Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243

Spam removal

In 2013 in hip hop music there are many refs to itunes such as this which I regard as a blatant use of spam because clicking on the ref simply results in an invitation to buy a product. Therefore I intend to remove all such refs from this article and all also from all other similar articles. Do you think I am right to do this. Can there be any objections? Jodosma (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jodosma-- thanks for your question about removing external links. Per Links normally to be avoided #5, I think you made the right call. Thanks for your work, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jodosma. I agree that these links are inappropriate per our guideline on spam. Let's hope no one objects to removing them. If so, discuss it on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Lets see if we can make a point. There's far too much spam around. Jodosma (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is being used as a citation to verify the record label the album was released on, it is not an extra external link. Not to mention you cannot buy anything from the source, because it is just an online reference to what is on iTunes. It does not even directly provide any links anywhere to buy it, just links to download iTunes onto your computer if you do not already have it. STATic message me! 21:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody edit the edit I just wrote for "Catherine Beecher"? I couldn't handle links and bibliography.

I added a school note to the article, but couldn't see how to add a link and two books to the bibliography. See Catherine Beecher - "Schools" thanks Carolyn King StephensCarolynkingstephens (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your information and added a a few books for "Further reading" at the bottom and an external link to the university website. If you have the books, and can cite specific details and pages that would support information in the article, I encourage you to do so. Please reference this citation guide for help, and you are welcome to ask any question here if you need. Thanks for your contributions! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carolyn and welcome to The Teahouse. I added links to the terms you wanted linked. They are links to articles in Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gratia discovers penicillin

Should Dr.André Gratia have shared the Nobel price for the discovery of penicillin in 1945? Celine SzogesSchwartz (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, but this isn't the place to post the full text of a draft article. I assume that this is similar to what you've posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/andre gratia discovers penicillin, where it has been reviewed, and where a number of relevant links have been provided. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages

Where can I find a place that mentions the best userpages in Wikipedia. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you define "the best userpages"? Eric Corbett 18:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nicest with a good design. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miss Bono. Are you looking to redesign your user page? Your user page seems pretty fancy and decorated right now-- is it really necessary to add additional things to it? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jeth, no I am not looking for adding things, but remove unnecessary things. I am looking for a desing that helps me organize my current page. More elegant. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

once upon a time there was a User:Phaedriel, who designed user pages for people, but she faded away in the wp:esperanza controversy. good formatting there, and some things at Wikipedia:Department_of_Fun#Templates_for_user_pages. 69.254.79.233 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

Hi all sorry to trouble you but i am wondering where i am going wrong, i am trying to link Leonard Spence from the Bermuda at the 1936 Summer Olympics with the Hubert Leonard Spence biography, i guess i am looking to hard, thank you in advance.Iantheimp 15:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantheimp (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've done that for you; all you needed to do was to change [[Leonard Spence (swimmer)|Leonard Spence]] to [[Leonard Spence]], as that is the name of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like to help me with cleanup/expansion of this article, or...

ANOMALIA 18 This article concerns a Greek punk band. However, I can't find very much information on it to expand what is currently an awfully jejune article. Would anyone perhaps like to help, or is this band not notable enough for inclusion in en:WP? hollyperidol 07:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hollyperidol, thanks for your invitation. I did look into whether there were reliable sources that describe the band or its reputation in detail, but I haven't had any success. The band also does not appear to fulfill the notability guidelines for bands, which it seems you were partly expecting. Given that, would it be OK if I nominated this article for deletion? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage edits by other users question

This user page seems to be a frequent target for edits by both logged in and anonymous users. These edits seem to be simply vandalism. This appears to be counter to WP:NOBAN, but I wasn't sure if (1) these edits should be undone and (2) if this warranted the attention of admins. Any guidance would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EvergreenFir. Nice observations there. Yes, I'd agree you made the right call by reverting those changes. You've also appropriately warned the editors. At this point, I'd say that while this is unusual behavior, and there is a remote possibility that Yoyoboo and Getitright-rightnow are socks, I don't think there's a strong need for administrative action just now, though this may change if continued behavior persists. I'll also keep an eye on the userpage in question. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much! I've got it watchlisted, so I'll keep an eye on it too. I appreciate the advice! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a Policy

If you have a suggestion to add to a Wikipedia Policy such as WP:Title, how can you propose the suggestion? Can you just start a new section on the talk page on the policy? Or are there any other steps that we have to take Kkj11210 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kkj11210. You can indeed just go right ahead and start a new section on the talk page. However, note that there is a central page dedicated to discussion of policies/guidelines and related matters called Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Whether to bring up matters at the talk page or at the village pump is mostly dependent on how active a particular policy's talk page is. In this case, Wikipedia talk:Article titles is quite an active talk page, so, if that was not just an example, I would post there directly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any Wikipedia guidelines regarding what qualifies a |native_name?

I'm a little confused by the use of native_name in a template. Logic would dictate that it is the name in the language of the region/nation-state. I removed the Russian name for Belarus from the country infobox as, further down, it is made clear that both Belarus and Russian are the official languages. This was reverted (in a somewhat curt manner).

