Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 185

Archive 180

←

Archive 183

Archive 184

Archive 185

Archive 186

Archive 187

→

Archive 190

Template with ref and parameter

Hi! I use Template:whatfishbook as a reference in articles because I use that book very often as a source. It uses the cite book template inside of it. However, I want to be able to add quotes and page numbers when I use this template. How can I do so? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bananasoldier! I wouldn't create a template like this to make referencing more convenient. I would type the whole citation out into the wikitext every time, (as in Whales are large animals.<ref>{{cite book}}</ref>). If you do that, then you can add the "page" and "quote" parameters directly (although you will have to change the name of the reference every time you do so). The template is a convenient idea, but don't think it's proper for referencing on Wikipedia. Best, Mz7 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Specific-source templates has lots of similar templates. You can make an option to pass on specific parameters with |page={{{page|}}}| pages={{{pages|}}}| quote={{{quote|}}}, and so on. Note however that citation templates should never add <ref>...</ref> around the citation. That is done by the article using the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up, PrimeHunter. Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mz and PrimeHunter! Bananasoldier (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Just one quick question: I used the template before you let me know that templates should never include ref tags. Therefore, if I remove the ref tags from the template page, all of the articles that I've previously edited while using the template will splatter into text. What can I do? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I misunderstood what you wrote. Never mind. Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC) I still have a quick question, so I'll contact you on your talk page. Bananasoldier (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your first struck out post is correct. Template:whatfishbook should not have ref tags on the template page. One of the reasons is that there are different citation methods and a citation template shouldn't be limited to one of them. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Whatfishbook only shows five articles so it should be easy to add ref tags to them. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, once again! Bananasoldier (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As you can see on Dendrochirus biocellatus, the same reference templates don't seem to conform into one reference. Is there a way to fix this? If not, perhaps it's best I just use copy and paste of the whole reference instead of trying to use templates. Bananasoldier (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I was already editing that [1] when I saw your post. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

References to Archived Newspaper Articles

I am interested in writing entries about women artists, and I find that there are often older newspaper articles/interviews about their exhibits, performances, or screenings that would show they are notable artists, but the articles are in archived parts of the newspaper that are only accessible on a pay-per-view basis. What is the policy about including links to archived articles like that?

Thanks for your help. Womenarts (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Womenarts: A reference is a reference is a reference. That something is behind a paywall does not prevent it from being used, and you should use such references with impunity. Reading {{Subscription required}} may prove useful Fiddle Faddle 21:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I commend you, Womenarts, for writing biographies of notable women artists and helping Wikipedia address its systemic bias. I, too, have written several biographies of women artists, including most recently, Leni Sinclair, which I wrote as part of the Wikipedia Meetup/ArtAndFeminism 2014. My suggestion, when citing archived articles or those behind paywalls, is to cite them as completely as possible, and also to include a direct quotation of a sentence or two in the reference that best substantiates the claim you are making. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Отличная статья

Здравствуйте, Что нужно изменить в статье, что бы она стала хорошей? VladimirShurochin (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@VladimirShurochin: Здравствуйте. Это английский Википедия. Я прочитал ваше сообщение, используя программу, но просят любыми вопросами здесь на русском языке не очень полезно, и тот факт, что вы делаете это приводит меня подозревать, что вы можете искать для России Википедию и, возможно, должны спрашивать на их Википедия:Форум/Справочное бюро. Во всяком случае, статьи здесь должны быть написаны на английском языке. Что касается вашего вопроса, то настолько широк, что это очень трудно ответить, но вы можете посмотреть на Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:The perfect article и увидеть примеры статей сообщество определило как отличное, вы можете посетить Wikipedia:Featured articles (Википедия:Избранные статьи). С уважением--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Change file that is used on multiple pages

