. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hooked, I did see what you saw but since I edited the article and changed the formatting slighty, Google has picked up the new version so the edit word no longer appears in the search results. NtheP (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

captchas sometimes appear and sometimes do not

I'm curious what the rhyme or reason is for captchas sometimes appearing when saving an edit and sometimes not. I understand the rational for them. It just seems odd to me that they would be used sometimes but not all the time. Thanks, Steve Liebelt Steve.liebelt (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve! Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe the reason you're getting the captchas is because you're just adding external links to articles. With a low edit count, and primary contributions being just external link additions, you will occasionally have to enter a Captcha so Wikipedia knows you're not a bot just adding links for the sake of spam. I hope that helps :) I hope you'll keep contributing! SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this should go away in about 3 days when you become autoconfirmed. :) gwickwire^talk_edits 02:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Log/Steve.liebelt shows it's 1 day and 17 hours from now. You become autoconfirmed after four days and at least ten edits. The days are counted from account creation and not from your first edit, which is what gwickwire may have looked at. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need a bio page added

Hello, I am the manager of a television personality and I am trying to add her page here on Wikipedia, knowing it's not to be a self-promotional page. She is an inventor and business woman and some information is pertinent to be linked to other Wiki pages. I have tried this myself and it was deleted by a user. She tried on her own too, it was deleted. I included 10 sources of references but they were all deleted. I need someone to repost this page please as i'm having no luck. Her book was just published. — Whippet66 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the woman is notable and writes about her here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although that may be true RH I think there is probably a nicer way to say it. Whippit66. Have you tried the Articles for Creation wizard. That has a review process and will generally provide feedback. COI is going to be a problem though. It might be better to just ask someone to create it and provide some refs. No blog posts, facebook, myspace or things of that nature though. You need to also ensure the person meets our Notability requirements. Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cool, that makes sense. thanks. Steve.liebelt (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this comes over as unfriendly, Whippet66, but the fact that you say "I need someone to repost this page" suggests to me that you are here for the personality's benefit and not for Wikipedia's. We all want to improve Wikipedia, but it has no deadlines, and if somebody says they have one, this tends to suggest that they are here for the purpose of promotion, however carefully they word the text they contribute. The fact that "her book was just published" makes it almost certain that the book is not (yet) notable - i.e., has not been written about by multiple reliable sources independent of her - and the fact that you mention it also suggests that your purpose here is to publicise the book. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing question

Earlier today I was typing a question into the text box on this page. I had typed about a paragraph when all of a sudden the whole thing just disappeared, and the previous version of the page without my question and without the text box was displayed. I know that I didn't click on the "cancel" button because it was off the screen at the time. This happened once before, only that time the section that I had typed was added to the page, ending in the middle of a sentence. Has anyone else had this experience, or is it something weird with my computer? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Anne! I don't know if this is the problem you had, but there's something similar that I've experienced. Basically, some browsers (such as Firefox, which I use) interpret hitting the Backspace key as hitting the Back button, taking you back to a different page. If you're typing text, the browser is smart enough to know that you meant to delete some text, rather than go back a page, but if I've accidentally clicked outside of the text box without noticing (which happens sometimes) and hit backspace, the browser reads it as the back button, since I'm no longer in the text box. Does that make sense? Like I say, I'm not sure that's the problem you're having, but it happens to me every now and then, and it's pretty frustrating. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Writ Keeper, I will watch for that. I have a new laptop, so I may have inadvertently hit something on an unfamiliar keyboard. I was surprised not to receive one of those "Do you really want to leave this page?" notices. And yes,I am using Firefox. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible to implement that here at the Teahouse page, I'll ask the relevant persons :) I understand you completely by the way, first time I used a laptop (way back when), I would always accidentally tap on the touchpad with my palm and it'd click somewhere, then I'd mess up.. Sorry! gwickwire^talk_edits 22:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a laptop now, but I'm so bad with the pad, I use a wireless mouse instead. Even with that I've experienced what you were talking about. It stinks. Go Phightins! 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! In my experience, if you click off of the question box (on any other part of the page) it closes the box. If you click the button again, the box will come back with your previously typed text still inside. Your mileage may vary. heather walls (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be just the whatchamacall it responding box, but I'm not sure :) gwickwire^talk_edits 02:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try going to your preferences here and selecting "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes (Vector skin only)" under Advanced Options. -- Ypnypn (talk)

Thanks everyone. I'll try not to click outside the box next time. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing a picture on a page with a newer version

I added a picture to my page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandolin Society and then found I had a better version of the same picture. I managed to figure out how to upload the replacement, I thought, but now when I click on the picture instead of a larger version it sends me to the information page about the picture.

It also asks for categories. I managed to use something called Common Sense to find a couple of relevant categories. The picture info page said to put them in the photo discription, but didn't say where. I tried a couple of spots, but the page kept asking for categories. It also asked me to "notify the uploader", but didn't say how, so maybe this is the problem. Maybe the old version of the photo wasn't so bad... can anyone help? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's normal behaviour for images - clicking on them takes you to the info page. Note that at the moment there may be some issues with images as the data center is being moved. Another user has fixed the categories for you. I have also made a couple of edits to your draft article to comply with the manual of style. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to accept help. How do I set up the image so that people can see the larger version?

