Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 215

Archive 210

←

Archive 213

Archive 214

Archive 215

Archive 216

Archive 217

→

Archive 220

Unable to edit part of an article

When I select the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#Commentary I find that the first part of the section is not listed in the edit window, as if it has been partly locked. Surely this should not be the case in an article under dispute.

Why is this happening?

There is a section in the referenced article. When I click on "edit" for that section I get an edit window containing only the second half of the text from the section. So I am unable to edit any of the first part of the section (Commentary). How did some other editors prevent that particular content from being edited or even displayed in the window? and how can I edit it?

I asked this question 5 days ago but I cam to a dead end with no replies.PussBroad (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, PussBroad and welcome back to The Teahouse. If you asked the question here, you would have surely gotten some kind of response because if I can answer a question, I won't let it go unanswered. I'll investigate this and see what I can find.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you look back at the archives you'll see your question, & answer, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 212#Unable to edit part of an article. It was explained that the text in question was transcluded from the other article referred to. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You got the correct reply in 16 minutes when you asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 212#Unable to edit part of an article: The content is at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary. That means you must edit there in order to change the displayed text in both places. The method is described at Help:Labeled section transclusion, but you don't have to understand that page. All you have to do is edit the text at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary, and possibly purge Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation if you want your edit to be reflected right away. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I see what is happening. if you click here you can see the text that can be edited. It's probably better not to edit that text without discussing it because what is happening is called transclusion. The text in that edit window is intended to go on more than one page. For that reason, editing it would be much more controversial than editing it in one article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, It solves the mystery. I didn't understand the first answer.PussBroad (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

deletion of page

I am not sure how to get a page back...it was marked for deletion??? ThanksDrReinoso (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DrReinoso, and welcome to the Teahouse. You must be referring to Banmi Shofu Ryu, which was deleted as a copyright infringement of this page. I see you contested it, saying that you had permission from the author of the page. That is only one possible reason for deleting this page. Another is G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. And you had no sources. If you can find reliable, independent sources that establish the notability of the subject, you could simply re-create the page. If you try to restore the page as it was, though, it will be speedily deleted again. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If the article you are talking about is Banmi Shofu Ryu then your article is deleted under speedy deletion because of the copyright infringement. You have mentioned in its talk page that you have permission from the site to use its content but this claim needs verification. So, you can create the article again but try creating using Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Then your article will be reviewed and then published. If the reviewer finds some problems in your draft he will mention them on the draft and you can address them. There will be less chances of your article being deleted. Avoid copyright infringement. Abhinav0908 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And if you do have permission, it must be communicated to the Foundation via the process described on this page.--ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

New article linking to other new articles at the same time

Hello, i'm just wondering if it is possible to create an article through article wizard that links to other articles on different pages that I still need to create. How would I go about making one page link to others at the same time? Or do I need to create each article separately and then get each reviewed before I link them all together? Thanks Nmcke (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You can create a link to a page that doesn't yet exist using the normal wikilink procedure. It will appear red, indicating that the page does not yet exist. This is OK. You should not link directly to a draft article from either a draft or an existing article, however you can create a red link to the name it will have when it is a full article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nmcke. When you add a link to another article, it doesn't connect them to be reviewed together. Each page remains a separate article. The links are just to make it easy for readers for move from one to the next. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok so you're saying there is no way to have them reviewed together so i'll have to just make them separately and they will be reviewed separately? But it is ok to link to a non-esisting page from a newly created article that still needs to be reviewed? Thanks Nmcke (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are reviewed separately and yes it is OK to make such links. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have adjusted the references to reliable sources can other editors now take a look at the page Canadian Registered Safety Professional please? Thanks in advance70.50.230.65 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Host

