Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 137

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 130

←

Archive 135

External Link...

Hello. Would sources cited to substantiate the article be considered exteral link? To add External Link, inorder to remove orphan status ... could the same citations be used?

Or Does another article have to be developed and somehow related to the orphan article? Please advice. Many thanks.CHHistory (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not totally clear on the question but, if the source is already being used as an reference in the article, it cannot be used as an external link. If it is not being used as a reference and can further the information in the article it can be listed depending on the other policies and guidelines for use of external links on Wikipedia.--Mark 19:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CHHistory. Eliminating orphan status involves creating Wikilinks in other articles that link to the article in question. This has nothing to do with external links. If the topic is notable, there will almost always be opportunities for linking from existing, well-developed articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating a new article

I want to create an article for Jordan Moore who is notable under Wiki Project Football's notability guidelines. I've created a couple of new articles before by clicking on red links which open up a page for creating the article. However, when I tried to do that with Jordan Moore I get the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Moore

This just shows a deletion history for the page so how would I go about creating this article?Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Username etc, there have been 3 attempts at an article about somebody called Jordan Moore, only one of these was about the footballer and was delted 6 years ago for being nothing more than a 3 line, unreferenced stub. If you have sources and he meets the notability criteria then just click the link that says "Start the Jordan Moore article" and edit away. NtheP (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh, he can't because it's SALTed. ^King Jakob _C2 19:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, however I can't seem to see that link, could you be more specific please?Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks King Jakob. I've contacted the last person to delete the page, so hopefully that's the matter resolved.Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What's the proper link syntax for creating an HTML link to a Teahouse question?

Hi, Given that Teahouse questions keep flowing downward on the page, with every new question posted, how would I properly create an HTML link from another page to the Teahouse question so that it doesn't break, as the article progresses down the Teahouse history stack? I know that HTML uses bookmarks but I don't know if they get applied to Teahouse Questions. -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@FGuerino: Welcome back to the Teahouse. Your best bet is to use the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=0 and add your question to the bottom of the edit window (using a section break to separate the question from the header. ^King Jakob _C2 17:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Use the section heading, in this case #What's the proper link syntax for creating an HTML link to a Teahouse question?, (coded appropriately for characters such as spaces) at the end of the url, so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What.27s_the_proper_link_syntax_for_creating_an_HTML_link_to_a_Teahouse_question.3F ; you will of course, lose the link when the question gets moved to archive, so you'd need to create a new link at that stage, - David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FGuerino, Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I think King jakob c 2 was confused about your question, and David has a very close to preferred answer for you. The correct link to this section until it is archived is //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What.27s_the_proper_link_syntax_for_creating_an_HTML_link_to_a_Teahouse_question.3F (it must be wrapped in single square brackets and have a space and title or won't work) The reason I left off the http: part at the begging is to allow people using the secure (https:) site to continue doing so. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As an extra clarification, what Technical 13 has discussed (in square brackets & with a title) would be what you would use if you wanted to link to the url from within Wikipedia, but of course from within Wikipedia one ought to use a wikilink rather than the url. I had assumed, therefore, that the question was about providing an html link outside of Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the help. --FGuerino (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How do I create a Wikipedia box on Google?

How do I create a Wikipedia box on Jason Szwimmer and add it to the voice cast of the Wikipedia box Arthur? 99.242.58.123 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. We already have an article about Jason Szwimmer and he is already listed as a member of the voice cast of Arthur (TV series). Can you please explain what you mean by "Wikipedia box"? If you mean an infobox, then both articles already have one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they may be referring to the right hand info box that sometimes comes up with a Google search. Many times these boxes contain information directly from Wikipedia but not always. I believe this content is provided from the Google spiders that search out key words and information.--Mark 17:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, now I know what you mean, thanks to Mark's comment. Yes, those boxes on Google searches are created by Google software, and nothing we do on Wikipedia, other than hosting the article, affects that. My guess is that creation of those boxes is related to search volume. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding Edit count.

Hi every(body), hosts and parasites, symboints etc.

Now my preference page is showing me 1080 edits to my name.

While X!'s Edit Counter and User edit counter say it to be 1120.