Also, thanks to Nthep for fixing the categories. I think I can see how it was done. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, sorry I forgot to reply. On the image page you'll see a box at the bottom that starts Categories± If you click on the ± you can add, delete or amend the categories. The first time you do this then adding any number of categories removes the {{uncategorised}} tag that gave you the message about the file not belonging to any categories.

You can change the size of the image on your Mandolin Society page by changing a parameter in

[[File:The Mandolin Society of Peterborough's first concert, 9 June 2006, St John's Guild Hall, conductor Curtis Driedger standing at left.jpg|thumb|300px|The Mandolin Society of Peterborough's first concert, 9 June 2006, St John's Guild Hall, conductor Curtis Driedger standing at left]]

. It's the 300px that controls size, increase that and you increase the size of the image on the page. Try experimenting by changing the figure and then previewing the result before you finally save. NtheP (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! This teahouse is very helpful. If only there were real tea....

—Anne Delong (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing article name to make it more relevant

I would like to change the article title of 'Helen Price (debater)' to just 'Helen Price' as I think it would make the page more relevant... Not sure how to do this. Martinstoshassociates (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I have moved the page to Helen Price. Please note that there are issues with notability as indicated by the maintenance template at the top of the page.--ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please also note that there's a potential issue with your username. I've left a note on your talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Plain Old C++ Object may be a fake

I have just improved a bit the quality of the article Plain Old C++ Object, but it seems this article looks like a fake. I need help from other software skilled contributors to check the relevance of this article.

First, it was the first time I heard about 'Plain Old C++ Object'. The term Plain Old Java Object (POJO) has been invented in 2000 (http://martinfowler.com/bliki/POJO.html). Then the term Plain old data structure (POD) has been invented. And finally the term Plain Old CLR Object (same POCO abbreviation). But I do not really see the need for such term 'Plain Old C++ Object' in C++. However, the GCC wiki mention POD and could refer to POCO standing for Plain Old C++ Object...

Second, this article has been written in 2007 by User:Kjin101, the owner of PocoCapsule software. His contributions was about adding links to his software project. This Wikipedia account has been use just for a couple a days, and has not been used to do something else.

My personal conclusion is that the term 'Plain Old C++ Object' has been invented by User:Kjin101, and he has created this article in order to add links to his software project...

We may add a banner or mention that in the article... What do you think?

Please answer within the talk page Talk:Plain Old C++ Object.

Oliver H (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

change article name

I made a typing error in the article name and I can not change it nor can i delete the articleMgha (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mgha and welcome to the Teahouse! An article with a misspelled title need not be deleted; it can just be moved to a new title. Autoconfirmed users (those with 4 days of editing and 10 edits) can move pages. As you are not autoconfirmed yet, I can move it to Cojitambo, which seems to be the right name according to the body text. Is this correct? - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox template

Is there any userboxes which say how much time I've been on wikipedia and how many edits I've done? If there are, what are their templates? -Yashowardhani (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yashowardhani and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, the userboxes do exist - they are here for how long you've been around and here for how many edits you've made. Hope this helped! - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did. Thank you so much. --Yashowardhani (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation to improve article

Hi, I believe that the article Deine Lakaien will be improved by a translation of the German version. I prepared this translation in my sandbox, so I do not request a translation. But what do I have to do now? As far as I understood, an admin has to import the German article - is this true? And how/where do I post such a request? Sorry for the stupid question, and thx for your help, CarbonWoman (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarbonWoman. Not a stupid question at all - I wish more of our contributors were as concerned to get this sort of thing right! The most straightforward solution is to copy-paste the German text and/or it's translation, but add a {{Translated page}} template to the article's talkpage (and to your sandbox talkpage, if you work on it there). The template format would be as follows:

{{translated page|de|Deine Lakaien}}

There are additional parameters that you should fill in (notably the |version= and |insertversion= ones, there are details of how to fill these in at the template's documentation page), but the above code will suffice for basic attribution to be maintained. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the quick answer, Yunshui! Sounds much simpler than I expected :) CarbonWoman (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the Edit button at the end of an article, I only get a part of the article to edit.

Try, for example, Photon Paint. When I try to edit it, I get the subject of the article and (Section) displayed next to it. How do I edit the entire (short :-) article?

Many thanks,

Yuval

Yuvalg9 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval, welcome to the Teahouse, it sounds like you've hit a section edit button rather than the article edit button. At the top of the page you should see a row of buttons like the ones in this screenshot (ignore the step one, step two)

Click on the button that says edit and you should open the entire page for editing. If it doesn't work, please stop by here again. NtheP (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arcillaroja

Hello, I have a problem with the user Arcillaroja in the article Western Europe. He reverted all my edits without a good explanation, after I reverted his with an explanation. I explained that there is a distinction between western Europe and Western Europe, that western Europe is a purely geographic term, and Western Europe has a fixed two meanings - the Cold War one (countries of the Western Bloc) and cultural one (countries of Western Christianity): http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node27.html http://dd.dgacm.org/editorialmanual/ed-guidelines/style/capitalization.htm What should I do to make him stop destroying my work? :( Would you mind to mediate? The same happened with the article Eastern Europe. He wouldn't listen that there is geographically one centre of Europe, and some centers are either old measurements, without professional equipment, confused claims or centres of Eurozone or the European Union, which do not equate Europe. Please see that article Geographical midpoint of Europe. --Martina Moreau (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martina Moreau, thanks for dropping by the teahouse. First off, take a deep breath, have a nice cup of tea and relax a bit. This kind of disagreement happens all the time here, and learning how to handle someone reverting your edits is a big part of becoming and effective editor. I'll take a look at the article and get back to you with more specific advice. Garamond Lethe 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I've done a bit of looking around and I think User:Arcillaroja has done the correct thing here (although the explanation was a bit terse). I'll focus on one example. You added an image with the caption: Europe's geographic midpoint in the continent's centre of gravity, Lithuania. West of that point, there is geographical western Europe. I assume you know this to be true, but unfortunately we can't just accept your assurance to that effect. At minimum, you'll need to provide what we call a reliable source that says this, whether that be an atlas, almanac or geography textbook. There are many rules regarding what is and is not a reliable source and you can find all the details of the currently policy here.

