Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, 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

Please join our discussions! To reply, use the edit button across from the title ↓

Review of new article for NPOV

Could someone please review my company's article for Neutral Point of View so the Conflict of Interest tag can be eventually removed please? I would appreciate it. The article is PARISOMA Msingularian (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cut and paste question

Is it permitted to cut and paste (and then correct the language) when we see this instruction "this article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia." ? - Yorkshiresoul (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yorkshiresoul, welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: if they're under the same copyright licence as en-wiki (and to my knowledge, they all are) then yes, it is. However, you should fill out the {{Interwiki copy}} template and add it to the article's talkpage, to maintain attribution for the content. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also credit the source with a link in the edit summary for the edit which adds the content. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouting

Can someone explain to me what a "Trout" is? Thanks. SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure SchizophrenicDingo, it's a tongue-in-cheek method of reminding experienced people on Wikipedia that they're being stupid. See WP:TROUT. It's a big fish that you slap someone upside the head with to "wake them up" and make them realize they are being stupid. It is only given in good humor, never in anger, and only given to very experienced Wikipedians who should "know better" about something. Does that make sense? --Jayron32 03:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Awesome username, BTW.

Yes,I think I get it now. It's just a cute reminder to keep people on their toes, is that what you're saying? P.S. Thanks for the compliment. :) SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically. It's just a friendly way of saying "You shoulda known that already, silly!" It's also not to be thrown in anger, or given to noobs who a) won't get the humor and b) shouldn't have known Wikipedia rules already. --Jayron32 04:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

what is meant by cryptic e-mail notices

I get e-mail notices about my Wikipedia editing which I can not understand in any way as they do not list exactly what they refer to only that I may have done something that is not approved. Then another cryptic note that I should refer to the guidlines for content. I have started a page on John J. Ensminger, LLM who is considered one of the leading experts on the law regarding Police dogs, Military dogs and service dogs in the nation only to find that someone has some kind of issue with his notability. It is a lot of work to track down all these references which are mostly buried in journals but I have posted enough so far that I would like someone to tell me exactly what they want. Is such a request out of line? Or impossible to discuss? Can I talk to this person? how do I do that?50.46.242.166 (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello IP! Messages sent to your personal email address, or posted on your Talk page? Can you quote these cryptic notices for us so we can figure out what kind of messages you're getting?

Also, is this King.parker3, originator of John J. Ensminger? If so, it'd be great if you could log-in to your Wikipedia account so it's easier to get ahold of you to reply to your messages. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Heart Tab.

Can someone tell me how I can get the heart tab to appear at the top of my talk page? Krueg (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure that there is a way to have it appear on your own talk page, at least not one that I've found. the heart button is for what is known as WikiLove, which includes food, drinks, and barnstars. These are made to give to other editors who you feel really deserve it. If you want some WikiLove for yourself, try going and giving some to other editors that really deserve it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! gwickwire | Leave a message 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding a photo that's not my own

Hi there, I work with the Baumann Foundation, and I'm trying to add a small photo to the article about Peter Baumann that Baumann himself has provided (it's a small image, 188x234 pixels; he uses it for PR purposes). I'm really new at Wikipedia editing, and I understand that I need to prove the photo has been licensed for free use, but I'm not sure what the most straightforward way to do that would be. Meeralee (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind—I think I've figured out how to answer my own question. Thanks! Meeralee (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meeralee! Welcome, even if you answered your own question! I do want to provide one tip. To make sure that permission really is granted (while I believe you work for Baumann, others might not - and anyone can say anything on the internet :)) to use that photograph under the Creative Commons Share Alike license, we need a letter saying so. So, if you can email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org this template (just fill in the appropriate information). Then, click edit on the photograph's Wikipedia page and paste this: {{subst:OP}}. That will let Wikipedians who monitor for illegal uploads know that your email is waiting review. Feel free to state her when you send that email in - also make sure you send it from your work email - and then we'll get it approved. Thank you!! SarahStierch (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks! The foundation (or one of its initiatives, anyway) has an official Flickr stream. Would it be equally effective to have the image uploaded to that stream and licensed with a Creative Commons Share Alike license? That's what I thought would be the simplest solution. Meeralee (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

tag

How do you remove the Help improve this page tag at the bottom of an article? (Libby995 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Libby, welcome back. There are several possibilities but probably it's some template suggesting that the article needs improving. Can you supply a link to an article where you are seeing this that we could look at. NtheP (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is Catherine of Aragon, it has been improved over the weeks and I thought the template should be removed if it can. thanks (Libby995 (talk))

That is not a template. It is Article Feedback tool. It is being gradually implemented on all Wikipedia pages. On the top of the talk page, you can see a link "View Reader Feedback". That will display the comments given by readers of the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Libby, if you don't want to see this message any more on any page then you can switch off the article feedback tool by going to the Appearance tab of My preferences and ticking the bottom box Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages. NtheP (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable References

Hey! Im planning on revising the page "Education in Haiti" and I've been working on collecting references/sources. I'm having trouble finding substantial articles in scholarly journals. So now I've just been doing a google search and I've been finding a lot of info. My question is how can I be sure that the articles that I am finding are reliable?

