Wikipedia:Teahouse

User:Robot.text.files /config webbot Teahouse is

Melecie, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

user contributions

                      ^^^^^To reply

@EordE6 Also, what did you mean by semi hidden in the edit history?

Studentcollege (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Studentcollege: By that I mean, if I go to the article, the edits will no longer be displayed. But once again, if I click the history button (see the one in the top right here), I can see my edit and everyone elses from the past. Also as I have said before, please reply in this section (don't use the ask a new question button.)

user contributions

If you make a contribution to an article page and that contribution goes directly to your user contributions page then that contribution cannot be deleted am i right? Studentcollege (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Studentcollege: I know you may be new here but consider this a formal warning. Do not post this same question repetitively here again. It will be considered spam and could be removed. Instead, respond to the editors who answered previously by using the little blue edit link next to the title of the section or on our talk pages. I will copy this message to your talk page too. Thanks for your cooperation. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@EordE6 on your latest post what did you mean by undo the edit or remove it from the article? Studentcollege (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Studentcollege: For example look at this history page. You see next to each edit there is a small link labeled undo? You can go to here and try it out if you wish. This will remove whatever that person just added to the article from the main view of the article, but your edit will always remain, semi-hidden in the edit history. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

user contributions

So once you make a contribution on an article page that contribution goes straight to your user contributions page and that contribution cannot be deleted am i right?

Studentcollege (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Studentcollege: Yes, that's correct. The answers to your other questions below expand on this. If you ever wish to clarify or expand on a question you've already asked, you can do so in the same section - no need to create a new one :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Studentcollege: Welcome... again. If you scroll down a bit you will see this has been answered multiple times but I will sum it up. You can always undo the edit or remove it from the article, but it will always be visible in your user contributions for viewing. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

user contributions

I also want to know if you look at your own contributions page then I guess you cannot delete your contributions from your own account am I right? Studentcollege (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Studentcollege. Once you have made a valid edit, it will be part of your public edit history forever. If an editor, for example, makes a death threat accompanied by a string of obscenities, or violates copyright, those edits will be removed from public view by an administrator, but will still be visible to administrators and a small number of other highly trusted users. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

user contributions

Hello, I just want to know if you can delete some of your own user contributions from your own account?

Studentcollege (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Studentcollege: thanks for stopping by. No, every change is preserved forever in Wikipedia's database. A special class of users called administrators have a tool that allows them to sorta delete things, in the sense that they can hide specific edits from public view. But that is only done for very specific reasons, and not just willy-nilly. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 23:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Studentcollege. Jayron32 is quite right that the logs always contain the historical record of changes, but I'm not sure if that is what you were asking about. You have not made any edits so far, so I guess this is a hypothetical question, and I will give a couple of hypothetical answers. If you make an edit and then later you change your mind, you may be able to "undo" that change by clicking the "Undo" link from the article's History page (it may depend on what other changes have been made since). The log will still show both the original change and the undo. If you can't undo, then you can always edit the article again to put right any mistakes. On the other hand, if you create a sub-page in your user space (which might be named something like "User:Studentcollege/Butterflies") and you want to delete that entire page, then you can request an Admin delete it by adding the following code at the top of the page: {{db-userreq|rationale=Brief reason goes here.}} . I hope that makes sense; if we did not cover what you wanted, please come back and ask specifically.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So I guess all your contributions will forever remain on your user contributions and cannot be deleted am i right? And just so you know newly created wikipedia users will always say the exact same questions just to clarify on certain things@EoRdE6

Studentcollege (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Studentcollege: Yes to sum this up again, your edits are permanently viewable in your user contributions. Nothing you do can get them removed from there. This is to ensure accountability for bad edits and vandalism, and to allow reviews when people are asking for higher permissions (rollback, file mover, adminship etc). Your edits will always be in your user contributions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @EordE6 for your patience and kindness.

Studentcollege (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Kenya at the Cricket World Cup

Not a new user, but I've done something I don't know how to fix. I moved Kenya at the Cricket World Cup from my sandbox to the article page, using the move function, but now my sandbox has become a redirect to this page. How do I remove this redirect, so I can use my sandbox again? Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302. If you click a redirect like User:Joseph2302/sandbox then the top of the page says "(Redirected from User:Joseph2302/sandbox)". Click there and then edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion

So a page I just made for the Alliance of Women Directors has been flagged for speedy deletion for "unimportance" & "irrelevance". Part of the page listed over 150 members and that list has been removed. Seriously, WTF? You guys claim to not be sexist, to want women editors and then you flag a page for speedy deletion because you deem it irrelevant?!? Some of those women members that you deleted are highly recognized and honored in the film industry.

If you need some links to why that group is so significant check here... http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/dga-study-women-and-minority-directors-face-significant-hiring-disadvantage-at-entry-level-20150109

I call bullshit!

JenJjenred5 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not up for speedy deletion, rather a deletion discussion is ongoing and I see that you have made your points there. We cannot second guess the discussion so further comment here will not help.--ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog you cited, Jjenred5, does not discuss the organization in question, so it does not help in establishing the notability of the group. The deletion debate will last at least a week, so that gives you time to add reliable, independent sources to the article, if they exist. Any notable individual woman director probably already has a Wikipedia biography or is eligible for one. But having notable members does not make a group itself notable. As for us "guys" and our "bullshit", I notice that the first recommendation to delete came from a highly experienced and respected woman editor, MelanieN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jjenred5. There's no way you could have known this but you're traveling a well-worn path. When you see posts by people who aren't familiar with our common standards for articles whose submissions have been marked for some deletion process a common denominator—oh, not all the time, but often enough—is, depending on the topic: you must be anti-Italian; you hate French people; you're a bunch of antisemites; you must be sexist; you're racist; what do you have against Chinese people; you're liberal bias is outrageous; your conservative bias is outrageous; and on and on depending on the topic. Then we explain: uh, no, Wikipedia requires reliable sources to warrant an article; Wikipedia requites notability of topics to be demonstrated; information in articles must be verifiable; Wikipedia does not allow original research; no, you can't copy and paste other people's copyrighted writing; yes, you should have attempted to understand the basics of our standards and attempted to comply before posting; yes we really are an encyclopedia and all that that implies; no we are not a social networking site; and on and on depending on the subject and what was written.

Simply put, you've taken a wrong turn. It's not only untrue, but it does nothing at all to further what I assume is your goal – to have an article on this organization here. If you want that, the answer is simple. Find reliable, secondary, independent sources that discuss the topic substantively. List them at the deletion discussion. Cite them in the article. It will not be deleted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jjenred5, looking at the article history the speedy deletion would have been added because there was only one reference not coming from the group itself, a problem that was later fixed hence no more speed delete. Any new article without reliable references is likely to be flagged if an editor does not think it meets the basic levels of Notability. The notice is a standard notice put onto a large number of articles every day, and gives the information needed to contest.

• Note that the notice does not say the topic is "unimportant" or "irrelevant" is says "...does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." - i.e. its not calling it unimportant, just stating that it is up to the creator, or anyone else, to show importance. This problem would not have happened if the Articles for creation process had been used, when using the direct creation method you run the risk of deletion as the warnings said.
• Next you claim "You guys claim to not be sexist...." - firstly there is no "You guys" on Wikipedia, for the most part we are individuals (all sexes, genders, races, ethnicities,.... ) acting totally independently; secondly the actions such as the speedy flag [1], and removing the list of members [2] where taken by two individuals, not by any group of "guys"; but most importantly why jump to the conclusion this was a sexist action? If you created a page about some mens group with no references it would also likely be flagged.
• If you are in doubt that this was not a sexist action just keep an eye on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted and look at the other articles being flagged for the same reason as yours. Also as the article is now under consideration at Articles for deletion you can see its just one of 63 so far today, and I find it difficult to look at such a list of diverse topics and find any bias other than towards our Notability standards.
• You also should not assume all the involved editors are male, in fact some already involved with the article identify on their user pages as female. Many of us choose to not identify either way. I personally don't find labels useful as they are often used to judge, when only each edit in its own right should be judged.
• Finally, I hope this experience does not discourage you, and that you continue to work to try to bring this article up to Wikipedia Notability standards. And if in the end the topic is not yet notable enough to remain, that you continue to help create, edit and improve the millions of other articles that need it. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please create an article about Magnes the shepherd.

