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
1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239

Is date of birth for notable people a security risk?

I'm sure this must have been approached before but can't seem to find any answers on it. I was working on an article for an author that I know of... and have listed his DOB. But, that raised to my personal inquiry on whether having date of births and birth locations accessible to the public poses a privacy risk of information? Technically speaking, having those two pieces of information along with perhaps a SS # would allow some people to pull credit reports on high profile individuals allowing a LOT of information to be gained. B4theword (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

editing a content in the sandbox

Hi iam a pretty new user , just wanted to edit the content in the sandbox. regards Tam1305 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tam1305. There are two sandboxes you can edit - for the general test sandbox follow this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and get stuck in. This sandbox gets cleared out fairly regularly - if you'd like somewhere that you can retain your work, you also have a personal sandbox at this link (there's also a link at the top right of every page) which doesn't get emptied - you can edit this one in exactly the same way. Let us know if you need any more help. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems like an opinion piece

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

I was reading this and it seemed to be composed in blogging style of writing. The author seems to be inserting their own conclusions and opions about public policy. I am new at this and I would like a reality check. Thanks. 71.108.132.110 (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 71.108, and thanks for stopping by. Yes, that article is a bit of a mess. The subject is, of course, a perfectly legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article, but what is written there is not an encyclopedia article. It's an essay. If you feel like tackling the clean-up of that article yourself, you are more than invited to do so; Wikipedia only gets better because people who care fix things. Since you care, you're in the best position to do the fixing. If you don't have the resources to fix the article up, you can flag it for attention of others by adding a "cleanup tag" to the article top. I'd recommend {{Essay-like}}, but there is a whole list of them at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Does that help answer your question? --Jayron32 05:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I thought it didn't look right. I don't know where to begin. Let me look at the cleanup message list and figure out how to tag it. When a clean up tag is posted is it only visible to those who come across the article, or does it pop up up in a *cleanup* database? Thanks again.71.108.132.110 (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. After reading for 20 minutes I can't figure out how to insert *essay*. Could you point me to the step by step method including where in the article it goes? Thanks again.71.108.132.110 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, edit the article and at the top just add this text - {{Essay-like|date=May 2013}} - then save. NtheP (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. Yes, "tagging" an article adds it to a list, just not a database. When you put any cleanup template (the formal name that we usually call a cleanup tag) to an article, that article is listed in a category. For example, when you add {{Essay-like}} at the top of an article, that article is added to Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing. Click on some of these blue links to see the pages that describe them and how to use them.

Wikipedia may seem less organized than a plate of spaghetti as you start out but if you stick around and keep learning, there's logic and method to the interconnected parts that make up Wikipedia. I hope you'll sign up for an account and continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 10:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. I will look at it and try to see what I can do.71.108.133.103 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Sandbox, Seems Locked

Hi I submitted an article in the Sandbox, which I want to edit and add sources, but it won't let me. Any thoughts? Thanks! -SidneyElsid27 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sid, welcome to the Teahouse, your sandbox User:Elsid27/sandbox isn't locked and is fully editable. There's a big red error message at the moment because you have inserted <ref> </ref> tags but have inserted any reference information between them. It doesn't stop you editing the page though. NtheP (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks NtoP, so how do I edit out the big error message? - SidneyElsid27 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You put some text in between the <ref> </ref> tags and add a {{reflist}} template to the bottom of the page. NtheP (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to not repeat a source 6x