There's a second issue you need to be aware of. I assume there are dozens of definitions as to what "western Europe" means. Most of the time, it's not appropriate to try to include every definition, and it's almost always a bad idea to try to include just your preferred definition. So even if you find one or more reliable sources that support this particular definition, they're still going to be weighed against the other sources we know about and potentially be excluded because they give undue weight to a minority opinion. (The details of that policy can be found at WP:UNDUE. Generally, if someone gives you a cryptic acronym and expects you to know what it means, just type (for example) WP:NPOV into the wikipedia search box and you'll be taken to the document in question.)

So see what sources you can find and let me know how it turns out! Good luck! Garamond Lethe 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look in a few sources many times during my studies. I know that there are quite a few definitions of 'Western Europe' (non-geographic term), but 'western Europe' (geographic term) is very straightforward. As soon as we have geographical midpoint, we can indicate northern, southern, eastern and western Europe. Additionally, central Europe is distinguished.

When talking about European cultural (not always geographic) regions, there are always countries that are always considered to be in that region, the core countries. For example, France is always associated with Western Europe, Russia with Eastern Europe, Sweden with Northern Europe, Italy and Greece with Southern Europe and Germany with Central Europe. perhaps we should create maps similar to that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Eastern-Europe-map2.svg but indicating which countries are always considered Eastern Europe, in vast majority of definitions, then lighter colour - countries that are often considered... and so on.

If Arcilla did not agree with the notion, then why to delete the part in which I explained the difference when we capitalise it? That surely is not a matter of opinion, but... orthography...

--Martina Moreau (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The geographic term "western Europe" may be straightforward to you, but another editor has reverted your edit to this effect and so, despite it being a bit of a bother, you do have to go dig up a reliable source that lays this out. (There are a small set of facts that the community would probably agree do not need reliable sources, but even something as seemingly obvious as "The sky is blue" has drawn differing opinions).

As to the capitalization issue, I'm not sure this belongs in an encyclopedia. That information would be more at home in a style guide, unless you have a source that isn't a style guide that explains why the distinction is important.

It might be helpful to tell you how I started editing. I found a wonderful single-volume encyclopedia in a used bookstore: Robbins's The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (1954, back when witchcraft was only a historical-social field of academic study rather than new-age silliness). I went through that book and compared its entries to the matching entries in wikipedia and added (and cited!) information as appropriate. Since I was starting from a solid academic source I didn't run into the issues you're encountering.

Hope that helps! Garamond Lethe 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martina!

It would be very convenient and also polite to ask me directly in my talk page why did I revert your edits. In general I think that you will get more information and people will be friendlier that what I think you assume. A revert is more often than not not a warmongering act. By the way, I've noticed that you have been reverted in all articles relating to this topic... You might want to consider why that is. Not saying that Wikipedia is a democracy, but when many experienced editor come to the same behavior then there is something going on Arcillaroja (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arcillaroja!

I acknowledged the points you made. Now - please understand mine. I observed that my edits were reverted and there was either no reason given why the revert was made or the reason was irrelevant. The edits were also reverted fully. That is to say that all the changes(e.g.: orthography matters that are beyond discussion), rather than those which disturbed you were reverted. This is the reason why I decided to talk directly to other people. I concluded that it may be a more efficient approach. I read about vandalism on Wikipedia. I know it is common and I did expect you to be a vandal. Now, on the bright side, I look forward to future positive collaboration and, perhaps a better relationship. :) --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I actually still do not know. There was an user who has different, but similar objections to mine, back in 2010. Her or his name was Stubes99. His entry was deleted from your log by you. Why would you do that, Arcillaroja? I am also concerned that your talk page seems also rather interesting, to put it mildly...--Martina Moreau (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martina,

I see that you are very very new to Wikipedia (to put it mildly). Just an advice: try to start your Wikipedia activity with subjects that are a bit less controversial than Geopolitics. You should also try to start learning how to read logs. The warnings you saw on my talk page are threats made by another editor to scare me off. I leave everything on my talk page (some remove it because they think that in this way they can hide embarrassing facts). This editor tried to accuse me on ANI boards... And you can imagine what happened next. BTW, sending messages to many editors to support your cause is forbidden and might grant you your first warning (from an OP);) Don't do it anymore. And the funny thing is: the only user that answer your call is the same user that reverted you (twice) in Central Europe with the sole description "(now please cease this nonsense in the lead)" :) Maybe you got the wrong guy? Anyways be more careful and try articles that are a bit easier.Arcillaroja (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arcillaroja. Here at the teahouse we take civility far more seriously. "Don't do it anymore" would be fine anywhere else, but the standard here is "be nice to the newbie" rather than "don't bite the newbie". That said, I hope you drop by again and offer a hand answering questions. Garamond Lethe 04:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Moreau, the policy Arcillaroja is referring to has to do with "canvassing", or asking a bunch of your buddies to come take your side in an argument. Experienced wikipedians can be hypersensitive about this when it's done by other experienced wikipedians who ought to know better. However, we don't expect you to have mastered all of the rules quite yet, and we will give you even more latitude when you're asking for help here in the teahouse. So no worries. Garamond Lethe 04:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

I need help with two things:

1) I'm trying to upload a picture (File:Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg). I sent an email to the permissions email showing that I had permission from the copyright holder to upload the picture, but nothing happened. See below.