Magnes was a Cretan shepherd in north Magnesia. It is believed that he discovered Lodestone ( and thus magnetite). Please feature it. 62.231.239.140 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Magnes the Shepherd is mentioned in the history of geomagnetism article. I encourage you to write a draft article about this character using the Articles for Creation process. Cheers LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. See Magnes the shepherd. Everyone reading this is truly welcome to add to it!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

Runaway question moved here from somewhere in the other questions by w.carter-Talk 16:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to post a question here. I can't post my question when I hit 'Ask Question' button. Why is it so? Tafeax (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Have you added the four tildes to the end of your post? Without doing that, you can't post your question. AmazingAlec (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate to be that person, but they obviously figured it out as they posted immediately after in the section below. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Oops! Need to pay attention more... AmazingAlec (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Where has my sandbox gone?

Hello!

Got problem with sandbox. It redirect to the page which I've been moved for article. The article Flymojo, seems to show my sandbox edit history too. All this while, I used sandbox as an experiment page. Sometimes I made major update by copying from main article, do the improvement on my sandbox and put it back. Am I doing the right thing? How to remove edit history of my sandbox on Flymojo? How do I get back my sandbox? Thanks Tafeax (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey and welcome! I have fixed this issue by removing the redirect from User:Tafeax/sandbox. While yes some random edit history has gone to the main article but this isn't an issue. But in the future it is better to create a second sandbox or a draft article so this won't happen. Good question though! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot EoRdE6! Tafeax (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

EoRdE6If I may ask you, how do I create a second sandbox? Tafeax (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tafeax: In your own user-space you can have pretty much as many pages as you want (as long as they are loosly Wikipedia related). So to create one just type User:Tafeax/pagename in the search bar, replacing page name with whatever you want, click on the redlink in the search results and create. So you could use Sandbox 2, or if you're building and article maybe the name of the article. It honestly doesn't matter as long as you can find it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Top icon problem

Hello. I am a file mover in Wikipedia, and when I used the {{File Mover topicon}} template, it did not show up on my userpage. What happened? Any replies, please ping. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nahnah4:, the icon is there but you've hidden it by accident. Most of these topicon templates have a parameter |icon_nr= and you have used the value 1 for this parameter both for both {{File Mover topicon}} and {{Rollback}} so the images are superimposed on each other. Change one of the values to 2 and the issue is resolved. Nthep (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Oh thanks! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 05:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What does a superscripted question mark mean?

I was just editing the article on Okayama Castle (Okayama-jō in romanized Japanese) & ran across several superscripted question marks that seem to indicate uncertainty about the correct spelling. Is that in fact, what these marks indicate &, if so, how can I remove them when I correct the spelling? Evalpat (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Evalpat. If you pick on one of them, you'll find they are links to the page Help:Installing Japanese character sets - so they are nothing to do with the spelling, and are really designed for people who don't get shown the kanji, because they're not installed on their computer. (I agree that the meaning is not clear, but it's trying to be helpful). They're created automatically by the template {{nihongo}}. That page shows that it is possible to replace it by a different template {{nihongo4}}, which does not have the query; but I'm not sure that replacing it is a good idea. --ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine,

Thanks for the quick reply.

I hadn't run across those before & find them misleading. Given their function, I don't suppose anything can be done about them. It's unfortunate that question marks were chosen for this purpose tho. To the uninitiated like myself, they really appear to call some aspect of the preceding text into question.

Evalpat (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy editing

Hello again! Can I get some clarification on what 'Copy Editing' is please? --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD

To quote Wikipedia:Basic copyediting "simple improvements that you can make without being an expert in the subject. Copyediting involves the "five Cs": making the article clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent." - There is more information on the Wikipedia:Basic copyediting page. - Arjayay (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions I want to ask

Here are some questions I want to ask.

1. I see that after someone has nominated a file for deletion, it either gets deleted or stays. So after you have a file nominated, how do you delete the file itself after receiving requests?
2. How do you become an administrator?
3. I asked about developing portals earlier, but you did not provide the exact code for the featured stuff. What is the exact code for my portal, Portal:Scottish Wildlife?
4. How do you customize a taxobox so that it is whatever colour you want it to be, regardless of the life form you are talking about? (for example, a taxobox for a living thing in the kingdom Animalia, but the taxobox is pink, unlike the default, in which the taxobox for such articles is tan)

Provide the exact codes, and give as detailed answers as possible. Do not say anything like "go to this article and read it". The answers to each questions should be numbered in exactly the right order.Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Scottishwildcat12. Sorry for referring you to other pages in some of my replies, but in order to say much more, I would just have to copy the content of those pages.

1. Only an administrator can delete a file. But if you uploaded the file and provided the only substantive content to the file description page, you can request deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the file description page. —teb728 t c 07:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

2. You (or someone else) can nominate you for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. After that there will be a discussion of whether you have sufficient experience. (It requires a lot of experience to be approved!) If you want details, you can read Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. —teb728 t c 07:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

3. I will leave your portal question for someone who knows about portals. For reference your previous thread is at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 257#Making A Portal. —teb728 t c 08:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

4. The color is assigned automatically based on the entry for regnum, virus_group, unranked_phylum, or phylum parameters, in that order. For example for animals specify the regnum parameter regnum = [[Animal]]ia. (There is also a color parameter, but there is no need to specify it manually. If you do, be sure to use rgb or hsl format; see examples at Template:Taxobox.) —teb728 t c 08:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Educational assignment

Hello, I'm very new to Wikipedia and English is not my prime language. I created an article in my sandbox as a part of my educational assignment. I assume that next step should be submitting it to review; however, I'm afraid that I've made too many mistakes and it will be just deleted. Could someone please have a look at it and tell me if I should change anything? Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ichmusic/sandbox Thank you Ichmusic (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ichmusic, it looks quite good. I think you should try to find a few more reviews by critics, that would help the article clearly pass Notability, which is a bit marginal now. Look in major mainstream news or magazines. Your English is good and there is no danger of it being deleted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roger (Dodger67) thank you! I'll try to find more reviews then

Ichmusic (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

My draft of an article I am posting (first time editor) has been blocked due to an IP that is a web page host.

I am a military historian with two web pages for veterans who served during the same time period can review these historical events. There is nothing commercial about either website. What are my options?217.217.128.83 (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome IP editor. Although your specific problem is unclear, I suggest you consider setting up a Wikipedia account. This Teahouse question is the only edit from this IP address, so I can't analyze your earlier work in order to make more specific comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

But as always, the touchstone is independent reliable sources. If there are articles by people unconnected with your websites and published in reliable places such as major newspapers, that talk at length about the websites, then there may be enough material to ground a Wikipedia article. If there are not such sources, then it is impossible to write a satisfactory article about them, and you should not try. It makes no difference at all whether the sites are commercial or not, or how worthy they are. In addition, as the proprietor of the pages, you may have a conflict of interest, and should be very cautious about working on any Wikipedia article about them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No mention of her unethical Watergate efforts?

I've donated to Wikipedia and I find is absolutely disgusting that the page dealing with Hillary Clinton contains absolutely no mention of her unethical behavior during the WaterGate hearings. How dare Wikipedia become a partisan source such as this! This is abominable!! Wikipedia seems to me nothing more than a shill for the liberal agenda. I had thought that Wikipedia was fair and impartial but this is beyond the pale of honest discourse!! How dare you blatantly avoid the first episode of her unethical behavior!!!

71.211.235.125 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia is a FRAUD! 71.211.235.125 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, angry IP editor. Do the full range of truly reliable sources that discuss her role in the Watergate investigation consistently call her "unethical"? If so, furnish them. If not, Wikipedia will not say so either. If you are disappointed with Wikipedia, you are free to withhold financial support in the future. I am confident that other people will step up to the plate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Wikipedia is not a monolith. It is built by thousands of people all editing by their own lights so when someone thinks an article is missing material or has material it should not, we discuss it, ideally civilly and without accusations and histrionics. The tenor of your post – your misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works, your accusatory attitude before attempting to find out and see if there's a solution, your frothing at the mouth post, are all very well situated to not get the result you might desire. Anyway, I took a look at your claim to see if it should be included and I turned to the common touchstone we rely on to make such decisions: What a dialectic of reliable sources have to say on the subject. My investigation, albeit quick, is that the claim you are here about is simply untrue, that the individual who supposedly fired her for unethical behavior himself says it's untrue and the sources that claim this are partisan ones. But if you want to pursue this – the correct way – it is to post to the article's talk page, but what you will need to bring to bear there is reliable sources backing the claim.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

another name should be on this list of Notable persons

> > -- > Please note on this page another important name should be listed. > Adelia Bernard Australian Humanitarian of the year award winner 1998 > lived 37 Victoria St Williamstown. > > Norman Bernard > Husband of Adelia Bernard who deceased 2013 > > > Notable residents[edit > <http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Williamstown,_Victoria&action=edit&section=23>]