Why the difference of 40 edits and which one should I consider. $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sohambanerjee. The edit count in your preference does not include page moves or any uploads you've made over existing files, whereas I believe X!'s edit counter does. I think the preferences count also does not inckude edits marking pages as patrolled, though another edit counter might. X!'s also used to include deleted contributions but that function is not working right now. If it's fixed, the disparity in edit count should be even greater. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about that, cause your using think, might etc. Could you direct me a link which says it is. Thanks for the help BTW so which one should I count? $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 09:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you noticed the hedge. I have never seen a definitive list of what is and isn't counted by each in a side-by-side comparison. I can confirm that page moves and file re-uploads are counted by X!'s and not by preferences, based on testing that proposition in the past (and just re-confirming). I can now confirm that marking pages as patrolled is counted by neither, having just tested it. There could be other differences I haven't captured.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Recommending articles for deletion (failure)

I recently recommended an article for deletion and before that, the same article for speedy deletion. Both times my recommendation was quickly reverted, once by an IP. If a recommendation for deletion can be simply reverted quickly without any time for a discussion (probably by people who have personal interests in the article), what is the point of recommending for deletion, any article? Can anyone tell me how to propose an AFD in such a way as to stop the proposal from being reverted before it has had time to be properly discussed. Jodosma (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have tried the speedy deletion process, and the proposed deletion process, but not yet the article for deletion process. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jodosma. Speedy deletion tags cannot validly be removed by the creator of a page but may be by others. In this particular case, the speedy deletion tag was properly removed but I am answering the bigger picture part of your question. The person who removes a valid speedy tag is most often the creator. In those cases, where it is removed by a creator, your hands are not tied. You should revert and then warn with the escalating template series {{subst:uw-speedy1}}, {{subst:uw-speedy2}}, etc., and if they don't stop after a final warning, seek a block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut: WP:AIV). In this case, you tagged an article about an album with a tag referring to CSD A7, which only applies to real people, individual animal(s), organizations (but not schools), web content or organized events, so it was not a valid tagging. Note that you can tag articles on albums under CSD A9, but only if there is no existing article on the artist and it does not indicate significance or importance.

On the other hand, anyone can remove a proposed deletion (PROD) tag, including the article creator, and once that protest occurs, it cannot be re-prodded. This is because PROD is for uncontroversial deletion and the protest by the removal itself is considered to render its deletion controversial. As David notes, you have not taken the article to Articles for Deletion (AfD), but if you do, and the AfD tag is removed, you can do the same type of escalating warning series for the removal, using {{subst:uw-afd1}}, {{subst:uw-afd2}}, etc. Anyway, most people who participate in AfDs do not view the AfD debate because they see it advertised in the article, but directly through "Today's" deletion log. In other words, removal of an AfD tag from the page is not nearly as effective as the remover probably thinks it will be. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks; I really love this space. That's a lot of info you just gave me. When I've digested it all I'm sure I will make good use of it. All of the above is now in my sandbox. Ciao. Jodosma (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Would the wikipedia foundation ever consider expanding it's mission to social media?

I was on facebook the other day talking about very sensitive mental health topics and then I got an ad for a mental health degree pop up on my sidebar...This is going too far...Would Wikipedia foundation be able to create an open source social networking site, is it feasible, would donations be enough? When I'm on facebook I feel like I'm being watched by the NSA but it just happens to be facebook which is the actor not the NSA. It would cost a lot of money I know...I'm broke but I would still donate to the cause as much as I could...Facebook will now be going after me :-(. Thanks guys, I know this is an outlandish idea but why not..Look at what wikipedia has done in changing the way encyclopedias are structured and made a huge difference in the world...Jimmy Wales deserves a nobel prize.Dounai99 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was like facebook, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia any more. Also, Wikipedia is completely open and anyone in the world can see everything you do here, so it wouldn't solve your privacy problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello...I didn't mean for it to be part of wikipedia..I meant for it as a branch of the foundation one that didn't use ads and key word filtering to invade your privacy and try to sell you stuff. And also didn't block users who say bad things against companies on facebook and then they collaborate with facebook to block comments and delete your comments. Also would have a "like" and "dislike" button to be fair. The only reason there isn't a "dislike" button now on facebook is because it would hurt the goose that lays the golden eggs, the advertisers. Companies could still be allowed but they would be treated as any other individual and not be able to advertise and promote using money. It would run on donations and if it hit a time when the money ran out the site would just go on hiatus until people donated again but of course it would all be saved so people wouldn't lose all their stuff. Just an idea I had but I know nothing about software or anything technical. ThanksDounai99 (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The nature of wikipedia?