What does it take to be a teahouse host ? Hg andVenus 07:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello HgandVenus. The expectation is that a host should have sufficient experience and familiarity with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and culture to offer helpful, constructive and friendly answers. I recall a few cases when aspiring hosts had to be told, "you are not yet ready". But anyone who recognizes their own limits is welcome to pitch in and help out here. Though I am among the most experienced hosts, I know that I am not the best to answer certain questions, and I simply remain silent then. That is a skill as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect everybody wont be happy with me asking too many questions but, I have one more: Is there anywhere in Wikipedia where you can identify an image ? Hg andVenus 07:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am off to bed so may not be able to answer, but your questions are fine. Can you please clarify what you mean by "identify an image", HgandVenus? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: For example, I have uploaded an image of a cactus. I want somebody to identify which species is it. Where should I go then ? Hg andVenus 09:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi HgandVenus, I'm sure that Cullen328 won't mind me responding while he gets some well-deserved rest. I suggest that you post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants with a link to the image. Hopefully someone there can identify the species. I had the same question over a tropical spider once. I thought I'd discovered a new species until I asked a Wikipedian ... sigh .... Good luck,  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science often receives, and answers, questions like this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, and no offence meant to Philg88, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, like all talk pages, is meant to be for discussing improvements to the encyclopedia. The Reference Desk is the correct place for this sort of question. Rojomoke (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair point Rojomoke. My apologies. I thought maybe the editor wanted to add the pic to an existing article.  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't even have to be a host. I just come here and read and learn a lot, and if I find a question that is unanswered or realize I can add helpful information, I do what I can. Most people can do better than I can, but at least I'm doing something.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The projects are the best place to ask for an identification of a plant for the precise reason that such identification would be an improvement of the encyclopedia. Lets not over think things. What would be inappropriate, would be to have a general discussion of the plant. But asking for identification of an image is part of the reason why we have collaborations such as Project Plants.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A bug probably out there

Twice in the past five minutes, I've been trying to reply to a question using the Join this Discussion button, and when I clicked add my response, my response has been appearing in the question situated above the question I was originally intending to answer. Could somebody please fix the problem ? Hg andVenus 05:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed the same bug from time to time HgandVenus, but I am not a skilled code monkey so have no idea what causes it. I have tried editing the entire page rather than the specific thread, or I wait until "some genius" fixes it, which seems to happen promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

More bugs out there now. I cannot ask a question using the ask the question button. Hg andVenus 07:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That would explain the response I fixed yesterday.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

dealing with a deletion issue that needs to be escalated beyond wiki volunteers.

the admin who deleted my page is on leave see link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Courcelles so i need someone else PLEASE to assist. I was told by someone at wikimedia.org to email info-en. so I did. and they sent me here bc the situation is outside the scope of what they do. 74.101.231.61 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As you haven't logged in, we don't know which article you are talking about. Please tell us the name of the article and someone can have a look to see if it is suitable to be userfied (guessing that this is what you want). Nthep (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Even when we do know which article you referred to, there isn't any power higher than the Wikipedia community that decides deletion issues. There is no editor-in-chief and no editorial board. Wikipedia has inclusion criteria and policies and guidelines as to appropriate content. Questions about whether an article complies with those policies and guidelines are decided by community consensus.--ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please also be aware that Courcelles is not "on leave", but has posted a statement about health problems that might interfere with editing. As a matter of fact, Courcelles has edited in recent hours. A request on that editor's talk page remains the logical place to begin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

How to add references / citations that are neither online nor publications

Hi, this seems a basic question but I have spent some time browsing the help and not yet identified the answer. I want to add some information and associated references to an article on the history of a building. My sources include documents produced by the developers at the time (decades ago). These are not available online nor are they the sort of publication that would be in a library. The obvious thing would seem to be to scan them, upload them somewhere (Wikimedia?) and link to them. Can anyone point me to guidance on how to do this properly, or alternatively on guidance as to what to do about paper sources generally that are not recognised periodicals. Rhanbury (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rhanbury. For the sake of discussion, I will assume that you have reliable sources other than these developer documents that show that the building is notable. The documents are primary sources and must be used with great care. You have to avoid original research. Scanning and uploading is not an option if they were originally published more recently than 1923, since they are then subject to copyright, and we can't link to any such documents unless the copyright holder explicitly agrees to place them online. One possibility is for you to write an article for a historical journal (where original research is fine) and then cite that article in the Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328. Let me be more specific. I am proposing to add more detail to the page on Hanbury Manor. I didn't write the page, but the original house (now much extended) was built by my great grandfather and I had some tangential involvement at the time of development into a hotel. The last section on the hotel seems light, especially given that its current role adds to its notability, and I was proposing to add for example the dates of development, by whom it was developed, and perhaps the changes of ownership and operator over the years. Although extracting such uncontroversial facts from primary sources seems to be within Wikipedia guidelines, the fact that there is no way of establishing the verifiability of these sources on wikipedia seems to rule them out. The original company is no longer trading, so it would not be realistic to get permission from the copyright owner. The events would undoubtedly have been covered by Hertfordshire newspapers at the time, but that would require going to a library and reviewing a mountain of microfiche which is disproportionate effort to the value of the result. My only alternative other than abandoning the idea seems to be to add the facts, un sourced, and wait to see if anyone else can find citations, which doesn't seem best practice. (Although it turns out I can source some of them - for example I have found a 1994 article from Hotelkeeper and caterer online which has some salient details). Do you have any further thoughts? Rhanbury (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding a new section about an album