I need to source a simple bullet-pointed list of 6 awards received that I have added to an article. They were all listed on the subject's official web page in a similar list, so the source for them all is that single web page. Obviously I don't want *citation clutter* going on with the footnote repeating itself in the References section 6x. But I can't seem to find anything that tells you how to condense that (you know, how some articles have 5 a, b, c etc going on when a source is used more than once). Is there a template for that? A snippet of code to add to the regular code? Would it be acceptable to just add the citation to the very last award on the list? Or would I be better off using a semi-colon riddled paragraph instead of the list? TYVM in advance. ScarletRibbons (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, ScarletRibbons! I remember being quite confused by that as well at first. Instead of opening with <ref>, you would open the citation with <ref name="something short to call it">. For example, if it were a book by Peter Laufer, I would probably put <ref name="Laufer">. Then, for all of the following times you use that reference, instead of putting the whole citation, you would put <ref name="what you called it" />. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM for the fast service :-D Just to make sure I'm clear, the quotation marks are necessary, yes? ScarletRibbons (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly speaking, if there is no space in the name they are not required.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usual style for that specific kind of thing is to introduce the list with a clause, and then cite that, like this, vaguely...my list contains the following:^[1]

this little thing,
this little thing,
and of course, this one.

That's what I think I see the most. Or, if you're using multiple pages from the same source, you can just use one named reference, repeat it like Brambleberry said, and then use TEMPLATE:RP to make something like this...^[a]^: 1

Revent (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to use sandbox

Hi, I recently submitted my first article, using sandbox.

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

I submitted it, and I assumed it was accepted because it had it's own page/url. I went back into my sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eirefrance/sandbox

and started working on another article. However, the changes I made in my sandbox somehow also edited the original article, even though the two are different pages (right?). I undid the most recent edit on the original article, but I want to continue working in sandbox without screwing up my existing work.

How do I use Sandbox without editing my past work?Eirefrance (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eirefrance, should be ok now. When your article on the ATA was submitted it was moved from your sandbox but a link called a redirect remained. So every subsequent time you clicked on what you thought was your sandbox you were actually editing the article on the ATA. I'm removed the redirect now so your sandbox page is just your sandbox page.

You can always check if a redirect has been followed, under the page name if in small type is says "(Redirected from Page name you had entered)" then you've followed a redirect through to a new page. NtheP (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I stick my head in here & inquire how on Earth something like that happens? ScarletRibbons (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly easily. Sandbox is moved as submission to WP:AFC which creates the redirect. Submission at AFC is promoted to mainspace, creates double redirect, bot comes along and 'fixes' double redirect leaving sandbox as a redirect to the mainspace article. NtheP (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

What types of info boxes are there?

Sent from my iPad Altaïr Skywalker 47 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Altair Skywalker 47! The answer is that there are near-infinite types of infoboxes. You can find all of them at Category:Infobox templates, and you can narrow it down to what you're looking for from there. Of course, that may take a while, so you can always go trial and error and search for "Template:Infobox -" and see what comes up. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Altaïr Skywalker 47 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There can also be 'permutations'. TEMPLATE:Infobox NRHP, for example, which is for places on the National Register of Historic Places, gives (convoluted) directions for how to embed it inside other boxes.. Revent (talk)

I am new here thanks to Hajatvrc, Jtmorgan and HostBot!! 8)

I am new here thanks to Hajatvrc, Jtmorgan and HostBot. Thank you all for inviting me here to the Teahouse. All of the Wikipedia editors I have met have been wonderful and very helpful in helping me through my new Wikipedia journey and for making my Wikipedia experience so enjoyable.

Right now I only need to ask two questions...

When I make an edit is there somewhere where I can find a log of all of my edits? I thought there was but I may have lost track of its location. I edited the Video Server page and couldn't find a log of it. It doesn't appear on my Talk Page.

Also, and I'm sorry to bother you about this, but I'm being harassed by a user named Robert McClenon who keeps sending me messages and Talk Page comments to sell a movie actress or a movie or something to me. I wrote Mlpearc and Slakr for assistance and they have been very helpful but this user still sends me Talk Page comments. I don't really know what to do about harassment here but to ask you. Again, I am really so sorry to bother you about this. Other than that, my Wikipedia experience has been delightful and fulfilling and I'm looking forward to spending more time helping to enhance the Wikipedia experience for everyone. Thank you. 8) VALID REALITY (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The answer to your first question is yes, and it is here → Special:Contributions/VALID REALITY. The answer to your second question is the first thing to do is ignore it. Secondly, you can warn them and if they persist you can report them. I hope you find this helpful, and if you need more assistance I would be happy to help! Technical 13 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of anybody selling anything on your talk page. You appear to have a meaning for the word "sell" which I am having difficulty understanding. What exactly is happening that you object tyo? --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I noticed you attempting to communicate with a bot, and generally automated processes don't acknowledge or respond to attempts to communicate with them. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instant deletion of article