2) Also, see message from Jim below. He stated "The third is that the WP:EN article-to-be (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawrance A. Bohm) reads like a sales brochure for Mr. Bohm's services. I am uncomfortable with Commons supporting what looks like a publicist's work. Bradley J. Mancuso, who is our requester here and the sole author of the article at WP:EN, works for Mr. Bohm."

I have tried really hard to follow the instructions for creating a new page. I've provided a bunch of sources to demonstrate the notoriety of the subject and I've worked to keep the page neutral. I've followed formats of similar pages. This page is no different than these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lanier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Allred

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Dominguez_%28lawyer%29

I could list several more.

Can you please help me? What do I need to do?

Here are past messages regarding this page/image:

Regarding the below file/image, I was given this response: File:Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg

I have been given full permission to use this picture. The owner of this picture is Lawrance A. Bohm. He personally took the picture, posted it on another website, and owns the copyright. Mr. Bohm has given me full permission to use this picture. Bjm99c (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see below message from the copyright holder of this image giving permission to use this file/image.

Bradley J. Mancuso

From: Lawrance Bohm Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:04 PM

Yes to both questions.

Kind regards,

Lawrance A. Bohm

On Jan 7, 2013, at 3:53 PM

> Please respond to these questions: > > Are you the copyright holder of the attached picture? > Do I have permission to use the attached picture on Wikipedia? > > Image: Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg > > Bradley J. Mancuso > > <lawrance-bohm.jpg>

Bjm99c (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have three problems with this.

The first is that this appears to be a professional, posed, portrait. It looks to me very unlikely that the subject took it himself as claimed above. It is far more likely that the copyright is owned by the photographer.

The second is that the permission above is very casual. There is absolutely no indication that Mr. Bohm understands that he is licensing the use of his image for use anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. Although it doesn't say so, I think what appears above amounts to a Wikipedia only license.

The third is that the WP:EN article-to-be (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawrance A. Bohm) reads like a sales brochure for Mr. Bohm's services. I am uncomfortable with Commons supporting what looks like a publicist's work. Bradley J. Mancuso, who is our requester here and the sole author of the article at WP:EN, works for Mr. Bohm.

Therefore, as INC says above, we need both a license from the actual photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS and some consideration of whether this violates COM:ADVERT. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Bjm99c (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bjm99c (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bjm99c; welcome to the Teahouse. I think Jim has explained the situation fairly well above, but I'll try to reiterate his key points.

Firstly, there is some apparent doubt over whether Mr Bohm is actually the copyright holder - just because he owns and uses the image does not necessarily mean he owns the copyright to it (this belongs to the photographer, by default). It would be necessary to show evidence that the photographer transferred copyright to Mr Bohm before his claim could be accepted.

Secondly, it's not possible to release an image only for use on Wikipedia, which is what Mr Bohm appears to be consenting to. The image must be released under a free licence, meaning that it must be free for anyone to reuse or alter, anywhere - not just on Wikipedia. The wording of the email above is not enough to constitute such a release - you need an email in which the copyright holder specifically states the licence or terms of the licence under which they release the photograph.

Finally, it seems as though you are editing under a conflict of interest - rather than editing to improve Wikipedia, you seem to be editing for the purpose of promoting your subject. Whilst I appreciate that you have made an effort to tone down the promotional language, the draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawrance A. Bohm still lacks Wikipedia's necessary neutral tone of voice: it is phrased extensively to promote Mr Bohm's work (there's little information besides lists of his qualifications, successful cases, and awards; the information presented here would not look out of place on his CV). If you aren't able to see how this article advertises its subject, then you are clearly too closely involved with the topic - it might be better to post a request at requested articles to allow a neutral editor to create the page instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am a pr for a client of mines, need a bit of help

thank you for viewing my message basically i am a digital music platform, which consists of pr, public relations. i have an up an coming artist who is real hot, and i wanted to create a biography and submit it on wikipedia. i know that you guys don't encourage autobiographies because getting them verified can be a pain, plus they can be very one sided and biased. so of course HE ISN'T going to write his biography, but i am as his pr guy. is that ok, and if yes, how do i go about submitting it? i am new to wikipedia, today is my first day! thank you very much in advance

(Mutechqi (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine you write an article, as long as it meets Wikipedia:Notability (music), you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page, and the article is neutral. See also the words at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. You should find the cheatsheet helpful. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm Go Phightins!, a Teahouse host. Wikipedia strongly discourages paid editing, because it usually is done to promote an entity, in this case your up-and-coming artist. That said, if you can write an article on him strictly using information from third party reliable sources, you are more than welcome to submit it to Articles for creation, where an experienced editor will review the article and either offer some constructive feedback and criticism, or move it to mainspace, where others can read about it. So, to summarize, I would discourage you from writing an article on this fellow, even though you're his public relations guy, because it is likely a conflict of interest, but if you can do so from reliable sources available on the internet or in books or other media, you're welcome to give it a shot. Feel free to ask me any further questions you may have. Happy editing! Go Phightins! 04:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UPANDCOMING too. Roger (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very early internet

I have written a summary about computer controlled communications I developed in 1967-68. I'm 81 years old and the only living person who knows and understands what was done in those early days. It's a tiny bit of history that will be lost with my passing.Lucas225 (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Could you please publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia? Wikipedia doesn't publish things that haven't been published elsewhere first. Biosthmors (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Posting information directly to an article that you cannot cite elsewhere (via a book, internet resource, article, etc.) is classified as original research, and unfortunately cannot be accepted on Wikipedia. Please, as was suggested, feel free to post your information elsewhere. Thank you for your consideration, and don't hesitate to ask any further questions.

