Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slayer of the Rathalos (talk | contribs) at 11:00, 14 February 2015 (→Question: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

331dot, 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.

Question

Hello everyone! I hope you all are having a good Valentine's Day. My question is more about policy than about content. Why are there restrictions on accounts that are not auto-confirmed? I know that the intention is that it would prevent IP's from continuing to vandalise after a block but wouldn't a hardblock achieve the same stuff without restricting new editors? Thanks. Slayer of the Rathalos (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me?

I've been working on a page since August. I am on the verge of being homeless so I need help getting this done soon. With moving and trying to find income, I am overwhelmed. I promised my friend that I would do this for our mutual friend. It is a surprise. We wanted to honor him with a Wikipedia page. I have watched videos and read endless articles when it was rejected the first time. I finally felt like I figured it out but when I returned to the page some nice person had done the references for me. However, I couldn't figure out how to add the magazine / book references etc to what the person had done. I am also not sure if the references I have will be enough. I read BRPage's summary and she sounds perfect for what I need. (That doesn't mean the rest of you aren't) My mutual friend wants to present it to him on the air (they have a weekly radio program) And I would LOVE to have it completed before I lose my home and internet. Can someone please help me get this page right? KatieCollins KatieCollins (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your situation Katie. Believe me I can relate. I'm sitting here typing to you on my main internet connection, a smartphone smaller than my hand. As your article stands right now it will not pass. You are having a bit of confusion common to most newcomers here on Wikipedia, confusing verifiability and notability. Your facts are referenced. It would be better if mote of them were referenced to something not connected to the subject, but they are referenced so you have verifiability covered. However, what matters for qualifying to have an article is notability. For that, what is important is not what a person has done, but what has been written about what he has done. You have to have references from reliable sources, independent of the guy you are writing about discussing him in detail. The previous reviewers mentioned promo to you. It is still way too promo. You need to remove every instance of superlatives you have in the article. The only time we would use superlatives is if a reliable secondary source used the same exact superlative, and you cited it. Since you have no reliable secondary sources listed, you cannot use any superlatives. I am not going to attempt to explain referencing to you here. I'll leave what I think are really clear and easy to follow instructions on your talk page. You need to add those magazine and newspaper references. Those are what you need to have even a possibility of getting the article approved. Btw, the existing references are not formatted correctly. It looks like someone just ran the old, not so good reffix tool on the article. Without knowing what other references you have, I cannot make any informed guess on whether adding the additional references will get you to a point where it will pass either WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Generally, I advise new editors to just edit articles for a while before attempting to create one, and not to make the first one they do about a person. Due to concerns about libel, we are much pickier about biographies than we are about articles on bugs, streams and Pokemon. John from Idegon (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self clicked Image Upload

All Respectable Wikipedians, I want to ask that if i have clicked clear, relevant and better resolution images of a particular topic which had no images or some erratic ones, how can i change them or can i upload mobile clicked images on Wikipedia, Is any consensus or questioning or verification required to prove that the image clicked by me would be of useful nature. All suggestive opinions and guidance in friendly and unbiased manner would be welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumedh Tayade (talk • contribs) 06:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to update hundreds to thousands of articles with redundant parent categories

I would like to organize the European moths species into better categories by removing redundant parent categories. Many are in parent categories such as "Insects of Europe" and "Moths of Europe," the latter being a subcategory of "Lepidoptera of Europe," which, in turn, is a subcategory of "Insects of Europe." Many of the species are also in the moth family's category. What I would like to do is remove the redundant parent categories, "Insects of Europe" and "Moths of Europe" and replace them both with "Tortricidae of Europe" (the family I am working on first), and, for species, remove "Tortricidae."

I thought I could do this with a script called hotcat, but, this requires that an edit window be opened each time a category is removed, so, it takes too long. Is there a faster way to do this? Thanks for the help. MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MicroPaLeo. There are 3,846 pages in the category Moths of Europe. Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories before doing anything this big. That project watches over categories. They list current projects on Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! If you can establish a consensus or lack of objection, this can be done with a bot or AWB. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a consensus issue, Moths of Europe is a subcategory, the project categorizes by family. I explained all that, this is a subcategory. I am not shaking the universe, I am not breaking policies or rules, I have not attempted anything new, or interesting, or likely to cause panic in the project or category supervisory world. I said "remove redundant parent categories" and explained that "Moths of Europe" is a subcategory of "Insects of Europe." Now, I think I see why no one attempted to make the category more useful before. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing a duplicate Guest profile

I had a lot of trouble embedding an image into my Guest profile, so I decided to start over and let the algorithm choose one for me. But I left a duplicate profile here in the Teahouse. Could you please delete the one that has no details? Or tell me how I can do it? Thank you. Lavomengro (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A related question is: if an image is already on Wikimedia(c) Commons, is it fair use for Wikipedia(c) articles?Lavomengro (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lavomengro: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you look at your contributions, you'll see that you added your profile to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Right_column - you can directly edit the page to remove the duplicate section. I've gone ahead and removed your duplicate section myself with this edit.
As for Commons images: The Wikimedia Commons serves as a repository of free images that anyone can use for any purpose, without having to ask for permission first. The Commons is also integrated with other Wikimedia wikis (including Wikipedia) so that you can easily use any images from there. So yes, you are free to use valid Commons images anywhere on Wikipedia - but not under fair use, as fair use does not apply to free images. Fair use actually applies to non-free images, and describes the set of circumstances that one can use a copyrighted image (or other media/text) without having to acquire permission beforehand. Common reasons that allow for fair use can be education, commentary, or parody. Wikipedia:Non-free content provides more details. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

Hello, I once asked why are people anonymous here at Wikipedia. Now I have another question regarding anonymous people. Why is it that a large portion of people with IP addresses don't fill in an edit summary? It is annoying. Thanks, -DangerousJXD (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Teahouse! Edit summaries are helpful as users could quickly summarize what they added, removed and/or edited. However they are optional and users aren't required to fill it out. ///EuroCarGT 22:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are optional but why is it always the people with no account? Generally people with accounts add an edit summary. -DangerousJXD (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is because most people without an account are also just editors that pop in and out and do not know much about wikipedia to begin with. They understand editing and basic make up. But that is mostly it. So they never have learned to understand why they should use edit summaries.NathanWubs (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings @DangerousJXD: Also be aware that Edit Summary may not always be accurate. One of my Watchlist pages showed an ES of Remove pornography. When I checked the article, it was really Vandalism. So I did an Undo for that edit. That editor was also one of those with IP address only. Thankfully most edits are Good faith article improvements. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources?

Hello

I've received the following feedback on an article; The Six Rockets, which was resubmitted after replacing the unreliable source: the Wandervogel website. There are now 2+15 sources (references). What please warrants this response: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Apart from the myriad newspaper clippings, about half a dozen media items were also proposed alongside the text.

Thanks very much in lieu,

Jerome Jeromesamuelsimpson (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeromesamuelsimpson and welcome to the Teahouse. I must say that I am just as surprised as you. The Variety Magazine is used in many articles as a reliable source and the Binghamton Press is an ordinary daily newspaper. I think the main problem is that you have not written the references in "the Wikipedia way" as shown in Help:Referencing for beginners. This makes it hard for everyone to understand the references. A well written reference is written in a specific way and includes the title of the article, name of the person who wrote it, a Wikilink to the publication, etc. Not just name and page. I can "start up" some of the references for you and you can fill in the rest. I think that is a good way for you to understand how it is done. There may be some other issues with the article that perhaps other editors can tell us about. Happy editing, w.carter-Talk 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

In which type of editings the consensus is required? Sumedh Tayade (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumedh Tayade hello and welcome to The Teahouse. This is hard to answer, but the simplest way to say it is that controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page. A good example of a controversial topic would be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Or Barack Obama. Or even a non-controversial topic might have a controversial claim added. Otherwise, you may be safe in making an edit as long as you provide a relaible source for what you are adding. If someone disagrees and changes the article back, that is when you should consider discussion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Sumedh Tayade. Consensus is the main tool used to resolve disputes here. Editors are encouraged to learn our policies and guidelines, and also to edit boldly for the sincere purpose of improving the encyclopedia. If no one objects to a specific edit to an article, that is a "consensus" of one, and the edit stands. Any editor acting in good faith is welcome to revert that edit. At the point, the first editor can either relent, or discuss the matter on the article's talk page. That is where consensus needs to be hammered out, and the article edited (or not) accordingly. We call that process the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many references do I need for verification?

Hi there, I need help with verifying my article. I have a few citations included in the article, including the individual's websites and column in Forbes. But, I am getting notified about needing more verifying references. What other things should I be including so I stop getting notifications about this?