Hello I am Dounai..I was a previous editor and contributor about 2 years ago on Wikipedia. I enjoyed it in the beginning but as time went on I noticed the only people who were neighborly were the staff of wikipedia, the tearoom and others in that light. I only met one person who was willing to give me a guiding hand (a veteran to the site) and who I could bounce ideas off and who would give me hints and tips that a wiki staff couldn't do. There were the angels or fairies whatever they're called who would come and and help fix grammar and word usage as well as to do difficult tasks in regards to graphics/graphs and the such that a beginner couldn't do. The rest of the people I met were not neighborly, overly competitive, not wanting to colloborate, mean and said they didn't want to become too "friendly" because it would hurt the mission of objectivity in case of a dispute. While this last part may be true does it really have to be this way. I sincerely hope the tone and culture of Wiki has changed since 2 years ago and that it's more of a community now..Because isn't that supposed to be what the site is all about? A beginner is so naive and wanting to get involved and then they berated by the more mean style veterans who probably look down upon them because they don't know anything. Beginners should be treated with kid gloves in many cases I think and as they grow and develop keep reducing the thickness of the gloves until they are confident, skilled and a veteran. These are just my thoughts on the subject. What do others think? I will keep updating this paragraph as I feel the current Wikipedia and see if things have changed. dounaiDounai99 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even see the new hosting system by experienced users! This is exactly what I was missing before. I guess I spoke too soon :-(, my fault. It does seem as wiki has changed quite a bit.Dounai99 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dounai99! A couple of factual points. First, I am not aware of anyone on Wikipedia ever indicating that 'they didn't want to become too "friendly" because it would hurt the mission of objectivity in case of a dispute'. Second, the purpose of the website is to create an encyclopedia, not (as you suggest) solely to create a "community". (Facebook and Yahoo and similar sites are better for that.)

I think your idea about gloves of variable thickness is a very interesting one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of traditional and simplified characters on one articles.

I wrote an article called "gutter oil" and i was interested in the chinese version of it. It had a mixture of both simplified and traditional characters. Is there an agreed upon version that 1 article should use or can it be a mix. Because some mainlanders don't know unsimplified and some non mainland chinese don't know simplified...So it's kind of a conundrum because most of the writers on the chinese side probably are not from the mainland due to censorship restrictions....Could you please shed more light on this topic? Thanks dounai99Dounai99 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dounai99, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know Chinese and cannot tell the difference but see Chinese Wikipedia#Automatic conversion between traditional and simplified Chinese characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder..It's been a while since I've been on the site and I now remember this from before. I will change my preference to simplified because that's what I'm familiar with...Thanks for the good tip PrimeHunter. Dounai99 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

" most of the writers on the chinese side probably are not from the mainland due to censorship restrictions...." Hunh ? Where do people get these ideas ? Check the ip, I come here all the time. Shanghai, Nanjing, Beijing, Gansu, Hangzhou, those are in China, right ? Wikipedia isn't censored. Facebook, Youtube, and the New York Times are blocked (thank god on the first two, I kind of miss the NYT but their editor had to be a bigshot, got what he deserved) but not wikipedia. Btw, from observation I'd say more mainland Chinese can read traditional than Taiwan people can read simplified, but that's just one person's experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the current situation and it may vary across China but Wikipedia has certainly been blocked in large parts of China in the past. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-24/China block and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-31/China block for the start. Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall was created 25 October 2005‎. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How to request pages for unprotection

I need to know how to request pages for unprotection. This guy, Philknight PROTECTED MY USERPAGE!!!! What is wrong with him!? Philroc (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Philroc, Philknight explained on your talk page why he has deleted an amount of the information you had on your user page and protected the page. As you have deleted his post I assume you had read it. If you have any questions you need to talk directly to Philknight on his own talk page. NtheP (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Did that! Philroc (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Philroc, may I suggest adopting a calmer tone with Philknight? As he stated in his message to you, he was fulfilling Wikipedia's legal obligations and was aware that it could be frustrating to you. In order to regain access to your userpage you will probably need to convince Phil that you have understood and taken in his message. --LukeSurl^{t c} 21:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did that yesterday. Philroc (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming bollywood movie dil hai ki manta nahin 2

Sir!Why you were not listed about this movie of emran hasmi's profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.37.166 (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 112.79.37.166 and welcome to The Teahouse. Is this movie notable, meaning that it has been covered by independent reliable sources? If not, it cannot have a Wikipedia article. However, we are all volunteers here and it may be that no one who contributes is aware of the movie.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. What Vchimpanzee has said is right regarding an article about the film; but I guess you are suggesting editing the existing article Emraan Hashmi to add this film. If this is what you mean, then anybody - including you - may edit the article to add the film provided there are reliable sources which says it is coming: rumour, or mentions in unreliable sources such as blogs, are not sufficient. If you have the sources, but are not confident about editing the article, I suggest you make the suggestion at the talk page Talk:Emraan Hashmi. --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wanting to create a salted page