A Christian conservative is knocking out my article on Jonathan Hammond, solar architect. Perhaps because it mentions global warming. How can I appeal this? No button shows up to contest deletion on my computer screen. I have found the wiki guidelines very confusing...HELP. Is there a place I could post the draft for help from more experienced and less biased Wiki folks?

Jonathan Hammond, Solar Architect b. 1944 is a prize winning architect specializing in passive solar design and sustainable building materials.

Jonathan Hammond played a pivotal role in the emergence of passive solar architecture in California. Twenty five years before the formation of the LEED guidelines for Green Building Mr. Hammond helped develop the first climatically adapted building code (Davis, CA). This encouraged passive solar design for heating and cooling, and his firm helped guide the training sessions with builders.<1> These guidelines, which included shading and orientation, were very successful and much more flexible and powerful than the replacement state code (Title 24) and remain better than both state and federal building codes. This received an award from President Carter, presented in person by Rosalyn Carter. DaveB1Ecotech (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jonathan hammond solar architect was deleted by User:Nyttend with the rationale of G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion on May 4, 2013. It was subsequently nominated for deletion 2 hours after it was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. The article is currently deleted (but there is no log for the second nomination implying it was revdel as well). I suggest you try writing your article using the Article Creation Wizard where it will be reviewed before going into article space greatly reducing the chances of it being deleted before you can complete your work on it. Technical 13 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the deleting administrator. It has only been deleted once — I found that someone had tagged it under section A7, but it definitely made clear claims of importance for him; A7 deletion would have been quite inappropriate. However, as you see from DaveB1Ecotech's style of writing here, the article was written in a manner that glorified him throughout — for example, "Mr Hammond illustrates very clearly the problem of being a pioneer too far in front of society. His innovative work, 25 years ahead of the professional advances of LEED remains little known or studied". The whole article was saying that he was a wonderful person and promoting his ideas, rather than describing them neutrally; that's sufficient for speedy deletion as promotional. Please read our articles about innovators like Edison or Einstein (or even some lesser-known people, like Johan Vaaler, who invented a kind of paper clip) to see how such biographies should be written. You're welcome to write a new article, but you need to do it in a neutral and dispassionate manner. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And DaveB1Ecotech, please do not jump to the conclusion that because somebody has done something that you don't like, they must be biased. One of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catch22, your reply is a statement of "Faith". < Assume the Position, Faith Approaching!! < Give the Genuine Concern of this Solar Arch-Person a Genuine Response, i.e. < If President Jimmy Carter gave his blessing you would be VERY WISE, as a senior to me, to respect your seniors also. Thanks. ~ Good luck with Hammond. ((if there this is a section/topic editor, that would help your clear up the grammar problems of editors "Cold Dishing Him", as someone did described him as, "Not Recognize in His Time. )) There is a religious slant damaging Wikipedia. /^\< Example: Aramaic according to Hebrew Universities is recorded as far back as 1,300BCE. Yet this is not being included in Wikipedia. http://cal.huc.edu/ Yet how many arctles dismissing the Aramaic & Arabic languages as secondary in importance to others? Jesus, Moses(Exodus of Egypt) & Abraham(Gen 19) all spoke Aramaic, and the later Two come from the time of Volcano in Minoan Crete 1,600BCE, how do you think the stories of Abraham & Moshe survived until Liturgical Aramaic(Biblical Hebrew) was invented? 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

From a quick skim of that article, I noticed several places in the text where the 'hangul' for the titles was repeated at multiple mentions, as well. You're totally right, it trashes the flow of the text. IMO, the appropriate thing to do would be to move them all into a set of footnotes (not references), marked at the first mention in the copy. That'll unbreak the text itself, and group the information, without losing 'content'. It'll also make it easier to make them uniform, and get rid of the duplicates.