Cal Callied (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a source actually does cover lots of the information on the article then you should give the reference a name when first used then user that names reference to mark all sections covered. Probably not a great description so see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations for the better explanation. KylieTastic (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Need some clarification on the article submittal process. If you use the article wizard does it automatically move it into WP:AFC or does it publish? Alternatively, if I use my sandbox to draft an article and put {{AFC submission|||ts=20150213163243|u=SusanChana|ns=4}} at the very top is there somewhere I can verify it has made it into the queue to be reviewed? Appreciate any guidance! SusanChana (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SusanChana. Putting the AfC template at the top of the page in your sandbox marks the page as waiting review. The page will be listed immediately on the various lists of articles to review, some of which can be seen at Category:Pending AfC submissions. The article wizard creates the article in Draft space, at Draft:(article name), so it can be worked on before being added to the main Wikipedia pages. When you submit, that is ask that it become a Wikipedia article, the same templage is put on the top. You can move your sandbox page to Draft:(article name) yourself before asking for review.
AfC is way behind reviewing articles, so it is wise to make sure your article meets all the requirements first. Is the subject of article already well-known? Have you put in reliable references that show that? Is the article written like an encyclopedia article? Read User:Yunshui/Article creation for beginners first. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, StarryGrandma! SusanChana (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan article; linking other similar articles to it

The article is designated an orphan and I'm having difficulty understanding how to link other pages. The article has quite a few links within it. Does linking mean going to other articles and linking to the new article?LtUSMC (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi LtUSMC being an orphan just means no other wiki articles currently link to the article, so you are correct it just means going to other relevant articles and linking back to the orphan. So you need to identify one or more articles that mention the subject (but not yet linked) or where it would be sensible and relevant to add a link. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LtUSMC, more helpful information can be found here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make my first improvements...

Hello, everyone. So for my first real shot at editing an article, I went to They Bleed Pixels, which is an indie game that I'm already familiar with and fond of, to try and improve on the article, since it only cites from game site reviews and the official dev site, and moreover the information presented re: the game isn't even factually correct as well as full of unnecessary buzzwords and puffery. I figure there's probably a guideline/policy/essay WP: page that delineates what makes for a reliable online source for video games, but I can't seem to find one that explicitly mentions which ones would be best. I'd appreciate some help in trying to figure out what a good RS would be, and in general what the best way to go about improving this article would be. Thanks in advance! BlusterBlasterkaboom! 13:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlusterBlaster: Hi BlusterBlaster. Adding to KylieTastic's excellent advice above, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library for a page specific to video game articles. Also note the existence of WP:RX, where you can request copies of sources that look promising but are behind a paywall or which are otherwise restricted from access. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be considered a self-published citation?

I am talking about reference 1 for the article Acronis (article version as of this posting). This is a link to the personal LinkeIn page of the founder and CEO of Acronis, supporting his role as CEO of Acronis. Personally, I would at least augment this with another source, if not replace this citation with such. A LinkedIn reference is not included in the biographical page for the company's CEO, which would certainly count as self-published. The general question in play here: if there are citations which use material which is published by officers of a company to support information about that company, including their roles at that company, should these be considered 'self-published' and could they be tagged with {{Self-published inline}}. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a self-published source. And that article is a mess by the way.... Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my question is can i have some help with editing and how do i know if something's spelled wrong?

as stated in the headline i need help with editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkid761 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Superkid761. What kind of help are you looking for? As for spelling, most browsers have spell-checkers which will warn you if they think a word is misspelt, though unless you're sure, it's worth checking a dictionary, for example Wiktionary. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i need help due to using internet explorer Superkid761 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Superkid761 if you have a modern version of Internet Explorer it has a spell checker built in (in IE 11 you go to "Manage Ad-ons" and you can set the "Spelling Correct" options - language and if enabled). In older versions of IE I used to use an addon program called ieSpell - not great but it helped) KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empying my Sandbox

Hi, A few minutes ago, I tried to delete the contents of my Sandbox, so that I could enter another article. However, what I succeeded in doing was deleting the article from Wikipedia, which is not what I intended at all! Please help D1ofBerks (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@D1ofBerks: User:D1ofBerks/sandbox was a redirect to the article. You edited the target of the redirect instead of the redirect itself. I have removed the redirect code.[1] See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for how I did it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do i identify and remove copyrighted materials from article?

I submitted an article for review and i received a message that it contained copyrighted materials. How do I identify and remove the copyrighted materials from my article? (197.214.100.252 (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse 197.214.100.252! When i look at your Contributions to wikipedia, i don't see anywhere that you have made any edits other than this one, it's possible that you've accidently logged out when asking a question. If that's the case, can you log back in and respond? Thanks! LorTalk 09:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you User:Dada Michael who created Draft:Victor E. Udo, PhD.? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks (Michael O. Dada (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to the teahouse. Please don't feel bad I made a real mess myself. Since I report for an ezine. I decided to become a wiki editor. I made a page about myself and submitted it as an article. That was mistake number one. Then I attempted to post a picture. I wound up reverting or re-editing several times. Come to find out reverting or re editing can also be a mistake. May i suggest that today you might go on a wikipedia adventure game. It helped me substantially.Lbhiggin (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive the intrusion on this discussion my mouse jumped the page somehow. I was writing in response to things I did wrong... Lbhiggin (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

things I did wrong my first day... what to do today?

Hi. I am currently in Sri Lanka. I have been meeting many leaders in contemporary arts like 'Jagath Weerasinghe' and all he's peers. These people has started important artistic movements and institutes. I would like to do articles about them and their work. I am also working with a few Marine biology organisations and institutes Like Howard Martenstyn and Centre for Research on Indian Ocean Marine Mammals. In fact that's not much information about contemporary Sri Lanka or it's history is up on Wiki. I started to work on an article about OHT Ocean Heritage Trust, I made many first timer mistakes... One was, as I wrote the website info for OHT so I thought I could use it in their wiki page, I had copyright issues, the page has now been deleted... I also started a page about my work as a marine conservation muralist... which I now know I can't do hehehe I made about 4 or 5 big mistakes my first day! I am new it this and would appreciate help. - Can I start to rewrite the OHT article today? - Some of the info about OHT, like their research agenda is a not an easy thing to change the words to, what can I do if I quote from their web site? - When and where can I upload their logo and other photos? - Can I add links to videos on Youtube? Thank you for your time. The Painting Pirate (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Painting Pirate, and welcome to the Teahouse! Because of your conflict of interest, you should not be creating an article about this organization directly. I suggest you work on it in Wikipedia draft space and then submit it for review by non-involved editors. I also strongly suggest that you create your draft using the Article wizard. Click on that link and it will take you through the process. It will also help you to understand if your draft has any chance of becoming an article. Click on all the information links at each stage and read them carefully. For the purpose of your subject meeting our inclusion criteria, we treat companies and organizations the same way, including charities and non-profit organizations. If you still want to go ahead when you reach the final stage of the wizard, enter your title in and click on the option Create new article draft. Having said all that, I doubt very much if there are sufficient independent sources available for this organization to pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at this time. It appears to be less than a year old, with virtually no coverage from reliable sources (books, newspapers, journal articles, etc.) which are independent of the organization. See [2]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to the teahouse. Please don't feel bad I made a real mess myself. Since I report for an ezine. I decided to become a wiki editor. I made a page about myself and submitted it as an article. That was mistake number one. Then I attempted to post a picture. I wound up reverting or re-editing several times. Come to find out reverting or re editing can also be a mistake. May i suggest that today you might go on a wikipedia adventure game. It helped me substantiallyLbhiggin (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a redirection page to a disambiguation page

Currently, there is a redirection from Trigeminal to Trigeminal nerve. But a new article has been written for the Trigeminal artery, so that redirection page needs to be changed to a disambiguation page. Can somebody please point me to where I can find instructions for how to do this? Gronk Oz (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Gronk Oz!
Basically, you replace the redirect page with a disambiguation page. The redirect page can be accessed from the  (Redirected from...)  link on the upper left of the page that you were redirected to. Or, in your case: click here. Guidelines for disambiguation pages can be found here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. My apologies for this help being rather skimpy, I have never done this. I'm sure that somebody more knowledgeable will be glad to provide more detailed assistance if required.  —I hope this helps, ~Eric, aka:71.20.250.51 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz: If there are only two articles then we often solve it with a hatnote. I have addded {{Redirect}} to Trigeminal nerve.[3] That also means all the links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Trigeminal don't have to be changed, assuming they really are meant for the Trigeminal nerve. I'm not qualified to judge that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, both of you. @PrimeHunter:, you saved me from making a big mistake with those links; I am so glad I asked this question. I have also added a hatnote to the new Trigeminal artery article to complete the loop.--Gronk Oz (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images taken from official websites

