Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, 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
1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227

Foreign-language song titles

In the specific case of article Jay Park, the article has scattered Korean translations and Revised Romanization of song titles. The song titles themselves are well-established in English, so it does not really make them foreign-language per se, but more the fact that the song has both an English title and a Korean title. I think that including the Korean text and the Revised Romanization after an English song title clutters the text and does not make for easy reading. Is there a better way to include this information, perhaps as a note? Or does it even need to be included? Just unknown (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage

Can we make it such that for now WikiVoyage is disabled by default when one enables Template:Sister links? I have noticed that many non-Voyage-related pages have the "WikiVoyage" parameter. E.g. [1] It would be very tedious to disable every single one. Is there a reason for not disabling it by default? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonkers. It used to be hidden by default but there was a discussion at Template talk:Sister project links#Wikivoyage hidden by default that resulted in the change to display it by default. If you wanted to argue that they got it wrong, you could open up a new discussion at that talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannes Film Festival Red Carpet Walk Free image

Can anyone suggest any site which offers free image of Cannes Film Festival Red Carpet Walk? I need one of Paoli Dam's red carpet walk in 2011. --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tito, do any of the files at this Commons search appeal to you? —teb728 t c 06:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searched there! No! I need Paoli Dams 2011 red carpet walk! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather unlikely that you'll just come across a free image of a red carpet event on the internet, since most professional photographers don't like to release copyrights for their work. Most such images here/at Commons are taken with explicit permission from a photographer or from Flickr (where such photographs are sometimes released under a CC license compatible with our policies) but a quick search didn't reveal anything like that for Paoli Dam. Your best bet would be to find a photograph, and then ask the photographer for permission to use it on Wikipedia through WP:OTRS. Chamal ^T•C 06:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep the "requesting permission" as the last option, I have had a terrible experiences there. I have just posted a suggestion --Tito Dutta (contact) 08:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

티아라

Dear editors:

Is it okay for this page 티아라 which redirects to an English page to be in the English Wikipedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, and welcome back. Yes, that is her Korean name so it is a reasonable redirect. Using the name of a foreign subject in their native language as a redirect is commonly done. For example, 싸이 redirects to Psy and 章子怡 redirects to Zhang Ziyi. Chamal ^T•C 02:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is perfectly fine as long as the redirect includes the {{R from alternative language}} template. There are many other redirect just like it; see Category:Redirects from alternative languages. — |J ~Pæst| 02:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just checking... —Anne Delong (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my signature?

Hi. I recently switched from my default signature on Wikipedia to a more complex one, which involves multiple types of formatting. However, when attempting to save the new signature (under Special:Preferences), the messages " • There are problems with some of your input" (at the top of the page) and "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." (to the right of the box for inputting the signature) were displayed. I made sure that the box was checked below to treat the signature as wiki markup. I do not know what is causing the signature to fail, as it displays properly when it is manually placed onto talk pages. This is the exact text of the signature:
<big>|</big>[[User:JPæst|J]][[Special:Contributions/JPaestpreornJeolhlna|~]][[User talk:JPæst|Pæst]]<big>|</big>
Which displays as:
|J~Pæst|
Could someone tell me what is wrong with this signature and how it should be changed? Thanks. — |J~Pæst| 01:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to help you with this! I have a couple questions first. Why is the username attached to your Special:Contributions different than the one that your User: and User_talk: link to? Are you aware that the font element is deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, invalid in HTML 4.0 Strict, and not part of HTML5? I'm assuming your signature "should" be:

<span style="text-decoration: overline underline;"><big>|</big>[[User:JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #00FF0F;">J</span>]][[Special:Contributions/JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #0FF;">~</span>]][[User talk:JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #00F;">Pæst</span>]]<big>|</big></span>

which will look like |J ~Pæst| and if that doesn't fix it, I'm wondering if your non-latin character is causing an issue... Technical 13 (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Technical 13. To answer your first question, I used the shorter name ("JPæst") merely to shorten the signature so that it would fit within the allotted space for the signature's markup. "User:JPæst" is a redirect to User:JPaestpreornJeolhlna, and "User talk:JPæst" is a redirect to User talk:JPaestpreornJeolhlna as well. Also, I was not aware that the font elements are deprecated; thank you for pointing that out! As for the non-ASCII character, "æ", I am almost completely certain that it is not the problem. When I tried replacing the character with "ae", for example, the same messages were displayed—instead of saving the signature. Unfortunately, the new signature you provided does not work either, even without the "æ" character. Do you know what might be causing this? — |J ~Pæst| 02:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the length of your signature is the issue here. The entire code for the signature can't be more than 255 characters, and the signature text box in your preferences automatically truncates the code at that length IIRC. I'm guessing that since part of the code would go missing in this case, it would of course be invalid HTML. Chamal ^T•C 02:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your original signature is accepted if the font color is in quotation marks and it stays within the 255-character limit. The signature suggested by Technical breaks the limit and is truncated, leaving it misformatted. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Why do the font colors need to be located within quotation marks, even though the code does not require it? — |J ~Pæst| 03:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details of when quotation marks around attributes are optional or mandatory in HTML (in XHTML they are mandatory). Browsers are forgiving about many things. I simply tested your signature to see what was required there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even

<u><span style="text-decoration: overline;"><big>|</big>[[User:JPæst|<span style="color: #3F3;">J</span>]][[Special:Contributions/JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #0FF;">~</span>]][[User talk:JPæst|Pæst]]<big>|</big></span></u>

is 235 characters and should work... I removed your #0000FF because it is so close to the default link color Technical 13 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image free use?