Is there a quick way to change a file across several Wikipedia pages, and across multiple languages of Wikipedia? For example, if File: apples.png is used on multiple pages, and I want to change every occurrence of that image to File: oranges.png, I would have to edit every page that the original file is used on. If File: apples.png is used on a Wikipedia in a language I am unable to read, that also makes it more difficult to change. DoktorRF (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello DocktorRF. You can upload a new version of a file without having to edit every page it appears on by scrolling down the the "File history" section, where a link should exist that says "Upload a new version of this file". The vast majority of images on Wikipedia are on the Wikimedia Commons, which is a repository for media files that is used by all Wikipedia languages, so if a file is updated on Commons, it will be updated across all languages of Wikipedia it appears on. I hope this helps you, if you are still unclear, please reply below and I'll be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Will this work for files with different extensions? I convert bitmap images (JPG, PNG, and GIF are the most common) to vector images (SVG) which involves an extension change. DoktorRF (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it only works with files of the same extension. If you are converting extensions, you would have to upload a totally new file, and you would also have to change every occurrence of the file to the new one. Luckily, he vast majority of files are only found on a few pages, so it shouldn't take too long to go through all of them. Also, the software automatically lists all of the pages that link to this file, by going to section "File usage" on the file description page. If the image is on Commons, you can see a list under "File usage on other wikis", which also lists other languages of Wikipedia. After you have uploaded a new and improved version of a file, consider placing an {{Obsolete}} template on the file description page of the old file. Best, Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's possible to create a file redirect to another file type. For example, commons:File:PiTiVi Logo.png is a redirect to commons:File:PiTiVi Logo.svg, so [[File:PiTiVi Logo.png]] displays the svg: . It can cause confusion, and a file at the redirecting title would have to be deleted. I don't know Commons policy on the issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I have been to the Teahouse on many occasions, sometimes with a question and sometimes to provide answers to others. In all cases I have been uniformly impressed with level of knowledge, helpfulness and team spirit. Keep up the great work!! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles marked for deletion discussions

I recently voted on an article marked for deletion. I was wondering how that worked. Does the article need a certain number of votes? Is the issue just decided when people feel there is consensus? Who makes those decisions? Thanks! Bali88 (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically on a consensus of the people who express an opinion. Fully covered at WP:DELETE. An administrator decides when a consensus has been reached.... See the referenced page. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually, deletion discussions last for 7 days, after which, an administrator will determine whether or not there has been a consensus to delete established. Wikipedia is not a democracy, meaning we make decisions by consensus, not voting. So there doesn't have to be a certain number of "votes" to carry out a deletion. The issue is decided based on what the community agrees on. If an administrator believes there is an agreement among editors to delete a page, then they will delete that page. Sometimes, if a consensus is unclear, the discussion will be relisted to keep the discussion open longer than 7 days, but this is usually done no more than twice. You may want to check out the Articles for deletion main page, which explains the deletion discussions process in further detail. Best, Mz7 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The arguments to "keep" or "delete" are evaluated on how well they comply with our policies and guidelines, rather than simply counting votes. Accordingly, if three people say, "delete because no one cares about this obscure topic", and two people say "keep" showing that the topic meets a notability guideline and has been discussed at length in reliable sources, then the article will be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Message displayed saying an edit I made was removed, but I have never edited anything

I did a search in Wikipedia today for "nibelung treasure". When the search results appeared, there was a strip across the top that said an edit I made has been removed. But I have never edited anything on Wikipedia or even registered. I live alone and am the only one who has access to this computer. Has this happened to anyone else? Is it a known issue? Is it possible that someone is using my IP to edit things on Wiki? Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide. 68.104.158.62 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, this is a common issue with with unregistered users. Oftentimes IP addresses are shared between different users of an Internet service provider, so most likely someone else who had your IP address made the change. Feel free to ignore the notice. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User page

Can someone come and sort out my user page? I can't figure out what I did. Sta13ths17 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed a space which was causing a problem did that fix it for you? Theroadislong (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sta13ths17 and welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed the immediate problem of you being short a </div>, but your user page still needs some love. If you can let us know what you expect it to look like (maybe link to someone else's userpage that you you want the same general appearance of), then I'm sure one of us can help you further. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the help! You really made me feel welcome. --Sta13ths17 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

When & how is a banner removed?

Hi. I just substantially beefed up an entry on Linda Martin Alcoff. Previously it really was a shell of an entry and not well referenced. I think it now meets the standards to have the banner at the top (saying it relies too much on primary sources) removed. Is there a process to try to get this to happen? Thanks. Chrisclaire88 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Chrisclaire88 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you've beefed up the article Linda Martin Alcoff and think that banner is no longer appropriate, please be BOLD and remove it. There is no special process required. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Chrisclaire88 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is VERY poorly referenced though with references failing verification of content, dead links and primary sources. Also no references for the awards and honours. Theroadislong (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Theroadislong, if you disagree with a BOLD move to remove the banner, you are welcome to REVERT and then you, Chrisclaire88, and whomever else happens upon it can DISCUSS it. This is how the bold, revert, discuss cycle works. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Theroadislong, however bad it is now, it's ten times better than it was this morning. Thanks for helping identify weaknesses. I'll work on it more this evening. And I thank Technical 13 for encouragement.Chrisclaire88 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• TRIS: I'll be taking a greater look at the article during the course of the night and editing it a bit, but at first glance, the ref to the pluralist's guide that you tagged as failing verification is a perfectly suitable ref. Unfortunately, the site seems to use dynamic urls so it's impossible to link to the exact pages that fully support the statement made, but a brief look through the site's about and FAQ pages definitely supports the statement the ref is used to make. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Contribute to improving articles

