Wikipedia:Teahouse

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

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

Click here to ask a question »

Could you please let me know the procedure to upload the JPG files to the page.

Could you please let me know the procedure to upload the JPG files to the page. Anurag PanulyAnuragpanuly (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you'll get a detailed answer of your question Help:Upload#Uploading, see if it helps, and/otherwise, we'll talk in details. In left navbar of Wikipedia (see left), under Toolbox section, you have "Upload file" link, I generally start from there. Feel free to ask questions!--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

how to change the topic of my new article

hi how can change the topic for an article that i have created few days back.the article was supposed to be called serial extraction but somehow it appears in the name of user:dr.neha sharma. i dont know how to change it.can u help?Dr.neha sharma (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Neha, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! What happened was that you haven't actually made an article; you've made your user page! It's a pretty easy mistake to make, so don't worry about it. User pages are not articles; they're for giving some information about yourself to make it easier for other editors to work with you on the encyclopedia. User pages are always titled "User:<user name>", which is why your page was called "User:Dr.neha sharma". If you'd like to make a real article, the best thing to do is probably to submit what you've written to Articles for Creation once you think it's ready. The reviewers there will take a look at it, and if they think it's ready, too, they'll turn it into a real article for you; if they don't think it's ready, they'll let you know why they think so, and what you can do to improve it. If you'd like, what I can do for you now is move your page to a testing space; this will let you work on improving it without having it use up your user page. After writing this, I see that another user has already made your draft an article. Congratulations! You should be set for now. Thanks, and again, welcome! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

thanx writ keeper. really appreciate your help here. i was wondering if u cud read my article n give suggestions for any improvements needed.thanx again.Dr.neha sharma (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

For other hosts, the article referred to is Serial extraction. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Neha, I've cleaned up the article quite a bit, and right now I think your biggest problem is that you don't have any sources. Because all articles on Wikipedia must be verifiable, Wikipedia requires that all articles be supported by multiple reliable, independent sources. Right now you don't have any, and unfortunately a lack of sources is actually grounds for deletion. I encourage you to cite the places from which you got this information, but the article looks pretty good apart from that. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Query regarding my first article for creation about Edward Margolies

I'm new to wikipedia and have been struggling a bit with an article for creation for Edward Margolies, an important and still-living (age 86) writer and literary critic. He played a particularly important role in the 1960 and later, which is widely recognized, in bringing critical attention to the works of long neglected African-American writers and he has written widely in other areas. Anyway after being initially rejected late last month, I've now done quite a bit more work and and have resubmitted the article. However I'm not sure I actually successfully submitted it again. Is there anything else I need to do to actually submit the piece? Regarding the submission itself, I think I addressed the concerns raised by the initial reviewer. Any feedback much appreciated. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Edward_Margolies

thecobbrooklyn. Thecobbrooklyn (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thecob! Welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your AfC submission and fixed it, so I think it should be good now. (Just fyi, what went wrong was that the old, declined AfC tag was getting in the way of the new one; I just deleted the old tag and put the new one in its place.) Don't really have time to look at the article itself atm, so I can't really say anything about that, but the submission part of it should be fine now. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Joining a WikiProject

I'm looking at joining a WikiProject, I just edit my name into the list of active members to do that?Twarther (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Twarther! Yup! That is all you do - just add your name on the member list and join in on editing. What project are you thinking about? Thanks for coming by the Teahouse =) Sarah (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Page-worthy?

How can I determine what subject/person warrants its own article? Realnow (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Realnow and welcome to the Teahouse! Generally, a person is notable on Wikipedia if they were covered in independent secondary sources. For more specific criteria for a person's notability on Wikipedia, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (people). Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 02:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have information about a plane called the Nin Hai but the page does not exist and i have never made a page before could someone help?

I don't have any history or about it all i have is the specifications and who produced it is that ok? Shashenka (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be OK, but it's difficult to know from the information you have provided. Are you talking about a single plane or a type of plane? Do you know when it was produced? Is there an existing article where your information could go (if we don't have enough info for a useful separate article, that might be better), such as the article about the manufacturer? Lastly, do you have reliable sources for your information? FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I the nation it was produced in manufacturer, role the plane was used in, year it was first built, Engine type, wingspan,length, height, weight, maximum speed, ceiling, range, and how many people it took to fly it. Also yes it is a single plane. I got it from a book here is the bibliography for it if you want to take a look.