119.95.78.131 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Such lists normally only include entries for people who have an existing Wikipedia article written about them (and all of the people listed in that article section do). It may be that there are sufficient reliable sources to sustain an article on her – that is, to show she is notable and that the content of a substantial article could be written based on verifiable information – but that potential article should be written first.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

2015-16 NCAA Divsion I Men's Basketball season

Can You put Things on like read edit and view history for the article 68.102.58.146 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I create the 2015-16 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Article 68.102.58.146 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! The article you are looking for can be found at 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the user is trying to create 2015–16 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. It is becoming hard to assume good faith here as this user has been told across multiple fora for several weeks how to do this (not necessarily with this specific article, but with numerous prospective sporting event articles), and has steadfastly ignored all good-faith attempts to help them. The first dozen or so times he may have been genuinely having trouble making it work. At this point, it has gotten so surreal it feels like he's playing us for fools. I don't want to believe that, but this is starting to get past the point one can believe he really is still having trouble. --Jayron32 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

How Can I Start this article 68.102.58.146 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't. Don't. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Copying text verbatim from one article to another

Hi everyone, I realized that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V250_%28train%29 contained information regarding the conclusion of two settlements that another article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL-Zuid) was missing, as it was not up-to-date. Now I wonder if it is okay to copy-and-paste the missing information from one article the other? Thanks.

IchWillNurDenMediaViewerLoswerden (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IchWillNurDenMediaViewerLoswerden. Yes, you can do that but you need to attribute the original source by explaining and linking to the source in your edit summary. Complete details can be found at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exactly the page I was searching for.

I have an additional question, I stumbled upon this talk page for a CISCO certification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CCNP and it looks awfully like an advertisement to me. Since I cannot read Vietnamese (if it is indeed Vietnamese), is there any way to confirm that this is indeed an advertisement? Thanks. IchWillNurDenMediaViewerLoswerden (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Google translate confirmed it was an advert so I have blanked it and warned the user responsible.--ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a problem the authority control -- what's with that?

I notice at the bottom of an author's article there is this "Authority Control" section. In listing works it seems incomplete. And it puts "plays" into a different category that "literature", which seems not proper. Can an editor, like me, edit or add to the authority control? Thanks, very much. GoodWenceslas (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction: To edit the stuff about plays and literature, you need to edit Template:Works by David Ives. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! Yes you can edit that, just like most things on Wikipedia. You can read more about how this works at Template:Authority control. Find the field you want from there and add it to the template on the article David Ives. If you need help with this feel free to post here or on my talk page. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That worked. GoodWenceslas (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How do I become authorised to post pictures?

Hi

I'm trying to create a page for The Royal Waggon Train, which was the beginning of the now Royal Logistic Corps; the largest branch of the British Armed Forces.

I would like to insert the capbadge onto the front page, but so far have been unable to find a way to do this. After some research, I discovered I need to be an authorised user in order to insert pictures. How do I go about this?

Rwteditor (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rwteditor, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account became autoconfirmed 15 March so you can already upload pictures to the English Wikipedia. Click "Upload file" in the left pane. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend uploading pictures to Wikimedia Commons rather than English Wikipedia if possible. Zell Faze (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK British military insignia and badges are Crown copyright thus they cannot be uploaded to Commons. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Question re: the "definition" of consensus on WP

Okay, so as well as a (very, very dead) RfC I'm involved in right now, I've been investigating the nature of RfCs and how they typically go on Wikipedia, and I'm finding myself a little confused. So an RfC's result is determined by finding consensus on a given matter, right-- but how is that achieved? How is consensus really "defined" on WP, per se?

I understand that the technical answer is that it's "mutual agreement", but I don't really get how that's achieved through RfCs since opposing opinions and disagreement are the catalyst for RfCs. Is the result determined by the way of a majority-wins situation, or the way of whichever side presents a more convincing side in the debate (since it even states in WP:CONSENSUS that it's not a voting or democracy system, I find it really odd to see RfC's counting votes or listing who is on X or Y side of the debate)-- or is it ideally supposed to cumulate in a meet-everyone-halfway, compromise-based solution where everyone is at least okay with part of the result? Does it depend on how contentious or ideologically sensitive the topic area is?

Additionally, is one's responsibility in an RfC more than just contributing their two cents-- should I work towards crafting a solution based on everyone's input as well as putting in my own? Or is that up to someone else, like an uninvolved editor? What if the topic area is noncontentious and/or not of interest to most (admittedly, I think my going to the trouble of doing an RfC over something like Alien spit was a little silly, but I just didn't know how else to keep the discussion in a constructive direction)?

I know that was a lot of me yakking about this, but I feel like it's something important to set straight in my mind. I'd appreciate input. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 13:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Great question and thank you for stopping by the Teahouse, BlusterBlaster. I have to admit right from the start that if I have trouble falling asleep tonight, the discussion to which you refer is what I'm going to read to take me off to ZZZZZZZZZ land. If it were me, and I might be a little more likely to go ahead and make the edits and then see if anyone cares enough to make a reversion, but that probably is not really in the spirit of consensus building. Are all these bits and pieces important enough to all the discuss-ants to NOT come to an agreement. It seems to me that when I am involved in discussing articles for deletion the comments are short and sweet and end up getting closed by an administrator. This drawn out process is too much for me. If I were interested enough in the topic, I probably would leave the discussion and come back later (a month) to see if things had wound up. ....alien spit? Really?

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Discuss-ants" makes me think of this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Have some more tea. I certainly don't see anything wrong with trying to come to some sort of consensus in a Request for comment. But it seems to me that a Request for comment is just that: People comment and when most folks (or some folks) have weighed in, then you yourself can decide what to do. I agree with Bfpage here that, when you have pondered all the comments, you can make your proposed edit under WP:BRD and see what happens: perhaps get into a very heavy back-and-forth about the aptness or inaptness of your said edit. But perhaps not. Anyway, Consensus is often gained through one chivalrous person just giving up with a shrug of the shoulders and walking away. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

approval for a created article

I've created an article on an organization and put it on my personal page so I could edit and revise it. I've just added the references. How do I get approval and, ultimately, for it to get it's own namespace? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bebesarah

Thank you, Bebe (Sarah) Bebesarah (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add {{subst:Submit}} to the top of the draft and save the page. That will submit it to the queue for review. I also made a few formatting changes to comply with the house style.--ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

create a new page

I am new at Wikipedia. I want to create a Wikipedia page for my company. I have no idea how to create or how to use Wikipedia editor. Jaagaan (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please use the article wizard accessible from the articles for creation project.--ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't edit myself, because it says the "site is semi-protected to prevent vandalism"

Assuming this relates to the above question. please use the wizard to create a draft. If it is accepted, the page protection can be dealt with at that time.--ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

However, the original poster wants to create a Wikipedia page for "my company". Please read the conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a profile directory. We will only create an article about "your company" if neutral editors determine that the company is notable. If so, the article will be written in neutral terminology, not in the promotional text that new editors often use in trying to describe a company with which they are affiliated. Anyone has a right to use the articles for creation process to create a draft article, but the article might not be created, or it might be different from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reg. Vandalism

Hey! I would like to report some vandalism on the album site for "To Pimp A Butterfly" by Kendrick Lamar.

First you go to the summary "producers" and he got his name in there "Itzik Bensoli", and then after to tracklisting that he have completely ereased the original producer names and put his own name "Itzik Bensoli" . (this regards track nr 4 "Institutionilized") where it should be - Fredrik 'Tommy Black' Halldin, Rahki. Also in the "writer" section he got his name "Itzik Bensoli" that should be ereased also.