Is there any information to assist me in determining if there is a substantive difference between 'native' and 'official'? It strikes me that variants wouldn't exist if they were one and the same. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no-one has even approached answering my query, could someone please at least point me in the right direction as to who I could refer it to? Any assistance would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iryna. Please try to be patient with responses here-- we try to get to questions as a fast as possible, but hosts are not knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia. Naming conventions for geographic names is the place you're looking for. There is a convention for cities in Belarus here, but more relevant to your case, Alternative names for places would be something to refer to. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerest apologies for my impatience, I JethroBT. It was not good form on my behalf. Many thanks for your links! They're precisely what I was looking for and have been duly bookmarked for future reference. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iryna Harpy and welcome back to the Teahouse. An infobox is a template of a specific kind, and all templates have documentation. Using the Wikipedia search box, I found Template:Infobox country/doc. According to that page, the purpose of this field is "Country's name (usually full name) in its native language, hence in italics (double quotemarks)". The issue here is that Belarus has two official languages. So let's take a look at the infobox for another country with several languages, but one in a less contentious region of the world. Belgium was the country that came to mind. The infobox shows the official name in English, "Kingdom of Belgium", plus that name in the three official languages of that country, Dutch, French and German. Another example is Singapore, where the official name, "Republic of Singapore" is also given in their three official languages, Malay, Chinese and Tamil. Accordingly, the editor who reverted you was correct, though the insult was not necessary. The official name of Belarus should be given in both official languages, Russian and Belarusian, in that infobox. One improvement would be to label the languages in English, as has been done in the other examples I mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike! Thanks for your time and effort, yet again. After the reversion, I checked Singapore, Switzerland and other countries, noting the same thing. I still deem it to be a point of interest. On the Belarus version of the page, they only use the native language (Belarus) in that particular name space, while acknowledging Russian is also an official language. While I understand that, where there are no particular conflicts of political interest, certain conventions are deemed applicable, in the case of Belarus (which has only been a sovereign nation-state for just over 20 years), the concept of 'native language' is a problematic one. My edit, while inappropriate, truly was made in good faith. I think your suggestion of labelling the languages in English is an excellent one. It's always useful to get an outside opinion as that was something I'd overlooked which actually is of importance to an English reader. I'd subconsciously forgotten that not everyone can read Russian and Belarus! I think this is the bit where I say, "Duh, wa?" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that each language version of Wikipedia has its own autonomous governance and so it is not surprising to run across such variations between languages. As for countries, Belarus indisputably has two official languages, as does Canada. Belgium and Singapore have three. Switzerland has four. And so on. So we render the official name in all official languages in the infobox. The Canadians are lucky as it is the same in English and French. I think that the redundant "official" name and "official" language led someone to choose "native" for a field name, which is a trifle problematic. But that's just a mnemonic, invisible to the average reader. Documentation and established usage set the precedents. Oh, by the way, my first name is "Jim". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jim. Sheesh, I knew that!!! I have no idea of where 'Mike' came from! Could this be the advent of dementia? I think I've improved but am still occasionally struggling with the learning curve for Wikipedia (although, being a masochist, I'm thoroughly enjoying it). Old dogs and new tricks, don'cha know. Having spent my working life as a researcher by trade - and pedant by hobby - it's a considerable qualitative change to curtail my predisposition for original research. Hopefully, at some point in the distant future, I might actually become a useful Wikipedian so long as I keep getting pulled up on my mistakes! I've obviously read the 'native' far more literally than it was intended to be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just don't call me "late for dinner". You already are a useful Wikipedian, because trying to answer your excellent questions in a halfway decent way stretches my own knowledge, and for several other reasons as well. I now know that Tamil is an official language in Singapore, and more surprising to me, that German is official in Belgium. I always knew of the Flemish/Walloon split there, but was unaware of a significant German speaking population. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really is an invaluable resource. I'm learning so much about areas I've never explored and testing my own abilities constantly... and it's all freely available to anyone with an internet connection. This was the stuff of science fiction when we were growing up. Can you imagine what it would have been like to have it at your fingertips from childhood? Yay, Wikipedia! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my respon 125.162.230.162 (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to copyright violations

What with WP:ELNEVER, I was wondering if it's allowed to use websites that embed Google Maps images (copyrighted) as references. Note that I'm not talking about the maps themselves, but non-copyright violating material on the same site. If not, then is there any way to incorporate the information without making it seem unreferenced? Thanks, ^King Jakob _C2 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, King Jakob c 2, if the website is not a mapping site, and just displays a few maps in addition to a lot of other content, then that is likely fair use and not a violation. This is especially true if they credit Google. It is analogous to quoting and referencing a couple of sentences from a copyrighted book in a Wikipedia article. In that case, you could add an external link to such a site. But if the website is a known copyright violator, do not link there. If in doubt, ask for specific advice from an editor experienced with copyright issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how to correct username

I wanted my username to be "clbwi" and it came up as "Clbwi". How do I correct that? Clbwi (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a limitation of the Wikipedia software - user names must start with an upper case letter. You can however add code to your user page so that it displays as lower case and change your preferences to display a lower case signature (as I have done).--ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also change the letter to a lowercase letter in your signature via Special:Preferences. ^King Jakob _C2 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, you can add {{lowercase title}} to User:Clbwi and User talk:Clbwi, and write clbwi in the "Signature" box at Special:Preferences (leave "Treat the above as wiki markup" unchecked unless you know how to format signatures with markup). But there are many automatically generated pages where the first letter cannot be lowercase. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a question on this. How do you do the 'signature' thing, like the different font and all, for your username? Krburke12 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CUSTOMSIG, but be careful that your attempts to do so don't break the signature. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of old sandboxes.

How do I go about getting rid of old no-longer-needed sandboxes. I have at least 20. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buuster7, you might want to read this Wikipedia:CSD#G7._Author_requests_deletion. You just have to paste on of the templates into the top of your page. Hope this helps! :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see you have decided to stay. Good for you and WP. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome Buuster7. Yes, I decided to stay, thenks for the kind words :D Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buster7 and Miss Bono, CSD:A7 is intended to be used on article pages only. If these drafts are inside your userspace, CSD:U1 would be the appropriate tag for them. Make sure that before you tag them you are actually tagging the draft and not the target of a redirect by accident! Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They were talking about G7, not A7; U1 is just a subset of G7. Using the U1 thing might make response time a little faster, but it's perfectly acceptable to use G7 to request deletion of one's own old sandboxes. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 17:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to all. G7 is what I'll use. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good idea Buster. I need to do some house cleaning of subpages as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, Mark . I have 137 subpages. O.o Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Can I find who edited a specific definition? 24.18.95.125 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

24.18.95.125 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 24.18.95.125, and welcome to the Teahouse. To see who has edited the article, click 'View History' next to the Wikipedia search bar in the top right of the screen. Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are a lot of edits in that history, you can also use the WikiBlame tool to search the edit history for the addition (or removal) of specified text. Manually, you can go back about halfway, check if the text is still present or somewhere further back and then repeat, narrowing the history by one-half each iteration. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

marking location on text box/linking to other wiki pages which don't match exact wording of linked phrase

Hi. I am completing a page on a village and DED - Manor Kilbride in West Wicklow. I would be very grateful if anyone could help me.