Hello--

I was looking at a page for an album which I have researched. I would like to add information about the album, but the only sections are for the critical reception, tracklisting, and singles/video information. How do I add a section that deals with the concepts and meanings of the songs? Thank you. 12.148.211.210 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, person with an IP of 12.148.211.210. You don't say what slbum, which might be helpful. Every article has a talk page, so the best thing to do if the article has people watching it is to post on the talk page what you want to do, and make sure there are independent reliable sources with a neutral point of view. If the talk page is not active, you might be safe just adding the information with a separate heading such as "==Concepts and meanings of the songs==" (put that below the text you want it to follow). It might go last before "References". If you just go ahead and add it, someone might come along and tell you if you did the right thing. Good luck— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

But please be aware that Wikipedia does not permit original research. If there are reliable published sources which discuss the concepts and meanings of the songs, then you may write a section based on those sources (which you must reference). But if you add discussion of that kind which is not from reliable sources, or go beyond what the sources say, it will almost certainly get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to jump in—I don't want to side-track your discussion. Just a point of clarification: my understanding is not that everything must be referenced with a citation, but rather than everything must be verifiable, meaning it could be referenced using a reliable source if needed (for instance, if it is likely to be challenged). Is that right?Keihatsu ^talk 03:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Keihatsu. The relevant policy language about verifiability says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." There are some assertions that are so unlikely to be challenged that a citation isn't needed, such as mentioning in other articles that London is the largest city in the United Kingdom or that George Washington was the first president of the United States. But it is best practice to provide citations for all significant claims, especially for claims about the "concepts and meanings of songs", since this is definitely something that should be attributed to an expert music critic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And material about the concepts and meanings of songs is among the most likely to be challenged. --ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

how do u create a new page?

Firemaster56 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Firemaster56 and welcome to the Teahouse, you can create a new page using the Article Wizard, a tool to help beginners create pages. You can also create a new page by clicking the red link that comes up when you search for something that does not exist. Although that would be risky since it might get deletedTheQ Editor (Talk) 22:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ok, but where is the article wizard on the homepage Firemaster56 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Firemaster56 and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Creating articles on Wikipedia is very easy, but making sure the article is notable, referenced correctly and within the standards of the project is more daunting. For this reason we encourage new editors use Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions. So that your draft can be reviewed by more experienced editors. This is not a requirement however and creating an article is as easy as searching for the subject, determining that it is red linked (meaning the article does not exist) and also making sure the subject is not covered in a different manner than the search term may have covered. Once a red link is found, click on it and the edit window will open and you can create the new article. Remember that you must have references from reliable sources or the article is likely to be deleted.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Firemaster56. I don't know whether it has ever been discussed to put a link to the Article Wizard on the main page, but I can think of two reasons why this would not be a good idea in my opinion. First, the vast majority of people who look at Wikipedia are readers, not editors, so I don't think we should take up space on the main page with editors' links. Secondly, creating a page that will stick is not easy, and I would advise anybody to spend some time working on existing articles before trying to create one. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

My editing were not Published.

Couple of week ago, i made some editing in a biographical article, The changes were authentic and suitable for publication. But after six weeks it is not published yet.

The article was Imran khan of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimoor.utmankhel (talk • contribs) 09:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Taimoor.utmankhel. As far as I can see, the only edit you made to Imran Khan was to change the photo to one which didn't actually exist (it was deleted from Wikipedia in 2011, and the deletion record points to a photo on Commons Commons:File:Imraan Khan, which is of a different Imran Khan), so somebody reverted your change soon after. What were you trying to achieve?--ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Alert

Hey, The questions asked using ask a question button are disappearing ! After checking I found that they are being posted above the line. Is that another bug? Hg andVenus 08:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:HgandVenus! Something was messed up in the top of the page, I hope I've fixed it now. :) heather walls (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Heatherawalls: I don't use the feature any more after the questions got posted to the bottom of the page. Thanks, Matty.007 10:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Alert for editathon today