Kdumelle13 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

V byenvini, Kdumelle13! That's always a great question, and on controversial subjects folks can spend a lot of time debating which references take precedence over others. Generally speaking, the issue of "peer review" and accountability come into play: if the New York Times publishes inaccurate info on Haiti, their reputation takes a hit and they loose money, so that adds to their Reliability. "Caribbean Quarterly" or whatever academic journal has the articles reviewed by other PhDs, so we'd tend to trust those since they've been approved by the larger body of academics. If a book is published on Haiti, we want it to be from a) someone who's cited by others who write about Haiti b) a book carried by a publisher with a good reputation for being choosy about their books. That's the short-sweet of it; have you read WP:Reliable sources yet?

If you haven't already, also try searching just on GoogleBooks, which is often a great way to find Reliable material. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

how to add an image to an existing page?

honest, i have looked hard through a lot of the Help pages but can't find how to get started ... thought i would add some photos to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Parc_Ph%C5%93nix&action=history if possible. thanks, Bill (tennisjazz) 96.54.179.62 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bill, you must be a registered user to upload images. I take it you have photos that you personally took of the park? In that case, permissions are very easy. I'd suggest logging-in to Wikimedia Commons (since you can upload your pics for Public Domain everywhere), and just follow the instructions there, which are pretty straightforward for photos to which you own the rights. The main issue is just that you have to log-in first. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Approving of an article

Hello there, I'm having a little trouble getting an article approved, saying that I haven't referenced it properly or enough. At the moment as I am discussing a fairly new company, there is not much online content that i can use as reference, especially from external sources. If this is the case then I will revisit establishing the wiki page in a few months when the company has a stronger online platform. Not too sure what to do next..? Thank you! :) Stevedewildemac (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Stevedewildemac! Are you talking about Volkanik? If so, here are some recommendations:

• Is the article notable? If the article does not conform to Wikipedia's notability requirements, it may not be accepted. Since the company you are talking about is new, it may not be notable enough yet to have its own article.
• The article might need some extra stuff, such as an infobox, logo, charts, and other graphics to better demonstrate the topic.
• The article could be split up into several smaller sections instead of just one "History" section

If anyone else has anything else that might help, feel free to comment here.

You might want to wait for the company to grow/mature before the article is moved to the article namespace (moved to where readers can read it). Until then, you can continue to improve/expand the article.

Hope this helps.

–– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Received a very helpful answer from NtheP but don't know how to respond with a thank you other than by posting this as a question. As you can tell I'm completely new to this, but thanks very much anyway...CbertCbert (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Cbert, and thank you for thinking about thanking other users (tongue-twister!). After someone answers a question, I usually add this: Thank you. All you have to do is indent your reply with ::, add {{thank you}}, and add any additional questions and/or comments.

Also, if you really appreciated the reply, you might even want to give the user some wikilove (barnstars, food, and even kittens).

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask them here or on my talk page.

Hope this helps,

Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

http://reftag.appspot.com Works well after figuring out what needs to be there includg page no.

Just a note to thank Matthew for this pointer .... it captures all the stats if any , time saver....Research and clean up continues, more hopeful with this piece than ever ... thanksCHHistory (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, it's a widget which automatically turns GoogleBooks URLs into Wikipedia-ready footnotes. It's not perfect (yo have to manually enter the page numbers if using Snippet view), but it's pretty solid. Not an official Wiki project, but speaking personally I find it helpful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

unwanted text above infobox

I've placed a photo in an infobox on a Wikipedia page and this text appears above the photo [[File: |frameless|alt=]] I can't get rid of it. Thanks in advance Cbert (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cbert, welcome to the Teahouse. Was it the result of this edit you're referring to? If so it can be cured by re-adding the image but omit the [[File: ]] and just put the filename CAS B&W Headshot sans nom.jpg in against the |image= parameter and add the line |imagesize=200px into the infobox to keep the image to a reasonable size. NtheP (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK article's homepage crashed

Hi everyone. This morning, Ars Nova was featured on the main page as a DYK article. Subsequently, Ars Nova's homepage has crashed, and I'm wondering if there's a way to see if the crash was a result of increased traffic from Wikipedia. I've tried to log into the administrator account for the theater's site, and that's not working, either, so I can't check page statistics from there. IIRC, page views here are updated 24 hours behind--is there a way to check the amount of traffic to the Wikipedia article and/or clicks from the article to the homepage this morning? Thanks. RunnerOnIce (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the site's no longer crashed...would still like this info for future reference, though, if at all possible. :-) RunnerOnIce (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello RunnerOnIce! Not an official Wiki site, but http://stats.grok.se keeps track of wiki stats and may be worth a check. I'm not sure how many days behind they run. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MatthewVanitas. :-) The site seems to rely on the same info as the main site, unfortunately. :-( Ah well. RunnerOnIce (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Does no answer mean no can do?