1. COORDINATES - LONGITUDE - LATITUDE I copied a text/information box from Kilteel, a nearby village. I enter in correct coordinates in longitude and latitude (sourced from Google Earth) for the village. However the visible text seems to rever to the coordinates of another Kilbride - in East Wicklow? When I examine the text box in 'Edit Source' it shows the correct coordinates. I can't find any explanation for why this would link to the other kilbride. The coordinates visible in the text box and the position of the red dot on the map of Ireland are thus incorrect.

LINKING TO OTHER WIKI PAGES 2. I have tried to link to other wikipedia articles covering relevant topics. For instance the term Eary Christian is commonly used by archaeologists and historians to describe a relevant period of Irish history - see Charles Edward Early Christian Ireland. The relevant wiki page is 'History of Ireland (400-800)' (which notes Early Christian Ireland as a common title for the same period in the first line). Clearly I can't have a sentence which states 'Liam Price suggested the townland and parish name indicated an 'History of Ireland (400-800)' church was located in the townland of Shankill However the only way I can chain link 'Early Christian' to this page is if I click it as an external page. Killimordaly (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. To tackle one part of the question at a time, you can change [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_%28400%E2%80%93800%29 Early Christian] to [[History of Ireland (400–800)|Early Christian]], which will display as Early Christian. This technique is known as "piping" the wikilink, see Wikipedia:Wikilink. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David - thanks I made that change. Still puzzled by the coordinates issue.Killimordaly (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the coordinates was that you were taking coordinates expressed in degrees and minutes, such as latitude 53°11′ N, and entering them in the infobox as if they were decimal coordinates, i.e., 53.11°. Since a minute is a sixtieth of a degree, not a hundredth of a degree, the two expressions are not equivalent (53°11′ is about 53.18°). I've emended the infobox; is everything OK now? Deor (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - thanks very much Deor (though I feel like an idiot!) I was following another template. Hadn't realised the longitude and latitude had been decimalised! Killimordaly (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the documentation at {{coord}} is that the template can be used with coordinates in either decimal or deg/mins/secs format.--ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killimordaly wasn't using {{coord}}; he was using the "|latd =" and "longd =" fields in {{Infobox settlement}}. You can use {{coord}} in that infobox, but not if you want to use the "pushpin map" field to display a location map of the place. Deor (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image

Hi, would someone be able to talk me through getting 'File:Tottenham Hotspur.svg' used on this page. In other words, I need help with the non-free use image guidelines. Thanks for any help, Mat ty.007 11:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done it with help from Mdann52. Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a new article

Please forgive me if the answer to this question already exists somewhere but just need someone to either answer or point me to the answer on how to create and/or edit an article. Thanks - Rangarajan122.164.140.252 (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've put a few useful links on your user talk page, including various notes on how to edit. For creating a new article, see WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racial slurs = vandalism?

Hopefully I'll get an answer this time.

Are the use of slurs such as in this edit considered vandalism? Are other users allowed to remove them? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EvergreenFir. I would see that slur as disruptive editing as it's pretty offensive and completely unrelated to Wikipedia. If I came across that, I wouldn't have any qualms removing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Just wanted to make sure I understood correctly. While I'm at it, how about general cussing and such? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a grey area. Editors can be warned and eventually blocked for gross incivility (strong profanity directed at someone) but casual profanity (the kind you might hear in a bar) is usually tolerated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Friendly stalker).. Not to question User:NeilN's response but it is based on the premise that you want to edit in a bar or saloon environment. The fact that casual profanity is tolerated has more to do with peer pressure not to confront the profanity than anything stated in WP:Civility. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree but removing casual profanity in other people's posts will probably get your hand lightly slapped and reporting such profanity won't get you anywhere (from what I've seen). That's just how it is around here (even WP:CIVIL is mum on the subject of casual profanity) and I don't see this changing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, will never use profanity here on Wikipedia in my own voice, and would recommend that all editors avoid it. But a significant number of productive editors use profanity to add a forceful tone to their opinions. I wish they wouldn't, but we have to pick our battles. And I see opposing this actively as a losing battle at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my article got rejected need help

Hi,

I posted an article about Soxxy, a performance-fashion sock brand earlier today and it got rejected. how can I phrase the entry so that it gets accepted?

Thanks, Sophia 184.74.198.18 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sophia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your first goal should be to show that the company is notable by Wikipedia's standards. That means that the company has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Currently, the references in your draft article are not independent or reliable. They are directly or indirectly affiliated with the company. If you can establish notability, then the other problems can be solved, by formatting the references properly, and writing from the neutral point of view.

If you are affiliated with this company, then you have a conflict of interest. Please read that link, and conduct yourself accordingly. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my article about prophet sm dennis was deleated help me make it well.Dianakubo (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imagemaps

How can I create one of those? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use an HTML editor. I used to use Dreamweaver, but there are cheaper and even free alternatives available now, such as [1]. Eric Corbett 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean like the banner of Theonesean or the image in Anna Frodesiak's userpage. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So did I. It's called an image map because it maps images (or parts of images) to urls, not because it has anything to do with geographical maps. Eric Corbett 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks Eric. I guess I'll never had my own image map :'( Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why you shouldn't, it's very easy to do once you've created your image. Eric Corbett 19:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett, Miss Bono, who lives in Cuba, accesses Wikipedia through a limited intranet. She has no regular access to the broader internet, and can't use Google or Wikimedia Commons or any of the vast range of online tools most of us take for granted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then one of the cheap HTML editors would serve. Eric Corbett 22:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She can't download software, cheap or free, from the internet. She has no access. Wikipedia is the only external site she has access too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a curious place Cuba must be if that's true. But how did she get hold of her browser then? From a state-owned PC dealership? Some friends of ours were recently on holiday in Cuba, and I don't recall them complaining about lack of access to the Internet. Maybe they had other things on their minds though. Eric Corbett 22:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet in Cuba may be helpful to refer to. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"When buying computers was legalized in 2007 ..." Extraordinary, quite extraordinary. I wonder what Castro's legacy will be seen to have been by future generations. Eric Corbett 23:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your friends who visited Cuba recently probably stayed in a tourist enclave, Eric. This is definitely not an appropriate venue to discuss Fidel Castro's legacy. Miss Bono has made it clear that she is uninterested in discussing politics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tourists have Internet access at Hotels (very expensive for us) Thanks, Cullen for your explanations and for covering my back. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop discussing it. Simple. Eric Corbett 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bono welcome back to the Teahouse with another fantastic question! Special programs to do this are not "necessary", but do make it a lot simpler if you are actually making an image map. You could use PrimeHunter's suggestion of checking out Extension:ImageMap (which is what I personally use), or, if that is too advanced for you at this time (you seem to learn very quickly), you can try and do something more simple like create a table with no borders and mess around with (col|row)span and various transparent background images or whatnot, or you can do like Tito Dutta has done and set text (or images) on top of your background using css to manipulate placement of elements. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Technical 13. I cannot access meta, though. I will have to learn to do it with tables and learn about those (col|row) and stuffs! :) Thank you very much! And thanks for the badge. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten that you can't get to MediaWiki wiki... In the collapsed section below are the instructions for using that extension for you:

C&P "transclusion" of Extension:ImageMap's instructions for use.