• Angelucci, Enzo (1983). The Rand McNally encyclopedia of military aircraft, 1914-1980. The Military Press. p. 149. ISBN 0-517-41021 4. Shashenka (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. When you're planning to create an article, you need to determine whether or not it is notable. If it is notable, it will be the subject of a number of reliable sources - that is, there will be things written about it from third-parties. Having just an entry in an encyclopedia may be enough; it falls on the line between acceptable and unacceptable. If you believe that it is covered to such an extent that it is notable, then create the article. If you are unsure, it might be wise to go through Article Wizard, which will allow other editors to review the article before it is published. Let us know what you do and how you get on. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

ok Thanks!Shashenka (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ellis Island

What is ellis island all about? nya811 Nya pritchett 17:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nya811 (talk • contribs)

See Ellis Island. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Nya, a better place for this question is probably the Reference Desk. That's a place designed to answer general-knowledge questions like yours. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing my name format at the top heading from ie. User:Ronnieciago to Ronnie Ciago

I'm an known session drummer/percussion in the music industry and I just joined Wikipedia want to change change my name format at the top heading ie. User:Ronnieciago to Ronnie Ciago ( 2 words separate with a capital R (first name) C (last name). I don't know how to dod this. Very frustrating !! Can you please, either do this for me or "Show Me The Way" :) thank you very much ! all the best, Ronnie Ciago. Ronnie Ciago 17:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnieciago (talk • contribs)

Hey, Ronnie, and welcome to Wikipedia! There are a few ways of doing this; the first and easiest way is to simply create a new account with "Ronnie Ciago" as the name, and just use that other account in the future. Another way would be to request a change in username, but we generally don't change usernames unless someone has been around a while and made many edits. I see that you don't have too many edits under your belt, so you don't really have anything to lose by making a new account. It would probably be best for you to just start over with the new account that's named the way you want. Just make sure that, when you do start over, you only use the new account and not the old one; using multiple accounts at the same time is generally (though not always) frowned upon here. A good way to make sure that you don't do this by mistake is, once you've made your new account, change your old account's password to a random assortment of letters and numbers, which we call "scrambling" your password. That way, since you don't know your password to the old account, you can't accidentally log in, and it'll make both of your accounts more secure. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, check Alternate page title header section here! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a more in-depth explanation of a few points of Wikipedia policy on your talk page; please read it! Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

How am i doing with my edits?

I'm pretty much a complete newbie at coding and don't entirely know how this works yet so i have just been adding a reference from a book i got a while ago and filling the gaps of technical data for the planes. Help with knowing how to do more in depth things would be appreciated! Shashenka (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, in your talk page, {{User:Bzuk]] has posted a welcome message. That welcome message has lots of information. Follow those pages and links there.

About your contributions so far...

I have manually checked 10-15 of your recent contributions, I don't see any problem in your edits. And thanks for writing so detailed edit summary. A well written edit summary really helps other editors! Also note, if you change some information in an article, as you have done here, providing reference is a good option! If you have any other question, you can ask! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Question: re- your Click here...

• Your {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form|question=Click here to ask a question}} was not working for me just now...
• Also, why have you chosen to place the TOC on the RHS of this article? It catches me out every time!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gareth Griffith-Jones, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not really sure why the TOC is on the right; I guess that's what whoever created the page decided on. The 'Click here to ask a question' button will only work if you enable it in your preferences. To do this, click the Preferences link at the top of the page, then click the 'Gadgets' link on the menu bar there. Under the 'Browsing' heading, tick the box which says '"Ask a question" feature for the Wikimedia Foundation's "Teahouse" project'. That should make it work. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy! Okay, I've done that. Got some change... now the only reaction is to get a "blank" empty rectangle filling the lower part of the page – which not an edit page – that does not respond to my clicking on it. Odd, isn't it?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's quite odd - I'm not sure what's going on. You should see a box with a small heading box and an input box for your question. I'll see if I can get some other hosts to have a look at the problem for you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Gareth! Can you tell us what browser you're using, and which version it is? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a question and everything was fine. I'll ping the WMF folks who are working on the Teahouse pilot with me to take a look at this thread. This is probably best moved to the talk page, actually :) Sarah (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