I'm trying to find a free image of the late U.S. Ambassador John M. Steeves. I found this one, which is part of a joint exhibition by meridian and the U.S. State Department, but the copyright status is not clear to me. Any help would be appreciated! Keihatsu ^talk 22:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keihatsu! From the description, it looks like the photo is from the embassy of Afghanistan. While most images created by the US government go into the public domain, Afghanistan doesn't have a law like that as far as I know. What you could do is refer to the Commons page on copyright rules of Afghanistan and try to determine the copyright status of the image (I'm not an expert on copyrights but judging from the description on that page, I'd say this image is still not in the public domain). If you want to try, you'd probably get a better answer at the Commons Help Desk; they are the people who work with images after all. Alternatively, you could try to find an image of him that is the work of the US government. Since he was an ambassador, I guess they'd have one somewhere :) Chamal ^T•C 01:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have no way of knowing the copyright status of this image at this time. Works of the U.S. government are usually in the public domain, and given the turmoil in Afghanistan in recent decades, it is plausible that the image may have originated with the U.S. government. But unless we can verify that, we can't assume it. It may be possible to use a lower resolution version under the fair use doctrine if no free image can be found. See WP:F for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the description, the image appears to be from 1963 when Afghanistan was more or less peaceful, and it also says Courtesy of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Washington, D.C.. Whether that refers to the text or the image is unclear. Doesn't really clear it up much though. Chamal ^T•C 04:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Do You Think?

Should Wikipedia be embraced as a learning and teaching recourse?

I am writing a piece about Wikipedia to do with education and want to know your thoughts on this subject; if you could take 5 minutes and respond, it would be really helpful to my research. Thank you. ClaraRoper (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately your request falls under WP:NOR, so I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't respond. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical13, I don't think she means she's writing a Wikipedia article on the subject. ^King Jakob _C2 19:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clara. I think a good place to ask this would be at the Wikipedia:Village pump, which is a set of pages about the community. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "resource"? A recourse—which is the word you used—refers to a source of help, usually for important security purposes. Sorry if I'm wrong, but it didn't seem like "recourse" made as much sense in your context.

— |J~Pæst| 22:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this blog OK?

Hi, I am currently writing an article about butterflies. I have long known about [butterflycircle.blogspot.sg this blog] and I find it quite reliable and the info is accurate and written with reference to notable, scientific books. As I know Wikipedia finds blogs unreliable sources, I just want to ask if this blog will be considered reliable if I use it as a source in my article. Thanks. :) Arctic Kangaroo 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indded! That's an excellent blog! It is unfortunate that they are not using a custom domain! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said this looks like a special case, although personally my approach would be to try and find the original sources which those blog articles reference. That said, I think Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be a better place for this question, as the editors there would probably be the Wikipedia experts on sources. Chamal ^T•C 16:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While blogs are generally non-RS, some are deemed as exceptions... E.g. "Official" blogs ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Table Help

In this table Feluda#Feluda_series, I want to add a colspan="4" "Characters" above the cols "Topshe", "Jatayu","Sighy Jyatha", "Villain".
Here is a rough sketch of what I am asking for.
You can edit in the article or in this backup copy or suggest the code here!--Tito Dutta (contact) 05:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an edit to the article. My76Strat (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, what is "Sighy Jyatha"?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 11:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It must be a misspelling of the "Sidhu Jyatha" column at Feluda#Feluda series. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what to do with notice at top of article

An article was marked as needing copy editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAMU-TV). I fixed several small grammatical errors and made a few improvements to the flow of the text. Since the article is so small, I'm pretty sure I fixed the problems the notice was referring to. Can I delete the notice right away or is it supposed to stay up? Jakobcornell0 (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jakobcornell0! One of the rules of Wikipedia is be bold. If you feel as if you have fixed the problems of an article, you don't need confirmation; you can just get rid of the notice. The opposite side is that if another editor thinks the issues haven't been addressed, they can always be bold and put the notice back. The bottom line is not to worry about making mistakes on Wikipedia, because as long as you mean well and other editors assume good faith, you'll be fine. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 01:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob, yes once you have corrected whatever needs correcting you should go ahead and delete the notice. Also, if you come across any articles with maintenance notices and you see that someone else has already fixed the problem, then the notice longer applies and you can remove it in this situation as well. -- œ ^™ 09:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor I want to know if this Article is acceptable for Wikipedia as I am staff at Parmenides Pub?

Is the following text acceptable as a new article? I'm staff at Parmenides and if I post this, I do not want to be blocked. It is based on many other academic publisher articles on wikipedia. Thank you.

Parmenides Publishing is an academic publishing house established in 2000 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada, with editorial offices in Zurich, Switzerland. It aims to renew interest in the origins and scope of thinking as method. The academic publishing program concentrates on the humanities, especially on the Presocratics, Plato / Platonism, Aristotle, Hellenistic Philosophy, and Neo-Platonism. Parmenides publishes the Plotinus Series edited by John M. Dillon & Andrew Smith. Since 2005, the publishing scope has been widened to include Audiobooks and Philosophical Fiction.

Imprints __________________________________________________________ • ParmenidesAudio • ParmenidesFiction

External Links __________________________________________________________ • Official website

→ Text for the box on the right-hand side: Parmenides Publishing Founded 2000 Country of Origin United States Headquarters Location Las Vegas, Nevada Publication types Books, Audiobooks Official website http://www.parmenides.com

GaleCarrLV (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gale, and thank you for asking. That text in itself is mostly OK, but as you guessed, because of your conflict of interest you need to be very cautious about writing about the company. The main thing wrong with your text for an article is that it has no references at all to sources independent of the company. Any article requires these in order to establish that the subject meets the criteria for notability: in principle, everything in an article must be sourced to a reference. Much of the material that you have written is straight factual information, and so it would be acceptable to source it to the company's own website (though it still requires explicit references); but it still needs at least a couple of substantial references to independent sources in order to establish notability. Also, statements such as "It aims to renew ... " sound like advertising, and would be acceptable only if an independent reliable source (such as a newspaper article - not the company's press release!) had said this, and the article could then cite this source.

I suggest that you first make sure that there are enough mentions of your company in independent reliable sources to establish that it is notable by Wikipedia's standards; and then read WP:Your first article and WP:Conflict of interest. If you think after reading these that you are able to write a sufficiently neutral article, create one as suggested in the first link I gave you; or otherwise you can request somebody else to write an article by going to WP:Requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Colin. This is much appreciated advice. I'll be back once the corrections are made for a final approval or if I have additional questions. GaleCarrLV (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing a non-expert of the value of an expert article

Extended content, see discussion User talk:FoCuSandLeArN#Pygmy pipehorse - WT:WikiProject Articles_for creation#Pygmy pipehorse - WT:Articles for creation/Pygmy pipehorses

Hi everyone, I thought this would be a nice one to share - an example of how the system completely fails when established Wikipedians try to critically block an article they totally don't understand. I am close to modifying this and sending it to CreationWiki instead!!!