ImageMap is an extension which allows clickable image maps. An image map is a list of coordinates in a specific image, which hyperlinks areas of the image to multiple destinations (in contrast to a normal image link, in which the entire area of the image links to a single destination). For example, a map of the world may have each country hyperlinked to further information about that country. The intention of an image map is to provide an easy way of linking various parts of an image without dividing the image into separate image files.

Examples

Simple example without caption

<imagemap>
Image:Example2.png|150px|alt=Alt text
default [[Main Page|Go to main page]]
</imagemap>

The above example always links to the Main Page, no matter where you click on it. To find out more about the image, click on the blue "i" icon .

Complex example with caption

<imagemap>
Image:JoshuaReynoldsParty.jpg|thumb|center|400px|alt=Dining room with nine men seated around a table. The dinner has been finished, and a large man at the head talks and gesticulates while the others eagerly listen. The men wear wigs and clothing of late 18th century Britain, and the furniture, hangings, and chandelier are of similar vintage. A liveried servant is entering with a tray bearing two high-shouldered decanters of wine.|Image map example. Clicking on a person in the picture causes the browser to load the appropriate article.

poly 133 343 124 287 159 224 189 228 195 291 222 311 209 343 209 354 243 362 292 466 250 463 [[w:Samuel Johnson|Dr Johnson - Dictionary writer]]
poly 76 224 84 255 43 302 62 400 123 423 121 361 137 344 122 290 111 234 96 225 [[w:James Boswell|Boswell - Biographer]]
poly 190 276 208 240 229 228 247 238 250 258 286 319 282 323 223 323 220 301 200 295 [[w:Joshua Reynolds|Sir Joshua Reynolds - Host]]
poly 308 317 311 270 328 261 316 246 320 228 343 227 357 240 377 274 366 284 352 311 319 324 [[w:David Garrick|David Garrick - actor]]
poly 252 406 313 343 341 343 366 280 383 273 372 251 378 222 409 228 414 280 420 292 390 300 374 360 359 437 306 418 313 391 272 415 [[w:Edmund Burke|Edmund Burke - statesman]]
rect 418 220 452 287 [[w:Pasquale Paoli|Pasqual Paoli - Corsican patriot]]
poly 455 238 484 253 505 303 495 363 501 377 491 443 429 439 423 375 466 352 [[w:Charles Burney|Charles Burney - music historian]]
poly 501 279 546 237 567 239 572 308 560 326 537 316 530 300 502 289 [[w:Thomas Warton|Thomas Warton - poet laureate]]
poly 572 453 591 446 572 373 603 351 562 325 592 288 573 260 573 248 591 243 615 254 637 280 655 334 705 396 656 419 625 382 609 391 613 453 [[w:Oliver Goldsmith|Oliver Goldsmith - writer]]
rect 450 86 584 188 [[w:Joshua Reynolds|prob.The Infant Academy 1782]]
rect 286 87 376 191 [[w:Joshua Reynolds|unknown painting]]
circle 100 141 20 [[w:Joshua Reynolds|An unknown portrait]]
poly 503 192 511 176 532 176 534 200 553 219 554 234 541 236 525 261 506 261 511 220 515 215 [[w:Francis Barber|servant - poss. Francis Barber]]
rect 12 10 702 500 [[w:The Club (Literary Club)|Use button to enlarge or use hyperlinks]]
</imagemap>

Dining room with nine men seated around a table. The dinner has been finished, and a large man at the head talks and gesticulates while the others eagerly listen. The men wear wigs and clothing of late 18th century Britain, and the furniture, hangings, and chandelier are of similar vintage. A liveried servant is entering with a tray bearing two high-shouldered decanters of wine. — Image map example. Clicking on a person in the picture causes the browser to load the appropriate article.

The above example links to many different pages, depending on where you click it. To find out more about the image, click on the double-rectangle icon .

Syntax description

The contents of an <imagemap> tag consists of blank lines, comments (starting with #) and logical lines. The first logical line specifies the image to be displayed. This must be in the same format as an ordinary MediaWiki image link, except without the enclosing [[ and ]]. If the first line specifies a "thumb" or "frame" image, then the first line's caption and any |alt= parameter are treated as the image's caption and alt text in the usual way; otherwise, the first line's |alt= parameter (or, if absent, any caption) specifies the image's alt text. In neither case does the image itself have title text (often used for tooltips); any title text is taken from the regions described in later lines.

Further lines are split into tokens, separated by whitespace. The function of each line is determined by the first token in the line. All coordinates are according to the full-size image, not the visible image. They should be specified as distance from left edge (horizontal pixel count), distance from top (vertical pixel count).

desc: Specifies the location of a blue "i" icon , which links to the image description. Possible values: top-right, bottom-right (default), bottom-left, top-left, none. This parameter is ignored for "thumb" or "frame" images, which instead employ the usual double-rectangle icon .

Example:

Image:PolierMartinWombwellZoffany.jpg|thumb|200px|Colonel Antoine Polier

rect 269 140 344 305 [[Claude Martin]]

rect 124 147 181 298 [[Antoine Polier|Antoine-Louis Polier]]

desc none

</imagemap>

poly: A polygon. The coordinates of the vertices are given, followed by a link in square brackets.

rect: A rectangle. The parameters are the coordinates of the top-left and bottom-right corners, followed by a title to link to in square brackets.

circle: A circle. The first two parameters are the coordinates of the center, the third is the radius. The coordinates are followed by a link in square brackets.

default: This gives the default link, where no other regions are specified.