I had uploaded an image from the official website of the institution about which i had written an article about. The image is available in the public domain. However it was deleted due to copy right issues. How should i go about uploading the image? Dr. Ajay George AkkaraAJAYGEORGEAKKARA (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AJAYGEORGEAKKARA: See the answer in the section directly below this one, which asks the same question (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#about image uploads). In short, you shouldn't, unless you first obtain proper copyright clearance. --Thnidu (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, AJAYGEORGEAKKARA. If you can provide proof that the image is truly in the public domain, then it can be freely used here. What is your evidence?Was the image first published before 1923, which means copyright has expired? Is it the product of the U.S. Federal government, or another government agency which overtly releases its work free of copyright? The burden is on you to explain why any particular image is free of copyright, in convincing language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those reading this once it has been archived, the additional information will likely be above, not below.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about image uploads

I am very new to wiki and I couldn't find how to upload a image to a page. Is there any policy or rules with respect to image upload?Userblack (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Userblack welcome to the Teahouse. And yes, there are some rules and policies. Out of them the most important one is Copyright and licensing. To upload an image you must have a proper copyright license for that image. Otherwise it will be speedily deleted. And you can't link images from external sites to Wikipedia. You have to upload them to Wikipedia or to its sister project Wikimedia commons. Read this essay to learn more about uploading images and linking them to Wikipedia articles. Note that non-free content are no longer accepted in Wikimedia commons. So if you want to upload an image of copyrighted TV series/movie/game you should consider uploading it to english Wikipedia. Best --Chamith (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotations around controversial terms in article space

Is there an MOS guide to the use of quotation marks around controversial terms? The ones I'm looking at are gun show loophole and death panel. Are there other examples that could serve as a guide? Obviously neither of those terms should be treated any differently than other controversial terms. I just want to know how other terms are used before I make more changes. I feel the quote marks are appropriate, but there's no sense in re-treading old ground. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Faceless Enemy. The only thing I could find internally is MOS:BADEMPHASIS, which provides no rationale or guidance, just stating its discouragement. I do think scare quotes should be used carefully and sparingly as they express skepticism, derision, etc. – an implicit expression of opinion – which we generally tend to avoid in our writing (though context is everything). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Faceless Enemy. Here on Wikipedia, we should summarize what truly reliable sources say, and not express doubt in Wikipedia's voice, either with words or punctuation. Please see WP:SCAREQUOTES for further discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comma Usage

Hello,

I'm here to inquire about the use of commas in Wikipedia articles. I've been doing a number of basic grammar changes since I got on board with editing Wikis. Part of these changes is adding commas after a particular phrase or year such as "In 2000" or "After the _." So far, some of my edits have been reverted, particularly in regards to comma use.

So I just have to ask, when do we use commas? Do we only use it after a full date (complete with the month, date and year) as mentioned in the Wiki guide or can I add commas after the year itself? Your guidance will be very much appreciated! Jeunine 03:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeunine. General guidance about the use of commas can be found in our Manual of style. Please see MOS:COMMA for specific advice. Usage of commas can be controversial. When there are two legitimate options, battling in favor of your preferred option can be considered disruptive. I recommend that you do not go there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read the general guidance and revert some of the changes I made these past few days. Thank you, User:Cullen328! Jeunine 06:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you list a school named after a person?

I've been editing Herman Badillo, and have moved the list of publications to the location recommended in the MOS. But there's also a school in that list:

There is a school in Buffalo, New York called P.S. 76 Herman Badillo Community School.

Obviously it's not a publication. I know I've seen mention of things named after the subject of a biography article, but I don't remember where.

What should I do with this? Is there a policy to handle eponymy? If so, I sure can't find it.

Please {{ping}} me to discuss. Thanks. Thnidu (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: I'm not sure about the best place to mention it but It's about Herman Badillo Bilingual Academy so it should be linked if it's mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PrimeHunter. Got it. --Thnidu (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thnidu. In a number of biographies of people who have died, I have created a section called "Legacy" to describe honors and awards they received after their deaths. That's one possibility. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cullen328, but that's not the case here. I don't know when the school was added to the article (it was not there originally), but it was there before his death: it's mentioned in the revision of 16:07, 28 February 2014, and he died on December 3, 2014. --Thnidu (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here in California where I live, we don't usually name public places after people when they are still alive, but who knows what squeaks through. If the school was named after him while he was still alive, perhaps a section called "Honors" might be appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Heck, that was done with the public school my kids went to in Framingham, Mass. See here:
"Mary E. Stapleton Elementary School is named for a former school principal and school board member, who gave more than 50 years of service to the schools. The school was renamed in 1980."
She was the guest of honor at the renaming ceremony. And she deserved it: A disproportionately large number of the award-winning teachers in the state had taught under her.
Eh, just some nostalgic recollections too late at night. --Thnidu (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Images

Hi. I am drafting an entry on an artist. I own several of the artist's prints. If I photograph the images may I include them as part of the entry on the artist? Kind Thanks BBehl (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice project, though a WP:BLP biography of a living person makes usually a difficult first project. Easier to start by making many small changes to existing articles until you understand how things work. However, the way you're starting isn't impossible. Something even more difficult to do is use the work of an artist, apart from the long-dead kind. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing is awfully long and detailed but the main point for you is that owning a copy isn't enough. The artist must license it. Most don't like to do that, as it pretty much ruins the chance of making any more money from it. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, BBehl. Adding to the answer above, please think of it this way: The creator of a copyrighted work of visual art retains its copyright, even if it is reproduced through photography. A poster or prints may be authorized by the artist, but the original work is still copyrighted. You bought the print which gives you the right to enjoy or sell that single print, but not to copy it except in very limited ways. Copyright gives the original artist the right to control copies of their work. That right is theirs, not yours or ours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Titling

Hi, thanks for making this resource available. I work in the field of forensic psychology generally, and my main area of research is assessment of risk for violence and other criminal behavior. I thought I might like to write a new article on that topic, but I've got an initial point of confusion. In the field, we call this type of assessment simply "risk assessment;" however, there are other fields that use the term in other contexts, and there is already a "risk assessment" article that describes many of these. What are the rules for deciding on a title that is sufficiently distinctive while also close enough to the common usage that a person looking for information would be able to easily find it? "Risk assessment in forensic psychology?" Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, but there's plenty of precedent for naming the field in the title, in parentheses after the term, like this:
Risk assessment (forensic psychology)
For example, the dozens of articles named "New York" this or that include, under "Literature",
Then you can add a brief section to Risk assessment, titled "In forensic psychology", with a note pointing to the main article via Template:Main. See the section "In information security" in that article for an example. Hope this helps! --Thnidu (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu and Starke hathaway: Thnidu is right that an appropriate suffix parenthetical would be the way to go. As far as how to represent in the Risk assessment article ... this could be done as Thindu suggests, as a small section, or it could be done with a hatnote {{for}} cross reference. If you are writing a new article, might be good to start with the hatnote, then consider later how to add a small section to the "parent" article, which would also contain within the section an instance of {{main}} pointing at your new article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu and Ceyockey: Thanks very much to you both, that's very helpful. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starke hathaway. Contributions from an expert in a field are always welcome, but please make sure you follow the policy on original research. An article should summarise what the reliable sources say on a subject, which may include accounts of arguments, discussions, conclusions in those sources; but it should not include any argumentation, judgment or conclusion not found in a source, not even straightforward conclusions which one might draw from comparing two sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artical submission/editing help

I am from the United States and there is only one college/university in the state of Nebraska without a Wikipedia page. I have tried to do my best making a page with their website, but it is very limited information. I need help with making citation better. I am also not great with writing, so any grammar or other edits would be helpful. I think this is the link to the article I wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bryan_College_of_Health_Sciences. Look at other articles about colleges in Nebraska, Bryan is listed on there but isn't recognized.