Article: pygmy pipehorses; rejected because: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Acentronura instead." [my response: no it's not, that's like saying an article on reptiles should be rejected because there is already one on crocodiles!!!]

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean by "this article already exists on Wikipedia". Acentronura is only one of four genera of "pygmy pipehorses", so updating the information on the "Acentronura" page will not work.(...) Tesk0002 (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. Wouldn't they fall under Hippocampinae then? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a higher level category. It works as follows: Acentronura: One of five genera of pygmy pipehorse ; Pygmy pipehorses: Genera Acentronura, Amphelikturus, Idiotropiscis, Kyonemichthys and the extinct Hippotropiscis; Hippocampinae: The above five pygmy pipehorse genera, plus the seahorses

But what's lower than subfamily and higher than genus? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point - but remember that taxonomic levels above the species (which can be fairly clearly defined on the basis of the ability to interbreed or not) are entirely arbitrary anthropogenic concepts, what is considered a distinct genus in one group can be a different subfamily in another. (...) Personally, I would establish an entirely new subfamily for the pygmy pipehorses, but that is just an artefact of the human tendency of putting everything into a distinct drawer, while in this case, one genus in my made-up drawer is more closely related to a genus in a different drawer than it is to some of the genera in its own drawer.

...having said that - it is nonetheless very clear what a pygmy pipehorse is because their morphology can be readily defined: like seahorses, they have a prehensile tail and a brood pouch that has evolved into a sealed sac. The only difference is: they do not swim upright. It's a bit like "Reptilia" - everybody knows what it is, but it doesn't actually exist because "Aves" (birds) clusters right within it. Tesk0002 (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

...I just had a look, there really is a page on Wikipedia called "Reptiles", which suffers from the exact same problem as "pygmy pipehorses" - non-monophyly (replace reptiles with pygmy pipehorses and birds with seahorses, and you have the perfect analogy). I quote: "Although they have scutes on their feet and lay eggs [a prehensile tail and a brood pouch that has evolved into a sealed sac], birds [seahorses] have historically been excluded from the reptiles [pygmy pipehorses], in part because they are warm-blooded [have an upright posture]. They therefore do not appear on the list above. However, as some reptiles [pygmy pipehorses] are more closely related to birds [seahorses] than they are to other reptiles [pygmy pipehorses] — crocodiles [pygmy pipehorses of the genus Idiotropiscis] are more closely related to birds [seahorses] than they are to lizards [pygmy pipehorses of the genera Acentronura, Amphelikturus and Kyonemichthys] — cladistic writers who prefer a more unified (monophyletic) grouping usually also include the birds [seahorses), which include over 10,000 species.[3][4][5] (See Sauropsida.) [See Hippocampinae]"

...in other words: if you want to continue blocking the pygmy pipehorse page, you should at least be logically consistent and delete the entire reptile page - perhaps some of it is salvageable and could be moved across to the Sauropsida page. The cladists will be grateful. Everyone else will be outraged. Tesk0002 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: As User:FoCuSandLeArN mentioned, you should consider improving the article Acentronura — which is about the same topic — instead of submitting this one. Maybe this article is better than the one that already is in the mainspace but there's still no point in getting an article created about a topic on which an article already exists. Cheers, smtchahal(talk) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Tesk0002 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) (...) I would also suggest you to improve the article Acentronura if you are knowledgeable about the topic and are willing to contribute to the article. Thanks, smtchahal(talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[No way, why the heck should I? There's nothing wrong with that article, whoever wrote it knows plenty about Acentronua. I've written something quite different here, you know, higher level taxonomy...]

Note that doing so, however, won't affect what happens to this article but of course, your help would be greatly appreciated. smtchahal(talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

[Thank you kind Sir, I am most grateful for not being forced to improve something that I know zilch about!! But don't worry about it, this was my last attempt at trying to share my expert knowledge via this medium. Now if somebody could explain to me how to fix up the seahorse page on CreationWiki, it's got a leafy seadragon on it (not disguised as a leaf but as a coral, of all things....)] Tesk0002 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is an AfC article, and it is being discussed separately in two different locations, this smells badly of canvassing and I would advise anyone interested in responding to this request do so on User talk:FoCuSandLeArN#Pygmy pipehorse. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion of this article is that it might be better served on species:Home than here on en.wikipedia. I encourage you to build it out there, and then if it meets en.wikipedia's notability standards, it can always be copied over. Technical 13 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid you're misunderstanding. It's not specifically that /coverage/ of the actual species are not important. The issue, honestly, is the poor state of the genus article. I did some basic work on it, but it needs more, including a copyedit. Some of the information is poorly arranged. I also created redirect links from the species names to the genus article.

A major concern on WP is the creation of new articles that are subtopics of existing ones that need work. This can actually reduce the quality of coverage by 'diffusing' information too much.

The best way to improve the coverage of both species is to work on the genus article, as a general description, with sections detailing and sourcing the uniqueness of both varieties. Then, when the section about 'your' pipefish gets long enough, it can be split into a separate article, which will immediately be 'good', and your work will actually help both articles, and will help ensure that there are enough sources about the specific species to write a 'long enough' article. Remember, an encyclopedia article isn't supposed to be as intricate or specifically detailed as a journal article. Revent (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my previous comment was with the respond widget, so I didn't get an edit conflict and thus missed the previous comment when replying.