All coordinates are specified relative to the source image. The image can be scaled using thumbnail syntax, in which case the image map coordinates will be automatically scaled as well.

All links are given in either the form [[Page title]] or [[Page title|description]]. In the latter case, the part after the pipe "|" becomes the title attribute of the link—in most browsers, it will pop up as a tooltip when the user hovers over it; the part after the pipe also becomes the alt text for the link. If no explicit link description is given, the page title is used.

Areas which overlap give precedence to the first link listed.

Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankss!!!! :D Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the right side. I can't even use the right arrow key.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Watermark from images

Hello everybody I have a few images that I want to include in a article.

The images are

These images are indeed copyrighted but Wikipedia has an OTRS ticket for using them in article from Bollywood Hungama. The problem is these are all watermarked. I need someone to remove the watermarks from them or point me how to do it. SBJ☸talk 18:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sohambanerjee. Assuming OTRS has verified that the pics are legit, you can file a request at the Graphic Lab and have someone sort the watermarks out for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, if you are uploading to commons, there is a template:watermark, to tag it so others can remove the watermark. or here, there is a category:Images with watermarks 69.254.79.233 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are their discussions regarding the use of British vs English/Scottish/Welsh?

I've been looking up some British actors recently and was wondering if their was a consensus on what to use, especially since people can be equally adamant about being British as they are about any of the other nations.

And while I'm at it we rarely use the British-Indian or British-African (especially! we would say the country) and I've seen that used in a few places. I'm sure this has been discussed before and I'd love to read the debate.

86.7.193.184 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's no real consensus as far as I am aware. The essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom covers some of this (as an essay it has no real weight of policy behind it; it's just a slightly-formal opinion piece). British is technically correct (the best kind of correct) so I use that when I'm editing. The UK/Britain is the nation state while England, Wales, Scotland and so forth are nations but not states. So, unless describing a historical actor, I would go with the strict "British" for all of them (it is what it would say in their passport after all). Other editors are likely to have different opinions. If this happens, just try to be consistent within the article, which is the approach used with different spelling and dating formats.

Ethnicities are a problem as different people use words differently. For example, "Asian" means something different in the UK and the US. That said, as long as the term is wikilinked to an article that explains the phrase (ie. Asian) it should be OK. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks very much!

86.7.193.184 (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's almost no debate about English language variations in the West coast of Europe. There's a huge amount of swapping between US and GB, but within the broad "british isles" there's very little. There's more traffic between English / Ulster Scots / Gaelic in the NI articles.

As Indian editors are a large group on en:WP, there is a lot of editing that introduces Indian grammar (rather than spelling) rather than British (or US). I revert this on non-Indian article – this is possibly a problem in the future, as en_IN obviously has a large readership, but en:WP isn't ready for it yet.

There's also Wikipedai, the Cwmyraeg Wikipedia. That could use a lot of assistance from siaradwyr Cwmyraeg, if anyone reading has the language skills to offer. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

writing article on an artist who already has a profile written on german wikipedia

Hello teahouse folk, I'm trying to write an article on a recently deceased artist (Jörg Schmeisser) who was originally from Germany but spent over half of his working life in Australia. On preparing to write the article and after a quick search I discover that the artist has a page already for him written on the German Wikipedia site.

Is there a need to duplicate an article that is already on wikipedia, albeit in another language? Should I ask the original author for permission to simply translate their German version into English? (Although the article does have a German skew and may need expanding on the Australian aspects).

He was a significant and respected figure in recent Australian art history in the field of printmaking. regards FFrank12345666 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frank. No, you don't have to ask permission, you just translate the German article and add the proper references and... there you got: a new article :) YOu can expand whatever you want if you have the proper references supporting you. I hope this helps. User Tatoodwaitress made a translation from the French Wikipedia into the English... you can see it here ---> Michka Assayas Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Frank, welcome to the Teahouse! For your first question, there's certainly a need to duplicate articles across the different-language Wikipedias; we can hardly expect people to read both English and German (and others!) to read an article they want to learn about. Whether you want to translate the German article or write your own is really up to you and what you feel would be the better option; there's no need for articles in the different language Wikipedias to be exact translations of each other. Also, as Missbono says, since all text contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under a CC-BY-SA license, it's not necessary to ask for permission if you decide to go the translating route; all you need to do is make a note (usually in the edit summary) that the article was translated from the German Wikipedia's article, and provide a link back to the original. Does that help? Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔

Oops! Sorry, I forgot to say that you can write the article in your own words :( Sorry! :) Thanks Writ Keeper Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Writ Keeper and Miss Bono will take that on board and start editing soon

ciao Frank Frank12345666 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter series 5 episode 12

Wikipedia lists it as 'the Big One'. No such episodes listed 'On Demand'. The Showtime list for season 5 shows the episode 12 as 'Through the glass, darkly'. Thought you should know.206.123.202.2 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the best place to discuss this is at the talk page of the article. :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 206! Thanks, but as I see it, Showtime says that Season 5, Episode 12 is in fact called "The Big One" source. According to the disambiguation page for Through a Glass Darkly (no source for that, so can't vouch for its accuracy), fans promoted the episode under that name, but that is not the official name. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images and logos

I have just written my first article, but its not looking good because I cannot add images for it, I need to add the company logo, can someone help me to upload it? The article is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paymenex and the logo is at www.paymenex.com

thanks Fulginic (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how to?

how to edit article names that contain grammatical errors?Ariyaratnes (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ariyaratnes and welcome. Could you please provide an example of an article where the name has grammatical errors? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 08:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts, HELP!!!!!!!