Hi there. I thought I'd pop by and ask for a little bit of advice. I asked a question at the UK article [1] about a possible edit. As you can see I had a little laugh about it when I got no reply but got to thinking. Does no reply mean disagreement on Wikipedia or not? Thanks. Jonty Monty (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, welcome to the Teahouse. As a rule, no reply means - no reply; either no-one has read your message, no-one cares enough to argue or no-one has felt they had a suitable reply to offer yet. I'd recommend that you act boldly and make the proposed change yourself; you'll quickly find out if anyone disagrees if/when they revert you, and then you can have a discussion on the talk page about it. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Yunshuil. Jonty Monty (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with references

Hi, I seem to be making a habit of coming here with questions, so sorry to bother you again! In my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sagaciousphil/sandbox#Setter) I've been trying to sort out some bits & pieces to include. I don't know how to sort out the error I'm receiving. I think it may be to do with not having named refs properly as I've tried to take a shortcut and copied the references used in the List of Crufts Best in show winners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Best_in_Show_winners_of_Crufts) for the relevant bits? Sagaciousphil (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phil. Simple answer: you can't user the <ref name=> tag to specify page numbers. What the tag does is tell the software to look for instances of the listed name elsewhere in the ref tags, and then link to the citation in those tags; since you don't have a reference called (for example) "dogdigital80", the software can't find the citation to use. Three solutions are available: the easy way is to reformat the references (so that "dogdigital" cites pages 80-89 of the source, like this: <ref name="dogdigital">[[#dogdigital|''Dogworld: Digital Crufts Edition'' (2010)]]: p. 80-89</ref>). This means that the citations will all refer to multiple pages within the source. The second solution is to reference the article separately three times, once for page 80, once for page 84, and once for page 89 - laborious, but my personal preference. Finally, you could reformat all your references as shortened footnotes, allowing you to cite multiple pages within works listed in a bibliography (not recommended for your first outing!). I hope that helps explain things; feel free to ask for more clarification here or at my talkpage. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll give it a try! Sagaciousphil (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What some folks do is use "refname" for all cites from the same book, but after the "/ref" tag they apply {{rp|35}} (if the cite is for page 35 for example), which appears like this: . Just one more way to approach it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help, it's very much appreciated - I think I've got it sorted now and have updated the Setter article. :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of my first article

How long does it generally take before articles gets reviewed? I've submitted my first article and it has been declined several times in the summer. Now I've made a bigger effort though, so I am excited to see if it goes through! Tine Reingaard (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

_{Tine's article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Søren Solkær Starbird}

Hej Tine, I took a quick glance, and though I think it looks good I'm not spun up on photography issues, and can't read Danish. I suggest you also post this same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Denmark, and ask them to come here to the Teahouse to help advise us here on the Danish sourcing. Just make sure you use a clear title on that page so they know what you're asking (generic titles easily get passed over). MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MatthewVanitas, I'll try and get some danish eyes on it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tine Reingaard (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup template

Hi, a few days agao I started having problems with the cleanup-linkrot template. When I use it, the system says:

Please sign in (top right) and click "Save page" below when done.
If you get a blank screen or an edit box you did something wrong.
Vote for Bug 32013 so Wikimedia fixes this.

If you take a look at the this edit y'll see what happens now. Anyone who has an idea on what to do? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

moved this heather walls (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Clickable button

How did the Teahouse make their clickable buttons clickable anywhere on the button? The {{Template:Clickable button}} template is only clickable on the link. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole button is inside the link. It uses code in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form2 and MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.css. Below is a simplified version not needing the gadget css to avoid the external link icon. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

<span style="cursor:pointer;" class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions|action=edit&section=new}} {{Clickable button|Ask a question}}]</span>