Hi, I would like to help improve (edit/ verify) articles that may need to be reviewed. Kindly let me know how I could help. Progress journo (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you start by improving articles in topic areas where you have a strong interest and good knowledge, Progress journo, because you will be motivated to stick with it. But keep in mind that you can't rely just on your own personal knowledge. You have to rely on summarizing what reliable sources say about the topic. But maybe you have books on your own shelves to get you started. I suggest reading the Five pillars, which are the core principles of Wikipedia, and following the various links that you will find there. If you absorb that material, and follow its guidance, then you can soon be an outstanding contributor to this encyclopedia. Thanks for helping. We need good editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Make a page

I want to make a page and every time I do they close it. I have changed it materials in order not to be promotional. And how could they say it is promotional and it is similar to many other pages on the site? MaIs126 (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@MaIs126: If I understand you correctly, you have tried to create an article several times and it has been deleted each time for various reasons. I suggest two things: First learn your trade by editing in areas that interest you and then, when you know your way around, start to create articles. Reading a guide such as User:Timtrent/A good article will help a great deal. If that one doesn't suit there are others.

Learn to write with neutral language and be sure you are not promoting the topic in the article, and all will be great. Fiddle Faddle 09:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

==ask question==

Thank you sir for your answer. So what I understood that all what I have to do is to change my language and make it neutral as much as possible?

MaIs126 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC) @Faddle:

Rather than trying to generate the article directly again, I would recommend that you use either the Article for creation process, or generate it as a userspace draft, then other editors can review the draft and suggest improvements. To start with, try reading WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeming copyright violations

Hi, I am a pretty new editor. I started out editing pages that were being suggested to me in the interface. One of them seemed like a strange tone so I searched for the text online and found it on an external web site. It took quite a while to figure out how to report a copyright violation but I finally figured it out. Now the article has disappeared so I assume it was deleted or hidden. So today I click another suggested article (Lepomis symmetricus) and again this seems like someone's academic paper they just copy/pasted into Wikipedia. Is this also a copyright violation? Are there a lot of these around here, because I seem to keep finding them. Marten Broadcloak (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marten (nice choice of username, btw!). I wasn't able to find a source from which the bantam sunfish text had been directly copied, but it was certainly inappropriate content for the page; I reverted to an earlier version of the article without the essay content. Thanks for flagging it up. We do get a lot of copyright violations on Wikipedia, and we try to clean up wherever we find them; if you're interested in helping out, you might want to join the Copyright Cleanup Project. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the answer. I'm glad there are folks here helping new editors get their bearings. I will consider joining the project after I learn the ropes a bit. Marten Broadcloak (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If the earlier article about which you were talking was Jigawa State Polytechnic, Dutse, the deletion log entry (which you can get at through the redlink here) does indeed show that it was deleted as a copyright violation. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion and voting at Talk:Persecution of Hindus

AcidSnow has blanked the '2005 unrest in Nowshera' section in the Persecution of Hindus article (one can see that at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=596664536&oldid=596650658), but I believe it was wrong to do so, because references have been provided for it (saying the same thing). Please tell me what to do to avoid an edit war there. Thanks!:Khabboos (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You have started an RFC at Talk:Persecution of Hindus. The discussion there is NOT a vote, but a discussion on policy-based arguments. It could be regarded as forum-shopping to raise the same question here. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I address the notability issues in this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_the_Producer Rico2014 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You would have to find a reason for it to be notable under the notability guidelines. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rico, welcome to the teahouse. To expand a little on PB's reply, you should perhaps start by getting rid of all the links to youtube videos and mixtapes that are littering your references section. Neither are really any use for proving the notability of a musical producer. Instead, look for sources like music magazines that have written in detail about the person. (Interviews are less useful, because they are merely reporting what he says about himself.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are data in edit mode but not showing in read mode

I have been editing my sandbox named: Choto Moulana. While editing twice, I get problem in different times. Once, I have added a reference in its 'Ofaat Nama' paragraph, and saved, saw, there nothing left after the paragraph's only 2 lines. Though there showing all the rest, till to the external link (very last) but are not showing in read mode. What cause this problem? How to recover? Please... Sufidisciple (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. The problem is caused by <ref name="OfaatNamaa"> which is an unclosed reference tag. To fix, edit the section and replace it with <ref name="OfaatNamaa" />. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have just fixed that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

orphan article?