First, you are no longer required to turn on the question box to ask a question. I am interested to hear about the browser. heather walls (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Other recent changes include: the hidden navbox, and the div closures for the page get wiped out regularly, perhaps when the questions are archived. heather walls (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your advice and help. I have been struggling with using Internet Explorer 8 up to now. Also, been unable to get much speed out the editing/show preview/show changes/save page sequence – and that's putting it mildly..! Tonight, I have successfully down-loaded Mozilla Firefox. Wow! My aged PC is "on fire" – it's lightening. Just tried your {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form|question=Click here to ask a question}} , AND IT WORKED. Kindest regards to you all, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to help you :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are my edits being deleted?

I've already spoken to another user about this, but I'd like a second opinion. Recently, I've been trying to edit the page 'List of characters in Transformers Prime', because there is a notice saying it requires copy-editing for grammar, cohesion etc., but strangely, whenever I (or anyone else I've noticed) edit the article at all, the edit is always deleted within 48 hours and the page is returned to exactly, word for word, the way it was before, and all grammatical and spelling errors are returned as well. Is it common for users to do this? And if so, what can be done about it? To be clear, I do NOT vandalise the article or write anything obscene, I only correct grammar and spelling, and condense each character synopsis down so they're shorter and easier to read, because in my opinion, they're much too long. MunkkyNotTrukk (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I've looked at the the history of the article and it looks like there is another editor who disagrees with your additions. The main issue as far as I can see is they disagree about the existence of Dreadwing. I suggest that you raise this at the article talk page and discuss it with the other editor to see if you can reach some agreement on how to proceed. NtheP (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response NtheP (it's good to know I'm not being ignored completely on here! :P), but the link goes to the wrong place, I'm talking about the character page, and the talk page you linked me to was for the episodes. However, I managed to find the character talk page and submitted my complaint there, but so far I've received no response, and really I don't think I ever will. But anyway, thank you again for your help and advice! MunkkyNotTrukk (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, nice to see the Teahouse is useful to you. Going to talk page should always be the first step in trying to understand and solve disputes in the article contents. You can go ahead and redo your edits and mention the talk page in the edit summary, the other editor(s) will probably engage you in a conversation about the article and your differing opinions. Always discuss changes that are challenged in the talk page. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi MunkkyNotTrukk. It may help if you fill in the edit summary box before saving to show other editors why you are changing the page.--Charles (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really important; specially when someone undoes your edits. Also, take care with the references, it is really important that an article have references from reliable sources. You removed some in this edit. I'll try to re add them while keeping your prose right now. Chico Venancio (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind that. tfw2005.com does not seem to be a reliable source, but do try to mention a reason when removing sources next time. Chico Venancio (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit frustrated ...

Hi Seniors , further to my article"Hradyesh" as guided by you all have reworked the same n posted . sadly it again got speedy deleted. Unable to understand what promotion or advertising m doing writing about an entrepreneurs work which is first ever in the country. Request seniors to please assist me on this , first article- 2 speedy deletion- m getting little frustrated with this ..

Help !!!!!

Aaanshu (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Hradyesh, deleted twice underG11, (i.e.Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Please see Wikipedia Notability Guidelines.

If you can not understand these, tell me who is/was this "Hradyesh"? (eg, He was a writer, wrote more than 50 books in ABC language and got X and Y awards etc). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tito, As mentioned have already referred to the mentioned guidelines . Subject have introduced a global concept of automobiles - Hot Rods n Street Rods for the very first time in India's automobile history. you may please refer the details at my page

'll be great to understand the disconnect. Thanks Aaanshu (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Create a draft of the article in your sandbox, and leave me a message when it is done! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaanshu, if the article deleted was basically the same as the one you created at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hradyesh then I can see why it was deleted as promotional. You haven't really written about the man but about the launch of street rods in India and the supporting references are virtually all press releases about street rods. Please read the general notability guidelines to see what you need to establish about the person not his business. In summary, it's independent coverage from reliable sources about him not street rods that is needed. I'm afraid that press releases, even when published via well known national newspapers do not meet those criteria. If after reading them you'd like more explanation about the notability guidelines, drop back here and we'll see if we can help some more. NtheP (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Where did the cite template go?