Ask a question

Thank you as always, PrimeHunter! –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you happen to know what that button style is, or is a part of, and if it's something that should be used? That set is probably the most aesthetically pleasing I have seen on the project, but the only places I've really seen it used are here (well, the template, rather) and special:newpagesfeed. -— Isarra ༆ 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The button is a template called Template:Clickable button, and it's very easy to use. Since it's a template and it's used here, I'm pretty sure it's fine to use. The thing I was asking about, however, was how to make the button link by clickable in the entire button, because the default template does not allow that. If you have any more questions about the button, please feel free to ask here. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually created the clickable button template based on what was started here. I used to use it on my user talk page to link to a random page in the category of unsourced BLP's. PrimeHunter, would it be possible to use a named parameter of sorts to make the entire button clickable? I'd think it would be some combination of the if function and a named parameter to the page you want it to link to. Ryan Vesey 22:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I modified the code for the clickable button, but it broke the Teahouse links. The sandbox version at User:Ryan Vesey/Template sandbox works fine. Does anyone know what's wrong? Ryan Vesey 22:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to test the sandbox version, you need to provide two parameters. full=yes and link=(page) I thought that modifying the template wouldn't affect anything else because I created it to only change if full=anything was provided. Ryan Vesey 22:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... please keep us posted on any further news about the button, Ryan Vesey. I might be able to help/test if needed. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't examined your code but it's certainly possible if the template doesn't get a piped link as one parameter. I posted to Template talk:Clickable button earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The template appears to be using javascript to actually become a button (and thus apply the styles) - any idea how that works or why it would also be ignoring red, orange, green and blue button styles? And is this completely the wrong place to be asking that? This is, isn't it? -— Isarra ༆ 17:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

About the donation I made earlier today.

Hi. I recently tried to donate 5 dollar to wikipedia. During the process, it said that wikipedia cannot accept my credit card as donation. So I was like 'maybe next time'. But when I checked my transaction record, it said that I donated to Wikipedia when 5 dollar was deducted. I was wondering if you guys got the donation. Thanks66.183.202.203 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there! This is a good question, and sadly we're not able to answer it here, since we're volunteers and no money related to donations passes through our hands. However, I did find that Wikimedia has an email set up for questions like yours so you can email : problemsdonating@wikimedia.org - for help. Sorry we can't help here, and thank you for your donation - donations like yours (and ours!) help keep Wikipedia free! SarahStierch (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What to do about a wikipedian who asserts ownership of an article?

Hi,

I'm new-ish.

I'm having a problem with a wikipedian who asserts ownership over Chiropractic.

He/she says I may not edit the article without first getting permission from him/her on the talk page, and reverts my edits if I try.

When I discuss on the talk page, his/her response to every suggestion is to say that it breaches wikipedia policy in one way or another. His/her preferred version is referred to as 'the NPOV version', he/she sees my edits as 'POV' and refuses any change to the article.

I'm feeling really low and frustrated. help?

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mknjbhvgcf! Hmmmm... this is a sticky one, so hopefully you'll get a few interlocking pieces of advice on this one. I will emphasise that you are doing yourself and the article a real favour by laying out clear arguments on the Talk page. No matter how right you are, edit warring, accusations, and pontificating just weaken even the strongest case, so kudos for taking the high ground.

The formal guidelines are found at WP:Dispute resolution, and there are a number of ways to address this. This is made stickier by the fact that User: Puhlaa seems to use Wikipedia mainly to discuss chiropractic issues. That's not disallowed or anything, but it does mean the fellow has some focus, for better or for worse. If at some point you have reason to bring concerns of a pattern of pressing a given POV by that editor, ensure you only discuss the edits, not attempt to define the person. So not "EditorX is clearly a member of the Acme Church and pushing their ideology", but "EditorX has a consistent pattern of taking Ownership of Acme Church articles and eliminating non-Acme perspectives."

Aside from general Dispute Resolution methods, it can also be helpful to get some more specialised opinions. I would suggest considering leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine asking for input. Important: per the rules of WP:Canvassing, you cannot selectively solicit support just from those you expect will take your side, and also posts informing editors of a debate needing further input should be phrased totally neutrally. So not "Come stop EditorX from saying King Foo was illiterate!!!" but instead "Dispute at Talk:King Foo regarding his literacy". These are just some initial descriptions, more about how to approach this than specific methods, but hopefully some other folks can bring in their perspectives. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

An additional set of eyes on a discussion is always of benefit to wikipedia articles, both to ensure policy is followed and to keep other editors in check (things get carried away quickly sometimes). That said, I don’t agree that this is a ‘sticky one’ at all, but rather just the common circumstances surrounding a new editor who is still learning how to collaborate. Please consider that the editor Mknjbhvgcf's who is concerned with my 'ownership' initiated discussion at the chiropractic article (here [2] with the claim that "The most important thing for a reader to know about the field is that it's quackery", which seems to suggest a POV purpose. This was followed by massive removal of sourced text and replacement with original research [3]. Mknjbhvgcf' has been warned already on his talk page, by another editor, about edit-warring warring [4] and is now encouraged to join civil discussions at the chiropractic talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Creating a hyperlink

Someone was already helping me but I can't find it. I believe I have added the information requested to my sandbox page. This is a class project and Prof.Moliterno's Fall 2012 Social Entrepeneurship class needs a hyperlink Sandrasmission (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sandra, welcome back! To make an external link, just use single brackets like this: [http://www.google.com Link to Google]. As you can see, you open with a single bracket, type in the URL, type in the text of the link with a space between the URL and the text, and close with another bracket. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

shoeing location city in map

i want to show my city's location in its wiki page.how do i do that? i checked editing page but i didn't figure out anything.kindly help.thanks in advance.shreyans 11:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drshreyans1986n (talk • contribs)