Whenever I edit a page, I have edit conflicts with MYSELF. I tried disabling the warn-user-with-no-edit-summary gadget, but I keep getting edit conflicts with myself. How do I get rid of them? They really delay me.....-Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 05:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. Do you have more than one editing window open at the same time? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past month or so, when editing with an Android smart phone, I will sometimes get an edit conflict warning. The first edit is my contribution with four tildes. The second is exactly the same, but showing the coding for my full signature. I don't know if this is related to Seonookim's problem, but it is an irritating new bug. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. It happened to me a few days ago. Try to cut the text you are adding and then cancel the edition, close the extra windows and paste what you had cut :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not positive but I think I have been on the receiving end of edit conflicts when i have accidentally double-clicked save. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My band page

i have a band and i made an article on it JIMSH-Jesus Is My Superhero and was declined but why our band is in facebook twitter reverbnation but why declined.our band is in rank 2 in new delhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishben (talk • contribs) 05:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ashishben and welcome to The Teahouse. Do you have independent reliable sources stating that your band is notable? We can't include every band. Also, if your band is notable, you shouldn't be writing about it. It is hard for someone closely connected with a subject to maintain a neutral point of view. Please read the nice message someone left you on your talk page. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

upload photo to "Wiki Loves Monuments"

I went to the "Wiki Loves Monuments" project and went to the "Fina a monument to photograph" page to find one to shoot nearby. I found one with a white pin that needed a photo and. I went out and got the shot to upload, clicked on the white pin and followed the instructions to upload the photo which BTW is location ID 97001497. I know my photo went somewhere, but after some research I found it landed in Wikipedia Commons and the white pin where I thought I was uploading the photo is still white now, a day later. Am I missing something here? Or does it just take longer than I expected for such content to find its home?Ceh2624 (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey First of all, thanks for taking the time to do actual legwork! The 2013 WLM contest has not yet begun and will start on September 1, 2013, per the Get Started page. I really don't know a lot about this but your question is languishing, which is unusual for the Teahouse, so I'm taking a stab but I think you best bet might be to to post to Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments/Help desk for a definitive information (or possibly the just plain old Commons Help desk which might be better staffed), although someone might be along here who will know (and correct me:-) Anyway, from seeing that it's not yet started, and also that the participation page that describes how the ID assigned to a photo and the pin is associated with it says that its "out of date", I am guessing that the system may be stagnant; that while the white pins are probably still mostly accurate from the last contest (in that the Commons will still need a photo for most white pins), uploading a photo through that launching point will not update through that system to change the pins yet. Again, I'm not sure about this. Anyway, from the tenor of your question—the fact that you seem surprised that File:Bank of Pilot Mountain.JPG ended up at the Commons—you should know that the Commons is where all uploads through the contest go; the contest is a mechanism for gaining good content for the Commons, which is a vast free media repository; anything you upload there can be used natively at all 287 Wikipedias and other Wikimedia sites. The Commons is the front end. Anyone, anytime, can help out by uploading content there and direct upload, i.e., not through WLM, is how it gains most of its content. The contest organizes gaps needing to be filled, and in a fun way. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit.

I will look into asking this on another help page. I knew about the contest not starting yet and when I went to upload my photo I got a notice saying I could upload my photo but it wouldn't be entered in the contest. Cheers Charles Ceh2624 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: there is no such thing as Wikipedia Commons. It's Wikimedia Commons.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to stop the deletion of my logo...Help!!!

Hi Teahouse!

I received an ominous deletion nomination by Hedwig this morning...Bless his heart. I'm new Wiki user, and I didn't mean to violate any policy. My company's logo is a registered trademark and I have all of the registration information if you need it. I responded to Hedwig, but I haven't heard back and I'm freaking out a little. How do I find a log of my messages? How do I find him again so I can send him another message? Last question - Should I just remove the non free codes temporarily while I'm waiting to hear back from him. I haven't submitted the page for verification yet because I want everything to go as smoothly as possible. Please advise. Thank you for your help!!!!! Cmhauteps11 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cmhauteps11, welcome to the Teahouse. The deletion discussion for the images you uploaded is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cmhauteps11. You can contact Hedwig there. Long story short, the logo is almost certainly copyrighted, and although there is a process to use non-free files in Wikipedia, that process can't apply to draft articles. You may have to wait until the article is created before adding the logo. Howicus (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howicus! Thank you for the reply...and the info.Cmhauteps11 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cmhauteps11. You will find the deletion discussion referenced above at this link. The link above did not work for me. Speaking only about the logo, it can be used as a free use exception to copyright, but only once the article is in the encyclopedia. You cannot add it until then. You will need to upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) using the "upload a file" link on the left side of any article page and just follow the instructions for uploading. It is a fairly complicated process to release copyright on your logo, and one that I would never do. Your logo has value, and if you put it on Wikipedia under our copyright release licenses, you would no longer have control over its use. Probably not something you want. I am not a lawyer and never even played one on TV, so that is just one man's opinion. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gtwfan52. Yes...the link didn't work for me either. I finally figured out how to email Hedwig directly. Thank you Gtwfan52!!! VERY helpful information!Cmhauteps11 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cmhauteps11. In my opinion, it would be a catastrophically bad decision for any business to upload their logo to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license.. That would destroy almost all value of the logo. The company's competitors could plaster the logo all over any advertising they wanted, criticizing that company in the harshest terms imaginable. People could sell T-shirts, or coffee mugs, or any other product, decorated with the logo, without sharing a penny of the profits with the company. Do you think that a company like Coca-Cola or Harley-Davidson or Adidas or a professional sports team would give up control of their logo like that? Anyone trying to delete your logo from Commons is doing your company a very big favor. You should thank them.

A logo of a notable company can instead be uploaded to Wikipedia for use only in the article about that company. You need to study our guideline for non-free use rationales, and follow the instructions carefully to protect your company's logo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen!!! Understood, and I did thank Hedwig btw. Thanks you for the links!!!63.201.209.106 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Does this count as "self promotion"?

I'm trying to learn the many many rules of Wikipedia. I ran across this edit, this edit, this one, and this one. Judging by the user's name, they are referencing things they wrote. However, they seem to be on-topic. Does this constitute WP:PROMOTION? Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it more specifically qualifies as WP:LINKSPAM. Looks like the user has already been warned about this. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, thanks for pointing this out to us. I'll keep an eye on the user. Andrew³²⁷ 17:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How do I remove flags from a page?

Recently I have been working on a page and I referenced the page and the flag is still there. How do I take it off ? (Marika.fraser (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marika and welcome to the Teahouse. The page is Nicholas Anthony DiMarzio. To take the flag off just remove the line BLP sources = July 2011 at the top of the page. But the article isn't ready for that yet. First, you've added references at the end, but they need to be footnotes instead, at the places in the text that they refer to. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners for help. Second, early editors put in many inline links to external web pages. These need to be converted into references. I'll start doing that for you. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

Even If the citations are only from websites you need to do it in footnotes? Also I do not see the BLP source.