That's also why my indentation broke. :) Revent (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment on this issue. I'm not sure what's going on, or where to comment since there are discussions in several places. I gather someone wants, or wanted to write an article on Idiotropiscis lumnitzeri. That's straight forward and there should be no problem with that. The artice should be titled "Sydney's pygmy pipehorse" in alignment with Fishbase. There is a suggestion above that it is better for the writer to write about the genera, not the species. That seems quite wrong to me, and I hope the Teahouse is not offering that advice on other articles to do with marine life. Editors should write at any taxonomic level they choose, so long as they have suitable material for that level. If an editor has sufficient quality material on a species, they should definitely write the article for that species, even if an article for the genera doesn't exist. However I can't find the article. Is it in a draft form in a sandbox, or has the writer withdrawn it? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn it. After reading the above comments, which are all completely nonsensical and have nothing to do with the article (which is neither about a species nor about a genus) I have decided to give up before I lose my marbles. I will try to buy a second ticket for this lottery in a couple of months, perhaps an editor who has at least a basic understanding of taxonomy will then get to read it and provide some competent, critical feedback. The first pygmy pipehorse was described in 1853 and there's still no Wikipedia article dealing with this group, so a couple of months isn't that long. 175.38.232.232 (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little less pomposity might help as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will it? I've had the impression that most of those who have commented haven't actually read the article before deciding what to do with it. I wouldn't call that particularly humble either... 175.38.232.232 (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well put it back in a sandbox so it can be examined again. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears you wrote an article about the pygmy pipehorses, a posssibly nonmonolhyletic group of genera, the non-seahorses in a family. You argued that this is commonly done on Wikipedia, and you are correct, organism articles are written that focus on non-taxa. You got responses that appear to indicate your article was either not read or was read by editors with such limited knowledge of the topic as to make discussion difficult. Very frustrating. The article is still missing and would be a good read and fine DYK. -198.228.216.155 (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the pages

Hello dear Wiki Hosts !

I would like to place a simple question out of my experiences which I come across daily while New Page Patrolling. There are a lot of wiki-newbies who are creating pages of their own profile or personal information on wiki and creating as an article page. My initial steps would have been to mark them CSD:A7. Lately, I came across that these pages are being moved to User pages instead of article, which, in my humble opinion is good to increase the motivation for the new contributors, simultaneously I have a fear that wiki pages will soon be turning into a social-networking website like facebook or twitter, where every contributor will come across the personal User pages more than the actual useful material. So in this situation I would like to place this question , how appropriate it actually is to move every article space to a user space, which is created by a new and fresh wikipedian ? thank you Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghorpaapi. I think in instances like this one has to view each page on its own merits; it's not really sensible or even possible to create a blanket rule for all such submissions. Some may be acceptable in userspace but not in article space (in which case they can be moved), some may actually be suitable for mainspace (if the subject/creator is actually notable, though they may need tidying up), some just aren't appropriate anywhere. You have to deal with each one as it comes up, I'm afraid. In instances where you want the page userfied, you'll probably have to alert an admin, as in many cases the page will have been moved from userspace leaving a redirect (which will have to be deleted). The best course of action is to let the user know that you are concerned about their page; we have the template {{uw-userpage}} for this purpose. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative, if you're impatient like me, is to proceed directly to WP:MfD in order to begin a deletion discussion about the page. I do this, after first calming myself with a Nice Cup of Tea and a Sit Down, whenever I get suddenly irrationally angry about some person who has no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia, putting drivel about their family history and personal website etc into userspace. (WP:NOTWEBHOST is often the rationale for deletion.) It's not actually as widespread or problematic as you might expect.

There are also speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G11 for unambiguous advertising, WP:CSD#G10 for attack pages, and others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undo an edited article

Suppose I have made some mistakes while editing an article and saved it. Is there any way through which I can restore the previous article as it is?Sona 06:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibyendu Ash (talk • contribs)

Hello, Dibyendu, and welcome to the Teahouse. A good question, and you'll be pleased to hear that you can. If you pick the 'History' tab at the top of the page, you can see a list of all the edits that were made, with who made them and when; and you can pick any particular version and see that; and then you can save it (it will give you a warning that you are editing an old version, but it will let you do it.)

In some circumstances you may see an "undo" link (I'm not sure exactly when, or whether everybody sees this, so I'm being a bit unclear) If that appears by your edit in the history, you can just pick it to undo it. You can find more information at WP:PAGEHISTORY. --ColinFine (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although if it wasn't the last edit, you might get a message that you have to undo the edit manually.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me edit the R62 and R62A subway car pages?

I am trying to update the subway lines that the R62 and R62A run on but I can't find a way to edit it. Can you help me find out how? Thank You Union Tpke 613 (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Teahouse! Can't you see the "Edit" links there? See if this links works! Alternatively you can press Alt+⇧ Shift+E in that page. --Tito Dutta (contact) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter Issue

I have recently copied some work I have been doing in a sandbox into Wikipedia:WikiProject U2/Outreach/newslettermay13 . And I need to know how to send it out to the members of the project. Does it need to be substituted or trascluded? Also I need a bot to send it to all WP:U2 members. Can anybody help me? Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Usually such newsletters are substituted rather than transcluding, but there are exceptions like this one at my talk page. If you use transclusion, then it can be changed whenever you want, just by changing where it was transcluded from. You can find the bots who deliver messages at Category:Newsletter delivery bots. The way to do it differs from bot to bot. You can follow the instructions on the bot's page. Cheers --Ushau97 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I followed the instructions in the page you pointed out, is it normal that the process lasts too much? Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it exactly. But I think that it will be processed, the next time the bot is run. --Ushau97 (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when exactly I'll know that the bot is delivering the newsletter properly? Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which bot did you pick from the category Miss Bono? Technical 13 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one ENewsBot Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From User:ENewsBot/Requests: "If you do not have an update on your request within two weeks, please feel free to email newsbot.requests@gmail.com." Technical 13 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove my request and do it manually just for this month?? Due we have only 11 members by now? Miss Bono (zootalk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave the request, do it manually, and inform everyone that due to the processing time of setting the bot up, they may get the first issue twice and they may delete or ignore it. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Locked Pages

Is it possible to edit a locked page? Like to unlock the page? Ellyerin25 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, locked pages can only be edited by specific people such as administrators or as specified by the lock reason. You can request the page to be unlocked to an administrator, but other than that, that's all I could say. Good day :) --A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 15:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All pages can be edited one way or the other. There are many different kinds of "locks" on Wikipedia. Could you tell me which page you are seeing the lock on that you want to edit? Could you tell me what color the lock is? Technical 13 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As all your previous edits have been vandalism, it is unlikely that anyone will hurry to unlock pages to allow you to edit them. You are lucky that your account has not been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, that is kind of harsh, and yes, I've looked at every one of their edits. I see a lot of test edits and stuff that might be okay as an edit summary or a note on the talk page but not as article edits. I think this is a new and young user that hasn't taken the time to read through any of the rules and policies or general guidelines of wikipedia that isn't old enough to posses a reasonable amount of common sense. I'll drop a "full" welcome template on their page and see if that doesn't help educate them. Technical 13 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some unusual replies here, given that this is the teahouse! As I'm merely a Junior Wrangler here, not a Host or Serjeant-at-Arms or any of the other more elevated ranks, I'll leave that aspect and just comment on one issue of practice and policy.