Here is the drop down cite menu that I think you are referring too. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}

Are there only certain pages where I can use the cite templates. The thing is gone. I edited my preferences recently. It might be that. What needs to be checked/unchecked to use citation templates? Or what other requirements are there for them to be there? Thank you. JBGeorge77 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! If you are referring to the citations that you can add via the toolbar when editing content, you can find the option "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" under the "Editing" section in your preferences. Hopefully that will fix it. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, I looked and I've got that checked so that's not it. JBGeorge77 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there JBGeorge, can you explain a little more? I'm not quite sure I follow your question. What do you mean "the thing is gone"? Are you saying that the cite drop down menu on the refToolbar isn't showing (see image)? They should appear on every page if that is what you are talking about. By the way, you can go directly to the template page, copy the template from there and fill in the parameters. The most common are Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book and Template:Cite journal. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding external links

I am trying to improve some articles on automobiles by adding external links to their corresponding websites. Is this a form of vandalism, especially if I add them to articles at rapid succession? (I haven't added any yet!) Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 02:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding external links can be good, and it can be bad. WP:EL explains in detail. Having links to the official website of the car is a good thing, there is even a template {{Official website}} that helps. Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for your answer. Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 13:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

How to cite a repeating source only once?

I am currently adding a section to an article, and within that section I have incorporated the use of two direct quotes from a source. How can I cite right after both the quotes, while maintaining that both quotes are derived from only ONE source? Every time I've created a citation after the quotes (exact same citation for both), at the bottom where the references are listed it displays the exact same source cited twice (reflecting the two times I've cited that same source). How can I prevent this from happening, and cite the source only once? Thanks! Maya.Riaz (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Maya, welcome to the Teahouse! What you need to do is name the references. Here's an example: say you want to cite "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful" by Edsger Dijkstra multiple times in your article. The first time you cite it, you would write this:

<ref name="goto">Dijkstra, E. "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful."</ref>

The reference name you choose (in this example, it's "goto") is not particularly important as long as it's unique, but it helps to have at least a somewhat descriptive name. Then, every time afterwards that you want to use "GOTO Considered Harmful" as a source, instead of typing out the entire information within the ref tag again, you simply use the ref name again:

<ref name="goto"/>

Wikipedia will make another link to the same entry in the reference list as the first. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks a lot Writ Keeper! I realized that you must also include the closing of the reference tag (</ref>) in order for that method to work, but I got it to work eventually. Thanks again for your help!--Maya.Riaz (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Maya, you shouldn't need to use </ref>. Did you put / in when you used the ref the second time? It needs to read <ref name="goto"/> to work properly. NtheP (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I missed out the "/" in the ref name citation so I guess thats why it didn't work. Thanks for pointing that out Nthep, I'll be sure to fix that in my citations. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it ok to "stalk" a user because of their edits?

I've edited Wikipedia for a while now, but I never had a need to make an account. However, if you check my contributions, you will see that I joined to undo some bad edits to a page.