Hi guys. I want to create a page titled "Niggers in the White House". I feel that it is a legitimate topic, and I will have sources to back it up. If you know me, you will know that I ain't a troller yo. Problem is that it appears to have been salted. So what can I do about it? Can any admin here help me unsalt it please? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically it's blacklisted and not salted but an admin is still needed to create it. Everything with nigger in the title is blacklisted at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. What do you want to write about and could it be done without such a controversial word in the title? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, interesting. Didn't know that. Well, there was this poem during Roosevelt's time that was quite popular. I don't think there are any alternate titles to it. Similarly, I just created Bigger Hair, which was originally known as "Nigger Hair" (and because of the blacklist I can't create a redirect. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted titles have to be created with content by an admin (a salted title could just have been unsalted so anybody could create it). Can you make a sandbox version with reliable sources and request a move to the mainspace title? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Okays, that would work. ARe you an admin? Can I request your help when the time arises? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin and willing to move it if it satisfies Wikipedia requirements like Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia is not censored and intitle:nigger shows several other articles about works with "nigger" in the title. It would have been inappropriate for a general article about racism but a named work is different. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Project California

Where do i signup for this project? Some reason I am finding it hard to find the place to add my name to a list. If there is one specific to Sacramento, California that is the one I want...Thanks. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well hello there fellow Sacramentan! Let me take a look. I noticed that the Bay Area Task force had a similar issue yesterday when I tried to add my name. Give me just a moment.--Mark 16:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It was way at the bottom of the main Project page that seems to load very slowly. Here is the participants page. Add you name in alphabetical order. (I need to change mine as it still has my old username).--Mark 16:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you Mark, I am going to concentrate on sprucing up a few of these cali articles with images and such. Happy to meet you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tattoodwaitress, still can't seem to locate the list of Task force sub projects but have left a message at another editors talk page to ask.--Mark 17:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark lol, I am having a hard time finding a project for the sacramento county but am still searching and need to move my user name as I didnt do it in alphabetical order. Let me know how you make out with the task force thing. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tattoodwaitress, of course...if there isn't a Sacramento task force...we could just create one. I think its needed.--Mark 17:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark I agree, and thank you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sections?

Do all articles need sections if they are long enough? What about something like this for example: Newark Public Service Terminal Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Tattoodwaitress. That article's not too long, I don't think it needs sections. But if you'd want to add sections, no problem there, either. That's pretty much the rule of thumb: sections are optional as long as the article is still readable without them. Howicus (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok Howicus thank you. It was just a basic question using that as an example. It kind of looks like it has no lead too, the way it is. I am just hitting the random article button trying to find articles to "detag" after making improvements or to just work on to improve. So I thank you for the info. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoting a reference

Hello

I want to add a section to an existing article and include a relevant reference to the subject's brother and his brother's two children. I have a published reference for the brother but the reference I have for the children is a verbal one, it being the subjects repeated reference on-air (he is a radio broadcaster) to his brother's children. The references are real and other listeners would have heard it, (and the subject is a respected identity who is not making up his nieces' existence) but it is not a conventional reference. Am I able to use the verbal reference and how do I do that? Your assistance would be appreciated. Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Melbourne3163, and welcome to the teahouse! Is there something signifcant about his nieces? In general biographical articles mention if someone has children, but they don't go into detail about extended family unless there is some significance to it. Maybe that's why secondary sources aren't mentioning the nieces either? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, in this case the added information is about the nieces and ties back to the brother and the subject, so it is significant. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would still look for a secondary source. Presumably, if it's significant, there would be some independent reliable sources that discuss this. You should cite those. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your further reply. I can't find any secondary sources at this time. I think I will wait a few days and see if something pops up; it is a very current topic so something may appear. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice for responding to new editor

Please read User_talk:NeilN#A_Good_Editor_edits_and_publishes_not_put_tags.21_Thanks. and the subsequent sections. At this point, I'm just shaking my head. Given that the hosts here are used to dealing with new editors, any advice for me for trying to get my point across? I think the editor will be in for a rude shock if he expects Wikipedia editors to act the way he suggests. P.S. "Showering with tags" was talkback templates. Something I always do to let editors know they have a response. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it's at WP:ANI now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding photos