If an article is fully protected, the accepted method of getting changes made to it is to discuss the proposed changes on the talk page of the article. If a change seems reasonable it will then be made; if no-one is around to make it, then one would use Template:edit protected to request someone come and make it. There's also Template:Edit semi-protected for pages that are semi-protected.

Making an assumption that the article has been protected wrongly, and that therefore the first step is to request removal of the protection, seems a little close to assuming whoever made the decision made a mistake, which is not always the most collegial thing to be assuming! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you think assumed the article was wrongly protected, but nonetheless, the OP has been blocked as a vandalism only account; to which I've made a protest of them block on their user page, suggested they read the links in the welcome message I posted and offered to adopt them in a week if they chose to request to be unblocked. Technical 13 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections of bad punctuation reverted

Hello all. Since having joined not long ago I've been adding commas to articles where they have been missing. These are commas that are required to set off non-restrictive appositives. Here are some examples:

London, England, is the largest city in Britain

Charles, Prince of Wales, is a member of the British monarchy

She was a student at Magdalen College, Oxford, for five years

I'm on holiday from June 1, 2013, onwards

There are many occasions on Wikipedia where the second comma isn't present, and thus the sentence is ungrammatical. A lack of commas where they are required also distorts the meaning of the sentence. The second commas aren't optional. They must be present for the sentence to make sense.

Some such corrections I've made recently were reverted and challenged. Two editors both thought I was adding serial commas. One editor thought it looked like there were too many commas. This is where some people get confused. I'll demomstrate with some lists.

The first sentence below contains a serial comma, the second doesn't. The serial comma is, of course, optional. It's not required for most sentences to make sense. (In some cases it helps but let's not get into that now; let's not complicate things.)

He was educated at Eton College, Rugby School, and Magdalen College, Oxford.

He was educated at Eton College, Rugby School and Magdalen College, Oxford.

Now let's say that our fictional student, he, whoever he is, didn't go to Eton at all but instead continued his studies at the Sorbonne.

He was educated at Rugby School, Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Sorbonne.

That's a list with three items. The comma after Oxford is required because it closes the appositive of Magdalen College which is Oxford. This comma can't simply be removed. Without it, the sentence's meaning is different.

I managed to explain to some editors why the absence of a comma in such a place is wrong. But two more editors simply don't understand or haven't attempted to. One says that they don't want to get into a "pedantic discussion" and that my edits look "like an attempt to enforce one variety of English on articles it doesn't belong to"

My edits haven't been accepted and that seems to be the end of the matter. The error still persists on the article.

Is there someone senior here who knows their way around the English language and can settle this dispute? Inglok (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Inglok! I feel your pain. However, wikipedia is such a large place and there are so many articles that need these fixes. I agree that you are right, however, having been here actively just a few short months myself, I know that your best bet is to just let it go on those articles for awhile. You can always get back around to them later (give it a couple months). A couple commas, no matter how important to the sentence structure isn't worth getting in an edit war about. Quite plainly, it's the difference between knowing your shit or knowing you're shit. Or perhaps in this case, it's the difference of helping your uncle, Jack, off the horse or helping your uncle jack off the horse. (using these examples makes the people that don't get it catch on sometimes, and it's fun if it doesn't