Why is there a box at the top of my article that states it is an orphan article even though there are links throughout the page that go to links outside of the page? TLA2014 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the orphen tag related to links TO your article from others, a list of which you can see here. Currently no other articles link to it. You should find relevant articles and link to your article from them. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

ISBN troubles

Hello, I'm having a problem with an ISBN number in a ref that I'm formatting here: [2] It gives me the following message, once I have saved the ref: Check |isbn= value (help) Any suggestions? Thanks much! EMP (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your ISBN number was invalid. No ISBN has 11 digits. An editor has fixed it.[3] The correct ISBN can be seen by clikcing "About this book" at your reference url. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Best way to quote an editor on a talk page

If on a talk page I want to include 4-5 line quote from another editor from another talk page, what is the right syntax/style to do that? I'm thinking about the original user sig, do you copy that? A bit confusing since the quoted person did not actually edit the page I'm on. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You could use Template:Tq, so for example: Teahouse is an amazing place to go for community help! -EuroCarGT would be {{tq|Teahouse is an amazing place to go for community help!}} -EuroCarGT I wouldn't add the signature as it may notify the user, you can do it if you want to but if you want to quote someone, I would just use a hyphen then their username! ///EuroCarGT 04:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Licensing question

If an image is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (attribution and share-alike), and I remake the image as a vector image, can I freely license my version of the image or does it have to follow to guidelines of the previous license?

For example, this file uses the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Can I remake this image and release it to the public domain?

Thank you. DoktorRF (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The license of the image is "ShareAlike," which is Creative Commons's term for copyleft. In short, you must release a work based on it under the same license. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing the "beta" link and the user talk message number in the user toolbar

I realize that I'm not new, but the other questions page was for editing, uploading images, et cetera. I would like to know if there is a way to remove the "beta" link along with the number in between to your user page link and the "talk" link. If this isn't possible, I understand. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I don't think there's an official setting anywhere to remove those links, but you can mess around with your custom CSS file, located at User:Pikachu Bros./common.js:

Add $('#pt-betafeatures').hide(); to the file to remove the Beta link.

Ad $('#pt-notifications').hide(); to the file to remove the notification count.

Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Note that I'm not entirely sure if removing the notification count will also remove any notifications about new talk page messages, so be wary of that. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nickelroy is vandalizing by removing Namvistar Din photograph in Aurangabad, Maharashtra article

Question repeated at top of page

File:Massive crowd at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University gate during Namvistar Din celebrations.png celebrations in Aurangabad.]] The source is supporting article. By removing Namvistar din photograph Nickelroy is harming Wikipedia. This is Vandalism. The culture of India refers to the way of life of the people of India. India's languages, religions, dance, music, architecture, food, and customs differ from place to place within the country. The Indian culture, often labelled as an amalgamation of several cultures, spans across the Indian subcontinent and has been influenced by a history that is several millennia old. This definition goes similar to Aurangabad culture. Read culture of India for more details. The editor is not interested in answering on talk page here but continuously doing edit warring. I have requested editor many times and also added the source with photograph but Nickelroy is doing edit warring. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC) References

--ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

page that was deleted before

Good day, i am wondering how can i re make a page that was deleted before? i have all the right info now so im ready to fix it.

thanks1017west (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. To create a page, type in the name of the page and there will be an option to create it. Just make sure you note the reasons why the page was deleted before. (They will be in a notice above the editing area.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good day

they are telling me to "first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below."

how do i do that??

thanks1017west (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm...what page would this be, exactly? Anon126 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the article Phinés West which has now been recreated with an incorrect spelling having been deleted previously. Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Encouraging users

I was wondering if there is a way of encouraging users to analyse your wikipedia pages?

Thank you for your time, Conor Robinson (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are wanting someone to review User:Conor Robinson/sandbox, you could add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it, and it will then be in the article for creation system for review. Before that there are some details that you should sort out:

* The RN doesn't say "The HMS Hardy"; it is either "HMS Hardy" or "The Hardy".

* Wikipdia does not use ordinals in dates.

* I was going to point out that your references were all bare urls, but I see that another editor has addressed that problem.

Other details are hopefully relatively minor and can be addressed in the AFC review or afterwards.

--David Biddulph (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Conor Robinson. I presume you are interested in getting some opinions on User:Conor_Robinson/sandbox? As a general rule, draft articles in user sandboxes are left alone unless help or review is requested.

Well, it seems like a good a creation to me. It's a clearly notable subject, and you've done a good job making sure all your facts are cited (I've used the "Reflinks" tool to turn some of your bare URLs into the standard citation format).