Here's the link for the fake edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=To_Pimp_a_Butterfly&diff=651628176&oldid=651628170

Best regards 83.252.51.170 (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 83.252.51.170, and welcome to the Teahouse. Congratulations! You have now been drafted into the anti-vandalism cadre here in Wikipedia Please feel free to correct that mistake by editing the article itself. Every editor is able to make changes to articles. If you're not quite sure how to do this please come back to the Teahouse and we can walk you through the process.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As the page is semi-protected, and the user is an IP, they cannot make the changes themselves. There has been extensive vandalism on that page, and I don't know enough about the subject to know what is correct, and what is false. I suggest 83.252.51.170 requests this as a semi-protected edit request at Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly - Arjayay (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

wrong type for a picture

Hej I have edited the wrong text on the page "diatoms", where it was written that 2 mM silicate would be limiting for diatoms according to Egge & Aksnes 1992, but after Reading that paper I noticed that it is 3 magnitudes wrong, and actually the value is 2 µM (Micro instead of milli). that is quite important for an ecologist, and probably many people wrote the wrong number from wikipedia already instead of checking the original. But I don't know how to correct the Picture which is connected to that text, how to change in the Picture mM to µM, can anybody help me there ? (or change the Picture ASAP) name of Picture in Wiki: Egge and Aksnes 1992 plot.svg Thank you Maria Kahlert (SLU) Maria Kahlert (SLU) (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Maria Kahlert (SLU). The caption you are talking about is within the image File:Egge and Aksnes 1992 plot.svg. I'm afraid there are no tools within Wikipedia for editing images: somebody would need to edit it outside Wikipedia using a suitable graphical editor, and then upload the new version (I am guessing that GIMP could do it, but I don't know). You may find somebody who can help at the graphics lab. --ColinFine

(talk) 11:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Maria Kahlert (SLU), it's glad to have you pay a visit here. I have found graphs available on wiki commons that I have had to alter for very similar reasons and this is how I did it: since the image is copyright free you are free to alter it as you wish. I snipped the image off of my browser window and into Microsoft publisher. After I pasted the image into a Microsoft publisher document, I then inserted a white rectangle over the bottom axis label. Over the white rectangle, I inserted a text box and then wrote the correct access titles and legend on to the graph. I then an enlarged the image that I had created in Microsoft publisher to fill my screen. I then used my snipping tool in Windows to snip the new image that I had created from the old graph. I retitled the graph and uploaded it to wiki commons. At that point I was able to insert the newly created graph with the correct access labels into the article. It isn't the easiest process but it actually goes much faster than it sounds. Discussions in the Teahouse are all about editing and so I hope this helps you.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a clarification about the copyright. It is not copyright free, it remains 100% copyrighted, but under a free license, which requires attribution be provided to the authors. If you use the "Upload a new version of this file" at the original page then nothing needs to be done because the history is all there; just note the change you made. If you are uploading it anew, as modified, you must provide the appropriate credit: detail of the the page it was taken from, what was changed, link to that source, and provide at least one of the same licenses.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I have just built a new version of the image in question - took the opportunity to redo the labels in a more convenient font too. I used a screenshot of the image as a basis and edited it in PS (the current version being some Illustrator interpreted construct). Based on the comments above, I'm not quite sure how to attribute it now. What kind of attribution needs to be made to the original authors (Egge & Aksnes) and to Sakurambo (who made the Wiki version), respectively? Image is located here (Commons). Elmidae (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've provided substantial attribution. See this diff. However, as I note in my edit summary, I'm not at all sure the original upload (and thus everything after) was not a copyright violation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate :) Updated the image in Diatom. Do you think we should put the copyright question to WP:CQ? Elmidae (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

sandbox redirecting to article; want to use sandbox again

I used my sandbox to create a new WP article (for Miriam Matthews) and submitted it for review. It was approved, and now my sandbox redirects to the article. I want to use my sandbox again, to create a different new WP article. How do I do that? I'm particularly concerned by this note when I click on the "redirected from" link: "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. For more information follow the category link." I don't want to break anything, but I would like to use my sandbox again!

Thanks in advance for any help/advice!

MetaClaudia (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey and welcome. Yes the person who accepted it seems to have left a redirect to the page. All you have to do is get to the sandbox page (if you were to get redirected, click on the blue link at the top of the article) and then empty everything from your sandbox, as I have done for you here. Good job getting your article accepted and happy editing! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you rock! MetaClaudia (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi MetaClaudia, to add to the excellent answer above, the "redirect" is generated automatically when a new article is moved from your sandbox to the main area. You will have to do this little maneuver after each new article. Best, w.carter-Talk 08:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi MetaClaudia. Another way to deal with draft articles is to create them directly in Draft space (at Draft:ArticleTitle for example). That way you don't have to recycle titles, and you could also be drafting more than one article at a time. —teb728 t c 08:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will try that from now on. MetaClaudia (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Table/Formatting Question

How can I change the first column (Date) of the first table on Opinion polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2013 so that the number and month are on the same line? Yomybrotha (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

They appear to be on the same line on my screen if you are talking about the field that says 22 Jan etc. But to stop text from "wrapping" to the next line you simply encase it in no wrap templates. Follow that link for more information. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yomybrotha. There is little point in trying to specify formatting of text at that level. Readers will be viewing it in different browsers, and on different devices with different screen sizes. Browsers do their best to display it sensibly, but one size will never fit all. While sometimes there can be a definite need to constrain the formatting, in general the more constraints you put on, the harder it may make it for the browser to make sensible choices on some screens. --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yomybrotha: One or a few cells sometimes force a whole column to be wider because browsers don't break strings into two lines. I sometimes use soft hyphen ­ to allow the browser to break words at a given place. If it's a wikilinked term then piping must be used like [[Hatnuah|Hat­nuah]]. Here it renders as Hat­nuah which will only break if it's at the right margin. If you use it at the linked table then remember to also do it at the bottom of the column. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

formatting question

On the page I just created for Film Fatales I put a grid and there's two formatting issues I'm having. First, for some reason it moved the grid to below references when it should be below "other los angeles members" and the first volume is weirdly shaped. Any ideas?

Thanks!Jjenred5 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jjenred5 and welcome!. I have fixed the table placement in this edit. Just a small wikitext error that happens alot. I'll take a look at the formatting now. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

bad. ass! You're awesome, thank you!Jjenred5 (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

copyright question

Hi Wiki!

I got a page rejected recently because the content was copied with permission from the organization's website. I want to do another page for another organization that I am member of but the best content is what they've said about themselves on their own site. They know I am doing the page and approved the text. How do I submit this so it doesn't get rejected by wiki?

Thanks!

JenJjenred5 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jjenred5. For the purposes of a Wikipedia article, material from the group's own website is not the best content, for two reasons. First, notability of the group is established by significant coverage of that group in independent, reliable sources. Their website is by definition not independent. Second, organizational website language is almost always (and quite properly for its purpose) promotional. An encyclopedia article needs a completely different style of writing, what we call the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And, further to Cullen's reply Jjenred5, the organisation's approval is irrelevant. If there happened to be significant criticism of the organisation published in a reliable place that should be discussed in the article, whether the organisation liked it or not. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To your question however. While for the most part, we don't accept content from a organizations own site as it isn't neutral, but for it to not be a copyright violation either the site needs to clearly note somewhere it is released under something like CC-by-SA 4.0. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Even if it's all cited to other news articles?

Thanks!Jjenred5 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If it was cited to other news articles thats a good start. However the citations must support what you are writing. But once again, if the content of the article appears copied from pretty much any website, it will probably be deleted quite quickly as a copyvio. Use your own words, and have lots of sources to keep it from speedy deletion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem with 2 articles

I have a problem with Bomdeling and Bumdeling Gewog. I changed Bomdeling to say see also about Bumdeling Gewog, assuming they were 2 different places in Bhutan- it previously said 'see also' on Bomdeling. They both have the same names-they have several names-and from the wording of Bomdeling I cannot tell whether or not they are in fact the same settlement. Rubbish computer (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. Looking at Trashiyangtse District only one is listed, but its possible one is a smaller town within the district that has the same name. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering anyway, sorry about the delay. Rubbish computer (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't get templates. Please help me understand.

Newbie here. In my ignorance I imagine a template to be 1) a defined interface, to 2) a function. I'm trying to learn about this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Librivox/doc and I don't see any of the code that assembles these parms into commands that produces a URL. I've looked around and all I've been able to find so far is a description of the parameters; I've never found the code. Am I way off here? I'm just trying to understand if this above template needs revision. Thanks for any help you can give an 'ol Bonehead. TimoleonWash (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @TimoleonWash: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not familiar with that template in particular, but if you go to Template:Librivox and edit the page, you'll see the templates code (direct link). You can see how it assembles the URL, and takes in the name of the page the template is placed on as an argument. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Way Cool SuperHamster' Talk Contribs, thx. There is the secret code :) And it sure has a lot of "[" and "{" in it. Is there a place to learn this code myself or should I try to get an expert to explain it to me? TimoleonWash (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@TimoleonWash: See Help:Template. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem @TimoleonWash: Templates can definitely get confusing, and the one you're looking at is no exception. I learned how to use templates through experimentation and reading (your sandbox is your friend), so perhaps you'll find doing the same to be useful. Prime's link above is definitely helpful, and I'd start there. I'll try to explain some foundations, too.