Hello all. I used to edit a lot, but not so much in recent years. Today I am hosting my first editathon, in honour of prolific editor Dr Adrianne Wadewitz. It kicks off in an hour. I've just been reminded of the existence of the Teahouse, which I've not really used, because it wasn't around ten years ago! I may be pointing new editors this way. Your help would be much appreciated. Carbon Caryatid (talk)

Why doesn't my sig display properly above? It does here, in preview. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carbon Caryatid!. There was a bug which caused questions to be placed at the top of the allotted area, which so questions could not be previewed. I found the problem and moved your question below. Your sig was still like ~~~~, so when I looked at the preview of my changes, I saw that instead of yours, my signature appeared. So I copied Carbon Caryatid (talk) from the edit summary and pasted it here. I was in too busy to link it, sorry! Hg andVenus 11:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with conflicting sources on how to categorize a topic

I'd like advice about a situation where there's disagreement about WP:Categorization. When there is disagreement (from sourced material, and among the editors) on how to categorize a topic, how shall this be handled? It certainly doesn't need a Controversy section discussing the disagreement, nor is it clear how to mention it in the text or how to deal with it in relation to related topics. The case I have in mind is an alternative health modality, Rolfing. The debate is whether it should be described as bodywork, manual therapy or manipulative therapy, or massage. Presently the article uses the term massage, however practitioners of Rolfing say that it is not massage. This disagreement comes about because a number of secondary sources call it a type of massage, while a number of other secondary sources avoid using the word massage and some even bother to clarify that it's often mistaken for massage. The word massage is sometimes used by the general population as a synonym for bodywork, yet bodywork practitioners often understand that the term "bodywork" is more inclusive; see bodywork (alternative medicine) for a brief review of this. (The word "massage" comes from the word for dough (masa for instance) and it has a connotation of kneading the muscles. Hands-on approaches that are more sophisticated than kneading will sometimes avoid the term massage.) Another factor: there is a massage tradition that has developed over time, and Rolfing does not have a place within that tradition but rather has its own history, teachers, schools, etc. One cannot attend massage school to learn Rolfing. Is there a WP policy on how to handle this sort of problem? I welcome suggestions, and also if an experienced editor would be interested in collaborating with me to put together a draft of changes to propose to the page's editors, I would appreciate it!Karinpower (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Karinpower and welcome to The Teahouse. I was going to say that you go with what most reliable sources say, because Wikipedia is concerned with with reliable sources say about a subject. You don't make clear whether more sources say the term "massage" should be used, or whether more sources say that it shouldn't. I would say that the article should mention that some people do not consider rolfing to be massage, but I doubt that this will be the prevailing point of view, meaning the article probably will continue to call rolfing "massage" even if the opposing view is presented as just that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't help further. Your talk page already has what I said, but stated in a much better way.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I would say that the more authoritative sources (the ones that seem familiar with the topic of Rolfing rather than sloppily researched as some are) tend to say not massage. This is because the field itself considers it to be not massage, and always has. It seems important to weigh sources on their merit instead of just how many say yes vs. no. Also, some sources use the word "massage," some carefully don't, and others mention the confusion and say definitely "not massage." The sources that explain the confusion offer a convincing argument and I've come to believe that the sources that say "massage" are doing so carelessly rather than as a conscious choice. Thanks again for weighing in. Please consider adding the topic to your watchlist - this is an article than can really use a few additional unbiased parties. --Karinpower (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Source

When I was doing some editing one of the editors told me to add the source but since I was new, I had sone trouble.--Funnycoolman (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Funnycoolman. It would be helpful if you told us where you were editing, and what happened, but I guess it was at List of Pokémon: XY episodes. As Ryūlóng said on your talk page, you need to add references to say where the information has been published that you are adding. The reason for this is that if you don't, then nobody reading the article tomorrow or next month or next year can tell whether it is right or not: You might be mistaken, or some vandal might come along later and change the data for a joke. If there is no reference, then there is no way that somebody can be sure; but if you include a published reference for the material, then somebody to whom the information is important can see where to go to check that what the Wikipedia article says is right. For how to make references, please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor review over?

Is it the end of editor review ? And if it is, where will the current requests go? Hg andVenus 08:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:Editor review is more or less done. However, nothing should be done to that page or the individual review pages; it's already marked as historical. Ansh666 03:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Update at German Wikipedia?