Hey, Drshreyans1986n! Welcome! There's two options here. The first is that you can create a map by yourself from scratch, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Location maps describes the standard conventions for making maps of the type you are describing, so if you have the skills and know-how, you can create one for yourself and upload it. If you are like me, and have zero skills in this area, then you can request that someone else make a map for you by filing a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop which is where Wikipedia's map-makers will respond to requests to make maps. Does this help answer your question? --Jayron32 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Drshreyans1986n, depending on where your city is, there might be an automatic map setting for your area, in which case all you would need to do is add the coordinates of the city to an WP:Infobox, and it would automatically make a map for you. As a random example, check out the article Pauri: there is an infobox on the right margin, where its map was automatically made just by entering the coding of the latitude and longitude (see WP:Coordinates for how to find these) into the infobox.

Can you tell us exactly what article it is you want to add a map to? Some countries have automatic maps, others don't. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about Jaysingpur? It already has an automated map in its infobox. Are you talking about a different city, or am I misunderstanding your question? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia Accept an Article that have been declined for 2 times if properly edited?

Hello teatHouse help me and review this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Varpal i have edited that article..what is the problemOkeke Jude (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Okeke Jude, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The criteria for notability in wikipedia is not dependent on the number of attempts it takes to get the article written, so there is still a chance it can be accepted. However, failing twice suggests that you may need to change tactics. I suggest two tactics that are likely to help. Firstly, I notice that English may not be your first language; you may start by writing an article in your first language. Secondly, currently you have three proper sources, [5] [6] and [7], the problem with these is that they aren't independent, although the Guardian one comes close (it fails because it's based on an interview). Look for more references, ideally written by professional journalists based on multiple non-interview sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Okeke! Yes... however please note that if someone repeatedly submits an article without making the required improvements, admins may delete the proposed article for not putting in good faith efforts to improve, and taking up the time of our volunteer reviewers. So first off I would encourage you not to re-submit the article until you are quite sure that you have met the concerns of the previous declining reviewers. I took a look at your page, and there are still some significant concerns:

• The article has major issues with copyediting, grammar, spelling, capitalisation etc. You either need to run it through a basic spelling/grammar check like found on most word-processing programs (and probably available on some free websites), and/or have it carefully reviewed by a friend who's a good proofreader.
• The article still has somewhat of a promotional tone
• The article makes a large number of claims for the business dealings of Varpal, but does not provide any sources. If you can't source it to a neutral, third-party, published source such claims can't be included.
• I would strongly advise you read Wikipedia:Notability (web), which lays out the standards for an article about a website to be published. The article will be judged by those standards, so you must know them.
• Of your sources, I'm not sure how "Worthofweb" and Alexa are used for citations, so those may be okay to get statistics, but not necessarily to prove Notability. The Guardian of Nigeria is a great source, so keep that and find more like it. The last two cites don't appear to meet WP:Reliable sources, as they're a forum and a news aggregator/blog, so I don't think those are citeable. And again you have a lot of uncited claims (like 50% of the students at a given university using the site) that absolutely need to be cited or removed.

At this point I wouldn't at all say that the article is a lost cause, but you need to do a proper cleanup, remove anything you can't source to a WP:Reliable source (another good guideline to read), and add a few more good sources from reputable newspapers like The Guardian. Please do not resubmit the article until someone experienced, like the editors here, has looked at the article and told you it's good, as resubmitting will just be a misuse of your time and the reviewer's if it's not really ready. But with some effort, this looks like a viable article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Inside an edit

how can you easiely see what is inside an edit, like when you have a reply on this help page, how can i see if it was for me or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case editors will leave you a talkback tag on your talk page if it is for you. Normally anything directed to you will be left on your talkpage.--Charles (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

what do i do if someone if saying i should edit the simple wiki but i want to edit the this wiki?

what do i do if someone if saying i should edit the simple wiki but i want to edit the this wiki?

they changed a few of my edits and they didnt explain why

the person says "I'm not "stalking you", I'm using a tool called Huggle which help me to revert vandalism. Your edits appear there, that's it. Tbhotch.™ "

i dont think that person should be changing my edits, but that person doesnt seem to be changing my recent edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Coginsys, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like other editors think that your edits aren't constructive because they are over simplifying various articles. Sometimes definitions especially of mathematical or computing terms can appear to be complex but the changes you made are, in the opinion of others, making them too simple and not as accurate as they need to be.