Some templates use Parser Functions. These include your if-statements, comparisons, and switches. For example, let's look at the first part of the code for Librivox: {{#ifeq: {{{bullet|}}} | none | | * }}

Looking at the documentation for the ifeq function, it works like this: {{#ifeq: string 1 | string 2 | value if identical | value if different }}

When someone uses the template, the function checks to see if the bullet parameter is defined. If it is defined as "none", no bullet point is displayed. If it is defined as anything other than "none" (or isn't defined at all), it defaults to having the bullet point.

{{Librivox|bullet=none|foo1|foo2|foo3}} produces:

Template:Librivox

Meanwhile, {{Librivox|foo1|foo2|foo3}} produces:

Template:Librivox

Hopefully this helps a bit. Again, Prime's link (Help:Template) is a great starting point, and if you get stuck, feel free to ask. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thx PrimeHunter (talk & SuperHamster' Talk Contribs, this is sure a lot of info. It looks like I have some homework :) If I were to change the template, how would I identify every page it is used on in case they needed updating? Also, because I am not confident I can actually learn this markup language, are there folks here that do template modifications for boneheads like me? TimoleonWash (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you change the template, every page it is "trancluded" on automagically changes too (sometimes it takes a few seconds). Normally no changes to articles where it is used are needed. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to know EoRdE6User talk:EoRdE6, thanks. I'm happy to hear manual work is kept at a minimum. Out of non-idle curiosity, what if the parm list changes? I imagine additional parameters would require no rework, but what about removing a parm? And thanks also for your offer to do some minor coding for me. Shall I provide the programming specs in this thread?TimoleonWash (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes removing parameters does become difficult an is not often done because of this. That being said, it is rarely needed to be done either, usually a parameters is removed from the documentation, but left in the coding for backwards compatibility. Now it depends what specifically you need doing, but anywhere will work, as long as you ping me like you just did. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hum... ping. Ring your bell or such, yes? I guess by putting your user name in this post, like this: EoRdE6User talk:EoRdE6, right? Re. LibriVox, I have just verified the syntax of their URL which is this (all strung together w/o spaces of course):

https://librivox.org/search?

title=a+christmas+carol * the individual words of the title with the spaces between words replaced by the "+" char.

&author=dickens * the authors last name (I don't know yet about the case where there is a space in the authors name).

&reader=

&keywords=

&genre_id=0 * I don't know what "0" means, but doesn't matter for our purposes.

&status=all

&project_type=either * I don't know what this means, but doesn't matter.

&recorded_language=

&sort_order=catalog_date * If this is in existing template it's good, don't need to add it though.

&search_page=1 * Don't need.

&search_form=advanced * Required I believe.

Would you verify that the existing template supports the title and author fields? I think it may do something with the name of the translator also and whatever it does can be left alone. Once the wikipedia world is assured that this existing template works as is then I, and others, can start populating wikipedia book pages with links to the corresponding audio books. Yipee! TimoleonWash (talk) And I am deeper in your debt; what can I do about this? — Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'm not going to lie I'm getting a bit confused here so I'm going to start at the beginning. For citing a book source, most people simply use {{cite book}} which has many, many parameters for your hearts desire. It is up to the editor inserting the reference however to find the information to fill in these references and their various parameters (until WP:reFill starts supporting books). So you should be able to take some of {{cite book}}, fill it in and have a references to the book page. But your statement really confuses me quite a lot... If you wanted to link users to the audiobook, the best way to do that would be by taking the direct link (ex: librivox.org/a-christmas-carol-by-charles-dickens and placing it in the external links section, maybe like Audio book on Librivox. I'm sorry if this hasn't answered your question, but as I said I am having difficulty understanding it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How to rephrase for accuracy?

I'm not sure how to rephrase this sentence without dismissing some of the information submitted by previous users. On the page for Metoclopramide, it says it is used for delayed stomach emptying (gastroparesis) due to either diabetes or following surgery. Gastroparesis has more than two causes, the most common being idiopathic (unknown). My desire is to just delete the 'due to' piece of this sentence entirely and let the linked article describe the causes more accurately. I don't want to step on any toes, though. Ataylor18 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ataylor18 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Go to Talk:Metoclopramide and click on "new section" and explain your problem. If there are people watching the article, they might be able to help you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Ataylor18 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Links of book sellers in "Published works"

Hi,

Is there an issue with using links to book sellers in "Published works" sections? I am assisting someone with a draft at User:Penslips/sandbox and am not sure if there's an issue linking to Amazon or Barnes and Nobles (i.e., potential SPAM, marketing issue).

Your help is greatly appreciated!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Such links are indeed often regarded as promotional WP:Linkspam, rather use the {{cite book}} template without <ref></ref> tags, it will simply display the bibliographic details in a standard format, like this:

Carroll, Lewis (1999). The annotated Alice : Alice's adventures in Wonderland & Through the looking glass. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0393048476.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary WP Links

In the article on Mike Pondsmith there is a bibliography of publications which lists ISBN (standard book numbers) for each title. I noticed that these were highlighted, clicked on one and was taken to the WP article on the ISBN. I tried a second, with the same result. I have tried without success to remove these links since they are completely unnecessary. There are no [[ ]] to remove. Any ideas? Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Twofingered Typist. I tried about half a dozen of those ISBNs and was taken each time to "Book sources", a specialized search engine that can find the specific book in libraries and booksellers, as well as providing bibliographic information about the book. Didn't you get "Book sources"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It depends on exactly where you click. If you click on the word "ISBN", it will take you to the Wikipedia article about ISBN. If you click on the number, it will take you to the "Book sources" search engine.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey :Twofingered Typist. Between the two posts above, if what you'd like to suggest is removal of the link to our article on International Standard Book Number every time an ISBN is provided before the link to the isbn number itself (amd not the link to special book sources), that link appears to be a function of the citation templates we use (probably ultimately from Module:Citation/CS1), and I think a good place to discuss such a global change would be through a post to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I do think it's a bit redundant. I never noticed that before and it's odd that the magic link to Special:BookSources, when you just type ISBN NUMBER, links the whole shebang to Special:BookSources (e.g. ISBN 0-15-131510-8), and it's only the citation templates that separate it out into a link to ISBN and a separate link to Special:BookSources after it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It is highly likely that many of our readers have no idea what ISBN means, and that link allows them to find out easily. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence when a user clicks on an isbn number to access Special:Booksources is "This page allows users to search for multiple sources for a book given the 10- or 13-digit ISBN number..." (and it's linked again in the next explanatory sentence on the page), meaning if the link from ISBN was removed, or alternatively, was included as part of the link to Special:Booksources (just as it is when you see an isbn used outside of the citation templates), people would still get the information but I think in a more targeted way and the separate link to ISBN is a bit of a distraction from the main purpose of provided the link to Special:Booksources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The automatic linking on "ISBN xxxxxxxxxx" is a general MediaWiki feature (mw:Manual:ISBN) and has to work in wikis without a page about ISBN numbers so no such page is linked. Wikipedia's citation templates have chosen to not use the automatic feature but link to the Wikipedia article International Standard Book Number. There is an old discussion at Talk:International Standard Book Number/Archive 5#Change the ISBN link. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion seems pretty clearly on the side of delinking. Referrring to it, User:Alan Liefting started a discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 1#ISBN link but there was no participation so it looks like it died on the vine.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Should I remove "resubmit" from a rejected article?

Recently I submitted an article about the Xerox artist Louise Odes Neaderland. My article, which was quite thorough and upon which I had done considerable research, was quickly rejected. I was given the option of resubmitting the article, and I clicked that I would like to "resubmit." planning to improve it. Almost immediately a new, accepted, very spare article with several contributors about her appeared on Wikipedia.