Hi, I noticed that there is a translation of the Annie Haslam article on the German Wikipedia. However, this appears to be a very old version. Is it possible for me to request a more up to date translation, and how do I go about it? I don't speak German. Thanking you in anticipation.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi CaesarsPalaceDude and welcome to the Teahouse. You could add Category:Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia to the article then leave a note on the associated talk page explaining what's required.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philg88, thanks for your post. I would like the English Wikipedia article of Annie Haslam translated into German, and then replace the German Wikipedia article of the same name (which appears to be a couple of years out of date). I think this is the opposite of your answer. Kind regards.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it's the other way around, sorry CaesarsPalaceDude! In which case you are going to need to make the request at German Wikipedia's translation project. That will be tricky as you don't speak German. You could try posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany and see if anyone is interested in helping you. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Philg88, that's very helpful, and ... er, tricky.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not too tricky, as being translators, they should understand if you request in English!SovalValtos (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You could always use Google translate but that may just confuse them more.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm finding a bot

Hey! I'm finding a bot that can put all featured content in WikiProject Professional wrestling, because at the main page there is a section called "Article examples" but I'm in doubt of its completeness especially the DYKs. I know JL-Bot can do the work but there should be a date beside it when adding. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 05:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I would ask on the bot's talk page. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are certain categories deleted while similar ones persist?

Some examples of deleted categories: Category:Conservatives, Category:Liberals, Category:Progressives.

Some examples of similar categories that persist: Category:Anarchists, Category:Communists, Category:Fascists, Category:Libertarians, Category:Socialists.

--DigitalBluster (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added colons to your category links so they work instead of categorizing this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that was puzzling. --DigitalBluster (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DigitalBluster. I don't know the answer to your question, but it seems to me that the categories you have said have been deleted are less clear (more relative) than the others. While we may disagree about whether a particular person (or party) is or isn't anarchistic, communist, fascist, or libertarian, most people more or less agree what those terms mean. But what we mean by conservative, liberal, progressive is more variable, particularly from country to country. (I would put 'socialist' in that latter group, rather than the former). --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. These are for categorizing individuals (e.g., "Anarchists"), and are not for placing articles related to a topic (e.g., "Anarchism"). No matter how well-defined we may think some of these are, they are bound to create friction when placing individuals who have not self-identified with the label. I'm OK with friction because I find the usefulness of the categories overrides that concern, which is why I object to the deletions. My personal hypothesis is that the deleted categories fall within the range of the acceptable, according to Overton's window, and so are more likely to raise disruptive levels of friction because most people identify with one of them. Whereas the undeleted categories fall within the range of the radical, or even unthinkable, and so only a minority will identify with them and the majority are more comfortable applying those labels. But, it's just a hypothesis. Whatever the case, I'd like to see less structural bias. --DigitalBluster (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DigitalBluster. I take your point that these are about self-identification only. But the problem I was pointing up is that "liberal" for example, is a category that many American politicians might subscribe to, but British politicians are unlikely to do so unless they were supporters of the (now defunct) Liberal Party (UK), or possibly its successor the Liberal Democratic Party (UK): the word is rarely used in the American political sense. So if you are only interested in American politicians, that's fine, (but the category name should say so), and if you're not, the category will omit many politicians whose views probably match what you're looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The article on liberalism covers a very broad, international scope, suggesting that it would be reasonable to apply the category to anyone who fits the description under any reasonable interpretation of the various flavors of liberalism -- the same criteria that, presumably, is used when applying any of the existing categories. And the same goes for conservatives and progressives. Moreover, this applies equally to the existing categories. Anarchists come in more flavors than perhaps any other political ideology. Communists may rival anarchists, as the variants listed in the main article demonstrate. And socialists are so varied that the term has begun to rival liberalism in its scope, with everyone from Karl Marx to Bernie Sanders claiming the label. As for fascists, I can't imagine a more contentious label. Despite the vast scope of most of these categories, and despite the potential friction arising from their use, they are maintained. They're applied to individuals who've accepted them, and even to those who may not have accepted them, but whom editors have deemed to have fit the description based on reasonable criteria. I remain unconvinced that there is any good reason not to maintain those deleted categories. I believe that their deletion detracts from the value of the project. Is there a way that I can raise this issue formally? --DigitalBluster (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 30#Category:Conservatives, for example, has a link at the end to deletion review, which I think would be where you should go. You'll need to have arguments to counter the ones given for 'delete' in that discussion (and remember that other stuff exists is not regarded as a strong argument). It may be that the categories that have been retained just haven't happened to be challenged - I couldn't find a deletion discussion for Category:Communists, for example (though I didn't look all the way down the search results, so I may have missed it). --ColinFine (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of cite errors