Tbhotch happens to have spotted a number of your edits while using Huggle which looks at recent edits that might be vandalism, that is not stalking you. His comment that you maybe you ought to be editing the Simple English Wikipedia may be slightly less civil that perhaps it should have been but I suspect was expressing a frustration at your apparent ignoring of the warnings posted on your talk page. You believe that your edits are making articles clearer and easier to understand, others disagree. I would suggest that before you make any more edits of this type you discuss them on the relevant article talk page first and accept the outcome of the discussion. NtheP (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

it's one person or very few, and they arent doing anything to make them better. what should i do? this person is not discussing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Without speaking for any other user, it could be that they think the wording as it stands before your edits doesn't need improving. I notice that many of your edit summaries are along the lines of "made clearer" and when they are reverted the people making the reverts are basically saying that your edits do not make things clearer. As I said before, I really think you should discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page first rather than get into a cycle of edit, revert, edit etc - a cycle which could find you falling foul of the three revert rule.

As to them not responding to your messages left on talk pages, I'm not totally surprised they are not responding because you are making allegations of stalking without considering that their actions are made in good faith. If all, or at least a majority, of your edits are being reverted because other editors don't think them appropriate, isn't it time you stopped and discussed your edits before making them? Just try one of your edits, for example, Subroutine and explain at Talk:Subroutine why you think the current wording isn't clear and what you suggest it should be changed to. See what other editors think and then see if a consensus can be reached before making an edit to the article itself. NtheP (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

what cycle? i didnt change anything, they were just changing all my edits

also they didnt respond from the beginning

your msg is not helping

also the editor is broken you need mutiple spaces just to get a space, this is annoying

ok i posted to the talk page................

I didn't say you had got into a revert cyclce but to try and avoid getting into one. You can't force other editors to respond but thank you for starting a dialogue. Adding the {{technical}} tag to articles is not a bad thing to do but you should add on the talk page why you think the articles are too technical and what you think they should be changed to. Your comment at Talk:Subroutine doesn't do this and therefore doesn't really help as you haven't said why the article is unclear. Unless you are going to explain your reasoning it's unlikely that you are going to get much response. And finally please remember to sign your posts here and on talk pages with ~~~~ so we know who has made a comment. NtheP (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

if no1 repsonds that means no1 has a problem and i can make the articles clearer so that's good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 11:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In theory yes but

1. ) It's good manners to tell people you think might be interested by leaving a note either on their own talk page or at a relevant project talk page that you have started a discussion and where the discussion can be found. For example Subroutine is tagged as being within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science so you might want to post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science that you have started a discussion at Talk:Subroutine about the way the opening paragraph is written.
2. ) You need to wait several days for people to respond before acting.

its ok tho since if someone makes an article unclear i can just edit it back and then they can put why put their change on that talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 11:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but again if what you are changing has been the established version of the article for some time, then don't just change it saying it's unclear. That it has been a stable version for some time is an indicator that the text is accepted as being adequate for most needs.

Just to sum up - if anything you do is likely to be contentious be it making an edit or reverting someone else's edit then discuss it first. NtheP (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you cite something like this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5

under the above search, pages came out with the subject mentioned. This is a history collection of Guangdong Province with many volumes.

粤军史实纪要 - Page 205 books.google.com/books?id=RARyAAAAIAAJ

广东省政协. 文史资料硏究委员会 - 1990 - Snippet view - More editions 又着原驻淡水之熊略军、陈修爵师、练演雄师、罗献祥旅及翁辉腾所部作好应战准备, - Volume 54 - Page 107

books.google.com/books?id=KFRKAQAAIAAJ

孙道昌, 中央档案馆, 广东省档案馆 - Snippet view - More editions 何彤与罗献祥(一区清则司令)半年来到处奔波督 ...

文史資料選輯 - Issues 53-56 - Page 211 etc. Please advice. Thankx CHHistory (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi CHHistory, thanks for coming to The Teahouse. There's a great template for books that you can use under the "cite" tab in the editing window. Under the "Templates" menu, you can select "cite book" to get an interface to put all the information in. As for your citations, here they are:

<ref>{{cite book|title=粤军史实纪要|year=1990|publisher=广东人民出版社|isbn=9787218003245|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RARyAAAAIAAJ&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&dq=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&source=bl&ots=xnxG8QWB0L&sig=c-7VgVYBbOJ5BNsSy5VMx8mGc70&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YexxUPLtOoryyAH02YHoBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA|editor=广东省政协. 文史资料硏究委员会|accessdate=7 October 2012|page=205}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite book|title=广东革命历史文件彙集|publisher=中央党案馆|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KFRKAQAAIAAJ&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&dq=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&source=bl&ots=55V2qHM05-&sig=U9k0jcC7UyprkEfkl2Dugc8i2oE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YexxUPLtOoryyAH02YHoBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ|author=孙道昌|coauthors=中央档案馆, 广东省档案馆|page=211}}</ref>

So, just put the above citations where they are appropriate. What article are you planning on using them in? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro: Thanks for the example. Will insert and see what happens. I am working on WWII Chinese Generals, the article hopefully is first of a series.