Hello there , I am really really new to wiki and I am kinda dumb in the whole orders thing and stuff when it comes to computing. I wanted to know how to add photos , plz help Mhmd khair (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mhmd khair, and welcome to the teahouse. Adding photos is one of the tricky bits, because there's a both a technical and an administrative process to go through. The technical point is that it is a two-stage process: first the picture must be uploaded either to Wikipedia or (preferably) to Wikimedia commons; then it is easy to link to it from any article. The administrative point is more involved, because Wikipedia is very picky about copyright. Unless the photos are in the public domain (only if they are very old, or if the copyright owner has explicitly released them to the public domain), then the copyright owner must make a statement that they release the pictures under a suitable licence. So if you own the copyright on the pictures, you can make a suitable declaration, but if they are pictures you have found on the internet, you can probably not use them. See WP:Images for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Mhmd khair Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Adding images can be a little tricky at first. Do not feel concerned if it takes a little time to get the hang of it. I've been here for years, but when I added a picture yesterday, I had to look up some of the details, and I went to Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial, which has a lot of helpful advice. That advice mainly applies if the picture you want to add to an article has already been uploaded to Wikipedia (or Commons). If you have some photos that you want to upload, let us know and we can point you to the right place.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I get feedback

I found an article this morning that stated it may not meet notability, however, I spent a very good portion of the day making improvements: finding more refs, and adding pictures, creating a better lead, and adding sections to this article along with an info box, and hoping that maybe now it will meet notability requirements. How can I get feedback on it? Just don't want to spend anymore time if its not going to meet the notability requirements thanksTattoodwaitress (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to provide feedback, Tattoodwaitress. You have made excellent progress improving this article and I think that notability is clearly established. Well done. I think that some of the section titles are weak, but that predates your work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yay thank you so much Cullen if you have not removed the tag I shall do so now then =) Tattoodwaitress (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, the article is Safetyville USA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Cullen thank you for listing the article name here. What do you mean by weak section titles and would you be willing to give me some suggestions. I am the one who created the sections actually (when i started yesterday there was no lead or sections) and whenever I do that I do have somewhat of a time choosing titles for the sections. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thank you Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Tattoodwaitress, I suggest that you read the part of the Manual of style covering section headings, which can be found at MOS:HEAD. We don't include the article name in a heading, so we say "Early life" instead of "Jane Smith's early life". Also, there is rarely a reason to mention a date in a heading. So, we should say "Founding" not "Founding in 1887", for example. I have changed some of them. They should usually be brief, and don't include informative content.

I encourage you to remove trivia, like the names of businesses that donated prizes for their 25th anniversary event, and the like. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Cullen Ah, thank you will do. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing glitch

Hi. I was editing Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources to fit with the new VisualEditor, and this weird thing popped up. You see, when I copied some stuff from the VisualEditor user manual into the source, it looked like this:

Collapse to save space


	To add a new reference, place your cursor where you want to add it in the text, and click on the "Reference" icon (bookmark) in the toolbar.

	In the reference dialog box, you can add, edit, and format your citation directly. You can include a web address (URL). In the "Options" section, you can make the reference belong to a specific group. This is done, for example, when an article has separate sections for notes and for citations. Most articles only have one group of footnotes, which appear in a section called "References". If you are editing that kind of article, the "Use this group" field should be left blank. After you've finished creating a reference, click "Apply changes" (bottom right corner of the dialog box) to return to the main editing page.

	When adding a new reference, many editors create the content using a template, such as "Cite journal", rather than typing text directly. If you want to use a template, click the Transclusion icon (puzzle piece) in the toolbar of the reference dialog box.

	Then, look for the template you want to use, add it, and edit it as you would an existing template. (For more details on doing this, see the Editing templates section, below.) Click on "Apply changes" to return to the main reference dialog, and then "Apply changes" again to return to the main editing page.

	If you have just added the first reference(s) to a page, you need to do three things in order for the text of your reference(s) to be properly displayed. First, at the bottom of the page (if it is an article), just above the "Further reading" section, if there is one, or, if not, just above the "External links" section, you need to create a new section, called "References". Type that word (without quotation marks), select (highlight) it, then use the "Change format" pulldown menu (see above) to make that word into a heading. Second, place the cursor below this new section heading. Then click the "References list" icon (three books).