Hi, could a passing editor please take a look at the article Antibiotic acyldepsipeptides. A lot of red "Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page)." are showing up, and I can't seem to pinpoint the issue. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I managed to resolve quite a few of them by using the "Named references" tool in refToolbar, but there are still a few cite errors that I'm confused about. What's going on? Thanks again, Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you had curly quotes rather than straight quotes. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a possibility. After removing all the quotes, everything resolved. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You still had one ref shown as used but not defined, & I've cured that by changing the curly quotes to straight. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you so much for your help! Mz7 (alt) (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't change a file name

I tried to move [[File:Kyah Simon playing agains Japan WNT in 2012.jpg]] but couldn't because I don't have permission. Can anyone help. In the file name, "agains" should be "against". Jodosma (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Jodosma. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

To expand on that, Jodosma, you can request a file move by placing Template:Rename media on the file page. The reason you couldn't move the file was that only admins and file movers are able to.

Also, a tip: you can link to files by placing a colon before the file name. For example: [[:File:Kyah Simon playing against Japan WNT in 2012.jpg]] will show File:Kyah Simon playing against Japan WNT in 2012.jpg ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Another one, for File:Don't Tap the White Tiles promo art.png, it should be "Tile" not "Tiles". Thanks! --NN4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Nahnah4. Thanks guys. I never stop learning on this site (even in my dotage!). Jodosma (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for years and am still learning. It is a learning process, no one expects overnight experts and the bonus is that there are hundreds of volunteers happy to help you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your comments on this...I've re-edited to take out the personal references, and also simplified it a bit...would be great to get your thoughts on this one more time...apologies for all the hassle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamal_Fakhro Kalkpmg (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

many thanks for all your guidance, I've made the amendments and have reduced the personal references as mentioned. I would really appreciate it if you could take another look at it, and suggest if I have to further amend...many thanks once again, I really appreciate the support!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamal_Fakhro Kalkpmg (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Methinks there is a bug.

When adding references I usually use the Wiki Toolbar. But there is something funny going on with it when using the {{cite book}}. If I enter all the boxes of the "chart" including the Ref name and later use this ref with "Named references" I get all kinds of error markings. The automatic reference do not contain the "". This is what it should look like: <ref name="example" /> to work, but this is how it comes out <ref name=example/>. If I add the "" manually it all works. Sometimes this happens with {{cite web}} as well. What is going on?

Another point about the Wiki Toolbar {{cite book}}: Why is it set with "date" instead of "year"? I have to correct it all the time. How often does a book have a "date"? - W.carter (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi W.carter. WP:REFNAME says:

• Quotes are optional if the only characters used are letters A–Z, a–z, digits 0–9 and the symbols !$%&()*,-.:;<@[]^_`{|}~
• Inclusion of any other characters, including spaces, requires that the name be enclosed in double straight quotes (")
• Quote-enclosed names may not include a less-than sign (<) or a double straight quote symbol (")
• Please consider keeping names simple and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals.

A long spaced ref name like "JP: Small-body Database Browser" in [1] is not recommended. A simple JPL is fine and makes it easier to reuse the reference without careful copy-pasting. It also reduces the risk that somebody who doesn't know the purpose of ref names will change it in one place but not others. I don't even know why there is a colon insted of L and somebody could easily change that. A citation can usually say date when it only gives a year. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter! Thanks for the answer, but I think you got sidetracked from the real question by a typo in Kräklingbo that occurred when I copied the ref from 8682 Kräklingbo. This very long and cumbersome ref was named by the editor who wrote 8682 Kräklingbo and not by me. I have corrected that ref now. A ref name is totally invalid at Kräklingbo since it is only cited once. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

But the problem remains that the automatic cite thing is malfunctioning. Last time it occurred was when I made the <ref name="Linné"> on Kräklingbo and the Toolbar Named references insisted on calling it <ref name=Linné/> (which resulted in red markings) when I added the "" manually to <ref name="Linné" /> it worked just fine. Could it be the ´ that was causing the problem? - W.carter (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref names are allowed but unnecessary when a ref is only used once. A ref name with 'é' requires quotes to be reused. It's best to avoid such characters but it would be good if the toolbar could handle them anyway. I have posted to MediaWiki talk:RefToolbar.js#ref names needing quotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It would be great if it worked. But in the meantime "...avoid the green ones" i.e. steer clear of complicated characters. And how about the date/year question in my initial query? Anyone else thinks that is a bit off? - W.carter (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A year is a date, and the templates all deal with them the same, except in some edge cases relating to Harvard referencing which could be dealt with simply. I recommend using "date=" all the time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Ok... So different advice from different senior editors. Just trying to walk the line here. - W.carter (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I just like things as simple as possible, and would like to see "year" removed from the cite templates, as we did with "month" and "day". Most recently published books do have a known publication date to the day, albeit not on the edition notice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