Where do you find the ISBN no? When no isbn or author is found, do I just delete the extra brackets? Having the publisher is good enough for book citations? Thanks.CHHistory (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! As for your second question, it is mildly troublesome for an ISBN and author to be unavailable, but if you can point to a URL, that is usually sufficient. And yes, you can just delete those parameters (author= and isbn=) from the above syntax. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For the ISBN and author, usually (at least in the English GoogleBooks) once you click on a book to see its Full/Preview/Snippet, on Full and Preview there's a hyperlink in the left margin (may need to scroll to see) saying "About book", and that will have all the statistics. If you're on "Snippet View", that info will be at the bottom of the page below the Snippet in question. Does that help find it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew: Yes, more info at the bottom of the page. isbn not on all though. 98.109.196.230 (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, your suggeston works with book citations. Thanks. Will look for the stats next ...Thank You all, CHHistory (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If a page has been created with a wrongly spelled title, can the title be corrected ?

Yorkshiresoul (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yorkshiresoul. Yes, a page is renamed by moving it to a new title (never by copying and pasting to a new title). This preserves the page history which is needed for copyright and other purposes. When you do so, a redirect will be created from the old title to the new so any links to the old title will not break and anyone making the same spelling error when searching for it will still reach the correctly-titled page. Note that you will not be able to move a page if the correct title already exists as a redirect and has more than one edit to it, or only has one but is not a redirect pointing to the current title. In that case, you can ask an administrator to make the move for you by listing it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves or using the template {{Db-move}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary

How much detail is required in an edit summary? FOX 52 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, FOX 52. That is actually a really great question. In a practical sense, it depends on the nature of the edit. If you are doing a small change that will not be controversial, a simple, but informative, edit summary will suffice. For example, if you are changing one word to another word you think fits better in the context (but does not change the meaning), you may just want to have the edit summary "Changed X to Y". But in more complicated edits, especially edits that you think may be controversial, it will reduce a lot of the tension if you provided an edit summary that explained your reasoning behind the change and ended with something like "see source" (because any controversial change should be backed up by a source that you have added as part of the edit). Ideally, controversial edits would have been discussed on the article's talk page beforehand, and your edit summary could then say "See consensus on talk page" (which is a really common edit summary).

There are special cases where edit summaries do not need to be detailed at all. If you are undoing an edit by another user that you have determined to be vandalism, your edit summary can read "rv vandalism" ("rv" is a common abbreviation of "revert"; "rm" is a common abbreviation of "remove"). If you look through an article's history, you will see many examples of good and bad (and non-existent) edit summaries. But I think you will be able to tell which is which if you ask yourself, "Do I know what's going on here and why?" If you are looking for further information, you can check out Help:Edit summary or ask additional questions by replying to this thread. hajatvrc @ 04:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I will read the Help:Edit summary section, thank you very much for your help FOX 52 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Creative Commons license compatibility

I would like to know where I can find a chart that indicates whether material from another web site that is licensed under a different Creative Commons license can be used on Wikipedia. In other words, if someone finds another website whose content is licensed under CC-BY, can they use it on Wikipedia? Or what if it's licensed under CC-BY-NC? (I believe the answers are Yes and No, respectively, but there ought to be, and probably is, somewhere on Wikipedia where one can look this up easily.) Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the Teahouse! The simple answer to your question is that pretty much any license can be used as a source, as long as it's an acceptable source. However, copy-pasting other content, no matter what license it is released under, is a debatable topic here, depending on the editors who see it first. I would suggest you write your own material, using quotes from the sources and referencing if neccesary. If you have more questions, feel free to ask me! gwickwire | Leave a message 01:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but is there anywhere that that is documented? I would think that a Creative Commons license prohibiting commercial use like CC-BY-NC would be problematic for use here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, you are correct, and I finally found a decent place to start: Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#The short version. Thanks for being so fastidious! heather walls (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Heather, that is the kind of chart I was looking for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that as long as the information isn't copy pasted here, it can be used as a source. Even ones with CCBYNC or other licenses. When you think about it, most of our sources here are from copyrighted academic sources. Thanks for looking out for yourself though! gwickwire | Leave a message 18:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't get a reference to work properly...

Hey hosts, I need a hand trying to get a weird reference to display properly using the ref tags on the page for Edundja. The source is from The Namibian and the URL includes [brackets like these] which really messes up the syntax so that the reference won't actually display properly (and so no one can reach it just by reading the article). I've tried a variety of methods to use <nowiki> tags in different parts of the ref and {{cite news}} templates, but with no success yet. Any help would be most appreciated. The source is [tt_news=51226&no_cache=1 here], but since it won't display, the raw URL is http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=51226&no_cache=1. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Try http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=51226&no_cache=1 It replaces [ with %5b and ] with %5d. See {{Cite news#URL}} for full details. NtheP (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good call. Thank you! I forgot about those. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

TeaHouse talkback user talkback tracking not functioning

All of a sudden, user talkback for me seems to have lost its tracking. For instance, when I go to Mytalk, it showed a list of my questions and answers from senior editors. Last recorded user talkback of a couple of weeks ago. How to reactivate? Thanks CHHistory 17:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talk • contribs)

Don't worry, there's nothing deactivated. It's just some of us not putting a talkback template on your talk page every time we reply to a question. (I have placed one for this reply) NtheP (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I thought I unwittingly had decoded stuff :-) CHHistory (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks Seems like I now also know how to put Thanks in a box, unwittingly, of course.