Thanks! TinyMAK5 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TinyMAKS. I'm afraid that if there is limited information, it may not be possible to write an acceptable article. Whether or not a subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article does not depend on what it is (still less on what other articles exist) but on what people unconnected with it have written about it. Bryan College may be very similar to other colleges in Nebraska, but if it happens that somebody has published a book, or several newspaper articles, on one of the colleges but nobody has on Bryan College, then Bryan College is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and an article will not be accepted irrespective of how it is written. See WP:NSCHOOL. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TinyMAKS. Things are a little more complicated than this for institutions of higher education. Bryan College is non-profit, awards BA degrees, and is accredited. While the Notability documents don't say this, there is as statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools that says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The college web site is enough. Keep it factual and leave out public relations stuff like "Bryan Medical Center and the School of Nursing build upon the strengths of both organizations to establish Bryan College of Health Sciences, a partnership that provides significant clinical experience to its students". StarryGrandma (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with StarryGrandma here. Ideally, Wikipedia should have an article about every single accredited degree awarding college and university on this planet. If any are established in orbit or on other planets or moons, we should have articles about them as well. The working assumption is that some coverage exists in reliable sources, whether on or offline, whether in English or in other languages. Arguing that such an accredited institution is not notable is possible in theory, but very difficult in practice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd seen that idea somewhere, StarryGrandma, but I couldn't find if in WP:NSCHOOL - in fact, the link you've mentioned cites that, but then proceeds to outline a practice which contradicts it. One of them needs changing. --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree ColinFine, but who knows what WP:NSCHOOL actually said when the link was written. There is a lot of discussion and changes in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), especially in Archive 11 and Archive 13. What is going on in practice is determined by one group of people; what gets recorded as a guideline is determined by another. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Reliable Sources

IWiki uses reliable, academic, and peer-reviewed sources to referenced in the articles here, but how can the sources be trusted when, for example they make mistakes or contain a bias (ex. Time Magazine "scientific discoveries of the year" publishing pseudoscience as science .National Geographic publishes a magazing on Naturopathy, which isn't backed up by scientific evidence?) I am a bit worried aobout pseudoscience is inadvertently promoted in reputable organizations, like National Geographic, Time, Scientific American. . Frogger48 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Frogger48. Is this a question about editing Wikipedia? Well, anyway. Your gripe is with Time and National Geographic, not with Wikipedia. No source is 100% reliable, and even the worst sources are usually reliable for the name of their editor-in-chief on any given day. If a generally reliable source prints some credulous gossipy garbage because of 21st century mass media pressures, that does not make that specific garbage reliable. It is up to us as editors to gauge the reliability of every source we use. Sometimes, this is not an easy process. Naturopathy is a fringe health topic, though, and medical topics are held to the very stringent standards of WP:MEDRS. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Frogger48. In addition to what Cullen328 has said, Wikipedia is not just a scientific encyclopaedia - it covers topics which are regarded as pseudoscience but nevertheless have roots in human belief and thought, established by sources. I agree with Cullen that pseudosciences such as naturopathy or astrology should not be presented as scientific facts or effective treatments, but that doesn't make them non-notable as part of human existence. As he says, evaluating sources doesn't mean trying to decide whether or not something is 'true' or 'false'. It means analysing them for what they have said about a subject, and deciding how much weight to give them. Time and NatGeographic wouldn't be good sources for a scientific article anyway, since there is a huge wealth of reputable scholarship in these areas out there anyway to use first. However, we also have a lot of articles on things that aren't traditionally 'scientific' at all, such as art and literature and anthropology; National Geographic might be a good source to quote on some aspect of global culture, which can't be quantified or measured but can be examined academically. Similarly, Time IMO would be a reasonable source to quote on current affairs, to find out what someone thinks about a particular issue. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 08:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to suggest a person to be included on the list of folk who died on 22nd Feb

Hope this is the right place to ask this...... The English-born chemist Smithson Tennant FRS (1761-1815) has become quite a hero of mine, and as the holder of the Chair of Chemistry at Cambridge University and discoverer of two elements (iridium and osmium) I feel he has reasonably sufficient status to be included in the list of 'those who died this day'. The 200th anniversary of his death falls on 22nd Feb this year, and so feel that it would be appropriate to see his name in the list of those dying on the 22nd Feb. Thanks for any response you can give. 109.153.42.127 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have had a look and he does seem to be an appropriate person to add to the list. You don't need to suggest to anyone, just put his name in your self whilst including a wikilink to his page with two square brackets like this '[[]]'. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean listing him in our article for February 22, there's a problem: the apparent local consensus (which I strongly disagree with and believe is trumped by core policy) is that all such lists need not have direct citations to reliable sources that verify the information placed in the date article. However, for anyone you add, the information included must be referenced in the linked article on the person. See the fourth bulleted point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style. The problem is that the general sources in our article on Smithson Tennant do not verify his date of death (I might go fix that after this post though).

If you mean listing him on the main page on February 22, in the On this day... section the article will not qualify as selections are chosen by article quality and the article on Tennant is meager. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit, where is this consensus to which you refer? I cannot find it. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arfæst Ealdwrítere: Hey Arfæst. I described is pretty specifically: "See the fourth bulleted point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style". To be clear, I strongly disagree with the idea any list escapes requirements for direct sourcing. The idea that sourcing is provided by the attenuation of the linked entries being properly sourced is insufficient. Nevertheless, the entry for Tennant failed even that standard (though I've since fixed it by adding sources).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK to have the source on the target page, although a note to that effect might be placed on the sending page. Or the source can be placed there, too; I have done it both ways. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix bad redirects?

I have noticed there are a fair number of bad redirects. They fall into two different categories: redirects from one word to a different word when they are not the same thing, and redirects that are the same word with two different meanings.

For example in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giza_West_Field there is a reference to Prince Iunu which incorrectly redirects to Heliopolis because Iunu happens to also be the Egyptian name for Heliopolis. How do I fix this? John Chamberlain (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Chamberlain: See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article, but please don't change a redirect target without checking the feature at Help:What links here, in this case Special:WhatLinksHere/Iunu which shows there are also correct uses of the redirect. Instead you can pipe the uses which currently go to the wrong target. See Wikipedia:Piped link. If there is no right article but the subject appears notable and may get an article later then you can make a red link, for example [[Iunu (prince)|Iunu]] to produce Iunu. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter:Ok, how can I convert the redirect page into a disambiguation page? In other words, right now "Iunu" redirects to Helilopolis, but ideally there should be a disambiguation page that offers the choice between the prince and the city. Do I convert the redirect page into a disambiguation page somehow, or do I create a new disambiguation page and delete somehow the old redirect page? John Chamberlain (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Chamberlain. A disambiguation page is not usually recommended if there are only two topics: hatnotes are usually a better solution. (They can only be used when both articles exist, but frankly I would suggest that writing the article on the prince is far more valuable than worrying about redirects and disambiguation). A redirection page is just a page which has the special code #REDIRECT at the top, and it can be edited in the normal way. The trick is getting to it first: you can do that by letting Wikipedia take you to the redirected target, and then picking the link just under the title which says "Redirected from ... ". --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of entry

How can I delete an entry I've made?SarahSHill (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SarahSHill, welcome to the Teahouse! That page is already up for deletion, but you can still request it yourself. Add the code {{db-author}} to the top of the page. You can also use this for anything else you've made (so long as no one else contributed anything significant to the entry). Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How long will it take to delete the page?SarahSHill (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank youSarahSHill (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

editing predefinition info boxes

I have tried to edit the predefinition Info/Música/artista but appear to be stuck... My problem is that the set item list is using brazilian portuguese which I would like to change. I have changed the english version and I do not understand why the portuguese cannot be changed. Can you please explain why not? Thank you 2001:690:2006:4400:38F1:684B:C29A:6339 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2001:690:2006:4400:38F1:684B:C29A:6339 and welcome to the Teahouse. This is only for asking question about how to edit the English Wikipedia. If you have questions about something on the Portuguese Wikipedia, you will have to ask there. You can get help at this page: pt:Wikipédia:Portal comunitário. Each language has it's own Wikipedia and if you want to change something, you have to do it on all the languages you are interested in. That is not automatic. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify it is possible that the article that the IP is referring to is DJ Marfox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IP is probably Mariana Raposa (talk · contribs) since they removed their name from the first post to this thread here. It has been suggest that MR read WP:ELMINOFFICIAL so, perhaps, those of you who offer help her can offer other assistance. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH W.carter's answer looks to be correct to the question asked. I added the above links just in case something was being lost in the language translation. MarnetteD|Talk 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Are you actually trying to use the Portuguese Wikipedia's template - at pt:Predefinição:Info/Música/artista ? or trying to translate the English version into Portuguese?
Infoboxes only support the parameters listed and they must be typed exactly right, so it would be much easier to start with the Portuguese template, and fill that in, than translate the English one. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Mariana Raposa: I don't know Portuguese or the policies of the Portuguese Wikipedia but that article mentions European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese. You had written Info/Música/Artista instead of Info/Música/artista with lower case 'a' in artista. That was fixed in [4] You can only use parameter names a template (predefinição) has been coded to accept. See the documentation at pt:Predefinição:Info/Música/artista. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objections of Wikipedia.