I think the simple takeaway for the "ref name" issue is to keep in mind that the name you give your reference is just a simple memory device which is not displayed to readers, and to keep things simple, use only a single word that you make up. If I cite a book by Jane Jones which was published in 2006, I might call it Jones2006. Letters and numbers only, with no spaces, punctuation, diacritical marks, or special characters. I find that everything goes smoothly that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you!^^ I always make my ref names the exact same way you do. Once again: The humongous ref name mentioned above was not my creation, just something of a tag along from a previous editor. A ref name now removed and best forgotten. My only slipup was the é in Linné. This simple little character is what started the whole mess. I promise I will never ever use it again! Best. - W.carter (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Any volunteers ?

I would like to publish an article about our cooperative..and don't want to be accused of a "positive viewpoint". Therefore I would very much appreciate the help from someone experienced with writing on Wikipedia. Provide a contact form and I will send you the text... The more the merrier..and I will abide by the suggestions/opinions. Wikipedia is a great place, we do not need "free advertising", but we do want to inform the world about our concept. Thanks to everyone for reading..and specially those who can be bothered with giving a hand. Naturlogic (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Naturlogic. Please give us the name of your cooperative. Has it received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? Evaluating such coverage is how we determine if a topic is suitable for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim...just posted on your page, thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturlogic (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have no problem you can post it here too. Then all of us will be able to check about it.Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please post here so we can all see what this is about. Thanks! Molly's Mind (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Children of notable people

My question has to do with listing the occupations of the children of notable people. I'm trying to provide inline citations and remove the citations needed tag in the Samuel C. C. Ting article, but the existing text about his son is about 3 or 4 years out of date, as he was still in college at the time the piece was written. In addition, the only source I've found listing his current occupation is from his LinkedIn profile...

I'm wondering whether there are recommended guidelines on including information with such obviously limited shelf-life? Seems like a site maintenance/sustainability issue, especially since the information is not crucial to understanding the subject.

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

See Notability is not inherited. My instinct would be to remove mention of their occupations altogether. It adds nothing to our understanding of Ting himself. Rojomoke (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a similar situation with Einar Jolin. In the end I just found a reference to the children being born and put that in the article. Not caring what they did later on in life. - W.carter (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to follow the advice to "Be bold" and make appropriate deletions. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archive

Do I need to archive my talk page? If so, how? UserJDalek 01:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, UserJDalek. Yes, eventually you will have to start archiving your talk page, because people on mobile devices or with slow connections will have difficulty conversing with you because your talk page takes so long to load and so difficult to scroll through. Here are the instructions: Help:Archiving a talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Some people like to archive manually - that's what I do. You can look at the Wikicode on my talk page {User talk:Anne Delong) and archive pages to see how that works. There are also automatic archive processes. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What Anne Delong said above is correct. However, this is not an immediate issue for you, UserJDalek, since your talk page now is short and manageable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hands up all those who cleaned up their own talk pages after reading this! RockMagnetist (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is no requirement that you archive your talkpage (which is, I think, the gist of the original question), and you are allowed to delete (most) content on your own talkpage without archiving it if you so wish. That said, archival is much preferred to deletion; it makes life far easier for everybody. If manual archiving seems too onerous, you can get a bot to do if for you - see Wikipedia:Archive#Automated_archival for details, or just copy the code at the top of my own talkpage. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yunshui. As a dedicated pack rat, I failed to consider and explain the deletion option. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers, everyone. I've copied the code from the top of your talk page, Yunshui, but do you think you could drop by and check to see if I got it right? Thanks. --UserJDalek 23:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles

How dose one go about publishing an article/page, and adding references? Austinrex (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Austinrex. I recommend that you begin by reading Your first article and also A Primer for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Fair Use" of non-free media

Hi,

I have already asked this before here, but my question some how got mixed in with somebody else's by mistake, which might have made my question difficult to follow. I am not shopping around for a particular answer; I am just interested in getting a little more clarification. I've looked at WP:NFCCP, Template:Non-free television screenshot, etc., but I'm still not quite sure as to what I am allowed to do.