) Technical 13 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Technical, but I'd quite like to get the bottom this. Inglok (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about to head to bed myself, but if you can offer some links to some pages, I'm sure someone will be by shortly that can assist you further. Technical 13 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Technical. The most recent dispute is about Prince Harry of Wales of all articles. Here's the latest sentence in question: Prince Henry of Wales is the younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. My first edit was undone by Fat&Happy. I spoke with Fat&Happy who agreed that I could put the comma back. I did. Then it was undone again, this time by GimliDotNet. I put a message on GimliDotNet's talk page but I got no reply. I again put the comma back. It was again undone, this time by Leaky_caldron. Now, I'm not sure of the difference between an edit being undone and not accepted, but either way the result is the same: my edit is in some way being rejected. Inglok (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that, for the sake of clarity, I didn't include some content of the sentemce in question, namely two parenthetical clauses. These don't affect the jist of the sentence and therefore the validity of my argument. The full sentence can be seen on the article. Inglok (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, don't touch anything on that page again. They're gonna get ya on that 3RR thingy! Plus, the usage has changed on inserting commas in groups (apples, oranges, and bananas, for example). When I was a kid you didn't dare put a comma before the *and*. Now it's accepted practice & OK. And you have to read the sentence's context. If a comma wouldn't ordinarily go after *England* as far as the sentence flows, then you don't put one there just because *London* precedes it. For example, I would never write a sentence like, "John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, took Constance of Castile as his second wife in order to pursue his claim to the Castilian crown". Because that comma after *Lancaster* doesn't go with the sentence's flow. I wouldn't say "John of Gaunt, took Constance...", would I? That's what your commas after titles are implying, that a comma is required after the subject of the sentence, & it isn't. So I can see why people are taking them out, sorry. JMHO. ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, ScarletRibbons, but your comment makes no sense. Inglok is quite right on the basic question and is also correct that there are missing commas in these situations all over Wikipedia. I myself frequently add commas after expressions of the "June 1, 2013" and "London, England" sort when I run across them in articles. The main problem is that few people are familiar with the niceties of traditional punctuation style, so that they tend to confuse the use of commas to separate things, as in series, with the use of commas to enclose things, as in nonrestrictive appositives. (By the way, Inglok, in your example "He was educated at Rugby School, Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Sorbonne" I'd use semicolons for the series punctuation—"He was educated at Rugby School; Magdalen College, Oxford; and the Sorbonne"—to prevent ambiguity.) I think Inglok may want to join the Guild of Copy Editors or at least to bring up problems like this on their talk page, where he or she is likely to meet with a more informed and sympathetic response. Perhaps the members there can recommend appropriate tactics for dealing with the resistance of other editors to simple copyedits. Deor (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't resist mentioning that "London, England, is the largest city in Britain" is not British English as she is writ. It's only American English that has this "New York, New York" thing. Thus this particular example falls under WP:ENGVAR. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that, Demiurge, but I am a bit less sure now. I asked someone whom I regard as an authority and she thought it might have a touch of ENGVAR but was not sure. Inglok has produced some references, but I think at least some of them are US sources - certainly one was a usage guide from Princeton. I would like to see some reliable UK sources which make it clear whether that appositive comma is or is not required in BrE. Inglok has been very persuasive (as well as polite and tolerant, giving the bashing they've had!) over this, but in fact although their arguments are well-put I still don't see anything absolutely definitive which says it must be used in BrE - just an assertion from them that it is so. In other words, I accept that it is correct in AmE but I am not yet convinced that it is - or is not - correct in BrE, and I would like to be shown, in RSs, definitively one way or the other. One problem, though, is certainly that Inglok is being misunderstood - they are working quite specifically on this question of appositives and people are popping up LR&C to say no no you don't put an Oxford comma there and really it just makes it all more obscure; Inglok is then being lectured on something they didn't do! I think that Deor's suggestion of taking it to GOCE might be wise - IF agreement can be reached that it is correct in all flavours of English then fine, it should say so somewhere and then the argument - and references to it - can be centralized, and people correcting it can say see MOS:APPOSCOMMA or whatever in their edit summary. Otherwise, Inglok is going to have to continue fighting this same battle on thousands of pages, especially those on BrE-related topics, and it's going to get messy. I say centralize the argument, produce reliable sources, have an agreed approach to which we can refer on edit summaries and talk pages. I don't want to read any more on what individual editors think about this comma - their views are (with all due respect) boring, unreliable and they often don't even understand the point. I want to read unchallengably reliable sources which specifically deal with it in BrE. Nothing else is any good here. 82.45.217.156 (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of interest: I'm British. I don't want to challenge other editors but I do think it might be interesting, given that we seem mostly to be discussing BrE usage here. 'Nuff said. I am stfu now for a while; a long while, I hope. Love, light and peace (thank you Spike) to all, 82.45.217.156 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss edits is on the article talk page. If you discussed the first reversion there instead of on the r3verting editor's talk page the other editors might have seen the discussion and not reverted you. It is not too late. Don't revert again, but post on the article talk page, and readh a consensus there, then correct the punctuation. Once you have consensus for the edit on the article talk page, you will not be at risk of 3RR because other editors will revert to support the consensus for you. Try it with all the articles, and you may gain a supporting army. -198.228.216.147 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Notes

I've found some Notes with expired links, & with URLs that don't have a proper name appended. Except I went in to edit, &, um, they're not really there. There's just squiggly stuff: {{}} So, how does one edit those things when one cannot actually see them? TYVM ScarletRibbons (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't suppose you could tell us the name of the article you are trying to edit, could you? Technical 13 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was fast :-) & TYVM for the welcome (& the badge from last time I was here). I was just coming back to edit this question because I *thought* I followed directions & (WPs voodoo) code correctly when inserting a footnote after adding an obscure factoid to an article, & I got the dreaded *missing or empty title* thing next to it. I can't add a title in (it's |title, right, but, um, where does it go in the code? help is never helpful, I did have a looksee at it) because this list of References seems to have the same issue where I can't see it in edit mode to correct the mistake. That article is on Ed Viesturs & it's footnote 21. The one I originally inquired about was on Jon Krakauer. I discovered a dead link in there just by clicking on them to read the citations, & there are also a few lacking titles that I could possibly repair *if* I could see them! ScarletRibbons (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Ed Viesturs and I'm looking at Jon Krakauer now. Click on the link here to see how I fixed it (it was actually ref 15, 21, and 22 that needed fixing). Technical 13 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did it for me! And I still don't know how you did it, because I still can't see it if I open the edit thingy up (backed out, touched naught). What is up with that? Would you mind explaining how you can see it & I get squiggley stuff & no list? Yeah, 15 & 22 were in need of help, too, but I was fretting over 21 because I did it & it turned out wrong. TYVM. ScarletRibbons (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've also fixed the Jon Krakauer article. Click on the link here to see how I fixed it (was a misplaced character in the URL, and I added some more detail from the article to the reference). Technical 13 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 & 5 under Notes there is driving me nuts because the author's name is misspelt in both. Please tell me the secret of how to see something other than squiggle squiggle ref list squiggle squiggle! TYVM ScarletRibbons (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the reference are defined not in the references section, but in the section where the text is to which the reference applies. From the references section, click on the caret ( ^ ) next to the reference number, and this will take you up to the section to which the reference applies. Click on the [edit] link at the start of that section. For more details, see WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I've stopped looking at those tuts. They're quite unhelpful & give me a headache. It's less of a pain to open up an article & study its guts than it is to burn incense, stick pins in voodoo dolls, & sacrifice woodland creatures to the gods of WP coding :P But TYVM for trying to help with the link anyway. Caret-clicking is good to know. I shall go see if I can get it to work & correct those misspellings that are making me crazy to look at. TYVM! :-) ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesss! No more misspelling! Y'all rock over here. I feel like I have magic dust now. Sprinkle sprinkle references & notes misspellings begone! :-D I'm going to go make those title-less references behave now - I hope. (Let's not get too cocky.) ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew it didn't pay to happy dance too early. Sigh.