My question is whether I should somehow remove the "resubmit" from my rejected article and contribute my references to the currently accepted article by the other group, or should I leave the "resubmit" note and continue working on my own article in case the current one does not last. I have already made a few changes to the currently accepted article, including removing the word "collageist" as a descriptive word for Neaderland, who does not consider herself a collageist.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mitzi.humphrey: Welcome to the Teahouse! Since the article has been created, I'd go ahead and improve the live article with your own content/references. The article would have to go through an articles for deletion discussion in order to be deleted, presumingly due to a lack of notability. If that ever happens, you may request that the deleted article be restored as a draft with which you can work on and improve (assuming more sources come up that help establish notability). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply in answering my question, SuperHamster! Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not entering the main discussion, Mitzi.humphrey, but a side issue I noticed, from what you said. What matters for Wikipedia is not what Neaderland describes herself as, but what reliable sources describe her as. If several reliable sources describe her as a collageist (I have no idea whether or not this is the case, I'm making a general point), then it might well be appropriate to use it in the article. If a reliable source reports that she does not consider herself as one, then the article could note that fact too, but that does not necessarily mean that the article shouldn't use it. (For the latter purpose, the source would not have to be independent: her own published statement can be used as a source for what she thinks!) --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have merged most of the content into the main article, and left templates on the talk pages for attribution. Now you can work on cleaning up and adding to the main article. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Keeps Getting Rejected

Can you please advise on any changes I can make to this article so that it is approved? Is it the content or is it the sources that are the problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samanage Danibeavs (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Danibeavs, welcome to the Teahouse. The sources are what you should focus on. Sources/references are not for giving general information about, say, what SaaS is; that's what wikilinks are for. The sources have to support the specific statements in the article: that Samanage specifically provides SaaS, etc. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

One last thing, Danibeavs: When looking for more sources, keep in mind that press releases and interviews are not considered independent. These should be kept to a minimum. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Danbeavs; to come at what Anon124 has said from another angle: you need to find places where somebody with no connection whatever to Samanage has written at length about the company and published it in a reliable place, such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher (not social media, blogs, or any site that allows user-generated content). If you cannot find at least two such places, then the company is not at present notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and there is nothing at all that you can do to the article to make it acceptable (except - perhaps - wait). --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

While I have completed some minor cleanup, by changing heading styles and adding wikilinks instead of "refs", I agree with the above posters that this article would need more refs to independent sources. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Creating a category for "Salmagundi Club" or "Members of the Salmagundi Club"

I would like to create a category to be used on the pages of members of the Salmagundi Club. Some members, e.g. William Richardson Belknap are listed in the main article for the Salmagundi Club, but there is no category currently available to use at the bottom of the William Richardson Belknap article. How can this best be accomplished?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mitzi.humphrey. You create a category simply by using it. If you put [[Category:Members of the Salmagundi Club]] or [[Category:Salmagundi Club]] at the bottom of the Belknap article, the category will spring into existence, containing that page. However, it will appear as a redlink until somebody edits the category page to add something apart from the entries, such as a brief explanation of what they are, or a Wikilink to the club article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A category itself must also be in at least one other category - in other words a category must have at least one parent category added to it's page. E.g. the Category:Writers from California page includes a number of categories that have a logical hierarchical connection to it such as Category:American writers by state and Category:People from California by occupation and others. An orphaned category is a rather miserable useless thing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that, Roger. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine - I feel that if I haven't learnt something new every time I open the 'pedia I've wasted my time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Written - Is it Acceptable?

I have composed an biographical article. Would an editor read it and let me know how it sounds? Thank you. G.E. RussellGrace Elizabeth Russell (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Grace Elizabeth Russell: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your contributions, it doesn't look like you've created any drafts or articles from your account. Did you perhaps create an article from another account? Or have you not submitted the page to Wikipedia yet? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You may have created the article while not logged in. To let us find the article, what was it called? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now, my article is a Word document. What is the best way to make it available for you to read?Grace Elizabeth Russell (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please create a draft using the articles for creation process. You will have to copy the text from your Word doc into Wikipedia as there is no automated process for doing so.--ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

From where to submit an article for review; sub-pages; assistance with regaining sandbox

I am new to Wikipedia. I would be grateful for assistance with 4 questions.

I recently submitted an article for editorial review. I appreciate the fact that the article was accepted and published. I submitted it directly from my sandbox. I hear that's a "no-no", correct? It should be submitted from a sub-page the user creates in Userspace that is devoted to the article? I apologize for having done it incorrectly my first time.

Is there any way to list the subpages in my Userspace? Looking at my watchlist? (I assume they are automatically included there.) What if I delete one from my watchlist, is there an alternative way of listing them? Is changing subpage names and deleting subpages something only Wiki users with more rights can do, or can newbies like me do that?

I think in the process of preparing the article for publication, one of the editors "moved" my sandbox from Userspace to Namespace, and it seems like now I've lost access to my Sandbox for use as a user. In other words, when I go to the URL that should be my sandbox, it redirects me to the article that was created. I look back at the history of edits on the article, and revision #650622612 says that an editor "moved" my sandbox to a "Draft:NameofArticle" path within Wikipedia. Is there any way I can get my sandbox back, i.e. break the connection between my sandbox and the article?

I have a feeling that this teahouse isn't the best place to request the restoration of the sandbox. Is this question more appropriate for the Help Desk?

Thank you in advance for your help.Kekki1978 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kekki1978 and thanks for your question.
This is a common confusion. If you try to go to your sandbox User:Kekki1978/sandbox you are automatically diverted to Larry Russell (bassist). However, if you look at the second line down on that page (If, and only if, you have come via your sandbox) - you will see (Redirected from User:Kekki1978/sandbox) in blue. Click on that and it will take you back to your sandbox, which you can then edit, to get rid of the redirect. This happens whenever a non-admin moves a page - it leaves a redirect behind. If you are still stuck come back and someone will remove the redirect for you - but doing is often the best way of learning, and remembering. - Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Arjaya! Your direction was very helpful. Done.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And to answer your question about listing your subpages: if you go to your Contributions (there is a link to that at the top of each page), then scroll right down to the bottom of the Contributions page, you will see a link to "Subpages". That will give you the list you want. Finally, you can't directly delete a page, but if it is one of your own sub-pages you can request a speedy deletion (an admin does the actual deletion) - to request this, put the following code at the top of the page (with your own rationale in place of mine): {{db-userreq|rationale=Article has been moved to mainspace, so this user draft is no longer needed.}} --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gronk Oz. Found it. Very helpful.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Rejected

My article (Lon Safko) submission was recently rejected because 'references do not adequately show the subject's notability'. I would like someone to help me in this regard in order to improve the referencing. TIA Ayazf (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ayazf. Your article relies far too heavily on sources written by Safko himself. Instead, it should be based primarily on what independent, reliable sources have written about him. Emphasize those and use Safko's own writing only for basic uncontroversial biographical details. You may find Your first article useful in improving your draft. Please read Referencing for beginners and revise your references accordingly. One relatively minor point that jumps out at me is that you consistently refer to the subject as "Lon". According to our Manual of style, we refer to the subject only by their surname. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy regarding behaviour in arbitration fora

Recently I have noticed quite a bit of nastiness in places like Arbitration Requests/Enforcement, Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents etc. To be clear, is it allowed to show contempt for previous Arbcom decisions, in particular to make veiled Nazi references (e.g. "Superior orders") in characterizing their actions (er... unwillingness to WP:IAR I guess?), in the middle of those discussions? Is WP:CIVIL actually actionable in any way, or is there some other policy to cite here? 70.24.6.180 (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. You have chosen to spend time in the areas of Wikipedia where the most intractible and emotional disputes are discussed, often at mind-numbing length. Almost inevitably, these are places where tempers often run high, and people often vent their emotions in an ugly fashion. One great thing about volunteering with this encyclopedia is that you get to choose where to participate. So, if you prefer "sweetness and light", volunteer to help kindergarteners work on art projects, and do not hang out at the drunk tank at the county jail late on Saturday night. Figuratively, of course. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but should it then follow that I am blocked when I point out that behaviour, observe another IP get blocked (and the comment reverted) for making far more reasonable criticism, and get blocked again myself when I attempt to restore that which has been censored (by the person who was criticized, no less)? I am more than willing to roll up my sleeves, and don't particularly expect kind treatment, but to me contributing to Wikipedia means ensuring that rules are consistently and fairly applied and that hypocrites and the corrupt are dealt with appropriately. I have been repeatedly accused of signing out of my (nonexistent) account in order to point out these things. The simple truth of the matter is that it is because of the things I point out that I cannot in good conscience create an account. 70.24.6.180 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Creating an account gives you a higher degree of anonymity by far than editing from your IP address. The advice I give you now is the same advice I would give any editor: Take things slow and steady at places like AE and ANI. Be very, very careful to avoid disruptive editing such as calling people hypocrites and corrupt, and do not try to evade a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Lost and Don't know where to start re-writing on my draft.

So I've been trying to publish an article Draft: Hassan's Optician Co. I've been working on for at least a month and I'm stuck. I'm a novice at writing anything actually and I was hoping someone could help me out?

This article was the first optician and first official approved optician store in Kuwait just to give you an idea why I thought it should be written.