	Third, in the references list dialog box, click "Apply changes" to specify that this is where you want the list (text) of references to appear. As mentioned above, the "Options" section (and, specifically, the "Use this group" box) is used only if there are two or more types of footnotes. If there are, and you're creating a new section for something other than basic footnotes/references, you'll use this box. (For example, you might type "Notes" into the box). But normally there is only one group of footnotes, and this box should be left blank.

|}

When I removed all the pipes, colspan=2's, and all the other charcters that didn't belong, the text below the pictures looked as if they were code. Can somebody help me? Philroc (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Philroc, I think what's happened here is that you have copied part of a table so you've picked up a lot of the syntax for cells, etc but without the opening lines that define the table. Look at the source and if you find a line that starts {| then you are probably at the beginning of the table. I would say though that copying and pasting is not the best way of compiling a tutorial as tutorials are supposed to aid and if you've copied the manual it isn't exactly helping by explaining further. NtheP (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, there are sections that explain different things on the tutorial page. So basically what I'm doing is copying and pasting the parts of the manual that correspond to their sections. OK? Thanks! Philroc (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How to "revive" or somehow "retrieve" back a deleted article or somehow to be able to improve it so that it can be kept in the mainspace again?

Quite awhile ago, an article that I've created Liam Hackett has been nominated for deletion, after a several days of discussion, it has been nominated to be merged with the Ditch the Label (Liam Hackett article has now been a redirect page to the Ditch the Label article) article but the thing is I still think that the Liam Hackett article can actually have itself an article with not to mention the good citing of references. such as "the telegraph" and the "huffington post" and also by using an example of this Michele Elliott article, whom is also the founder of an ogranisation.

So I've done some research on my own, and have found some of these helpful pages. ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator (I am not sure if I'm suppose to use this) ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Refund (Since the Liam Hackett article was actually NOT deleted instead it was changed to a redirect page so I think this shouldnt be my case)

I actually find the Article Incubator page useful, but I'm not sure if I am suppose to use them, I do need to do some improvements to the Liam Hackett article before putting it back again into mainspace (if possible). I'm not very sure how to use or how I should use the Article Incubator thing. So I'm looking forward for assistance. Also if there's any other way to help with the article do tell me as well.

For the Liam Hackett deletion discussion archive see: ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liam_Hackett

Looking forward for any help or assistance. Nicholance (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Great question Nicholance. As the article Liam Hackett has been merged into Ditch the Label and has been replace by a redirect, the history of the article is still intact. From the history you can view diffs and old versions, for example the version last edited by you on May 7. The "view history" tab can be found between the "edit" button and the search box on top of the page. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So what if I would like to revive back the page again? should I improve it on another namespace first and then move it back to its mainspace straight away, removing the redirect? wont that ruin the system? Is the "Article Incubator" helpful with my case? Nicholance (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nicholance. An old version of Liam Hackett article is now the current version of User:Nicholance/Liam Hackett from which you can proceed. Success! Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Ad Huikeshoven, appreciate it! Nicholance (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is dabsolver malfunctioning?

I just used dabsolver to do a minor edit at Bruise Pristine. The result is a bunch of (#) signs where brackets should be. The same thing happened here [1] about 10 minutes ago. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre. If it happens again, best to report it at Wikipedia:Dabsolver. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

":Thanks for fixing the article Luke. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, it happened to me the other day so I fixed the dab manually.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Italics in title

When creating a new article about a book, how do you get italics to show up for the title of the article? Thanks. --1ST7 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is at WP:ITALICTITLE. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --1ST7 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with Reflist, how to edit out a reference..........

I deleted a sentence in an article about Norman Rush, the author. The sentence contained a footnote. I tried to delete the footnote, number 5 in the article, but I see only Reflist when I try to edit the Reference source. I have tried to find a way to solve this problem but the 'solutions' I've read don't yet make much sense to me, as this is just my second day of editing Wikipedia. (114.175.73.201 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. WP:Referencing for beginners is the first place to read. The place to delete the reference is in the sentence that contained the footnote, not in the References section. If you click on the caret ( ^ ) alongside the relevant reference in the References section in the article, it will move you up to the section where the reference is defined, & you need to click the editing link for that section. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

article on actress still says "needs additional citations for verification"?

hello, I looked at the wiki article for Bria Roberts and it says "needs additional citations for verification. There are a lot of references listed on her article. Why does it say that it needs those still? I tried adding more online sources but wasn't sure how. Would that remove the "needs additional citations" notice? Or do one of you know how? Jessicapp (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wiki link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bria_Roberts

Jessicapp (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jessi. The answer is that any editor may remove the tag (by editing out the {{BLP sources:... }} from the top of the article, if they think the problem has been addressed. However, in this case the problem has not been addressed because nearly all the sources given are to IMDB. IMDB is not considered a reliable source, because anybody may edit it. The Coldheat references are probably OK (I'm not familiar with it) but the article needs more references to reliable sources. There's also a problem that the reference are bare URLs, and need proper formatting, but that is secondary. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine,