Two things to note:

• The "intro" section shouldn't have a header. If you delete the ==Intro== line, this text will appear above the table of contents as a lead section.
• The article currently has no wikilinks. These are essential to integrate the article into the rest of the encyclopedia. If you take a look at a good article about a ship, for example HMS_Hood_(1891), you can see that many words are clickable and can be followed through to other articles. For instructions on how to create Wikilinks, see WP:Wikilinks.
• The "Scarborough Bombing", "Jutland", "Fourth Destroyer Flotilla", and "Timeline" sections can probably be combined into a general "Service History" section. Using Wikilinks will help your prose, for example we have an article on the Battle of Jutland, so you can simply link to that in the text and you do not need to specify too many of the details of the battle that aren't of particular relevance to the Hardy. Similarly, there is an article on Dogger Bank. Linking there would save you having to specify the area's geocoordinates in the text.

Once these issues are resolved, I think you are ready to make this a full article. Once it is in the main body of the encyclopedia, other editors are likely to come along and make extra improvements.

This is a good first article. Well done. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

i have created an article thiaoouba which you deleted

i have created an article thiaoouba which you deleted. it is not fair as it is real .you show bogus articles and why you can't show this one. Do yoy fear of american governmentOshoVIJAY (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello OshoVIJAY. Welcome to the teahouse. Did you mean the article deleted after the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiaoouba Prophecy? Also, could you tell us the names of any Wikipedia articles that you believe are bogus, and why you think so? Finally, no, it seems Wikipedia is not afraid of the American government or its agencies, as can be seen by this letter published by the New York Times. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello OshoVIJAY. The discussion that Arthur goes shopping linked to explains that the article was deleted because nobody could find any reliable independent sources which discuss the subject: that and that alone is the criterion for whether or not Wikipedia may have an article on a subject. If you can find some articles in major newspapers or magazines that discuss it, or a book about it from a publisher with a reputation for fact checking, then you may appeal the deletion, or try a new article. But if those references do not exist, then Wikipedia's rules do not permit an article about it. --ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I note Thiaoouba Prophecy was deleted in 2009 - so is this the article you are referring to? - Arjayay (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the OP is referring to THIOUBBA, a one-sentence, unsourced stub. It probably shouldn't have been deleted under A11, but would certainly qualify under G4. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A question about global signons

Hi, I'm looking for a way to remind myself not to edit on certain wikis, as a way of avoiding the trolls that lurk there. When I sign on here, I'm automatically signed on in a lot of places. Having a global signon is clearly a good way to prevent identity theft, but it has this downside that one can absent-mindedly get involved in linking and improving content in several places at once. I'd love to be reminded with "you are not signed in" if I try to submit an improvement in a place that I should have remembered is troll-infested. I'd hoped it would be possible to find a list under "Preferencs" of those places where I'm happy to be automatically signed on, but haven't been able to find such a thing. Thanks for any help you can offer. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What you request is possible, but it wouldn't be nice! Why don't you just open pages on the Wikipedias you are interested in and let the rest be. my POV. Emekadavid (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sminthopsis84 and welcome to the Teahouse. It would require you to add some JavaScript to your common.js file on the wikis that you do not want to edit. I would be happy to help you with that if you like. Feel free to email me a list, or post your list on my talk page of wikis that you don't want to edit and I'll give you the specific code that you will need for each one to be reminded. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Technical 13, I thought it would be possible for someone very knowledgeable about the system. I've sent you email. And Emekadavid, the point is to be nice, to avoid building up my frustration level to the point where I might explode at someone or make a cutting remark. I consider it wise to build barriers for myself so that I don't stumble into a nest of trolls every few months, in order that I can continue making contributions that have a greater sweetness-and-light component to them. And no, the opening-a-few-windows approach hasn't worked all that well for me over the past few years. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you move your userboxes to the right side of your UserPage?

How do you move your userboxes to the right side of your UserPage? Cameron Brimhall (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You can enclose them in Userboxtop and Userboxbottom, like so:

{{Userboxtop|toptext=}}{{userbox|whatever}}{{Userboxbottom}}

See my userpage for an example. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I download a png image to my mac?

The image is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stern-Gerlach_experiment.PNG#file

Thanks!

Mheaney (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! To save an image to your Mac, right click on the image, which can be done by pressing "Control" on your keyboard and clicking on the image. A little menu should pop up - click on "Save image as...", and you'll be prompted to save the image to your computer. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you get yourself a Magic Mouse (if you don't already have one) you can set it up to right click directly, and they're rather, well, awesome and incomparable to any other mouse I've ever tried.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it OK to add relevant books to articles?