What are your responses to Wiki pages that point out errors objections to Wiki? The pages on Metapedia, Rationalwiki, and Conservapedia are the ones that I am talking about. What points made in the pages are factual grounds?Frogger48 (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frogger48: Welcome back to the Teahouse! I think you'll find this to be a rather personal question (not that that's a bad thing), and you'll get varying answers depending on the individual. Depending on their nature, I think wiki alternatives to Wikipedia can be good resources, and that people focused on criticizing Wikipedia can be a very good thing - in the hopes that positive change comes out of it. Some sites, such as Citizendium, aim to directly improve on Wikipedia's flaws (with Citizendium removing anonymity and encouraging professionalism). Other sites, such as RationalWiki, have a much more narrow scope than Wikipedia and function much differently.
That being said, some sites can be rather polarized in their views, and may make unfounded criticisms with no real solutions. It depends on the site, and no wiki is perfect. Wikipedia itself does keep a list of articles that highlight some of the more notable criticisms and controversies surrounding Wikipedia:
In the end, the important thing is that Wikipedia is continuously improving - and personally, I don't think any other general-purpose wiki comes close to matching the usefulness, size, and reliability of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's structure is what has allowed for that to happen. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Frogger. For me personally it depends what the source is and if there is evidence for it. Sources like conservapedia and/or fox news, just make me laugh as they are not reliable at all. But that is mostly because of my personal bias for evidence based reasoning, and not believing in woo woo like creationism. I think almost every wikipedian knows that wikipedia is not perfect. But things have been improved since it inception. And should keep improving over time so that the writing is better. For the rest I mostly agree with superhamster. NathanWubs (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, Citizendium presents the most credible intellectual challenge in theory. But encyclopedias must be judged in practice. If you want to compare articles about important encyclopedic topics, take a look at Abraham Lincoln here, and on Citizendium. Our article is very good. Theirs ends in December, 1864, with Lincoln alive and thriving. There is no discussion of the final months of the Civil War, nor the unpleasant events at Ford's Theater in April, 1865. I would like to forget those events, but do not want an encyclopedia to do so for me. Citizendium is a failed project, while Wikipedia thrives. Wales was right, while Sanger was and remains wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the same statement could apply to other projects founded by meta-wiki, including, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikisources, Wikibooks, Wikivoyag etc..? as well, overlooking the controversies, omissions, errors, vandalism, and flaws for Wikipedia as well as the other projects made by the Wikimedia Foundation (WFD), are all of these projects still general reliable and trustworthy? Hey, if someone could answer this, it would do me great, Thanx.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger48 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those other projects you mentioned don't aim to serve the same purpose as Wikipedia, Citizendium, or any other general knowledge wikis - they're not encyclopedias. These projects have their own unique goals (Wiktionary is a dictionary, Wikivoyage is a travel guide, Wikisource is a library of source texts, etc.). Many of them, I'd say, if not the best sources out their for their respective fields, are at least the best free sources that you can find. Of course, not all are the best. For example, Wikinews is certainly not as expansive or detailed as many other news sites. At the same time, however, the goal isn't necessarily to compete (for example, Wikinews requires citations to other news sites), and each project does have its own strengths (the primary one for all projects being that they're completely free resources).
All wikis are the same - they all strive to be as reliable as possible, but will never be perfect and will always be improving. Many of Wikipedia's sister projects aren't as open to vandalism or mistakes as Wikipedia is - both due to popularity, and the nature of the projects (for example, there isn't much room for editorial mistakes on Wikisource, as it's simply a collection of free sources). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A fellow wikipedian created a film external link template, but now I would like to make some adjustments to how the link text is being displayed. The specific template I would like to edit is Template:MHL_catalog. The link text is currently displayed as 'Katharine Hepburn papers at the Margaret Herrick Library', but preferably it should say 'Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences'. I would also like to remove 'papers' in the template code. How do I tweak the template code and required parameters? Thanks. Lauren at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lauren. Generally to change a template you need to have a thorough understanding of how template coding works (see Help:Template) which is something I don't know about either. However, to make wording changes you may be able to manage just using common sense. Go to the template and click edit to modify what is in the edit box. Then save. Take great care not to disturb the exact syntax of the underlying coding, that is the {{...}} stuff. To see the results of your work go to a page using it and redisplay it using the purge operation. Be prepared to revert your edit if things have gone wrong. Many templates are protected from editing because of the inherent risks but this one seems not to be protected. Good luck! Thincat (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lauren at Margaret Herrick Library: Your username indicates a conflict of interest so I don't think you should edit the template yourself. The page history [5] shows it was recently created by User:Lugnuts who can be contacted at User talk:Lugnuts. The full display of the template for your example is:
Katharine Hepburn papers at the Margaret Herrick Library
The source does have "Katharine Hepburn papers" as a heading. Note that Margaret Herrick Library is a link. Readers can just click it if they want information about the library. The opening sentence says "owned by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)". We generally don't specify the owners of a wikilinked resource in templates like this and others in Category:External link templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kept the text succinct, so it didn't spread across the whole screen and become overwhelming. I based it on the length of other templates commonly found in that section, such as the link to IMDB. And I created it following Lauren's original request at WT:FILM. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I looked at the code and suggest [http://catalog.oscars.org/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId={{{1|{{{id}}}}}} {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}}}} papers] at the [[Margaret Herrick Library]]. That gives the same optional English parameter names as {{IMDb name}}, and {{PAGENAMEBASE}} works on articles with disambiguated titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update made. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP RM or Wikipedia request for move?

I attempted to look up "request for move" upon finding it on an article, "10 Years", and am now even more confused. What is a request for move, and why is it used? I'm guessing it might have to do with inactivity in this case. Are these terms better described in the village pump?Lbhiggin (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lbhiggin. RM stands for requested moves. An RM is simply a request to rename a page. A user starts an RM, and the community has a discussion on whether or not the page should be moved. A person could decide to be bold and simply move the page, but RMs should generally be started for possibly controversial moves. --Biblioworm 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved pages to a new name with no comment beforehand and no kickback either. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the linking article have to be one found in Wikipedia?

My Article (title: Alfred Edwin Jones [architect]) was accepted but categorized as an Orphan. I asked the meaning of this and got the following kind answer: "Orphan" means the page lacks incoming links. Your page has outgoing links (otherwise it would be labeled "Dead End"). What you need to do is find other pages which mention Jones, and link his name in those articles to his article. For example, if Jones designed building X in Dublin, make sure the Article for "Building X" has Jones' name linked. And do try the "find link" tool the template suggests to you, that might make it even easier. Hope this helps!

MY QUESTION: 'Finding other pages which mention Jones'... Does this mean pages from Wikipedia? EamonX1 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be existing mentions. You can also add mentions to relevant pages like Belvedere College#Notable past pupils. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility, EamonX1, is for you or another editor to write an article (or more) about buildings he designed. One possibility is the Cork City Hall, mentioned at Cork City Council, which includes a photo of the building. Such articles would properly include mention of the architect. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You write: 'It doesn't have to be existing mentions. You can also add mentions to relevant pages like Belvedere College#Notable past pupils. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)'

1. Not sure what you mean by an 'existing mention' (It doesn't have to be existing mentions'). 2. If I come across a wikipedia article which contains the name of my man (Alfred Edwin Jones), how do I make a link between that article and my one? I know I can add the url and title of the article as a Footnote. But is that it? EamonX1 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EamonX1 I think PrimeHunter means that if there is an article which already refers to Jones, you can make that use of the name into a wikilink; but if an article doesn't mention him but reasonably might (eg it refers to a building he designed) then you might edit the text to mention him, as a wikilink to the new article. The way you make the link is to put the name of the double in double square brackets, so [[Alfred Edwin Jones]] is displayed as Alfred Edwin Jones. You need to match the spacing and punctuation precisely, but you can make it display differently using the 'pipe' character (vertical bar), so you might use [[Alfred Edwin Jones|A.E.Jones]], which would display as A.E.Jones but link to the same article. Footnotes are usually for references to support claims in articles, and you may not use Wikilinks for that purpose, as Wikipedia is not actually regarded as a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to articles which don't already mention him. If you click edit at Belvedere College#Notable past pupils then it's easy to guess what you could add there:
* [[Alfred Edwin Jones]] – Architect
PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Sorry for being so backward (I am over 70 - still no excuse). I realize now (am I correct?) that making links does not mean editing MY article, but editing an article which already exists - inserting a link in it if it contains the name of the subject of my article (or adding in my subject's name if it is appropriate (as in the example you give re Belvedere) and linking it.EamonX1 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are correct. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being watched?