Thank you, Krystel Espiritu (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I have gone ahead and cleaned and accepted your article. I am not saying it will stick, and I continue to suggest you improve it, but it can now be found at Hassan's Optician Co. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello @EoRdE6:,

Thank you so much for your help and I will continue working on it but could you kindly advice me on where I could improve it further from your perspective? I really appreciate it, Krystel Espiritu (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6:Also I have a lot of hard copies of newspaper articles is there a way I can publish them online and use those links as references? If yes, could you refer me to sites where I can publish them? Because most of the newspaper websites here their archive only dates back 3 years. Krystel Espiritu (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Also I've been told that it is not necessary for that source to be available online. It is quite sufficient to provide the source information of the newspaper article (newspaper name, issue number, page etc.) Krystel Espiritu (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia for Lucy Moore

I'm wanting to expand this stub Lucy Beatrice Moore and noticed when I searched in Wikipedia for "Lucy Moore" I was immediately directed to this page Lucy Moore rather than getting a list of articles about the two different Lucy Moore's. How can I edit Wikipedia to ensure that both these pages are listed when you search that name. Thanks for your assistance in advance Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two possible solutions to this issue. If one Lucy Moore is considered more notable than the other, but both are notable enough to have articles, then Lucy Moore should direct to the more notable of the two, but it should have a hatnote to the other. If they are considered approximately equally notable, then a disambiguation page should be the primary entry, and should contain links to both articles. Does the historian have a middle name? If so, her middle name should be included in her article (although that isn't essential if she is considered more notable). If she doesn't have a middle name, then she may be identified as "Lucy Moore (historian)". Since I am not familiar with either of these subjects, but both articles are stubs, my inclination would be to create a disambiguation page. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this Robert. I'm not familiar with the "other" Lucy Moore but have seen the use of a disambiguation page in previous instances. I'm off now to research how to do this. Thanks again for your assistance as it's much appreciated. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Ok - just read Wikipedia:Disambiguation which just made my eyes cross and ended up feeling completely overwhelmed. Can't find a simple step by step "how to" for beginners, so will leave it until I feel up to wading through all the "Wikispeak" to learn how to do it. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Disambiguation page created. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this! I've just done a search and realised you'd created the disambiguation page for me. I really appreciate it. Is there any chance you could give me a quick step by step summary of how you did it? Is it just a matter of creating a page called "editing Lucy Moore" and adding these two pages as a link? I'm keen to learn so I don't have to bother other editors again. Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is one of these things that is somewhat easier to do than to explain. However, it is simply a matter of creating a page called Lucy Moore and adding links to those two pages. Actually, Lucy Moore already did exist, as a redirect, so that it was necessary to edit into the redirect and change it to a disambiguation list. I can try to explain more, but it was easier to do than it would be to explain in detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That said... we probably should have a page that gives step-by-step instructions for this. It isn't something that comes up commonly, but it isn't exactly rare either. Zell Faze (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Permissions to use photographs

What is the language of the email that the artist of an artwork to be depicted should use. I've had a bunch of pictures taken down due to not being able to produce a formal email but have been unable to find suggested wording for this permission. Can someone help. This is quite arcane.

Thanks,

71.105.109.90 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The suggested wording is on this page. However, if I assume correctly that you want to show some artwork by Merion Estes, such permission may not be needed. You can upload one or two low-resolution photos of her artwork to Wikipedia under fair use, using Wikipedia's upload wizard. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking this question, and thank you @Anon126: for your response. I have been interested in the same information. Could someone please clarify which CC-BY-SA license is the standard choice for Wikimedia? The language in the e-mail template refers to the "Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 Share Alike" license, but I've seen other pages in Wikipedia and Wikimedia, including the Wikimedia splash page, refer to CC-BY-SA 3.0. I understand if the 3.0 pages haven't been updated yet. I'm just wondering which is more correct. Would I go wrong if I went with either one? Thank you for your thoughts. Kekki1978 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: Honestly it doesn't matter as long as it is CC-by-SA and Non-Commercial. Most people prefer 4.0 or some form of GNU. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@71.105.109.90, @Kekki1978: There are some sample emails that can be sent to ask for permission at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, but what I usually do is try to explain that we want photos that are licensed CC-BY-SA and then include a copy of Wikimedia Commons' Declaration of consent for all enquiries filled in for them as much as possible (to the point where they can just copy/paste it back to me). If they use that exact wording you should have no problem. Zell Faze (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Just realised that someone else linked to the same page as I did. It was good advice. Also @EoRdE6:, I may have misunderstood your comment, but we prefer images (and Commons does not accept images) that are licensed Non-Commercial (such as images licensed CC-BY-NC-SA). Zell Faze (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Obscure Reference

I've recently completed an article on the Valz Prize (Prix Valz) awarded by the French Academy of Sciences. However, I'm missing two very hard to find references.

The specific references I'm looking for are the "Prix et Subventions Attribués en 196n" articles (usually in the first or second December issue of the year) for 1966 and 1967 in Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences: Vie Académique for those two years.

Without those references, I can't confirm that the Valz Prize was not awarded in 1966 and 1967. Based on the history surrounding it, I very certain that the prize was not awarded, but I would like to nail this down.

I've tried the obvious: Searching at the French Academy of Sciences site (those volumes are missing from their digitized collection), exhaustive web searches on Google & Google Books & Bing, even looking for university libraries near me with those volumes in their collection via WorldCat.

Any suggestions? Anyone live near a library that does have those two volumes? Carl Henderson (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carl Henderson. I think that perhaps DGG might be able to offer some suggestions. He is a librarian with the New York Public Library, as well as a Wikipedia administrator and a member of our Arbitration Committee. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I know whom to ask, & I'll get back to you. Vie Académique was their internal news publication, & most libraries outside France more or less ignored it. The journal sections changed around a lot, & it is even possible that those issues were never published. But arb com -- and admin -- have nothing to do with knowing about content or referencing. And , for that matter, I'm just a volunteer now at NYPL--and at Performing Arts, not science. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I got the feeling from their website that even the French Academy of Sciences had forgotten about it! While searching, I found a PDF that showed the transformations that Comptes Rendus went through over the years since 1965. Carl Henderson (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I was simply trying to show that you know what you are talking about when it comes to improving this encyclopedia, DGG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you can find those references. I know it isn't vital, but I'm slightly OCD at times on stuff like this.Carl Henderson (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone else mentioned it, so you might want to check in at Wikiproject Resource Exchange. You can request a resource there and other people who may have more access to them will help you try to locate a copy. Zell Faze (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If DGG isn't able to find anything, I will post a request there.

please check my new template

I've created a template, {{AHDict}}, for references to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, modeling it on {{OED}}. This is a more complex template than I'm familiar with, so I'd really appreciate an experienced templatician (?) checking it over.

Also, the categories Dictionary source templates and External link templates show on {{OED}} but not on {{AHDict}}, even though I've included the identical wikicode:

<includeonly>
{{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|sandbox | |
<!-------------------------------------------------------------------
       Categories below here, interwikis to Wikidata.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------->

[[Category:Dictionary source templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:External link templates]]
}}</includeonly>

To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: The category issue was fixed in [3]. Users may have old print editions and I would make an optional edition parameter with code like edition={{{edition|5th}}}. Why is date=2014 when The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says the 5th edition is from 2011? The web version currently says "Fifth Edition copyright ©2014" but if you use {{cite book}} then I think the print date should be used. If an edition parameter is added then there should be a switch (mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##switch) to set the date. Why do you pipe [[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language|The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]] when [[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]] would go directly to the article and skip a redirect? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, thanks for commenting.

• Categories: Mm, wonder how I missed that? Up too late working, probably. (Checks clock.) Like now.
• Print editions: I should have made it explicit that this (version of the) template is only for references to the online edition. I'll change it to use {{cite web}}.
• ... and copyright date: Thanks for pointing me to the function.
• Pipe: Umm... see "Categories" ↑↑. Sorry :-( .

--Thnidu (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Any kind of image permission

This image was uploaded in the correct manner, i. e. with evidence of the owner's permission to use it on Wikipedia. This is a cropped version of that image, but is under threat of deletion because of the tag "missing evidence of permission", even though the link of permission is given in it. What do I do? PS: the owner allowed me to use his image but was too lazy to send legal permission. However, I photographed my conversation with him. Will that type of permission suffice? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kailash29792. The photographer must explicitly agree to the terms of an acceptable Creative Commons license allowing anyone to reuse the photo anywhere at any time for any pupose, including commercial uses. That Photobucket screen shot of a Facebook chat does not discuss the license terms at all, and accordingly is of no use for this purpose. The most straightforward solution is for the photographer to upload his own work to Wikimedia Commons himself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I hope I can convince him about this. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the Teahouse, Kailash29792. I got my hand on a sample letter that you can send off to obtain the copyright permissions that you need. I'd like to say that I came up with this myself but I did not I stole it from another editor: fix it up, put in all the right words and send it off.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So is this how it goes? I edit the information in the mail, then send it to the photographer, asking him to forward it to OTRS? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup and then please be patient, the OTRS queues are always backlogged.--ukexpat (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I finally got him to send the mail to OTRS. But in the mail is written, "I hereby affirm that I, Vithun Ravindran, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all the images in my Facebook page (I will not show the URL in this page)." That good, bad or ugly? Because the agreement to apply for all his photos. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Help!