Hi - I work for a small book publisher who has several books relevant to existing Wikipedia articles. I would like to add them to References/Further Reading sections and hope this isn't seem as too promotional. What is the rule of thumb here? I have started putting some links up (You can see how this was done for Ōtagaki Rengetsu) and I would like to continue doing this as long as there is no threat of having them taken down. Thank you! 64.223.97.123 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, person whose IP starts with 64, and welcome to The Teahouse. I think the rule is that Further Reading lists works which can't easily be used as references in the article for some reason (or if the books are used, they have lots of information that cannot be used in the article) but would be likely to significantly benefit the reader more than the person who puts them there.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will be sensitive to how our book references add or detract to the articles. The one that I would like to defend is the new edition of A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822 to the self-titled article since it is otherwise out of print and extremely relevant. 64.223.97.123 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)EPBM

Editing edit summaries

Is there any way I can edit my own edit summaries. I recently did an edit and my summary had a typo which I would like to correct but this doesn't seem possible at the moment. I would only want to change my own edit summaries of course. Perhaps the edit summary could be viewed in the preview window somehow.  Jodosma  10:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I am afraid you can't change an edit summary - if there is something particularly wrong with a summary you can make a WP:Dummy edit and explain in that edit summary. As for the edit summary being viewed, if you click "Show preview" your edit summary is also previewed under the edit summary box. - Arjayay (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, job done.  Jodosma  22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Vm nmvm

what i dont care if its deleted i just tried it anyway. Now my question is can i reply if someone message me?? If i can then mind telling how?? If not then forget it.

My second question is im searching mythologies for my thesis but all i can find is gods and goddesses from ther sites about korean myhtology more or less im searching for a list and some info of some people like Yeomra-Daewang or whatever its spelled.

My comment i dont mind providing info on my own i can do that but most or 99% of what i searched are already here. Sory for using this for this thong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addictux (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Addictux and welcome to The Teahouse. If someone sends you a message, they should have a signature which links to their talk page. You can click on that link, and click on "New section" at the top of their page.

For the answer to your other question, try the Humanities Reference Desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A Lengthy Moment

I am all for living in the present and making my moments last, but an article I submitted for review has had a blue tag on it saying it was being reviewed and the results would be posted "shortly" and it has been a month and a half. I am wondering if this is common. I'm not in any hurry... just wondering why this is taking so long. I probably could have written this biography directly into the Wikipedia but wanted to be certain all was okay with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Courtland_Hector_Hoppin

Thanks. Kathrynklos (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have accepted the article to mainspace. Sorry for the administrative kerfuffle. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you so much! Kathrynklos (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Malicious page deletion

Users User:Xoloz and User:JamKaftan have speedily deleted my new page QuizClash claiming it has a "promotional tone". This is relatively unlikely as I don't like the app, I just stated that it is "sensationally successful" as more than 10% of the Germans have downloaded it in three months. I started a talk page about it but without further ado it was deleted anyway.Holger.Waldenberger (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very difficult for anyone here to comment on this specific page as we can't see what you had written. As a general note, Wikipedia receives hundreds of article submissions a day about companies and their products which serve little purpose other than promotion. Sadly the force which is necessary to combat this means that a few "false positive" are inevitable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Holger and welcome to The Teahouse. You say that the words "sensationally successful" were used. Is that a quote from someone? Promotional language like that would have to be referenced to an independent reliable source. I know it may not be your intention, but such wording violates the neutral point of view policy.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Holger. Both the user who tagged it and the deleting administrator got a ping by your linking of their names, but the very first thing you should have done when a page was deleted was to go talk to the deleting administrator's talk and calmly explain the issue. It is my experience that nine times out of ten, if the page is not a blatant example, this will result in good action. What you should never do is attack them, which is exactly what you did by headlining this post as "Malicious page deletion", accusing these users of bad faith intent. It's close to a brightline rule that when you want something, being nasty to or attacking the people best situated to take action tends to get you the opposite of what you seek. Meanwhile, it is vanishingly unlikely that you are correct that there was any malicious intent here. See what Luke said above. We get hundreds of promotional articles a day and thousands of bad submissions of every stripe in the aggregate and so the processes that are necessary to deal with that can have some false-positives. Moreover, the article did have some language and hallmarks that made it appear promotional. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My reasoning chimes very much with the comments above: it looked suspiciously like advertising; the comment left on my talk page by Holger, "I have no time now but don't delete it. It's Germany's most succesful app" frankly only acted to confirm my suspicion that it was a non-serious page creation. My apologies to Holger, naturally, if the page deserved not to be deleted - again, as per other comments - when you're deleting a page every other minute, the odd genuine creation will occasionally get lumped in with the others. JamKaftan (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

other languages

Are refernces to other Language Wirkipedia articles (Russian in my example) valid as sources?