(Marika.fraser (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They need to be footnotes so that if you click on something in the article itself it doesn't take you away from Wikipedia. And so they will show up in the footnote list with a title, author, publisher, date, and so on.

The BLP source is in the code for the template at the very top of the page. You need to use "edit source" to see it. It looks like {{Multiple issues |POV = July 2011 |advert = July 2011 |BLP sources = July 2011 |essay-like = July 2011 |COI = July 2011}} StarryGrandma (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on First Developed Wiki

Hello World!

I am really getting into editing. My favorite task is to link articles together and "adopt" all those orphan pages out there. I do, however, want to write a few wikis.

Right now, I am developing my first wiki. I figured something not even close to having a page in any language would be a good addition. My father was a barber for over 40 years, and I would like to use that knowledge to contribute. I decided to start with a large beauty school (since smaller organizations shouldn't be in the encyclopedia).

If anyone would be willing to, could I get some feedback on my first attempt? Any edits are also welcomed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshAWS/Beauty_Schools_of_America

Thanks so much! I look forward to participating in the community.

JoshAWS (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I took just a quick look and immediately saw a major problem - you need to get rid of all of the inline external links. External links may only be listed in an External links section that comes after the references list, they may not be used inline within the article text.

Many of the entities that you have linked by inline external links actually do have articles here on WP that you should link to, one example is Council on Occupational Education. Some of the links can be converted to references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources in other languages

Hi, I need help making the article Diana Lui better. Most articles on Diana Lui are in French, Slovenian, Chinese and Spanish, hence, secondary sources and articles linked to the English Wikipedia as well are lacking. Your advice will be much appreciated. Thanks! First time editor, Itcheemonkee (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itcheemonkee, thanks for your question. This situation of foreign-language only sources comes up sometimes in certain articles. If you can read a little, there's certainly no problem with using those sources in the article. The problem comes when you can't read them, of course. One option you have is to use Google Translate to pull some basic info, but be careful because some languages don't translate very well at all-- it's helpful to have some proficiency in these cases. The other thing you can do is request help translating by going to this list of translators or this list of translators on Meta Wikipedia and finding someone with the appropriate skills. I can translate Japanese, but sadly, that isn't one the languages you need it seems (sorry!) Take care, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musician Sources

When writing an article on a musician, is soundcloud a fair source or should that be avoided? What about artists's facebook or myspace pages? Kat Cheez 12:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katcheez, welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like anyone can add files to soundcloud, so that wouldn't be a good source. Also, Facebook and Myspace aren't good sources, because those are the musician talking about themselves. Good sources should be independent of the subject of the article. Howicus (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Is there somewhere (I'm not sure how to look up this kind of things) that might have good examples of sources to use for articles of this nature? Kat Cheez 17:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music review sites, such as Drowned in Sound or Pitchfork; media websites, such as newspapers and magazines; and established fan sites might be good places to look. Spotify might be a good idea, although I'm not sure of how much influence bands have over their profiles there. hollyperidol 07:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to post an article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Economy_3.0

My points are: 1. This article exists already for the German-speaking countries (ain´t that a contradiction then?) 2. I wanted to get it live so folks would be able to add stuff etc.

Some of the critique has been limiting the scope of the subject, specifically if it can´t go live. I wanted to start a discussion out there - on a subject that will expand in the nearer future.

Question: What else is asked of me - except the footnotes??

Thx and have a nice day

Blue Deer 77 Blue Deer 77 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have a good question here. First, just because an article exists in another language doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia standards. The German Wikipedia has fewer editors available to check incoming articles. Second, it is good to get an article created so that it can be expanded.

But this article has a way to go. Look at Web 2.0 as an example. The table describing the term is too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Just describe it in a few sentences. Find references for the statements in the first paragraph and write sections of the article about each of them. Use footnotes rather than a reference list at the bottom. Happy writing. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a video to the article

Hi Team , Can anyone tell me how to add a small video clip to the article i created recently ? and also how to remove the bare URLs and add citations to the article .

Awaiting your valuable response as am new to the wikipediajohnsib (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Johnsib. I assume that the article you are working on is Anitha Shaiq. Adding videos is advanced editing. I don't think I have linked to a video once in my four years of editing. The video must be freely licensed and have zero copyright issues, and ideally should first be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Does it meet those standards? But before adding videos, I would first deal with much more substantive issues, such as bare URLs in the references. So, I recommend that you bring the article up to generally accepted standards for a halfway decent article, before attempting advanced additions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's always pleasant to see someone eager to take on the difficulties mentioned in Wikipedia:Media help. I have made and inserted a few thousand still pictures into articles. Oops, my battery is running down. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I'm plugged in now. Difficulties with video can be legal or technical. If someone else made the video or it's of an artistic performance or other work of art, that makes legal problems. If you made it completely yourself, the legalities are easier but technical issues are more difficult. I occasionally make my own videos, for example in Trikke but I don't try to overcome the legal difficulties of using someone else's photography. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. We are happy to have your questions here at the Teahouse. References aren't easy. I've converted one of the bare URL's into inline references for you in the article Anitha Shaiq as an example. Read User:Yunshui/References for beginners for a good introduction. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I approaching good article status?

I have been killing myself editing this article Stanley Park. One editor was kind enough to give me some tips for improvement. Am I any closer? Rhild (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't kill yourself, Rhild, as we need living editors. I was the picky fellow who commented a while back. I think the lead is much, much better. Well done. I still have a problem with the WWII section. The text on the map is so tiny that it is tough to read the labels. The caption should clarify that the forts are designated by red dots, as the map lacks a key. When I first looked at the map, I thought the gray tidal areas were the forts. I had to blow it up to figure it out. And the location of the park isn't shown on the map, just the non-notable point where the fort was located. This is not now a good map to illustrate this section of the article, but if the labels were tripled in size, a key added, and the park boundaries shown, it would be useful.

The information about the miniature railroad is incomplete and unreferenced. What is the scale of the railroad? Does it pull cars large enough to hold passengers? Is it operated by park management, or an independent club? Does it operate every day? Wouldn't a photo be a good addition? I wrote an article about a miniature railroad, Sonoma TrainTown Railroad. That might give you some ideas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That WW2 map came from another wikipedia page. Hmm. Let me think about what I can do about that and the train section. And I am not dead yet! :) Rhild (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live long and prosper! If you have even rudimentary computer graphics skills, you can download a copy of the original, modify it for this purpose, and upload a new version as "StanleyParkMapWWII" or something similar. Derivative works are allowed. Just credit the original graphic artist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more about the railway, but only a bit more. You will be happy to see a picture.Rhild (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with Thai sources?