The real fix, though, would be to change the discography and into a table, present the information there, and add all the missing metadata. Then footnote the mentions of the english title to the entry there.

Revent (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at MOS:KO (I had to dig for it). Revent (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice :) Just unknown (talk) 10:53, 6 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]

You want to verify this, as I'm not actually rereading the policies to see exactly how are stated as I write this, but you should be able to search for a 'web' copy of the television coverage. Then, extract (or ask someone else to) the still image that you want. Crop the image and reduce the resolution to an appropriate size. At this point, your use of the television still is 'fair use' (she was an incidental part of their coverage that you are illustrating), and the actual image itself is a creative 'derived work' that you own copyright in. You can then put it under the Creative Commons License. Essential to all this is that you maintain attribution for the 'original' still. Revent (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'creative' part is your choice of exactly how to reformat the image for this context, btw. Revent (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that won't work. Cropping a television still may be "fair use" in some contexts, but we don't permit it here... unless, perhaps, the article in question is specifically about Paoli Dam's appearance at Cannes in 2011. Our requirements are more stringent than simply "is it legal"? Powers ^T 01:13, 6 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]

Did I understand correctly? Is the Korean Spelling redirecting to English wiki? <checking, yep it is!> ~ Shouldn't Korean lead to the Korean Page? ~ Please, be careful in the Spelling of Korean. The Language has changed the official English Letter spelling multiple times. Korean for Korean. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 13:46, 7 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]

Okay... So, yeah... Scripts and bots don't follow redirects, so your user talk shouldn't be a redirect... Luckily,

<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:JPaestpreornJeolhlna|Pæst]]<big>|</big></span></u>

is 250 characters and "just" within limits. This will make scripts (like the one I used for your talk-back) and bots actually post to your active talk page and not the redirect page. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 00:31, 6 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]

Afghanistan had no copyright law at all in 1963; anything originating there was in the public domain at the time. You'd have to check their first-ever copyright law (links available here) to see if it protects works that were published before the law was enacted. This all assumes that the work originated in Afghanistan; something created in another country is subject to that country's laws. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since he was an ambassador, there should be usable photos in the National Archives. I tried to do a quick search, but their system is down for maintenanance atm. Revent (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a 'biography' headshot from the State Department, and a White House photo of him shaking the President's hand when he was appointed. Revent (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to self. LOL. (take meds) :) Ok. King Mohammad Zahir Shah visited the US on September 5, 1963, and I found a Time Life photo of the visit with him, Kennedy, and Steeves standing together. Searching for photos of the visit at the the JFK library gives photos number JFKWHP-1963-09-05-B, C, E, JFKWHP-1963-09-06-B, and D. These were all official events, with the Shah and president present, and Steeves should be in most if not all of those photos. They're not links yet, but I'd imagine if you asked nicely and told them what it was for, they would bump them up in their backlog. :) Revent (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(more meds lol) Those photos might also be good additions to the article on the king, actually. Revent (talk) 02:48, 6 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 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]

This looks like a fun blog, and I will probably subscribe. However, this is by two anonymous writers without citations; there is no way to know how accurate the information is. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I have some of those books. Pretty reliable, actually. And, I also know some of those people. Arctic Kangaroo 15:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the blog list their names? I spent some time searching and could not find them. Can you post a link? Do they have any credentials or documented experience, publications? -65.129.159.247 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to use the actual books they get the information from as references yourself, since you have them. It's more useful for readers, or future editors who want to elaborate on the article. Also, it's a more authoritative source, if for nothing else than the fact the blog could have typos, etc.

Since they give sources, it'd really only appropriate to use the blog as as source for the statement 'this blog says that', unless you've personally tracked down each of their cites, and then citing the blog would be redundant.