UforUSSR (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles in any language are not considered reliable sources, because their contents can be changed by anyone. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

However, if the Russian article cites a reference, from a reliable, independent source, you can use that source, even if it is written in Russian. However, please check the reference, before using it, to make sure it actually supports what you are saying. - Arjayay (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

UforUSSR (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing AfC by myself

I am an old contributor on Wikipedia and have created few articles. There is always backlog at AfC. Can I create article by myself which I submitted for review? Is it necessary to be reviewed by someone else? Currenty 5 articles are awaiting review. :) -Nizil (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nizil and welcome to The Teahouse. If you are experienced and know the policies here, go right ahead and create the article and bypass the review. There is the risk of deletion if you do, but because you are not new, you may know how to write the article the correct way to keep that from happening.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, all registered users, regardless of age or experience, are allowed to create articles themselves. (AfC is actually a totally optional process.) To do so, move the page into the mainspace by using the "Move" tab and changing the namespace dropdown to "(Article)". Make sure the title is what you want it to be, then click the "Move page" button. As Vchimpanzee mentioned, by bypassing AfC, it is up to yourself to make sure the subject and the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the above comments, AfC is a useful process for new editors not fully familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But it is not perfect. Even if an article has been accepted through AfC, that is no guarantee that it will not be deleted later. I am an active reviewer at Articles for Deletion and it is quite common to see articles deleted which originally came through the AfC process successfully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen, Mz7 and Vchimpanzee. -Nizil (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

About my article publish

Thanks for inviting me on Teahouse. :) I just joined wikipedia yesturday.I have written an article about SimGirls,an online flash dating sim. I just wanted to know :- 1)How long will it take my article be visible in public search? 2) How can I attach Pictures to my article? 3) How can I attach references and external web links to my article? (Blackspears (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) (Blackspears (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

hi i have also joined yesterday and i need to know the answers to the questions aboveHajmam82 (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello to both of you, and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer Blackspears's specific questions:

1. It will not be searchable until it becomes an actual article. Since you are new, you should submit it to articles for creation for review by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.
2. If these pictures are of the game, then most likely they are copyrighted and not free content. In that case, you will have to wait until it becomes an actual article to add pictures (by policy).
3. There is a tutorial section on this, which should be enough. But if you're up for it, you can get more information:
   • For citing sources:
     • Rntroduction to referencing (a tutorial on the "easy way")
     • Referencing for beginners (more detailed information)
   • For links: Link help

Reply here if you have any more questions! Anon126 (talk - contribs) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

thank you, i have another question, i knew that my account will be confirmed after 4 days and 10 edits, (1)and my article will be searchable after how long from submitting using the code ?

(2)i am really confused on the subject/headline of the article as for now it keeps saying User:username and i do not know where to have my article subject/headline put to be visible for example a name if i am putting a Biography or resume ? please helpHajmam82 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Hajmam82: Let me know what name you want and I will move it for you. It will be named User:Hajmam82/Name of the article because it is not a full-fledged article just yet. (Again, you can submit it for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question as to how long it might be from submitting your draft until it gets accepted as an article, there are currently about 2400 drafts awaiting review, and it can take several weeks. You can see an indication of the age of the drafts waiting at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. The better the quality of your draft, the more chance there is of it being accepted without too much delay; drafts with problems may be put to one side while readily acceptable ones are published. Naturally, if the draft is rejected and needs to go through one or more further rounds of amendment and review this will delay things for longer. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources - can I quote catalogues to London art exhibitions and galleries?

I am trying to create an article about a portrait painter of adequate stature to be included in Wikipedia. Apart from Newspaper articles, can I refer to exhibitions at leading London galleries and also refer to introductions to those exhibitions? Published catalogues with ISBN numbers are obviously no problem but what about the privately printed catalogues? I am not talking about the enthusiastic blurb which obviously does not qualify but reference to the basic facts of the painter's life for which I need an independent source.Elist (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, so I think, my POV, is that any reliable source has to be online. What you are referring to must probably be an archived link. Then, quote it. Emekadavid (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Emekadavid - no, there's some guidelines somewhere that are quite explicit on that point, sources don't have to be online, although it obviously makes it easier for everyone. They just have to be publicly available - in this context it could be catalogues that have been deposited with a university art library for instance, I've come across cases where family papers have been deposited with a public archive so that they could be referred to on Wikipedia. That's verifiability - does the reference actually say what an editor claims it says? Reliability is a different thing, it's about assessing the credibility of the author. Something like a Sothebys/Christies catalogue should have a decent weight of scholarship behind it, catalogues from smaller commercial galleries are little better than "my nan says..." It depends a bit on context - anything involving living people needs a higher standard of reliability, and think about how you'd go about sourcing the DOB of a Hollywood actress who's known to have lied about her age. I'd start questioning the inherent notability of people where you're scrabbling too much to verify basic details like birth date.Le Deluge (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Le Deluge. Those comments + your message are very helpful - particularly the tip about family papers and archived material and the capability of using things that are behind a paywall. I did not reply before because I could not find my way back to teahouse! Wikipedia for a new user is labyrinthine and needs courage. Elist Elist (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits

Is there anywhere I can find articles that need edits to practice on?--Sta13ths17 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sta13ths17, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you're looking for a place to experiment, check out the sandbox, which allows you to play around and make a mess in. If you feel like actually editing, you can pick a random article and see if there's anything you can help out on. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of articles that needs edits just go to which you think needs to be edited.Easycalculation (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd forgotten I had an account years ago and have made a second one. What should I do?

I recently created the user Kingswoodu (named after the organization I work for). An editor kindly pointed out that I need to have a user representing myself rather than my organization. When I went to rename the user to my desired username, I discovered that I already had a wikipedia account from years ago (this one). I've now regained access to this account and have started using it again. What should I do about the other account I created? So far, I have gone to the user page for each user and referenced the other user explaining that the organization one will not be used. Thanks! DeanoL (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi DeanoL, welcome to the Teahouse. What you've done should be fine. If an admin feels it's important, they might block the Kingswoodu account while leaving the DeanoL account unaffected. But it's not essential. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! DeanoL (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

page linked to wrong page

Hi, I am going through one page,its linked to wrong page,how can i delete this and redirect the page. Will Talk2 (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Will Talk2. It's hard to answer definitely because you haven't told us which page or link you are talking about. But I'm guessing that you mean that there is a wikilink in an article which links to another article, but to the wrong article because there are several subjects with the same or similar names.

If that is so, you can correct it by editing the article in which the link appears. You need to find the link between double square brackets, and replace what's between them by the complete title of the page it should link to; then you can make the link look right by putting the name after a pipe character ('|').

Suppose for example, that a page refers to Michael Jackson; but it means a Canadian actor, not the musician. Then you would edit the article (or the section of the article) containing the link) and find where it says [[Michael Jackson]], and replace it by [[Michael Jackson (actor)|Michael Jackson]]. This would still appear as Michael Jackson, but links to the page Michael Jackson (actor). Does this answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,Thanks for the prompt reply,I will explain you. Here a village name:kothapalli existed in more than one district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherla

in this page there a subtitle:Villages in Cherla Mandal

here a village name:kothapalli,when you click on this, its going to vilage:kothapalli ,but of diffrent district of AndhraPradesh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kothapalli my sugestion is it will go for new creation, Regards,Will Talk2 (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Will Talk2: I've fixed the link so that it no longer targets the wrong article. If an article should come to be written about the Kothapalli near Cherla, it should be at the title Kothapalli, Khammam or similar. Since there are Wikipedia articles about several other places of the same name, I'm going to create a disambiguation page as well. Deor (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

adding cover art

how do i add cover art. the insert button is grayed out. NickLustig (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick, welcome to the TeaHouse. Normally cover art can only be uploaded under Wikipedia's non-free content rules, which are quite complicated and in this case mean just one use of the cover art, at the top of the article about the product that it is the cover art for, and low resolution only. I see you have created a number of articles about video games, which have all been nominated for deletion. If the articles are ultimately deleted, then the cover art cannot stay on Wikipedia, so you would have wasted your time. So for now it would be better to focus on improving the articles, with references to independent reliable sources that discuss the games, so that the articles might ultimately be kept. Some links that might prove useful; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @NickLustig: Hey Nick. If you are talking about the gray insert label above the editing window, that is not a clickable button, but is a label for the icons appearing to the right of it to it – the picture gallery, redirect and table icons; click on those to make them work. If this is about the insert button provided in the VisualEditor, I don't know the answer. I looked through the list of known bugs but didn't see that one. But if you are, you can switch back to editing by the default method, as all of your edits have been up to now (click "Edit source" instead of "Edit^beta"). Note that if you are looking to use an image that is not already present locally or at the Wikimedia Commons (which is only for free images), it had to be uploaded first. See Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur, Thank you for the links. @Fuhghettaboutit, Yea I see what you mean. --NickLustig (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)