English appears to not be their first language and they aren't exactly proficient with it. I removed the opinions added and corrected the grammar. However, since then I've felt the need to monitor what they do to Tiesto related pages. I know they mean well, but it detracts from the quality of the article. Even besides the grammar, I've noticed everything they add doesn't use the correct way to spell Tiesto (Tiësto). lukini 15:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Lukini, and welcome! This is a good question. If you're simply undoing/fixing well-meaning but malformed edits, that's one thing. However, if you're following them to get in their business—for example, you respond on talk pages they post on even though you've never really been involved in that article—then it may be entering what's called Wiki-hounding. Even if you're dealing with grammar and such, some users may react as if you're stalking/hounding them, so it may behoove you to back off for a bit and let other editors fix it. This is hardly the be-all-and-end-all statement on this, so what do my fellow Hosts think? --McDoobAU93 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with McDoob, but it can be a pretty fine line at times. If they did something *obviously* bad (like blatant vandalism or breaking templates/image links or the like) then you're probably fine in fixing it, but for minor things, like the lack of a diacritic in a word, I'd probably just leave it be, just in case. However, the first thing I'd do, if I noticed a systemic problem with a user's edits, would be to try to talk to them on their user talk page; have you tried that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I definitely have no intention of actually stalking everything they do; I'm just interested in article edits. They haven't made any more edits since I joined, but I might mention the grammar/opinions on their talk page if it keeps happening. lukini (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good idea ... be constructive about it, offer to help them out, etc. --McDoobAU93 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What sort of bad spelling are they using? It might be a case of British/American English spelling differences (as noted in the Spelling section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style). Banaticus (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

They appear to use British spellings, but I know not to change these. Like I said, I used to edit articles using my ip before. I never made an account until now. However, it isn't an issue of spelling, British or otherwise. If you check my first comment on the Tiesto talk page, I put 2 examples of sentences they added. Wrong words were used or were missing. lukini (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Lukini, it's good to see you here! I think you've posed an interesting question (hence the multiple relies, perhaps) which has no obvious answer. My personal opinion is that, as your intentions are good - to improve Wikipedia - the best thing would be to talk to the editor in question. Perhaps you could speak to them on their user talk page and let them know the problem - you might even suggest that you're happy to look over their contributions if they would find it helpful. If they take it well, you may form a strong working relationship and even friendship with them. If they do not, you might want to stay back a little and leave them alone: that will show them that you're not trying to harass them, and their mistakes will be picked up by someone else later. You'll have to judge it as things progress - if you feel uncomfortable, please do come back here for further advice. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Best way to request review

What is the best way to request review of new article.

Rajenver (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Place {{subst:submit}} at the top. mabdul 10:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejenver, welcome to the Teahouse. Mabdul's suggestion works for articles created at Articles for creation but looking at your contributions you're asking about articles that have been created? In which case you've already gone some way to answering your own question by marking the article a possibly being of interest to a WikiProject. On the talk pages you've added the template flagging the articles to the interest of WikiProject India and you can see that currently the banner says "This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale." At some point somebody who is a member of WikiProject India will look at your articles and assess them for quality and importance. Currently Wikieproject India are running an assessment drive (perhaps you'd like to take part? If so the details are here) so you might find they are assessed sooner rather than later, but please be patient. Other alternatives would be to drop a line requesting a review at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics or adding the banner for another wikiproject like WikiProject Architecture to bring it to their attention. NtheP (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Style and readability edits legit?

Are improvements in readability or style (not content) legitimate edits? I am wondering because i use Wikipedia content in my writing everyday (with links as citations) in the definitions of terms I make for newspaper articles (my rather strange job) and I often see places where the clarity or accuracy of the prose could be improved, but I could also see where the issue of readability might be ultimately unresolvable, an issue of personal preference, also I wonder about this from a sort of philosophical perspective too, Wikipedia content definitely converges to greater accuracy, but does readability require one unified author (I read my physiology textbooks & Wikipedia outloud into MP3 and then listen to them as a form of study, this really makes clarity of prose apparent). Fernquestjon (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for wanting to contribute. Yes, such edits are permissible, but they can't violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style (which is a rather large set of documents, so just be careful if your changes involve nitty-gritty styling details). --Cybercobra (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will add reading Wikipedia's Manual of Style to my to-do list. Making my way through Wikipedia: The Missing Manual now which seems like the most comprehensive intro :) Fernquestjon (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the Manual of style. Most things simple common sense rules. And one of the great things about Wikipedia is that if you are doing something wrong, people will correct you.