OK, you can't see what the actual note will look like in preview mode. One of the links I wanted to fix on Krakauer (Notes,15) seems to now have part of the title caught in the URL. What did I do wrong there? 2 other links (13 & 14) have some really weird ju-ju going on what with all the stuff included in it. I'm thinking somebody maybe just gave up & let them stand as URLs because of that? Trying to make titles instead of URLs out of those (I had to just go back in & revert my own self LOL & am probably driving someone who's watching the article nuts by now) was kind of a guess as to where to put the title stuff, & I guessed wrong. I got *title=* splattered all over the place, & none of them worked. Oh, jeez, I just noticed I missed 13 when reverting myself, but I'm not going back in there now, not until I can figure out what went wrong. (Edit: I lied, But I meant it when I said it!):::::Sorry. But this is such a silly way of doing this! Why can't you just access the Notes list? Or at least see it when editing a section? I think I'll just go back to being the Spelling Police. ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ScarletRibbons, I know that wikicode can be frustrating. It can be useful to experiment with things in a sandbox page until you have figured out the coding. I am not by any means a skilled programmer but have managed to accomplish what I want by studying code in similar articles to learn the various tricks that other editors use. You may also be interested to learn that the Wikimedia Foundation is making a major effort to develop a "what you see is what you get" editing interface. Maybe by 2014, Wikipedia editing will move into the 21st century.

I also notice that you are working on biographies of mountaineers. I am an old climber, and started out here on Wikipedia by writing and expanding biographies of rock climbers and mountaineers. Then I moved on to "everything under the sun". Thanks for helping out with this outstanding encyclopedia. Don't get frustrated. Just keep trying and you will learn the ropes, to use a climbing analogy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but no cigar. I thought I solved 15. It had no cite web or squiggles in the code! Inserting that did get me the title - not linked at all - AND kept the URL. Oy. Why is help never helpful? 14 only had squiggles at the beginning but forgot to close with them. So I inserted them. Now I have squiggles in the now not working link. Oy. And I do not know why I am even bothering with that one because the coding is such a mess all it does is go to the website, not the author's page at the website, anyway. 13 has a *%7C* at the end of the URL that I swear is not visible in edit mode. It ends with a comma, not a C. So now I have part of the title snarled in the URL. Yeah, the URL is still there on that one, too. Oy.

Hi Cullen, I actually started out with Krakauer (where I am still mired) because I randomly decided I'd check out Authors I Have Read, & it kind of snowballed from there. (I should develop a link-clicking allergy.) Old climber is good. Some of them didn't get there, alas. I hear that WYSIWIG thing is just a panacea they mention when people are tearing their hair out ;-) Now that you mention it, I suppose transferring the stupid code elsewhere to tinker with it beats driving anyone who's watching the page nuts with trying to fix my own mistakes every 10 min. Help should be so helpful. TYVM ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am so glad you popped in, Cullen! Separating the code from the article text in my sandbox thingy was like flashing a huge red glaring neon sign! Whoever inserted those footnotes also neglected to put in the url= part. Why on Earth do they not have text & ref tags be different colors? I might've seen that plus the lack of squiggles & cite web stuff long ago. Then I had to go fetch a stupid template to actually see if I got it right finally. 14 & 15 are now dusted :-D 13 still wants to make the access date be part of the title, though. Help very helpfully tells me it's a CS1 error & how to fix it. Now I know how that % thingy got in there. Help is, however, stupid & a liar. When vertical bars occur in parameter values that are not URLs, replace each vertical bar with |. WHAT?!? Help knows I am ready to throttle it so doesn't dare suggest a solution for that. Help has made a wise choice there because I am ready to strangle it for its supreme unhelpfulness. Help would've been a lot more helpful if it had told me all that stuff was missing from the code to begin with. Help sucks. So I stared at the code some more. Then I look at what Technical did earlier, & compare the two. Now I really want to do Help some bodily harm. Whoever put this code in also forgot to do accessdate=! So now I have cracked 13 as well :-D TYVM, all 3 of you, because you each played a part in helping me crack this crippled code! Plus I feel a whole let better knowing it was really someone else's mistakes that made me do mine :P ScarletRibbons (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(unindented for readability) The correct way to mark dead links is with template:Dead Link (the directions are simple). This flags them for attention. The correct way to fix them is to edit the actual citation (if needed convert to template:Cite web) and add the 'archived' site parameters. Do not delete anything, the original site location will still be part of the displayed citation. This is why it is so important to include the access date when you cite web locations. Here is an example of a 'fixed' dead link.

"List of psychotropic substances under international control" (PDF). 30 April 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 September 2005. Retrieved 6 July 2005.

I'm referring to the code, which is from the documentation. Just noticed it wasn't a citation to a 'real' place, and goes to a 'does not exist page' at the Wayback Machine. Doesn't matter, just look at the code, please. :) Revent (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this is a reply to something said earlier, but here for readability) References don't actually have to be defined inline, though it's normal. Look at WP:LDR.

Also, (this is a quote from that page, but 'buried' in the text).

When you edit a single section of a page, the footnotes list will not be visible when you preview your edits. Thus you ordinarily cannot see how your footnotes will later appear when you save your edits.

You can insert a { {Reflist} } into the edited section temporarily and remove it before saving; you will still not be able to see named references which were defined in other sections.

Revent (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM, Revent. I realized the reflist template thing was necessary when I followed the suggestion to use the sandbox in trying to turn URL links into titled links. The dead link about which I inquired was an error with someone adding an unnecessary character to the URL, which Technical caught & which I then saw immediately comparing the revisions. Still on learning curve. ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting info and acheivements on user page

What do you have to do to be able to show everyone who looks at your page what projects you are involved in, and your achievements on your user page? Kendall 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendanne (talk • contribs)

For example, you can place the relevant userboxes on your user page, or if you have received awards (ie. barnstars, food, drinks, smiles, kittens etc.) from other users before, copy and paste the awards to your user page. Perhaps other users can give you a better answer or another suggestion as well. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about your offline achievements you can just write as you did to ask this question. "Hi, my name is Kendanne and I am a ..." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, Kenndanne, and welcome to the Teahouse. Altho you are welcome to discuss some of your off-wiki interests on your userpage, please take care that it doesn't start looking like you are trying to promote yourself or trying to host your CV or resume here. Neither of those things are allowed. You may wish to reference WP:USERPAGES for more info. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A partisan, blog-like article

Hey folks.