Respectfully, Go Phightins! 04:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So ~ I'm curious (as a very green editor who has yet to contribute anything other than minor corrections) ~~

Q1. Does this mean that if he gets published somewhere (e.g. IEEE Spectrum), THEN can he create a Wikipedia article, citing the article in the magazine?

Q2. If someone is able to get a TED talk posted on the TED site, can that be cited as a source? Thanks Martian (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: If he gets it published somewhere acknowledged to be reliable (and IEEE Spectrum would be such a place) then it can be cited in a Wikipedia article. But a single publication would usually not be sufficient to establish notability for the subject to have its own article, or even its own section in an article. And in any case Lucas225 should not insert any such material into Wikipedia, as he has a conflict of interest.

Q2: I don't know the answer. I would have though the TED was regarded as reliable, but I've just tried to look for a discussion of it on the archives of the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and not found anything. You could ask explicitly on that noticeboard. --ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A1. yes. i would advise you to get your history; oral history down, and archived, for example at the Computer History Museum. they would love to talk with you.

A2. a TED talk, or oral history are primary sources, and can be used with care in this tertiary source encyclopedia, normally in external links; see WP:PRIMARY. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for me to be allowed to edit Semi-Locked Pages?

I am a fan of WWE and the wikipedia pages they have, I'd also like to contribute to one of their pages in particular "List of WWE Personnel, however it is semi-protected is there a way for me to be allowed to edit this or get permission to do so? If so please tell me. (Olfert12 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! You may request your change to be made at the article's talk page with {{edit semi-protected}}, along with your reasoning, or request confirmed rights, although it unlikely your request will be accepted. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited with reliable links still pending for creation.

Dear Host,

I wrote this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abhijeet_Sinha_Sinha/sandbox but it got declined due to inadequate reliable sources. I edited it again and attached reliable sources. But Its not getting any response from editors, I don’t know how to send it or make it visible to editors. Please help.

Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet, welcome to the Teahouse. The article is now in the right place to be seen as it's been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhijeet Sinha. If you now want it to be reviewed then you should add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to add it to the list of articles to be assessed. This might take some time as there are about 400 articles awaiting assessment/review. Can I ask you one question now - your username and the article subject are the same. Are you writing about yourself? If so, you should be aware that autobiographies are discouraged as, even with the best intentions, staying neutral can be very difficult. NtheP (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Abhijeet. Althho you have a few reliable sources on your article (NYT ,Times of India, a TV station, and IBT), none of those sources mention the subject of your article by name at all. Wikipedia only publishes articles about what others are writing about, so unless you can find reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books, and TV and radio news websites, academic journals, etc.--things that are fact-checked in some way), independent of the subject of the article, that are writing about the subject of your article, in a significant way (the majority of the article is about the subject of your article), you are probably not going to be able to get an article in the encyclopedia on him yet. Wikipedia only covers what other sources are already writing about. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing aritlces in sandbox

Wh46 2013 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) I created an article(Wassim Michael Haddad) in sandbox and it has been published. However, I mistakenly created several other same pages(User:Wh46 2013/Sandbox, Wassim M. Haddad, Wikipedia:Wassim Michael Haddad). Can anybody help me to delete or remove them? I already put proposed deletion. But I still want the deletion faster, as they are really confusing.[reply]

Another question. The wiki link for the published article is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wassim_Michael_Haddad". Can someone help me to change it to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassim_Michael_Haddad"? Wh46 2013 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for the new article! I've taken care of the redirects by removing the redirects, and requested that the one page beginning in User: be deleted, as that user doesn't exist. Don't worry, your article should still be fine. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me! gwickwire^talk_edits 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wh46 2013 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But when I tried to google "wassim haddad wikipedia", the resulted wiki pages are the delete ones, not the article "Wassim Michael Haddad". Wh46 2013 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google and other search engines learns about a page's existence and provides search results by first spidering it. Until that indexing occurs, Google and its algorithms will find nothing. As the page was just moved, you need but wait a few days.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn´t found the way to ask for a English to Spanish translation of an article and need help to do so.

Hello,

I´ve read Emmanuel Jal´s Wikipedia english version article, but I am spanish speaker, and thing it will be useful for spanish language natives to access a spanish version of the article.

In "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation" I found that sentence: "To request a translation of an English Wikipedia article into another language, click on a sidebar link to do so at the appropriate foreign-language Wikipedia."

Following that indication I went to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Jal" looked at the sidebar, and under Languages didn't found a "Spanish" Link. How my I preoceed to ask for that traduction then ?