Feels like it. It's not a bad or good feeling but it feels like I keep seeing the same people on pages I've just edited for example. I'm guessing that's normal. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DangerousJXD. Yes, of course you are! :) We all are. Especially when someone is in the spotlight with good questions like you, here at the Teahouse. People see your edits and get interested and do some tweaks of their own. When I was new here I had two editors who looked after me and saw to it that I did good edits. I called them my guardian angels. See you around, w.carter-Talk 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DangerousJXD there are also other reasons you may bump into the same people. If your editing on a topic (such as basketball) there will be others who are also going though articles on the same topic. People interested in a topic may be watching pages about that topic, and thus checking when they see edits. Some people watch Recent Changes and may just be active at the same time, and doing changes while checking other edits. Hopefully its not because you're leaving errors and they are fixing up behind you ;) I'm sure other reasons exist. KylieTastic (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there...

...a place to request something to be done that I don't know how to or can't do. I would like pictures to be added to these pages: Hassan Whiteside, Jimmy Butler. Obviously a picture of them on their respective pages. I have tried to learn how to but No Way. Too complicated for me. Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi DangerousJXD their is Wikipedia:Requested pictures - all though I'm not sure if anybody is actioning those requests. The trouble is many pictures don't exist, or at least not a copyright free one. You can use site like search.creativecommons.org to look for copyright free images (but frankly I've had a hit rate of 1 in a hundred finding ones). You can also go for uploading a copyrighted image locally on EN wiki (i.e. not on commons) under "Fair use" but they can get challenged and removed if you don't put the correct justifications. For information on uploading images (copyright allowing) see Uploading images, and for information on using images see Images. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a little frustrating that I see something that needs editing and I can't do it myself. Oh well. Thanks KylieTastic. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DangerousJXD, if you can locate a copyright free image and then just have trouble knowing how to proceed, then just pop back here and ask. The difficult bit is finding copyright-free pictures, it may be easier to go take the picture yourself :)
Another option is to go find a picture someone has taken themselves that is copyrighted and they have uploaded to a site like flickr that does have the option of creative commons. Then contact them and persuade them to change the licence to creative commons (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) so you can copy it to Wikimedia commons. A lot of people just don't think about it and slap the copyright on, but would be happy to have their image used on Wikipedia. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said KylieTastic, all that is too complicated for me. Maybe I will be able to do all that when I get more experience. On another note, take pictures of them myself?!? Lolz! Spend tonnes of money just for two pics (tickets etc.). That's funny. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic: (... and maybe also 'ping' @DangerousJXD: just so you get an answer ^^) You can't use fair use on copyrighted pictures in the articles mentioned above since they are of living people. The fair use does not apply then since, as it was explained to me, "anyone can take a picture of a living person". This part of the WP policy can lead to some tricky thing when it comes to taking pictures of celebs or other noted people, as is evident on this talk page. Talk about people getting frustrated! ;) Best, w.carter-Talk 07:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that w.carter - I didn't know that twist to the ever lasting hell of copyright law! KylieTastic (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings @DangerousJXD:, being an eternal optimist, I just posted an image request for you at Talk:Hassan Whiteside and hoping that another editor/photographer may be able to help.
At article Wikipedia:Requested pictures, drill down to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and then Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of basketball people to get the best matching category.
From there the image request line looks like this:

{{Image requested|date=February 2015|basketball people|in=Florida|in2=North Carolina|in3=the United States|of=XXXXXXXXX's picture}}

Above is then posted onto the article's Talk page. After posting, you will see the "in" categories listed on Talk page bottom. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit an image file?

Hello again. I am testing how to upload an image from my computer, and have received a message about copyright and alternative text. The file was misspelled Horseman at Texas Tech at Duck instead of Dusk. It is a picture of a horseman statue at the entrance of Texas Tech at dusk. I believe the horseman is Will Rogers. My license would be a free art license for this photograph. How do I edit this image file?Lbhiggin (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lbhiggin, welcome to the Teahouse! There are two separate things here.
First is the name of the file. Files can only be renamed by trusted users, and I've put in a request for that. So, you don't have to worry about it.
Then there is the license. To edit the license, go to File:Horseman at Texas Tech University at duck.jpg (this will still work after it is renamed) and edit the page.
Replace the {{untagged|...}} code with a license. When you say "free art license", do you mean the Free Art License? If so, then use {{FAL}} Otherwise, please respond here for some suggestions.
Optionally, you can also replace the description with with this to get some pretty layout:
{{Information
| description = A brief description
| source      = Where did it come from? You can say "Own work" if you made it yourself.
| date        = When was it taken?
| author      = Your name
}}
Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lbhiggin, just a little tip: The next time you want to upload a picture, you can do that at the Commons instead, it is much easier with the licenses and all than at the Wikipedia. You start at the Upload Wizard and it will guide you through the process. The Commons is the "library" and "data bank" for pictures, sound and movie clips for all Wikipedias and once a picture is uploaded there, it can be used on any Wikipedia (different languages). Many pictures that are uploaded here at the English Wikipedia are in time transferred to the Commons. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 22:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated description. Still unable to edit license status it is Thank you for your help. I'm sorry that this seems to be so difficult for me.Lbhiggin (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk page cleanup/time table

I recently started editing some articles, specifically glaucoma. I've seen this in other articles though as well and am not sure how to proceed. I tend to look at the talk page, see what type of suggestions people are making, and if they seem reasonable try to fix the issue. Afterwards I'm not sure if I should delete the item in the talk page or what to do. I've seen many talk pages where there are many suggestions/issues that people have raised, that seem to have been dealt with in the article, but the talk page still acts like its an outstanding problem. I had trouble finding specific information on when its okay to delete or archive portions of the talk page.

Second question, if someone were to put a "more references need" template in a section and still maybe two years later there are still many uncited claims with no references, is there a certain timetable when it becomes reasonable to just remove the uncited material? Thanks Ljeyrich (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ljeyrich, I've not come across any policies on these however I can venture a few comments. With the talk page you could maybe archive the old items (I've seen that done on some pages before). You could at least go though and mark any sections that have been implemented to make it clear maybe with a {{Resolved mark}}  Resolved or {{Done}}  Done - with an appropriate comment. If really keen - do both ;) — On the second issue it depends on the subject and how 'dubious' the information is. If it's a WP:BLP issue the unsourced material should be removed quickly. Otherwise I would say it's on a case by case basis. If it sounds dubious I would remove if it's old, especially if a quick google found nothing. However it the information may be correct but just without a good reference then I would leave. Basically if you think its not good remove (Be bold), but don't just remove because their is not a reference. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

non-admin AfD closure

recently an Afd discussion (here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christi_Lynn_McGarry) was closed by a non-admin. I believe this closure was premature and inappropriate. The closing user account is only a month and a half old. I also believe the closing user may have a COI with the subject due to location. This user has also semi-recently been blocked and has had issues with inappropriate editing. I don't want to re-open the AfD myself, since I have contributed to it. How do I dispute the closure? Deunanknute (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, but don't know the logistics. Also note that the closer was one of the premature RfA people from awhile ago, and has been blocked recently. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and welcome to both of you. Typically you would ask an admin to review the closure per WP:BADNAC but since I'm not involved in the discussion and given your points and the existing discussion, I've undone the close. We'll see if anyone complains. --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I insert a picture?

Hello I am new here and would like to know how to put a picture on a page. It is one taken from my own camera.Lbhiggin (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted

I spent most of the afternoon writing a page about Modstox, pretty much the same as the BriSCA F1, BriSCA F2 and Hotstox page, yet it has been deleted and I have been given a warning.....This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Modstox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont have a clue what I have done wrong or why the page was deleted, please can someone advise me please. I cited and referenced and done everything correctly.Nij4829 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you will have to ask user Coffee for his reasons because since the page has been deleted, I can't see its history. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 17:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user knows full well that they were advertising (and I would assume works for the company or is being paid to do the editing). Here's just a taste of the article: "The main focus for Modstox is low cost, easily attainable parts, durability, close performance, safety and most importantly fun." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I will do that now Nij4829 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nij4829:Don't bother, you know you are attempting to advertise for Modstox on this encyclopedia and I've told you it's not allowed. End of discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee I am not trying to advertise anything. I was simply trying to write a page just like the BriSCA F1, BriSCA F2, SuperstoxNij4829 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the quotes you have posted, They are just snippets of information that I have found from the internet.

I am not in anyway or have ever been connected to the club, I just appreciate grassroots motorsport.

I will happily delete anything you deem as advertising. This is my first page, so I am sorry if I upset anyone or made a mistake.Nij4829 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Nij4829 as I can't see your original article I will assume good faith on what you are trying to do. To avoid any similar issue again I would suggest you read Your first article and create the article in your sandbox, or another page within your user space. If their was work in the original page that was not advertising then you could ask Coffee to copy the deleted page into your user area for you to work on further. As you said you are trying to create pages like BriSCA Formula 1 Stock Cars etc, I would suggest you look at the style and content of these to guide you. Also if this 'advertising' was just because you copied "snippets of information that I have found from the internet" this could be a copyright violation anyway. Lastly as I don't know the subject to comment you would have to be sure that the subject passes Notability at this time as you said it was "grassroots motorsport". — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KylieTastic, thank you for that in depth reply, it is very much appreciated. I will ask Coffee to copy the deleted page if they can.