Sources don't need to be available online. The requirement is that sufficient citation exists that an interested person can properly identify the reference and verify the cite.

You can still point readers to the blog, and inform them of your use of it, as a 'general reference' instead of an actual citation.

Revent (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply IP: Everything's here. And BTW, that "Commander" is the person mentioned in the link, and Horace is a early stages expert in tthe group.

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]

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

This discussion seems to have run its course. Technical 13 (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

Actually, if you look at Acentronura, I actually worked on it a bit, including, mostly adding links. It now has reference to WikiSpecies, and the appropriate navigation bar. I also added redirects from the names of the actual species to the genera name, and took a quick look at the other closely related articles and tweaked them.

The goal isn't for WP to have an article about everything notable. The goal is that WP have encyclopedic coverage. I'm not saying that you can't write a good article about the species...I'm sure you can. But it would be better for now for the article about the genus to actually have a complete and well-written general description (it doesn't) and then subsections about the two species. The species name can then be redirected to those specific sections of the article. Once you have expanded the section on your fish to where it unbalances the genus article, then it can be converted into a new, independent article.

I suspect you are misunderstanding what people are saying, and I'm not saying it's your fault.

Revent (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the comments about the 'hidden' article you wrote, but I'm not going to hunt it down. I suspect, however, that portions of that text that generally describe the genus could be incorporated easily into the main text there, and most of your copy used as a 'precreated' subsection. I'm sure that many of the features of the species that you wrote about are common to both, and it's a better 'classification of knowledge' for WP to be written that way. Revent (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no Revent. I don't doubt you are acting with the best of motives, but please stop telling new users they must write higher level taxa articles (like genera) before they can write lower level taxa articles (like species). That is nonsense, and would be very damaging to the development of biological articles. To repeat: 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. It's not your place to decide how biology articles are developed on Wikipedia. Teahouse participants should not be imposing their personal ideas if they lead to unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on article development. If you still think you have the right to make your impositions, then I invite you to take the matter to the various project boards concerned with biology articles, and see what they think of your restrictions. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear on this, I do not share Revent's notions. I've created hundreds (yes, hundreds) of species articles, and have a fair understanding of issues involved in doing so. My main concern with accepting this user's article had nothing to do with not understanding taxonomy, but rather the complete opposite. I was afraid that given the current state of articles about species of that same family, this particular article would've been confusing to readers. All that was needed was some clarification in those same articles on the part of said user before moving the article to mainspace. The user resorted to rather nasty accusations, and decided to take some time off, which in my opinion seems fitting, as it's unproductive to have users rampaging with such unjustified negative comments. Mea culpa, I was slow to perform those changes myself, and thus this theatre evolved. I hope the user rethinks his stance and decides to make valuable contributions in the future without petty dramas, as it is important to understand that we're all trying to improve the encyclopaedic species content within Wikipedia. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

"'London, England, is the largest city in Britain' is not British English"? I'm British, and that is exactly how I would write it. I can't even imagine what alternative you would prefer, Demiurge1000. Maproom (talk) 07:18, 7 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]

I don't see how that works. The OP is talking about hundreds, probably thousands, of articles - they surely can't have a separate discussion of this on each talk page? I still think that it needs centralized discussion in one appropriate place - that is what would give the army of supporters. Discussing it over many talk pages will only annoy many people. Centralize the discussion, gain consensus in one crdible place, refer back to that consensus when making the change. 82.45.217.156 (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is having the discussions on multiple '"user talk pages, and theses should be a single discussion on the article talk page. The example the user gave is one article being discussed on 3-4 different editors' talk pages. Yes, a discussion about the punctuation changes can be had in a central, community location and linked back to. But the place to link to, in order to prevent edit wars,.must be linked to on the article discussion page, when a question about the edit arises. Centralizing the discussion, reaching consensus, then posting that consensus on editor talk pages each time will not reduce the edit wars. -198.228.216.175 (talk) 15:03, 6 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]