I aknowledge in advance any help you can bring me on this,

Cordially Marcelo Mas, Montevideo,Uruguay 190.135.23.40 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marcelo! I'm not exactly sure on the Spanish Wikipedia's policies regarding translation, as I only do work there sparingly, but it should be fine to use the article in the English Wikipedia to translate it into Spanish. When it meant a sidebar link, it meant on the Wikipedia:Translaton page, not on the original page :) That should to take you to es:Wikipedia:Transliteración or something similar. Then you can request it there. gwickwire^talk_edits 17:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was an easy confusion to have given the language in the banner at Wikipedia:Translation, so I have made this change (we'll see if it sticks).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Wikipedia articles

Where can I learn easy to use formats for pages, that can be given a more attractive look? Does Wikipedia offer any course for such a need? Ajayupai95 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay, do you mean your user page or article pages? If it's article page then how they look and are laid out is guided by the Manual of Style and you should follow the layouts laid out there. If it's your user page you want to style then you need to check out the User page design center which will probably contain most information you want. NtheP (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inventing a Wikpedia bot language

(Discussion moved) --Carrot Lord (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carrot Lord. Your thoughts and efforts are appreciated, but this is a forum for answering newcomer's questions, and as such, this would probably be better posted at the Village Pump. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry about that. I wasn't aware that was what the Village Pump was for. Thank you. I will remove this content and move it over. --Carrot Lord (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About subpages and user pages

I have taken a look at Wikipedia:Subpages. However, I am confused on a few points:

Is there a limit to the amount of data that you can hold inside subpages of your user page? For instance, right now I only have 1 or 2 sandbox-style articles that are not my own user page, but would there be a maximum limit on the number of articles a user space can hold?
Is it really possible to edit common.js to change the way your user page and subpages work? How would you execute custom JavaScript? Is that possible on Wikipedia?
Do content forking rules, such as "don't make a fork of some article to avoid NPOV" apply to sandboxes?

Thanks for the help! --Carrot Lord (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carrot and Welcome Back.

Sandboxes and Subpages are places where you can make test edits that cannot be added to the article space. Most users also use them to develop articles (that would otherwise be deleted at that time) to meet Wikipedia standards and then move them to the article space.

No. There is no upper limit on the amount of data/ number of sandbox/user pages that you can have.

I have no idea about how common.js works. You may try and look at the codes of the Common js [ages of a few users to see how it works. Here is mine

No. The user page is your own and you have absolute liberty over it, save a few boundaries (like hoax, vandalism etc). So you need not worry about those rules. But if you are developing a page to send to the article space, it would be a good idea for you to meet all the rules and guidelines while your article is in the userspace (Or you might have it deleted once you take it to the article space)

Hope it helped.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again, Carrot Lord. You can use your userpages pretty much as you wish, but remember, no matter where you are writing, be it your userpage, your talk page or in a sandbox, everything on Wikipedia must conform to BLP policy. Wikipedia is very insistent that anything written about a living person be sourced to reliable sources. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, fictional items such as fictional people and fictional cities would not require any sort of BLP, right? (Note: still talking about user sandboxes, and not actual articles) --Carrot Lord (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fictional people do not have BLP. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to replace/update an existing image without creating a new page? i.e. adds to chronology/thumbnail instead

This is to do with a problem with the graph chronology for next UK election. Note: when a small image appears, hover over it with your mouse to read the complete the sentence.

Ok, so this page has always had a chart but due to the continuous updates with the addition of new polls the chart needs updating every once in a while. This has meant that there are now an abundance of unwanted/out of date files on wikipedia, which should really belong in the chronology of the . As you can see from the chronology all is well for the chronology of that page until it stops at May 2012, the final update.

The next image to be uploaded was a , this chart and the were used simultaneously for a period. That is until the data for 2011 and 2012 was updated to the 30px|talk page to accommodate the new format (due to the addition of UKIP's column). This is a recent occurance. I was the one that uploaded the new data a few days ago, I also created a to see us through until we could get a new version of the favoured chart to cover May 2010-Present Day.

A exists, this preceded my chart, it was made in error, I discovered the lines were too thick for interpretation, therefore this image needs to be deleted, as it is in effect a duplicate. I do not know how to delete this image, or suggest deletion, can someone help/delete it for me? I'll see to it that there are comments on that page.

Since my chart was uploaded, I have uploaded the data to the talk page, for User:Wavehunter to update the chart that preceded mine to include the data from 2010 and 2011. The reason for this is that Wavehunter's chart was the one that had consensus. In the meantime Impru20 has uploaded . Since then Wavehunter has uploaded his updated chart which is now (by consensus) the .

To summarise what I need help with doing/for someone to do for me:

All of these listed graphs need to be added to the chronology of the and not be as separate pages. In chronological order the follow should be added to the chronology:

(or deleted)
(current)

Note: Please do not include: the as it is useful on other pages and does not fit in the chronology (as does not include 2010or11!

I would really appreciate someone doing this for me, as I am likely to make a mistake with it being multiple edits and my 1st time doing this. Could you also leave a note explaining how to do this for future reference on the talk page for the benefit of myself and future editors.

I also want to know how to do this so that I can use my new skill on another page, I have another picture that I need to replace/update but I want to do it properly! So once I know what I'm doing and once someone has done this for me I will be able to see to things like this in the future.