I have been trying to create an article about the Thai superstar and model Araya Hargate, but my submission has been rejected twice now for 'not adequately supporting the article with reliable sources'. After the first rejection, I searched and searched and searched every corner of the internet to find references (in English) and I included these in the article. It is rejected again now, without further explanation by the editor. More in general: there are zillions of pages of information about this person in Thai language and very few in English. What can I do?84.82.34.71 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 84.82, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't find your attempts, so I can't evaluate the problem. But it is perfectly acceptable to use non-English sources, as long as they are reliable and support the statements they are claimed to support. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my slogan in this regard: "This Wikipedia is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English language speaking world". If good English language sources are readily available about a topic, then citing them is preferred. If not, then reliable sources in any language are perfectly acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are happy to get your question. For the article Araya Hargate put in references in Thai from major newspapers and/or magazines, translating the newspaper name, article name, author, date, and saying it is in Thai. That lets us know a bit about the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability via frequent citations or importance to journal author?

Hi,

It seems that everywhere I turn, WP admins and editors only know how to use the "it must have extensive coverage" statement as an excuse for a source being notable. This sounded very wrong, as in the real world, there are other things that lead to notability (which other encyclopedias also acknowledge). For example, if a source is cited by multiple publications, even if just as a minor reference, that source is, in fact, now notable. Also, if a source is cited "at all" because it is deemed important to the author, it is considered notable even if there is not extensive coverage.

I figured, if WP considers itself to be a real encyclopedia, then it should properly acknowledge the same notability that other encyclopedias or researchers find to be notable. This led me to scour through many of the Wikipedia:Notability policies.

One editor eventually pointed me to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which correctly states that (paraphrasing) notability is established if:

a journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
Or, a journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.

This correctly supports the fact that "extensive coverage" is not the only criteria that makes a source notable. A source can also be notable if that source is cited by multiple researchers (adding up to being cited multiple times) OR if that source is considered notable to the researcher, even if just for a minor mention.

However, I can only find this explicitly written for Academic Journals and not industry (i.e. commercial) or government journals, implying that 1) I'm just not catching it in my reading, or 2) WP does not consistently hold this criteria as being valid for non-academic journals, as would the rest of the world.

If it's a case of me just missing it in the policy documents, can someone please point me to where it is written in existing policies, as such criteria applies to industry and government publications?

OR... If I'm not missing it and my interpretation that there appears to be a gap in WP notability policies is correct, then how would someone go about suggesting such improvements to existing policy?

Thanks for any assistance you can offer.

My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't an answer to your main question. But I observe that the section from WP:Notability (academic journals) that you quote is followed by "It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia, without exception (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.")."

I confess that I find this confusing, because it is saying that notability is not the criterion. --ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ColinFine, thanks for taking a shot at this.

It confuses me, too, and I have to believe it confuses many others. I believe the first part of the confusion comes from the lack of consistently applying the same rules for all publication types, which might just be due to things like oversight or simply not getting to the time required to update such rules. I believe the second part of the confusion comes from the vagueness of the rules, themselves. Such vagueness is always a driver for poor quality because if the vagueness of rules is not addressed there can never be consistency, and if the consistency cannot exist there can never be quality.

-- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I clarify something? Are you talking about sources which must be reliable, or subjects of articles, which must be notable? Rojomoke (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it helpful to read WP:WHYN.

Notability in this context means "qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article on the English Wikipedia entirely dedicated to that subject". It does not mean famous, important, or anything like that. A source that is cited repeatedly does not "qualify for a separate, stand-alone article on the English Wikipedia entirely dedicated to that subject" merely because some people cited it. An absolute requirement for an article about a source (or about anything else) is that somebody unaffiliated with the subject must have wanted to write about that subject. In the case of potential articles about sources, book reviews are WP:Independent sources about the books. There are many serious reviews about academic journals (ask your favorite science librarian: that's how they decide which ones to buy). There are even books and reviews of some especially famous individual journal articles.

Merely citing the publication, however, isn't about the publication itself. A dozen citations to a paper on a cancer treatment tells you that people are interested in the cancer treatment. It doesn't tell you that we need to have an entire encyclopedia article about a six-page journal article. A dozen citations to a newspaper article about a car wreck tells you that people are interested in car wrecks. It doesn't tell you that we need to have an entire encyclopedia article about a single newspaper article.

And just as a side note, reliable sources do not need to be notable. You may use that article without needing to write an entire encyclopedia article about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful, FGuerino, not to confuse notability and reliability. A source can be reliable but not notable. An example might be a book by an academic about a relatively obscure historical topic published by a university press. Sources that are notable but not reliable include deranged tabloids like Weekly World News and hate rags like Der Sturmer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to all. Thanks for taking the time to help with this.

Yes, my question is definitely about notability as a means for the qualification and justification of a stand alone article, and it's also about the apparent inconsistency of the policy and how it's applied.

The Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) policy clearly states...

"If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article...

The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.

Kindly look at the words "it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article", which seems to contradict what many of you are stating because there is "nothing" in any of text of this policy that requires "any coverage", let alone "extensive coverage."

I've reread the policy multiple times and it always appears to translate the same way. Am I misreading it and, if so, where in the policy does it say or imply "extensive coverage?"

-- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to reference something not online?

Is it possible to reference something that isn't available online? I noticed that the Sandia Mountains doesn't talk about the rules of camping for that area. I know the rules from talking with rangers over the years and more recently over the phone. I can't find any reference to the rules in the forest service website. Does this mean it can't be mentioned? Thank You Sonjaydewing (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sonjaydewing, welcome to the Teahouse. It's certainly possible to cite offline sources, using templates. However, conversations can't be used as sources, since we'd have no way to know if the conversation actually happened how you claim it did. If you have a book or article, that might be useable. Howicus (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks Sonjaydewing (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sonjaydewing - Rules for visitors to campsites, parks and similar places are often published in the form of a leaflet or brochure that is given to visitors on arrival. If you can find such a document you can cite it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I'll see if they have one. Thanks. Sonjaydewing (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]