I created the page 'live', I didn't think about the sandbox feature, for which I apologize. I used a similar style to the hotstox page. The subject has as much Notability as hotstox and superstox. I admit, I didn't think about copyright violations.

Is there a way that I could get a admin to look over a page from my sandbox before going live?

Sorry for being such a newbie. I feel such a fool to be frank.

Thank you for your advise Nij 18:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nij4829 (talk • contribs)

  • Hi Nij4829 to be honest I've never actually got around to creating any articles from scratch - I somehow got distracted into maintenance and anti-vanadalism work and never got arround to it.... However from what I understand you could either start with the Wikipedia:Article wizard or if you create in your own area and once complete move to the draft area and then you can submit for review by adding {{subst:submit}} on the top of your draft. A link of interest may be Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Hopefully someone with a bit more knowledge in this area can add anything I've missed. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KylieTastic Your a star. I must admit to being naive and probably going at it like a 'bull in a china shop', I have been looking at some of the creating pages (probably too late now).

I have done some editing already, tho I just felt that the page needed to be created. I will await Coffee's reply and see if they are happy to let me have another go (I certainly wont be restarting it as it took me all afternoon). All the best Nij 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nij4829 (talk • contribs)

This is supposed to be a welcoming teahouse, so I am sorry if somebody might have been offensive to you, Nij! Have a cup of tea and a biscuit before you go. Relax. And come back here any time you want. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous and Bad Citations

Recently I joined the Wikipedia to edit an article. I use wiki as a reference source for my school, but not as a primary source due to questionable sources. I also donate to support wikipedia because I believe in the content that wiki offers its readers. However, in the page I question, a user has continued to post defamatory and erroneous sources. I have deleted but they keep adding them back. Is there a solution to this? The information is quite harmful to the reputation of the page's focus. Page: Taylor Lianne Chandler. Thank you for your timeEatprayswimm (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of the references led to problems in the article. And the material was entered poorly. You may not like the information, but the sources are reliable. You can't take out material that has been reported in reliable sources, however unfortunate it appears for the subject of an article. The subject of the article can request that the entire page be removed, but that is generally done only for people that aren't well-known publically. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you define what Wikipedia classifies a reliable source? Information provided to the unreliable sources (such as enstarz, hollywoodgossip, etc.) has been done so by the subject, Taylor Lianne Chandler. They are personal interviews and no information has been verified by outside sources. This concerns me the current use of Wikipedia. Again, thank you for your time.Eatprayswimm (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eatprayswimm, you removed material that cited the Washington Post and The Guardian, as well as those less reliable sites. What is factual is that Chandler said these things about herself, but they weren't verified, and the article should reflect this. What she said and the news coverage of her saying it is what she is well-known for. You are fine to insist on reliable sources, but she did mention Michael Phelps, and it was reported that she did in reliable sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information on the page is erroneous and cited by less-than-reputable sources. If this is what Wikipedia tolerates as a viable source, than so be it. I will continue to add the "reputable" sites such as POYI.org, but will wait until all edits seem to resolve themselves. Eatprayswimm (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have already violated WP:3RR and are likely to be blocked shortly - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section of text dissapearing?

Hi, not sure if its just on my browser, but the first paragraph of the 'Critical Reception' section on the page 'Zookeeper (film)' dosen't appear in the published article when I view it. Its there when you click 'edit source', but when reading the article it just dosen't show up. I've never encountered this before. Thanks, Jonie148 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonie148 I fixed it. There was a typo in the markup used to close a reference, this caused the software to include everything after that reference up to the "proper" end of the next reference to be included as the reference itself. It's a fairly common error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thanks for that Roger (Dodger67). --Jonie148 (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's happened to me a lot: I forget to close the ref, and then everything afterward gets lost. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new article whose name duplicates an existing name

'Woca', in addition to the 2 uses presently in the DB, is the name of a native plant in Southern Oregon (or maybe wider). It was substantially used as a food by the native population before we Anglos pushed them aside, and grows in water as do water lilies. What I'd really like is for someone else to create this article, as I'm still very green on the site!

... Jerry Brown Geodejerry (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geodejerry, also known as Jerry Brown. I am assuming that you are not the governor of California. If I am wrong, please let me know. Your question raises several implications. Should an article about a species be given the formal Latin name or the common name? That depends on which is used most often in reliable sources. If we have several articles, or potential articles, with the same name, how should each be named? Please read WP:DISAMBIGUATION for a detailed explanation. As for someone else creating the article? Maybe, but not highly likely. After all, YOU are the new editor motivated to bring this article to fruition. We need new editors. Please consider giving it a try. Read Your first article and return here to the Teahouse at any time to ask for advice. You can do it! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One can also go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and put in the request over there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some people here anonymous?

It is stupid. When I signed up I saw no option for this. How do they? Why? I tried to thank someone that has all the numbers like 774.088669.399 but I can't. You should have to have a name here, I don't care what your name is but you should have one. I believe thier called IP adresses. DangerousJXD (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the teahouse DangerousJXD If you wanted to propose changing a wikipedia:policy the place to do that is here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) But I wouldn't recommend trying to change this one. Its well established and I think the vast majority of editors would want to keep it. For what its worth I completely agree with you. I think this is a policy (like several others I would change if it was in my control) that dates back to the earliest days of wikipedia. The idea was that we wanted to encourage as many people to be editors as possible so we didn't want to have any barriers to editing, people could just jump right in and start typing without having to establish a user ID. In the early days I think that made sense. Wikipedia needed to achieve a critical mass, get brand recognition, etc. Also, in those early days there were a lot fewer people on the Internet so those that were on it tended to be better educated than the average population. BTW, you are correct those numbers are Internet Protocol numbers, the unique number assigned to your device or computer that lets the rest of the Internet know where to send back requsts for data. If you make an edit without being logged in the system just takes your IP address and uses that as your user ID but of course as a result there are a lot of things that can't work as they would with someone who has an ID. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, DangerousJXD. There is an irony in the question you raise. There is an assumption among many that the best way to edit anonymously is to decline to open a Wikipedia account, and just edit. That is entirely incorrect. The editor's IP address is disclosed. That may reveal their home town, and in some cases, it may also reveal their school, their employer, their mobile phone carrier or other personal information.
On the other hand, an editor who creates an account, choosing a generic user name, disclosing no personal identifying information, and who edits in compliance with our policies and guidelines, enjoys the highest degree of anonymity. No one knows their gender, age, race, nationality, or even continent of residence. That's by far the best way to edit anonymously.
I choose another path. I believe in openness as an editor. I disclose my real name (Jim Heaphy), my home town, age, family and career information, and so on. I have nothing to hide and recommend openness for those who are fully prepared to be open. But many editors have legitimate reasons for anonymity. In my opinion, the best way to edit anonymously is to open an account and then to decline to reveal personally identifying information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DangerousJXD. To clarify a bit in plain talk, an IP number is sort of the address for your computer or phone, and having that number it's fairly easy for a person with computer knowledge to track that computer down. So not so anonymous. However, a computer or a computer address can be used by many people and that is why you cannot thank that "address". For example: Big companies or entire universities can have the same IP address, and thanking that you would be thanking everyone there! These shared IP addresses can sometimes result in "unusual" things. Like when the IP for the United States House of Representatives was temporarily banned from editing Wikipedia because someone there was using that address for vandalism. I have also seen somewhere here, can't remember where, that there are editors who live in countries where the Internet is sketchy or controlled in some ways, who prefer to edit from different IPs for some reason. Remember that this is an international site and it's open to everyone whatever their preferences in identifying themselves are. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 10:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "When I signed up I saw no option for this. How do they?". Anonymous users are simnply users who do not sign up. If you don't log in to your account then you are also anonymous. But as others say, "anonymous" means your IP address is revealed when you edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Sorry but all those arguments you make are arguments FOR having a user ID not against. As Cullen328 rightly pointed out you are MORE anonymous when you have a user ID but don't announce who you are then when you don't login and leave your IP address. I would never edit with just an IP address for that reason alone. I'm a bit of an extremist when it comes to the security of my computers and network and exposing my IP address would be something I would never want to do on ANY site. There is nothing about having a user ID that requires you to use the same IP address. I know that for a fact because I've logged in from different devices in different parts of the country. The use of anonymizers or things like the Tor browser are different and use of those is typically discouraged but can be allowed for people in the circumstances you describe. But even in those cases you can and would want to have a user ID rather than just leave whatever IP address the anonymizer generated, it puts one more level of indirection between you and your computer. I honestly can't see a good rational reason for not doing what @DangerousJXD: implied in his initial question and requiring that everyone login before they edit. I think its just one of those things that people cling to because its always been that way and they don't like change but I think Dangerous is totally right we should require people to login if they are going to make any edits. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MadScientistX11: I was not arguing either for or against ID or IP, simply stating how it worked. Please do not read an argument where there is none. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 13:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn AfD