Many ThanksSheffno1gunner (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheff, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of things that could be done. One would be to create a category that contains all these images so they could be seen together. Another, and this maybe what you are referring to is to upload a new version of an existing file. This is an option for any image and at the bottom of the image page you get a thumbnail view of all the previous versions. The advantage is that you don't have to keep changing the article the image is used in as the image file name remains the same. The disadvantage is if someone wants to maintain a static link to one of the previous versions of the image elsewhere. I'd suggest that if you want to do this you raise it on the talk page of a candidate image page and leave a note at the original editors talk page as well. NtheP (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't answer my question! I was indeed talking about the 2nd thing you described with thumbnails. Could you please tell me how to link all these images under 1 tittle with one set of thumbnails as you described. All you have done is described back to me what I had described to you, except in better terminology! That was not at all helpful! I will ask this for the 4th time on wiki (in various places) HOW DO I DO THIS? Please cut the crap and just tell me! I'm not studying for a degree in bullsh1t so please spare me the opening lecture!

All images apart from the 2012 image need to be included as they replace one another! How do you this? Or could you do it for me?Sheffno1gunner (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the talk page TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make background information box

Tedakaemod (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC) With color and no inner lines.Tedakaemod (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Infobox. Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Square brackets in URLs

I am having trouble getting one of my references to format properly in the page that I am working on at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandolin Society. The URL has square brackets in it. I've tried both the usual "ref" format and the "cite" format, and the whole URL is not being accepted, only the part up to the square bracket. Is there a trick? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, welcome back. As you've realised the square brackets in the URL mess up the reference formatting. The trick is to replace them with a percent-encoded code. For square brackets replace [ with %5B and ] with %5D. If you have problems with these or any other special character have a look at Help:URL or come back and ask here. NtheP (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne. I had fixed them and was coming her to tell you how I did so and NtheP beat me to the punch. The answer to this issue is also provided in the documentation for the citation templates. See e.g., Template:Cite news#URL. See also Percent-encoding. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I should have thought of trying that myself, since I am familiar with ASCII coding. I'll know what to do next time. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References - question

If the same reference is used several times in an article, how do you format to prevent duplication in the reference list? Case in point: Sarah Reinertsen Sportygeek (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportygeek and welcome to the Teahouse. References can be given a "name" by adding <ref name=Test> to the reference tag. For example, instead of...

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.challengedathletes.org/atf/cf/{10e89006-a432-401e-bc75-805e68ce5c27}/SarahReinertsen.pdf|title=Sarah Reinertsen|publisher=Challenged Athletes Foundation|accessdate=18 Jan 2013}}</ref>

...it could be...

<ref name=ChallengedAthletes>{{cite web|url=http://www.challengedathletes.org/atf/cf/{10e89006-a432-401e-bc75-805e68ce5c27}/SarahReinertsen.pdf|title=Sarah Reinertsen|publisher=Challenged Athletes Foundation|accessdate=18 Jan 2013}}</ref>

After a reference is given a name, they can be added again anywhere in the article by clicking "Cite" → "Named references" in the editing toolbar. See the screenshot below for an example. For more information, see WP:Named references. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found that one (and will use next time!). It's not really ease of adding references I'm concerned about, tho - more an unnecessarily long (because of duplication) reference list. Would named references fix that? Other ways? Sportygeek (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After naming a reference, it can be used anywhere again with the code <ref name="Test" /> without being duplicated in the reference list. Basic steps:

Name (all of?) the references
Replace the duplicates with <ref name="Name of reference" />

Sorry if I can't explain this well – it's rather technical.

The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it and see what happens. I understand naming things (done some web design/basic web dev), but I'm a total Wikipedia newbie. Sportygeek (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to remove some of the duplicates. See if you can make sense out of them!

Cheers,TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you can use the 'Error check' button (see toolbar image above). ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC) P.s.: It found one and I repaired it. ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix the formatting on my inline citations?

I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and my first article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Malka) has a note saying my inline citations aren't properly formatted. Can someone help me figure out what is wrong with them and how to fix them? Lagirl24 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lagirl, thanks for swinging by The Teahouse. It looks like there's some details missing about the references in your article, which should be included in footnotes when possible.

There is a "Cite" toolbar at the top of the edit window which allows you to automatically generate the required wiki code.

You click one of the templates, e.g. "book", and fill in the details.

More information can be found in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or the citations tutorial (the below video will play best in Firefox or Chrome):

Hope this helps, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Much appreciated. Is there any way to bring up the citations tool box for citations that I've already created, so that I can add in additional information? Or do I have to completely re-do my citations from scratch?Lagirl24 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no, there isn't a way to reverse engineer your citations like that; you'll have to do it from scratch! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying an article in the sandbox

I've recently had an article removed as it was deemed too promotional and not ambiguous enough, is there an editor who could check my sandbox before making the article Live to check it is inline with the Wiki guidelines?. Thanks, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Murklemark/sandbox (Murklemark (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Murklemark and welcome to Wikipedia! The main problem I can see with your article is that it does not tell us why the company is famous. Unless there is a specific reason why the company should have an article (if they are well known or made some news), they cannot be added. So do add any secondary sources before trying to get the article into article space.

(Secondary sources are those sources which are not related to the article subject. So your company's website will not be a secondary source, but a major newspaper will be)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheOriginalSoni, thanks for your input, the company is famous throughout the UK specifically within it's industry but also within the (and my) local community. I've seen a number of other companies with similar pages but no secondary sources so I was wondering if there was anything else I can do to see if it is OK to go live.