As a rule, make your edit summaries clear, and make comments in the talk page for larger edits; don't worry too much about reading all the rules. Chico Venancio (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fernquestjon. There is a Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors who work to do just what you are suggesting. I am sure they will be pleased to have any help you can give.--Charles (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to join. Added Wikipedia:How_to_copy_edit and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/How_to to my reading list :) Fernquestjon (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Just don't let all that reading get in the way of editing :) I bet you'll make a strong contribution without too much studying up. Visit again if you have any questions! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 06:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I add, it's probably best to encourage new editors to look through the Manual of Style selectively (it's rather daunting), but editors are not normally criticised for going against it. Rather, someone is likely to come along and clean up an article text to make it consistent later. PS We do desperately need a shortened version for new editors, which I'm working on. Tony (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

How not to step on feet when improving content?

Any hints for making improvements to articles discretely while not offending people?

Example: I was changing some of the text about the rabbit digestive system and while I was doing this two things came to mind: 1. this is a big change smack in the middle of other people's work, so even though the change was important because some facts were wrong and the works cited either no longer existed or were not credible sources (e.g. pet food ad), I don't want to come across as Conan the Barbarian; and 2. in the end I came to the conclusion that what was needed was a separate article on the rabbit digestive system citing the highest quality sources (and I am writing this now, planning to keep a draft copy hanging off my user page, is this legit? don't really want to post it until it is a finished article, having someone critique it would be nice too, perhaps in the mammal project, but everything will be backed by the highest quality sources). Any feedback? :) Fernquestjon (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jon! The real answer here is to be bold; don't worry about stepping on toes! Part of the idea of Wikipedia is that nobody "owns" their articles, even if they were the only one contributing to it. If they don't like your changes, they can always (politely) revert them, and then you both can go to the talk page and discuss it, if you so desire. The great thing about Wikipedia (or rather, one of them) is that you have to really, really put your mind to it to mess something up permanently. If you make a mistake, or a bunch of people happen disagree with you, the old version is almost never more than a few clicks away, so there's really no reason to not just go for it! within reason, though; just...don't be crazy reckless, please Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll go a step further ... take a look at the second line of text right below the edit window, the one that says "By clicking the 'Save Page' button, ...." The VAST majority of people who edit here take that to heart, in that when they save their changes, it's no longer theirs. Will someone's feelings or sensitivities be hurt? Maybe. It happens to me a lot when people start changing an article I may have done a lot of work with, and it lasts all of a couple of seconds. However, those who are working in the true spirit of Wikipedia (myself included, without question) will take a good long look at your changes and say "that works better than what I had" or "maybe there's a compromise". If they revert unceremoniously and without explanation, that's where you move into bold, revert, discuss as Writ Keeper noted above. Maybe along with Wiki-kittens and Wiki-cookies, we could send out Wiki-steel-toe boots to people who are taking things a bit too seriously? :) --McDoobAU93 17:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And as to developing a new article in your userspace that is standard practice. You can make a special subpage for it by typing User:Fernquestjon/pagename in the searchbox. This takes you to a page with a red link of that name which you can click to create the page. When the article is ready to be moved to the main encyclopedia you can also submit it to the "Did you know" section of the front page which showcases new articles and get official credit for creating it.--Charles (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback :) I have one more question, better to ask new question to make it stand out :) Thanks Fernquestjon (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, be bold, and if you think there might be contention, why not leave a short note on the talk page saying you've just made a big edit, please let me know if there are any problems. That way, editors are much more likely to engage. Thanks for your work! Tony (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding Reference/Citation to Image File ( Located in Wikimedia))

How do i add citation to Image File which is located in Wikimedia.

Rajenver (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Am I right in assuming that you wish to cite an image in a Wikipedia article, and that image is stored on Wikimedia Commons? Images are generally considered a tad iffy as sources, although they can be fine - it depends a lot on the image. The general format follows that of a citing a webpage:

Author Year, Title of image (or a description), Wikimedia Commons, viewed Day Month Year, <URL>

You could just use the same citation as a webpage, but you employ a title or a description (unlike the title only that would be normal for a webpage), depending on what is available.