Question

Do you enjoy editing Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashbeckjonathan (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashbeckjonathan, interesting question. Authors on wikipedia are almost entirely volunteers so if they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. NtheP (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan-- I also think this is an excellent question. Sometimes editing on Wikipedia can be tense, and there are times when it can be hard for editors to keep cool when the editing gets hot, because many editors have strong opinions about article content or policy. But we are all contributing to a project to make knowledge more accessible to people around the world, or in the case of The Teahouse, to help others make effective contribution, and I think that is what drives many of us and at least makes my work very enjoyable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My article is in pending for review

how much time it takes for review of an article ?? 2ndly how can make this review process fast?? ... thnkyew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farwah khan (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Farwah, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there are over 1200 articles awaiting review at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation and all reviewers are volunteers, like the hosts here. You'll just have to be patient but somebody will get round to it. NtheP (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Farwah, welcome to The Teahouse. Articles for Creation is very backlogged right now, and there are only so many people who are helping out with reviewing right now as well. However, many of us here at The Teahouse regularly review articles, so we can certainly help you if you need it. It looks like your article, Nadia Khan Show, was declined about two hours ago. The reason is because the article has a promotional tone, as it includes phrases like "the show is divided into entertaining and informative segments" and that it was "a huge success." It also contains statements that sound like original research, like "People look at stars for inspiration & follow the trends they set". You'll want to address these in your next revision of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page-centric editors

G'day everyone, I've not been here before, I've been aware that the Teahouse exists but have been merrily editing my little heart out elsewhere until I recently ran into a brick wall. I've been on WP since November last year. Recently I've struck an editor that seems to be keen on identifying what they consider to be deficiencies in an article I recently co-promoted to FA. I feel a level of stewardship towards the article partly because I helped get it there, but also because it is in a space where particular points of view are pretty vociferous. In any case, I hope I am not at the stage of WP:OWN. This particular editor has been on WP a lot longer than me, and they make a lot of criticisms on the talk page, but then essentially refuse to edit in the article space at all. I'm finding this very disruptive, and it is really impacting on my enjoyment of WP. Do you have any suggestions as to how I might deal with this situation? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are the criticisms helpful, i.e. is the other user pointing out valid flaws? If so, then perhaps take is as a friendly (but annoying) bit of criticism and use them as a tool to improve your article. :) If the other user is not pointing out valid flaws, then try just ignoring him. Eventually the other user will likely get bored and go away. Sometimes people have difficulty communicating online, since other online people can't see body language -- sometimes a terse message is all that a given user has time to post. There's no rule against someone pointing out a problem (or problems) then not joining in to fix those problems, Wikipedia takes help where it can get it and if a person only points out problems without fixing them, well, hopefully they're contributing in their own way to making articles better, since there's always room for improvement. I hope this helps. :) Please let me know on my user talk page if you'd like more help from me. Banaticus (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New Article - Chip Chick

Hi there, I'm struggling a bit with this one - would you be able to give me some advice and guidance on how best to improve this entry so it is strong enough to consider for publication? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2003/Chip_Chick G2003 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there. As far as your article goes, I think it's a bit short right now. If you could get more information on it for the article, it would probably help. Thanks for asking! Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I agree with Discuss-Dubious! It is rather short, but, that doesn't mean it can't be in Wikipedia! A few tips:

• I'd advise against citing the actual Chip Chick website, like you do in the first paragraph. I think it's okay, as long as there are reliable sources, to mention the founders, and if anyone notable (who, for example, has their own Wikipedia article) writes for it. But, it's not really encyclopedic information, in my opinion. I'd just remove anything that can't be cited using reliable sources. (Or someone else might do it!)
• Please make the two bottom external links into citations, like you did the other two listed in the reference section.
• Any claims stating that the blog is one of the first needs to be backed up with a reliable source, a few, if possible. Uncited claims will be removed.
• I'd also italicize Chip Chick, throughout the article, since it the title of a blog. You can do that by highlighting the name and clicking the I button.
• Remember, the more reliable sources (media, news, not blogs unless it's the New York Times or something) you have the less problems you will have :)

Great start, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! I hope you'll continue to contribute! SarahStierch (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice All - really helpful. I'll keep working on it!G2003 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)