I have been trying to edit the rock balancing page, be cause I would likely to add the dates of the ongoing competition in Llano, and people keep taking it off, it's the correct information, so why'd do people keep messing with it? I also would like to know how to create a new page if the thing you are searching is currently nothing in existence, and how to upload an image, what sort of permission do I have to ha ave to do that? (The name BluJay is taken (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reasons that your edits were reverted were given in the messages that you deleted from your user talk page, and particularly the second one, about requiring references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that someone posted saying that it was un-cited, but if the information is correct, why does it need cited, a lot of things on Wikipedia aren't cited, and no one has been deleting them. I don't understand why certain things need to be cited while others do not. I'm afraid if I ha ave to cite everything that I will not be able to edit wikipedia pages, because I cannot reach any other sites from where I am. I do appreciate yourself help though, and the fact that you took time out of your day to help me out!😁 I would also like to know about uploading images, and page creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The name BluJay is taken (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, The name BluJay is taken. Verifiability is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. To see why, consider first that on the Internet nobody knows who you are, so we certainly have no way of knowing if what you say is correct. (Please don't take this personally: it's just as true of me). Secondly, even if what you put in the article is correct, we have no way of telling that it will stay so: somebody may come in tomorrow or next week or next year, and change it - either maliciously, or in error, or by a misunderstanding. If the information is referenced, then somebody who needs to know the information knows how to check it; if it isn't, they have no way of telling. In my personal view, unreferenced information in Wikipedia articles is generally of zero value.

You are right that there is a lot of substandard crud in Wikipedia's four million articles; but that is not a reason to let people add more unreferenced information.

As to your other questions: there are various ways of creating a new page. I would strongly recommend using the article wizard. This is not the most direct way of creating an article, but particularly for inexperienced editors it is hugely more likely to result in a page which is kept. Finally, about images: you have had an account long enough, and made enough edits, that you are allowed to upload images. However, it is important to understand Wikipedia's rules on copyright: most images you find on the internet are not free of copyright, and may not be uploaded to Wikipedia. However pictures you took yourself you usually own the copyright to, and you are able to release them under a suitable free licence (but you must do so explicitly). See User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Colin Fine so much for your help, I guess two wrongs don't make a right, and I'll try to cite my edits next time. I was so caught up in trying to make a difference, that I went about it in the wrong way. Thank you for including links to other helpful pages! If you manage to find the time to reply, I still dont quite understand what a sandbox is or how to use it. Feel free to reply on my talk page!(talk) Wow I really should've picked a shorter user name, "The name BluJay is taken" takes forever to type! Well, Thank you again for your help!

Hello again, The name BluJay is taken. To take your points in order:

• Don't worry about making mistakes, especially if you are enthusiastic about improving Wikipedia. We've all been there, and as long as you are working in good faith, nobody is likely to slap you down.
• "Sandbox" means a few (related but not quite the same) things on Wikipedia. "The sandbox" is a single specific page, WP:sandbox, that anybody can edit in order to experiment with editing and wiki markup. Nothing you put there will remain for long, as it gets cleared automatically (I don't know how often). A "user sandbox" is a subpage of your user page, so for you it would be User:The name BluJay is taken/some title. You can have as many of these as you like, and as long as you don't do something really unacceptable on them, like copying copyright material from somewhere, or writing a personal attack, nobody is likely to interfere in them (everybody can see them, though). They are one of the traditional places to develop a new article. If you have a user sandbox called 'sandbox' (i.e. User:The name BluJay is taken/sandbox) then that is referred to as "your sandbox"; but the only thing special about it is that there is a link "Sandbox" at the top of the page that will take you to it. A more recent place to develop an article is in Draft space (eg Draft:my new article), but practically there is not much difference from a user sandbox. In either case, when the article is ready to go into the main encyclopaedia, somebody will move it from the sandbox or draft to its final name.
• I was going to say that to find out about a Wikipedia concept that you don't understand, it is very often useful to put "WP:" before it and search - this searches in Wikipedia space rather than article space, and so gives you pages about working with Wikipedia. However, in this case that wouldn't have worked too well, because [[WP:sandbox]] gives you WP:sandbox, which is in fact the sandbox, and not an explanatory page.
• Yes, your user name is quite long. That should not worry you too much, because you can sign your posts with four tildes; but can be annoying for somebody corresponding with you. You can ask to change it (though there are other possibilies): see WP:CHU. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Colin Fine, you are so helpful, I have started the name changing process! I will make sure to say who I am if I pick this chain back up. How long does changing your name tend to take? I feel like I'm full.of questions, and it makes me feel bad, you are always helping me, but you have nothing need for whatever pitiful help I could offer, tell me if you want more members for a project for something,I would love to join! (The name BluJay is taken (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)) Okay, Colin Fine,you are officially the best. I now have a new, impossibly shorter name, thanks to you! I also now know more about my photo rights, and feel more confident about posting on wikipedia, if I could give you a barn star,I would (but I honestly don't understand the big deal with those or what they do) so thanks!(BluJay (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC))

Thank you for the kind words, BluJay. I spend a lot of time answering question here and on the Help desk, so I suppose I must just like helping people. ;-) A barnstar is a public (and lasting) way of acknowledging somebody for what they've done. If you want to give one, go to WP:barnstars, pick one that fits, and copy the text from the "what to type" column onto the user's User Talk page (replacing placeholders like 'message' by the real thing, of course). --ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds cool, Colin Fine I might have to try it out when I get the chance! I liked helping people too, unfortunately, this isn't really my forte, I've taken a few coding classes a while ago, but nothing too complex. Most of what I've picked up about coding tricks, is from the user who did something above me, I look at that and pick up a few tips. I just have to make sure that THAT user knows what they're doing, or my entry looks awful too!😊By the way, I'm working on my userpage, could you look it over when I'm done to make sure I didn't screw something up?(BluJay (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC))

Colin Fine is there some reason why I cannot create a new page? Do you need to have an account for a while, or have a certain number of edits? Every time I try to make one, I am unable to hit the save button, which means I just lost an hour or so of my time (which sadly, is how long it takes me to make a basic page) it is really starting to frustrate me, have any great words of wisdom for me?(BluJay (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

Leonardo Gagliano

Move that pls somebody to -> Gagliano Neto. This man is unknown as Leonardo Gagliano. Link added to the article. Cheers, 115.69.63.229 (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, 115.69.63.229, after checking that that is how the sources refer to him. The move will have left Leonardo Gagliano behind as a redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Alfredo di Stéfano Stadium

Somebody please move that to -> Alfredo Di Stéfano Stadium (with capitalised "Di"). Compare this with the spelling on the Real Madrid website. Arguably, also there are occasionally misspellings "di Stefano". His name is of Italian origin therefore the capitalisation. Spanish has it not, therefore frequent misspellings.

Image of the stadium with name on it: http://irealmadrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/estadio-alfredo-di-stefano-1024x521.jpg

Compare also:

• Spanish media
• Guardian
• Telegraph

Cheers, 115.69.63.229 (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia won't let me move it, because it's counting Alfredo di Stéfano Stadium and Alfredo Di Stéfano Stadium as the same thing. Help please? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think there is a compelling case to make the title Alfredo Di Stéfano Stadium then you need to add it to the list of requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves. In practice it's going to make very little difference as the lowercase Alfredo di Stéfano Stadium will redirect to the article so anyone searching it won't make any difference if they type Di or di. Nthep (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Those fancy tables

I just added a table to the Rob Crow page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Crow) and I was wondering how to get those nice multi row cells that you see on a page like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Froberg for multiple releases in a single year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swartzcr (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Swartzcr, welcome to the Teahouse. I see some of your edits are made with VisualEditor. I don't know how it works there or whether it's even possible (it wasn't when VisualEditor was introduced). I use the source editor and there it's done with rowspan documented at Help:Table. I have done the first in [4]. Just looking at that diff will probably enable you to do the other years in that table. But rowspan can be tricky to work with. Always click "Show preview" before saving. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)