Is that the problem you had in mind? If I misread it, feel free to correct me. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have specific problem adding URL link to Image File. If i added it as URL , the image is displayed in Reference Section. I want to add just the URL Link to the Image with image being displayed in the section. Rajenver (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. What we normally do is use the full URL from the browser, as that won't insert the image and will remain meaningful when the page is printed rather than viewed online. But you can also add a link but not the image, by using a ":" in front of the image reference. So [[:image:hello.jpg]] will display as image:hello.jpg. - Bilby (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Perfect Example. Works for creating any internal links as well Rajenver (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Direct link - Commons:Image:hello.jpg. This also works if you wish to link to another Wikimedia project (such as meta or other language wikis). - Mailer Diablo 21:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the first Wikipedia article you worked on?

My first article was and still is as I'm currently working on it is the Web design article. Might be that your first article says something about you? So what was the first Wikipedia article you worked on? :D WBClarkson (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The first article I ever collaborated with anyone else on (and it was really the experience that turned me into a long-time contributor) was Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, a futuristic video game that I have fond memories of wasting time on. :) It was a hard process (another editor and I got it up to Good Article status after months of work) but incredibly fun. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The first article I worked on as an anon was Alvirne High School, back in 2005-2006. --Jayron32 02:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My first edits were creating the article Book League of America as I collect those books and there wasn't an article about them. Yup, I'm a bibliophile!--Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The first one I did significant work on was Doom bar - all because I loved the beer and fancied finding out a bit more about the history of the name! Worm^TT · (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My first article was Dirk van Erp, a biography of an early 20th century coppersmith whose lamps are highly collectible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My first article was Annie Lobert and Hookers for Jesus. One was kept, while the other was merged and redirected. I had a total conflict of interest in creating those two articles as one of the founders of the organization. I stayed on Wikipedia merely to monitor the page for the organization. I left the organization in Feb 2009 and came back to Wikipedia the following year. I now focus on freelance writing, while Wikipedia gets me through the writer's block. Beyond that, I love working to support and improve the project in various ways. Registered Mar 11, 2007 and became a Wikipedian in Apr 2010. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 04:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

My first edits where to the Cuba article. I even had a serious incident that turned me off Wikipedia for a bit of time, a rogue admin blocked me without reason for supposed POV-pushing and being a "suspected sockpuppet", the fact that some six months later an editor reached me to say that the block was wrong and that an admin put that on my block log really made a difference. In part this made me really worry about users first experience in Wikipedia, and ultimately is one of the reasons I am here in the Teahouse. Chico Venancio (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

LaSalle, Illinois, because I live there.

HappyWheeler4Life (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)W4LIFE

What is the coolest Wikipedia trick or tip you have learned recently?

See above =) New and experienced editors - what is the coolest Wikipedia trick or tip you have learned recently? No matter how long we've edited Wikipedia, we all come across something cool we've learned about regarding editing Wikipedia and related projects. I'm on a big of a slump regarding super cool new tips...so perhaps ya'll can help me feel inspired :) Can't wait to read your responses... Sarah (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure whether this is "cool" or "nerdy", but I was at the San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon last Saturday with my wife ChesPal. A woman we met there called Quirkify was working on a new article called The fair triumvirate of wit. I know how to do references, and that you can call a reference list "footnotes" if you want to. But she wanted to do both references and an explanatory footnote. With help from Steven Walling, she and I learned that there are several ways to do it, which are described at Help:Footnotes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The coolest tip of Wikipedia is that there are automated tools like Twinkle that allow you to revert edits and even WARN vandals with only ONE click! That's beast! To enable it, go to Special:Preferences, find the "Gadgets" tab, find "Twinkle", enable it and save your preferences. Then, go to WP:TWPREFS and customize Twinkle. Afterwards, try a diff and see what happens. You can immediately see the difference before you installed Twinkle and after you installed Twinkle. Good luck, and make sure to not abuse it! (Later, you can get the actual rollback feature). --J (t) 01:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