Thank you for that information. I added citations that are not IMDb. Does it look like it has enough reliable sources now? Jessicapp (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I Have an Idea

I don't have a question but I do have an idea for a new template in Misc, my idea is that we add the template "Promotional singles" so we can add the promotional singles to albums. Isn't that a great idea. I hope you make it come true! Bye! IGotProof (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Error on article

Page with error: NASDAQ#Market_tiers Error: "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.62.49 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, 4.90.62.49, for pointing this out. I've tried several solutions since I read the question several minutes ago. I got rid of the error message but have introduced a new problem: references that don't appear in the references section. This is something I've never encountered before and it will take someone with more expertise to get this cleaned up.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Vchimpanzee. I found a similar page with references in footnotes that may help. I'll try to modify the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Vchimanzee, that helped me along. I've got it working now. Different areas needed to be formatted to make it work (I used another similar page as an example along with the partial fix hint you provided). Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This may be helpful if added to a Help page as a more advanced usage of references?

(Perhaps if added here: Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_references_no_key -- that's the page I was suggested to refer to for help with my error)

To include a reference to a footnote: (I attempted to post the syntax; but wiki wants it formatted properly in wiki syntax, not as Helpful-with-hints-learning-non-wiki syntax) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction: How find the answer to a teahouse question?

Question was submitted to Teahouse. How find the answer. Db4wp (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Db4wp. Your previous questions and answers have been archived, see Archive 129. On the right side is a search box which has been preset to search the Teahouse archives. To find questions signed by you in the archive, click this link. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Sometimes users just know the answer because they've spent a bit around and they know the stuffs. Also you can go to the WP:* pages and probably you'd find the answers. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the question. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly having article rejected as "...not adequately supported by reliable sources"

Hi, I am trying to create an article but have had my submission rejected several times for not adequately supporting the article with reliable sources. Unfortunately the rejecting editor has not been helpful in exactly what he doesn't like, e.g. if he doesn't agree that the sources are reliable or if there are not enough of them.

The sources I have used are the web site of the manufacturer (the article is on a cider manufacturer), the BBC and another national UK organisation.

Any advice gratefully received. ThanksConisbee (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You weren't displaying the references; you didn't have a references section with the {{reflist}} tag. I've added that in now. I haven't looked at the references, but the web site of the manufacturer is not a reliable source as they are not independent of the subject. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating an article about a person

Hi guys,

I'm creating an article-person which I actually promoting but I want it to be non-promotive as per wiki rules. I just want to make an informative persona for this person but I always got the wrong impressions when I show his works or business etc. Creating an article for a person is supposed to be informative so I have to include all his business etc. But every time I submitted the article it always gets debunked.

I tried to copy other personal articles, actually my article is patterned from someone including the businesses, line of work etc. I really want my article to be publish so I can start working on with the other things that will relate to my mother-article.

Help me guys. Hoping to the greatest help from here. Cheers!

Elvandesantos (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume we're talking about Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nils_Vesk? What the article really needs is in depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Many facts in the article are sourced to CrunchBase, which is not reliable, since anyone can edit the information. Most of the other sources in the article are sourced to biographies likely to have been written by the subject or someone associated with the subject, which fails the independence test. Additionally there are entire sections with no references at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Elvandesantos. The trouble with writing an article where you have a conflict of interest is that it is difficult for you to evaluate what is appropriate for a neutral article. For example, the article almost certainly should not include "all his business" - only if independent reliable sources talk about all his businesses (not just listing them) will it be appropriate.

The other difficult is that you certainly will have personal knowledge that cannot go into Wikipedia, because it cannot be referenced to reliable published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

How can you make maps bigger so that you can actually read them?

I am reading The Modonnas of Leningrad by Debra Dean. The uncle of the main character is an archeologist whose main area of study is "the ancient civilization of Urartu". I Googled it and your article on Urartu was the first reference. It is an excellent article and I learned a lot, but I can't read the maps. I'm using a PC with a huge monitor and unless I can blow up the maps, I can't even read the countries that are laid out on them. 71.82.132.63 (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The maps display as thumbnails within the article, but if you double-click on the thumbnail it will open the file for you to see it full size. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One single click works for me... I then see options for different sizes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!71.82.132.63 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing or raising concern on list managed by a portal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wales_national_rugby_union_players has a hyperlink to wrong individual: #697 Bill Morris links to biog of Bill Morris #147 what to do?Gergaskman (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gergaskman and welcome to The Teahouse. I've made a temporary fix but it will be somewhat complicated to make this work. Bill Morris #147 has an article but Bill Morris #697 does not. I created a red link to the second one and I can propose a name change for the article about the first one. If the second Bill Morris is notable enough for an article, someone can start with my red link.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't have the skills to create new articles but perhaps it's time to learn.217.42.84.73 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for your gracious greeting too, Vchimpanzee. 217.42.84.73 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

First page/ edit?