I've been primarily working on shogi-related articles. Some of the stuff I've created so far has to do with professional shogi tournaments held in Japan. Since there is very little source information on these tournaments in English, I have been primarily citing Japanese sources. I would like to add a few pictures to these articles such as [2], and [3], etc. that I can get online and possibly some screenshots I can take myself. I understand that I do not hold the copyrights on any of these images, but there is no free content available or that could be created of the images I want to use. FWIW, I do not plan to upload anything to Wikicommons because of their policies regarding "fair use" media; I just want to know if I can use it on English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally to be in line with 'fair-use' and to not have the image deleted, the image has to be low resolution, where no free substitute exists. If you look at this image you can see an image added that is very low resolution, (even lower than the 480i of the original broadcast) and has a very good fair-use rationale. In short, if you upload an image to Wikipedia and it isn't free, you have to provide a very good reason. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: Thank you for the reply. I have a question about the photo you gave as an example. Do you think it satisfies WP:NFCC criterion 8?

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

I can see how a picture of "Captain Picard" might enhance an article about "Captain Picard", but I am not sure how the omission of such a picture is detrimental to understanding the article. I am not saying such a picture violates criterion 8, rather I am just trying to better understand why it complies. Most of the images I am thinking about using seem to have no problem satisfying WP:NFCC criteria 1-7 and 9-10, but things are not so clear regarding criterion 8. That seems to be the most subjective of all the criteria. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And it must comply with all of the non-free content criteria. Note that those criteria are more strict than "fair use" under US copyright law.--ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ukexpat: Thanks for the reply. As I stated in my reply to Solarra above, most of the images I am thinking about using seem to have no problem satisfying WP:NFCC criteria 1-7 and 9-10, but I am not so sure about criterion 8. That seems to be the most subjective of all the criteria. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Hello

I'm trying to create my own page Tony James (Producer) and aren't sure how to add references or where on the page? I'm not very smart when it comes to these types of things :)

How do I add references?

Thank you.

Tassyntony (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tassyntony. Please read Referencing for beginners, and feel free to practice in your Sandbox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tassyntony and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your second question about where? You insert a reference after each individual ideas or statements likely to be challenged. To insert references, in the edit toolar, you can also press Cite and click Templates. Select the type of citation and fill in the blanks. Ta Da! The system would do it for you. If you would want help, you could send be the website and the article to me and I will do it for you. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 03:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tassyntony. Does "I'm trying to create my own page 'Tony James (Producer)'" mean that you are "Tony James the Producer" himself? If so, then you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Generally, it's not considered proper for an editor to create, or edit articles about themselves, their families, their friends, their companies or other affiliations. Doing so may result in other editors questioning the article's neutral point of view which could in turn lead to somebody recommending the article for deletion. So, if the subject matter is notable enough and can be properly sourced, then it's best to leave the creation of the article up to someone else. You can make a request that an article be written about a particular subject at Wikipedia:Requested articles and perhaps an editor or editors will take up the challenge of writing the article. Your article Tony James (Producer) has already been nominated for deletion for lack of sources, but even if it should somehow survive that, it's possible it could be nominated again by another editor as original research or as self promotion.

Finally, please be aware that the creators of articles do not own said articles per se. As Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences states:

If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually.

I am not trying to discourage you from participating in Wikipedia and I apologize in advance if I am misinterpreting things. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for the aorta article

Hey!

I´ve created a different version of the aorta article. Now... I've rewritten a lot of it on my page User:Tomato_33/aorta. A lot of rephrasing, removed some bits, added some bits. What would be your advice on how to proceed? Tomato 33 (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I see a productive discussion at Talk:Aorta is already taking place. LT910001's advice there is very sound. I would check that the information you wish to change is supported by citations to reliable sources. After this check, if you feel your edits would improve the article then a guiding principle of Wiki editing to be BOLD and make them. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

However, I suggest you introduce the changes incrementally, which allows identification, isolation and discussion of any controversial issues, rather than cut and paste the entire article, which leads to a "spot the difference" competition. If an editor objects to any part of a wholesale change, they are likely to revert the lot, whereas they may agree with 95% but cannot, easily, reverse your changes to the parts that they disagree with. - Arjayay (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay :) I'll try to comply with LT910001's advice :). And implement the changes incremently. :) Tomato 33 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)