OMG. I had no clue that it was that easy to turn Twinkle on. And to think...all this time I thought you had to download something or do something super fancy. Wow. My life surely has just changed. Thanks J!! :D Sarah (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I can see that as handy although it seems a little techie to understand to a newbie :S Yorkshiregeek (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The other great thing about Twinkle is the customisability - If you go to the Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences screen, you can change your preferences, for example adding custom welcome templates. I used to use this welcome but I'm currently working on a new welcome and an automatic teahouse invite Worm^TT · (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't learned anything recently, but I have scripts that allow me to do heaps of stuff. I'd be lost without my large script file :-) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I only say WikiDiff (also in the gadgets). mabdul 02:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The other day I saw someone mention on a proposals page that adding a.mw-redirect { color: #00aa00; } to one's personal css turns all redirects green... so I had to try it. Turns out redirects are everywhere. Everywhere. In fact, there's one right there... and... crap, I think it saw me. You see, right? Absolutely everywhere. Taking over the wiki. Following me around. It's like they have a mind of their own, because OH GODS THERE'S ANOTHER ONE! AGGHH! *runs away, flailing* — Isarra (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was completely surprised to learn (on this page, no less) that there is a tool one can use to find when certain content was added to an article...very useful :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really learned any tips or tricks recently... but I finally learned how to make user boxes instead of using the Super Simple Userbox Maker! Rosalina2427 (Talk) 03:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, yes, and thanks of course for designing our host user box! :) I'd love to also see a user box for our guests..."This user likes to hang out at the Teahouse.." *nudge nudge* ;-) Sarah (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ReelAngelGirl already did ;) She wrote about it here. heather walls (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Doh! So many talk pages..so little time. But hey, the more the merrier? :) Sarah (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't say that I really know any cool tips or tricks. Twinkle and WikiBlame were linked already. I'm still impressed by auto-piped-link-filling if that counts. For instance, if I want to link something with a colon in it like [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and have it display as Verifiability (piped link with the namespace stripped out) because I'm using it on a new user's page and that user might not understand namespaces, I don't have to manually add in the second half of the link. I can just type the first bit, add a | character and MediaWiki will strip out the part after the colon : and add it in as the display link. For instance, that Verifiability I posted a moment ago was actually [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|]] when I typed it and the software filled in the second bit when I posted it. Banaticus (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I just read Banticus's comment and that's just become the coolest trick I've learned recently. NtheP (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the pipe trick too but used to make a bracketed disambiguating word after the name dissapear as when Stane Street (Chichester) can be made to show as Stane Street by adding a pipe. After five years of editing I am still learning new things almost daily.--Charles (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Banaticus and Charlesdrew... I didn't know either of those tips, so those are my new favorites. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit ashamed to say it, but I only recently found out about the Mini-Atlas feature, attached to basically every geographical article on Wikipedia. I knew that if you clicked the coordinates in the upper-right corner, you'd be able to click through to google maps; but I didn't realize that if you click on the little Earth symbol, you get an awesome little mini-atlas pop-up write then and there, with links to near-by Wikipedia articles! I've clearly been missing out. Mlm42 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The coolest feature I have learned is how to do infoboxes. Those really add alot to an article!YodaFan67 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently found Rami R's rfppClerk. It is very useful around Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to help remove old requests and keep RFPP flowing.

I just joined a few weeks ago--Feb. 29, to be specific. But I've made a couple of my own userboxes. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've recently been promoted to the position of administrator on Hindi Wikipedia. So, there're lots of new things that I'm learning right now. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• I LOVE all these ideas! My newest grandest tip or trick is tapping into the Teahouse. Great questions, Sarah! (Congrats to Bill!) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Recently, the coolest trick I've seen is this Teahouse question box. I will be trying to take it to ptwiki soon.

Not recently tough, (besides all the tricks already mentioned) the coolest one for me is Popups. It is a script (gadget even, can be enabled like twinkle) that makes a little popup when you put the mouse over a link. It even works inside the edit window (just select the link), I use it all the time to check that I've written the correct link. The popup can also do lots of very quick actions, like checking out the history, opening a new section in a user's talk page, or reverting vandalism (care should be taken here). Even diffs show up in it, so I commonly check out my watchlist without opening a single link. Chico Venancio (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Guess I was late to the party. Either that or no one cares about Popups. Chico Venancio (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I used to do one-click AfD closing a long time back, but that involved a script that took a while to customize and suit. - Mailer Diablo 21:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)