This article Tom Kovach, in my opinion, requires a major rewrite - a task which I am not nearly experienced enough to handle yet. Consider the following entries:

"is currently growing a beard to fit in with his liberal friends"
"won a low turnout special election"/"barely squeaked by with a win"/"To avoid losing another re-election"/"Liberal Kovach narrowly defeated Izzo"/"beaten to a pulp "
"promised his commitment to make a difference in county government, then voted to giveaway taxpayers money to Fisker a failed electric car company"
" was backed by his special friend Mike Castle"

The talk page is empty, so I am not sure if posting my concerns there would elicit a response.

Thanks in advance for your advice. Ratha K (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ratha K, thanks for coming to the Teahouse. I reverted those edits as they were clearly inappropriate. I should probably have let you do it, so apologies for that, though you didn't seem comfortable doing it yourself. Next time feel free to make edits yourself, and if you need a little advice we are here. Good catch! heather walls (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response, Ms. Walls. And you did right with the edits - way beyond me at this present point of time. Thanks. Ratha K (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reread this just now (the 'disputed' text, which doesn't belong, is still omitted) and added a couple of inline 'citation needed' flags to specific (uncontroversial) statements. Specific reasons are embedded, and should be in a tooltip if you hover over the flags. Revent (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks much better now, with the menu and tables. Thank you. I've included the required citations, with the exception of the last one - "As president Kovach has worked to promote transparency and decrease the size of county government". Couldn't find anything to support that. In such cases, should we just delete it? Thanks. --Ratha K (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's an unsupported statement of opinion, but it's probably something he's said, which is why I flagged it (which adds it to a couple of 'hidden' categories that people pay attention to) and the comment I left 'should' let readers know that the statement is 'questioned'. It's not controversial or derogatory or anything, so IMO it's okay for now.

BTW, the 'dead link' flag also puts it on a list to get attention. Revent (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more style work here, and fixed the citations (there were two cites to the same place, they weren't completely filled out or consistent, etc.). Also, FYI, the 'correct syntax' is with the cites after the punctuation (no spaces in front of or between the ref tags if there are more than one), and only one space between the end of the sentence and start of the next. Otherwise the 'typography' renders wrong. :P

To elaborate, since it's definitely of 'general interest' (and wrong seemingly everywhere) having "end-of-sentence.single-spaceStart-of-sentence" exactly like that is not a matter of 'style', it's actually in the HTML standard. Doing it wrong can break font rendering. Browsers are supposed to detect the end of a sentence, and transpose the correct Unicode space character. This allows the proper rendering of text in any font.

Using multiple spaces between sentences is an artifact of people using a typewriter, which of course only has a 'fixed-width' space character, attempting to replicate the appearance of a 'properly' typeset book. Proper layout is that the white-space gets wider as you go word-space, sentence-space, line-space. Depending on your browser and font, you should be able to see this if you look at this rendered text closely, except for the end of this sentence. The space before this sentence is very broken for people with incompliant browsers, or using a font that doesn't have all of the space characters (this is depressingly common). Revent (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources, the Washington Post, is a url that's been moved behind their paywall and isn't on the Wayback Machine, but since it's AP it's probably floating around lots of other sites. Not going to look now, tbh, but it wouldn't be too hard for someone to Google it and find another copy. If so, try to find one that's also on the WM, please. :) Revent (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man, thanks for the tips, and the work you did there. Much appreciated. I will reciprocate in kind and work on the article tomorrow based on your feedback. Thanks, Revent. --Ratha K (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False reported for a sandbox edit?

I went ahead and copied WP:SANDBOX's enitre HTML code and I got reported to WP:AIV for tripping edit filter 139. Why is fixed positions disallowed? Alex2564 (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can't find the report, nor any evidence that the page has any kind of archive. I posted at that talk page asking for help finding it. What I can tell you is that you absolutely should not have been reported - that page is for repeat vandals that have been warned. As far as edit filters, I have no idea what edit filter 139 is, and I can't find anything. I'm a rather experienced editor, so you clearly brought some major documentation problems to our attention. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, whatever you copied to the sandbox included some code frequently used by vandals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/139 describes it. Looks like the program made a mistake. Sorry for the trouble. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google search

Hello there! This might be silly, but I wanted to know if anyone was experiencing the same issue. Since this morning, whenever I google phrases from suspected copyright violations and there's a match, it no longer shows it in boldface, making it hard to identify such a match. In fact, none of the results are in boldface, when there used to be at least a couple. Does this have to do with browser settings, or did google change something? I'd appreciate some simple-to-understand clarification. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, FaL, I'm not sure as I don't use Google to compare for copyvio's. I use this tool on toolserver (when it's not down) instead. I know that doesn't answer your question, but I think you might find it useful anyways. There is a list of other resources that you might find useful as well on WP:CPP/T. Technical 13 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I initially do a quick one there. Thanks anyway! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how will we be an admin in Wikipedia??? =

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Do do doggy (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! An admin promotion is a community discussion, and typically if there is 75% support a promotion will occur. A few dozen to a few hundred users vote on most requests for adminship. Everybody has their own standards, but here are some tips:

234 edits is too few to be promoted to admin. Most people will look for 2000 to 5000 at the very least.
One month of experience is too little, I'd suggest 6 to 12 months of experience at least.
People will look for some experience in areas such as speedy deletion, articles for deletion or other deletion venues, username reporting, page protection requests, etc.
Contributing content (writing or expanding articles) is always a bonus.
Also, I'm a bit puzzled what you mean be "how will we be an admin...", only one person is allowed to use a given account.
If you want consistent help from an experienced editor, you may be interested in WP:Adopt-a-user. ^King Jakob _C2 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm a bit puzzled what you mean be "how will we be an admin...", only one person is allowed to use a given account. (i don't get this part) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do do doggy (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

What the answer was saying is that you had referred to "we", and if there is more than one person you should not be using the same account. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]