Does anyone happen know what the first page ever created on Wikipedia was, or at least, what is the oldest surviving edit we have on record? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi JethroBT, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh hey, that's awesome. Thanks! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

grammar question

Is this sentence correct - 'Write below if there are any newcomers whom we've overlooked.' 86.157.113.84 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, 86, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, I believe that grammar is correct. Certainly the "whom" is correct, if that's to what you are alluding. One uses "whom" when the noun to which "whom" refers is not the subject of the clause. In this sentence, "whom" refers to the newcomers, but the subject of the clause is "we" (since we have overlooked them). So, "whom" is correct. A better way to phrase the sentence might be: "Write the names of any overlooked newcomers below." That avoids the ambiguity of "who" and "whom" entirely, and is more specific about what should be written.

And just as an aside, it's okay to ask questions like this at the Teahouse, but we're usually reserved for asking questions about Wikipedia; a better place to go for questions like this would be the Language section of the Reference Desk. Thanks! Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 20:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Promotional singles

I'm on Change (Taylor Swift song) and I'm trying to make it a Promotional single from the album Fearless but it isn't working, what's wrong with it? IGotProof (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

IGotProof, your edit seems to have worked fine to me, you've correctly added (AFAIK) thr names of Swift's preceding and successive singles. Whether it was a promotional single or not I don't know and to answer your previous question I'm not sure it really matters. If you want to add which album it also featured on, then you need to add the parameter |album= to the infobox. NtheP (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about early Wikipedia years

Hey, Teahousers,

Another question. If an editor writes something that intrigues me, I'll often check out their contribution page to see what topics they like working on. Some times, I'll also check their logs to see their history of blocks, rights, account creation, etc., just to get a sense of how long they have been participating on Wikipedia.

Any way, for some editors, the logs are just blank. No date for creating the account, for some Admins, there is no record of when they got Admin rights.

So, I'm wondering, were there just no user logs kept in the early years (say, 2001-2004/5)? I know I can go back and look at edits to articles back to 2003 (the earliest I've come across) but it looks like there wasn't as careful tracking of users during that time.

Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Liz, welcome back! Yes, something like that. I don't know the specifics, but I believe that the new logging system started in 2003, and records from before then were lost in the shift to the new system. So, yes, if you can't find records for their user creation date, etc., it happened very early in Wikipedia's history.

Also keep in mind that contribs, logs, and the loke might not show the whole story for a few reasons. For example, this account I'm using now (User:White King) is my travel account, not my main account, so if you were to go to the contribs page for this account, it wouldn't show you all my contribs or that I'm an admin or whatever. Similarly, any edits I make won't show up on my main account's contribs page, either. So, contribs pages, logs, and the like are useful, but they frequently don't show the whole story at first glance.

EDIT: After further review, I've found Category:Wikipedia obsolete log pages, which gives some bits that may have been missing. This page suggests that the shift to the new system happened in 2004, not 2003. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 15:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the teahouse, Liz. Great question! It's true that the logs here are incomplete for the very early days of Wikipedia, but usually logs are pretty complete back to 2002, even 2001 in some cases. For instance, here's an edit from January 23, 2001 and here's an edit from January 16, 2001. These appear in contributions and page history logs. As for other logs, they do seem to start in 2004/5. The incompleteness in edit logs is partially because Wikipedia has undergone a number of software changes (from UseModWiki to PHP to the current MediaWiki. ^King Jakob _C2 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Great answers, Writ Keeper and ^King Jakob _C2! If there were barnstars for great Teahouse answers, I'd give them to you. That's more information than I expected and you didn't even try to make me feel weird for scoping out other users. ;-)

I can't believe some records go back to January 2001 since that is why I thought WP began and I'm sure there have been several server and software changes as the site has grown and grown.

I think another factor might have been that the process for becoming an Admin might have been very informal 8 years ago. I came across one RfA from years ago where the editor became an Admin and he'd been editing for 2 1/2 months and had 1,500 edits. So as years have gone by, processes have become more formalized and documented. So, I gather if someone has no account creation date, they must have signed up in the first three years. I also hadn't thought about users changing accounts.

Thanks again for tracking this all down for me! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)