I withdrew an AfD I proposed here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ale Resnik. How can I get it closed? Deunanknute (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, an uninvolved person will close it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Biblioworm 13:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

topic about "the influence of sanctions to the economy of acountry" would survive in wikipedia

I would like to write my first article and I was considering "the influence of sanctions to the economy of the country" connected with recent events on Russia and past events in the world. Would this be a topic to survive on wikipedia? Thank you for your help in advance Lyondelaliberte (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lyondelaliberte - welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for considering contributing to Wikipedia. Regarding your subject proposal, you need to tread carefully when considering what to write. Read the policy on original research: simply writing a well-sourced essay stating your own conclusions from the references isn't for Wikipedia. Rather, you would have to summarise the debate and write about e.g. International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis or 2014–15 Russian financial crisis, in a factual, neutral tone, drawing only on what other people have said about the topic (which, as you can see from the blue links, other people have already done). If you have additional sources to add to these articles, then that would help expand them as long as you quote them directly rather than draw your own conclusions from them.
Simply put, an essay-style analysis of most topics would probably not survive long, given the close scrutiny new articles get either at New Pages Patrol or Articles for Creation. In this case it would duplicate existing topics; in other cases, people would mark it as original research, which is better published elsewhere. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 07:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A properly written article about the economic effects of sanctions (in general, not about one particular country/instance) might be viable provided there are sufficient independent reliable sources such as academic journals or mainstream press that discuss the issue in some depth. I think it may be a good idea for you to consult experienced editors who are specifically interested in economics, you will find them at WP:WikiProject Economics. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roger and Lyondelaliberte - looking through the Sanctions article at work (I boobed a bit by only looking up those related to Russia), it seems many of the child articles of that page could do with improving anyway - there's not an awful lot of detail on many of them. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 08:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internal error notice on a talk page

Hi - My first article was recently posted and I want to contact the reviewer who approved it. It was classified as a stub, and I would like to ask how I can improve it. However, the editor's Talk Page says "click here to leave a message", but doing that results in an error message (pasted below). Any thoughts?

[2b9facbe] 2015-02-11 00:46:36: Fatal exception of type Scribunto_LuaInterpreterNotFoundError

Buckmor54 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckmor54: Hi Buckmor. You could post to the user talk page in the usual manner but I believe I have just fixed the problem with the coding at User:Onel5969's talk page so the link at the top that gave this error should work now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It worked perfectly. Buckmor54 (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tool down, editor already notified

A tool mantained by a veteran editor has been down for almost five months now, and that editor's talk page has three comments on it (including mine, today) from other users. What to do in that case? I would like to edit one page which uses that tool, but don't want to seem rude about it. Just today I wrote the third note on the veteran editor's talk page. The other two notes were written by two other different editors, within months of each other. In wikipedia editing time (if there is such a thing), is it the right time to do something about it? Capikiw (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Capikiw and welcome to the Teahouse! I have to guess based on your contributions you are talking about Atethnekos's Toollabs:bibleversefinder tool. Since it is on labs, it shouldn't be hard to get a new maintainer to be able to restart it if Atethnekos can't be found. This question would have been much better suited for WP:VPT, but you're in luck! If the maintainer can't be found there is a tool takeover protocol being developed and someone should be able to take responsibility for the tool to keep it up and running. :) I'll do some research on it and let you know what I find on your talk page. :) Happy editing — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, "Technical 13," for the info (not for "blowing my cover" :D). Yup, I was referring to it, but didn't want to push "Atethnekos" anymore than what has already been posted on his/her talk page (that editor must be having lots of trouble with the person who keeps writing/fighting on muslim issues). The changes I mentioned I wanted to do were more in the line of hyperlinking in a specific article to another site, at least while the tool becomes available. I'm new in the registered world, but not too new to editing wikipedia. I think I'm not quite willing/ready to mantaining anything long-term (not sure what it would entail). Thanks again for the info on where to bring up issues like this one. Question: Why does your username appear with "U|" in plain text in front of it? - Capikiw (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Got it. Sorry for rushing. Might look into Wikipedia pinging later. Thanks. How do I add an automatic watch on Phab:T87730? I added your page in wikimedia and the rfc page (a bit confusing that last page contents's section...if you ask me...only numbers for topics, not titles). I hope that'd be enough (I should be looking for work :P ... any paid positions at Wikipedia? :) But with a very free-range schedule :P)

How does one go about removing the User sandbox template?

This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the "User sandbox" template. How does one go about removing the User sandbox template? I created a page in my sandbox and submitted it for approval. After submitting it, I submitted it as a Draft, and then got this message on the top of the page. I am a little confused on the current status of the page sent in for approval. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Milosinawava (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I will do it for you, see the diff of my change to the draft to see how it is done for future reference. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 21:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Once the page is moved. Does that then clear my Sandbox and allow me to begin creating another page in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosinawava (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, KylieTastic, but moving normally leaves a redirection around, so after Milosinawava moved it, there was a redirect left in their sandbox, so it might have looked to them as if it wasn't moved. I have cleared that redirect out, Milosinawava, leaving your sandbox empty. (I wouldn't normally go into somebody else's sandbox uninvited, but I thought you would find this more helpful). --ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just in my Sandbox and contemplating that dilemma. So, thank you very much for doing that! So, at this point, where exactly is the Draft:Cecil Garland page residing as it awaits an editor to review? Milosinawava (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Draft:Cecil Garland, Milosinawava. It's just been reviewed, a few minutes ago, and I'm afraid it hasn't been accepted. Please read the links that Dodger67 has left you in the decline notice. --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write and article on my father late Mr. Prakash Nayudu

and a menion of him in Wikipedia as he was a national level player of Table Tennis player and a Ranji Trophy cricketer. He was so of India's first Cricket Captain Col.C.K.Nayudu's son I request you to contribute to the article, if you know about him.Bariissh (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bariissh welcome to the Teahouse. Since you want to write about someone who is really close to you, it's very likely to create a conflict of interest. So I wouldn't recommend it. However if you can assure that you will be neutral when discussing the subject then there won't be any problem. Also the subject has to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. If not, refrain from creating an article. Before creating an article you better write it as a draft on your sandbox. That way we can review your content before moving it to mainspace. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ja Superkid761 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cabals

What is the Cabal and how do I join it? Can I create my own cabal? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YoSoyUnHamster, welcome to the Teahouse :). There is no Cabal. The Cabals are an ingroup joke on Wikipedia. They don't actually exist, but people find pleasure in pretending they do. In order to "join" such a cabal, simply say you are a member on your userpage in one way or the other. A popular starting cabal would be the Penguin Cabal. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions. All the best, Taketa (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of the Russian Hamster Cabal. To be a member of this cabal, you must be fuzzy, four-legged, Mongolian, and no more than six inches long. Most members of the Russian Hamster Cabal are devout Christians who love iconography, music, science, and math. The patron saint of the Russian Hamster Cabal is Our Lady of Vladimir, an icon of Mary painted around 1130 A.D. YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now the Russian Hamster Cabal is official. I just made a page for it. Come join us! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adding my article to a category and subcategory

I added my article to the list of physicians within lists of physicians. Two problems arose. How do I direct the link to the subcategory? Also, on the page "Category: Physicians", the article "Alfred Worcester" has a separate page in the "Pages in Category "Physicians"" list, which I did not intend and don't know how to remove. Thank you.AgedCare14 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgedCare14. There is no technical difference between subcategories and parent categories. You simply write the name of the category you actually want the article listed in. You didn't say which category you wanted but I have changed Category:Physicians to Category:Physicians from Massachusetts.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank youAgedCare14 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

When was the teahouse founded?YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YoSoyUnHamster, welcome to the Teahouse! The Teahouse was first created on February 15th, 2012. The first "real" question was added about a week and a half after that. --NeilN talk to me 04:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And based on my contributions, I had posted there without realizing it. I had started helping on what was then called the New contributors' help page, which now directs people to where to get help and is not a page for answering questions any more.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the actual page I edited was Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions. After some research, I have found that the two pages were merged in May 2013.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=647083980"