Thanks again for your help! (Murklemark (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Is there any way you can show that? Maybe a newspaper or a journal or a magazine? Anything from that specific industry which might show that the company is noteworthy? If not, then I dont think it will be possible for your article to survive the article space.

Do you mind linking a few of the companies you are speaking of? I might like to check how we can have articles without any secondary sources or established notablity. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to reference printed articles / journals or do they have to be web articles, I'm sure I can find something from within the news or industry journals. One of the articles I was looking at was B. Braun Melsungen which looks to be a similar company, but most of their references don't work so I wondered why my page was different as I originally had more live references.

Thanks, (Murklemark (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

They can be anything- Print/Journal/Web. As long as it is reliable, its allowed.

As for the article you mentioned, it probably will need to be deleted. It does not look like it meets our notablity guidelines. Do tell if you find any other similar articles. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should be careful not to equate "fame" with "notability". For Wikipedia, notability is the key and the guidelines for the notability of companies can be found here.--ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheOriginalSoni and ukexpat, the article was speedily deleted straight out of my Sandbox while I was editing it for review as it was deemed too promotional, again I searched for similar article such as ICU Medical and Medtronic and baed my style of referenced information based on what these article displayed. I'm surprised it was deleted straight out of my sandbox before it was even finished. Thanks, (Murklemark (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

How to resolve issues on a new wiki page

The wiki entry Women Live is an attempt to archive a women’s magazine. Because I was involved in the magazine it seems that I have a too ‘close connection ‘ to the subject. How can this be overcome?

How does one achieve apparent objectivity when involved in setting up a wiki page, when one has been connected with that project??

Gillian Young (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Gillian, and thank you for asking the question. Wikipedia's guidance on such cases of conflict of interest is at WP:COI. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and I've changed the internet url in your link to a wikilink to make it more readable. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "attempt to archive" is problematic. Wikipedia is not a web host for random stuff, it is an encyclopedia with strict content rules. Roger (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to understand the responses* which seem ignorant and a little arrogant. All written by men. ‘Notable’ means worthy of attention or notice. To anyone studying subjects such as: autobiographical writing and the development of women’s magazines would find this item relevant within that context. The Women’s Library (see link) agreed to house the archive exactly because it recognises it within a historical context.

I am trying to get advice as to how to make the Women Live article comply with standards - and am gobsmacked that people can ignorantly suggest it should be ‘deleted’. More useful would be some SIMPLE suggestions as to how to strengthen it in terms of Wiki standards. Please note some of us struggle to comprehend these processes.

A magazine that cease publication after six issues can hardly be notable. If it had been notable, it would no doubt have continued being published.

Gillian Young (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gillian. Like many activities, Wikipedia has some jargon of its own, and one of the terms that is not immediately obvious is "notable". As you say, its normal dictionary meaning is "worthy of note"; but for the purposes of Wikipedia it has a specific and somewhat different meaning: "already noted by multiple reliable organs independent of the subject". Clearly there is a considerable overlap between the meanings, but there is also some disparity. Something can be very popular on the street, or regarded as important by a particular group, but if no reliable newspaper or publisher has noted it then it does not meet the criterion. (Conversely if several scholarly books have discussed a topic it meets the criterion even if hardly anybody has heard of it). The criterion is in a sense a practical one, because if no reliable sources have said anything about a topic, then there is no reliable information which can go into an article. (Information available only from sources close to the subject is not regarded as independent, and is not generally allowed in articles).

What this means for your question is that if there exist the substantial, reliable, independent references necessary to establish notability, then inserting those references in the article will be enough to save it from deletion - any other problems such as tone or formatting can be fixed at leisure. But if those references do not exist then there is nothing you can do to the article to save it from deletion.

I don't know who inserted the starred comment above, but I think it is wrong and ill-judged. It is perfectly possible for a magazine to achieve notability in Wikipedia's sense in one or two editions, and then fold for purely practical reasons.

I hope this explains things to you. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IW's messed up at WP-hr

Can someone help with the iw links at hr:Naglasak? I am trying to fix confused iw's across 60 projects, but the WP-hr article has been protected; that one project will disrupt all the rest once the iw bot starts. (The confusion is accent = stress vs. accent = regional speech. It's a real mess.) Thanks, — kwami (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem on en.wiki or on hr.wiki? Which article and link(s) are you having trouble changing? What change should be made? If you need an admin here, there are several who can help - if you need an admin there, see hr:Special:ListAdmins. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake question

I made a mistake on interstate rose ouarter max station i edited it but it still showed the mistake on the page what do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfgg (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You did indeed make a number of mistakes at Rose Quarter Transit Center. Links you added were ambiguous, and it was malformatted because you had leading spaces on a line. I don't know why Wikipedia failed to accept your edit if you were trying to correct your errors; perhaps you hit the "Show preview" but forgot the "Save" stage? Anyway, I've corrected it for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In here...

.. the dark blue segment indicates edits I've made on Wikipedia. I don't understand, does it mean edits I've did excluding the rest categories? If that is so, then what does the light blue sector mean? --Yashowardhani (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yashowardani. The segments on that graph are the different namespaces in Wikipedia. So the dark blue is the Wikipedia name space, that is pages whose name starts with Wikipedia:, like this one we are on, for example. Your edits to Wikipedia articles are the red sector, and the light blue is the Wikipedia Talk: namespace, such as discussion pages for WikiProjects. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dfgg here again everyone How do i make a section like in willow creek transit center and beaverton central and in fuller rd max station pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfgg (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]