Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 206

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 200

←

Archive 204

→

If an article exists on the french wikipedia, but not here, does that automatically qualify the subject for inclusion?

In short, if I translate an article from the french wikipedia (I am bilingual), will it be eligible for inclusion here without complication? Does at least one of the references need to be in english? Is there any difference in standards amongst the different language wikipedias? Thanks! Flipandflopped (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Flipandflopped: Hey Flipandflopped. Each Wikipedia has its own policies and articles are judged on their merits and not by relation to whether or not they are accepted at any other language Wikipedia. Moreover, the fact that an article exists at another Wikipedia does not tell you if it should exist even there, under its policies. After all, we have lots of existing articles here that should be deleted but have not yet been reviewed and nominated. Anyway, you can absolutely use reliable sources that are not in English (though all things being equal, if there is a choice between two equally reliable sources, we prefer the one in English, but only where that equivalency exists). But there will be no complications if the subject is notable and you show that by citing reliable independent sources. By the way, make sure on a translation to provide copyright attribution. I translated an article recently (from French, as it happens), so here's an example of providing copyright attribution. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Blockquote with left image

Hello, English breakfast, cream and one sugar, please.

Blockquote automatically indents to offset the quote from preceding and following text. However, if there is an image to the left, there is no indent from surrounding text. Apparently the software reasons that the quote is already indented by the image. Is there anything that can be done? Mandruss (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'm just chiming in with what I've found but wait for a more tech savvy user. Anyway, I found T13782, which indicates this is unfixable, or at least was with the version of Mediwiki then in use. Apparently {{Flowlist}} provides a clunky workaround for some uses, but I don't think it will work with the blockquote element (I tried using it and nada).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to monitor editor actions and limit their damage?

Please glance at this long COI discussion [[1]].

Also, please look at the history in MDD [[2]]

A recently vetted article turns out to have major problems. Vested interests? COI? The point is, trying to fix those problems has been impossible.

Is there a independent body in Wiki or the Foundation that can review and monitor editor actions?32cllou (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello 32cllou. The Wikimedia Foundation does not monitor editor actions or participate in creating content here on Wikipedia. They set overall policies but allow the Wikipedia community to control the content. There are no truly "independent" bodies with the powers you mention, because administrators, bureaucrats and members of the Arbitration Committee are selected by Wikipedia editors. Our content is the result of consensus. In order to change an article, it is incumbent on you to communicate effectively with other editors, and win them over to your view of how the article should read. It is rarely productive to accuse other editors of bad faith without rock solid evidence. It is also advisable to discuss one article at a time, rather than combining depression and giardia into a single conversation. You will be more successful if you thoroughly understand the policies and guidelines that shape the content. When consensus seems elusive, we have various dispute resolution procedures in place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume (based on the timing) that this edit is basically to make me regret I wanted someone to look into gross factual errors in a major topic? [[3]]. Ellen G. White is a good reference for Biblical interpretation. The article makes no medical claims, and needs no secondary sources.

I understand why so many great editors have quit Wikipedia.32cllou (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the references you added purported to make medical claims about health benefits of the fast. All such sources must meet WP:MEDRS and it seems that one didn't. In addition, it is not appropriate to add a lengthy Biblical passage to an article. When the topic concerns the Bible, cite book, chapter and verse with a brief quote or two and a paraphrase. Everyone's edits are subject to scrutiny and reversion, including mine and yours. Editors come and go. That is the nature of a volunteer project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How to decide whether a source is reliable or not?

Well i was recently editing a few articles and my edit was reverted and the reason was the source is not reliable and while editing another article and i reverted a post because i didnt find the source reliable. Another user kept on reverting my edit saying his source is reliable while it seemed to be a non-reliable web magazine. So how does one decide whether a source is reliable or not? Is there a list of reliable sources on Wikipedia? Abhinav0908 (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abhinav0908, to decide whether a source~ is reliable, please see WP:IRS. TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Abhinav0908. The link above is very useful, and I recommend that you read it. However, there can't be a comprehensive list of "reliable" and "unreliable" sources, because many sources are reliable for matters within their area of specialization, but less so for other matters. Respected newspapers like the New York Times are reliable for many things, but we don't cite newspaper articles for medical claims. For such articles, we rely on survey articles in respected medical journals.

Consider a celebrity publication like People magazine. That will usually be considered a reliable source for basic facts of a movie star's career. But let's say, for the sake of discussion, that a movie star marries a Nobel prize winning physicist. Stranger things have happened. People magazine is a reliable source for the marriage, the wedding date and the birth of children, but not for a description of the physicist's research. For that, a physics journal or the Nobel Prize website would be preferred. And even a publication widely considered unreliable may be reliable for limited things, such as the name of its managing editor. Context matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick replies.The above link and the explanation are both really helpfulAbhinav0908 (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki etiquette: How to significantly revise an article?

Good morning all. I think the teahouse is a great idea for new contributors.

I have a question on the etiquette on submitting a significant edit to an existing article. I helped contribute to the original near sets article back in 2009. Since then, there have been many changes and the current page is out-of-date. I am currently working on a major revision to this page (in my sandbox) and I want to know how to submit the changes once I am ready. Should I do it a section of at a time, or modify the whole page in one shot? Is it possible to contact the administrator for this page and let them know a significant update is on the way?

Many thanks,

ChristopherJamesHenry (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi ChristopherJamesHenry, if you would want to make an edit that would significantly change the page. For example, your sandbox. I would suggest you go on the article's Talk Page (See WP:TP for help) and notify the editors and ask for their opinion. TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In general, I believe that it is better to make a series of small edits, explaining each individually, as opposed to making a single sweeping edit that results in a dramatic change to the article. This better enables other editors to see your underlying reasoning, and to follow the evolution of the article. And if someone agrees with 80% of your changes, it makes developing consensus about the remaining 20% much easier. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, one huge amendment, turns it into a "spot the difference" competition, and if an editor disagrees with any part of it, they are quite likely to revert the lot. Please note there is no "administrator for this page", for you to contact, although several editors may have it on their watchlist. Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments, they are very helpful. I will post a comment on the talk page, and aim to make small changes. Regards, ChristopherJamesHenry (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Explanatory footnote

I want to create a footnote containing explanatory text, not a citation. To distinguish this from the article's citations, I want the footnote marker to begin with the word "Note". WP:FOOT implies that this is possible, referring to this as a "custom label", but does not explain how to do it. Mandruss (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mandruss, welcome back to the Teahouse! You can separate explanatory footnotes from citations by adding a group name. Instead of just <ref>...</ref>, use <ref group="Note">...</ref>. These will not show up in the regular {{reflist}}. To list the explanatory footnotes, put {{reflist|group=Note}} in a new section. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Anon126. I have that working in my sandbox and have a related question. The article, Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, has two sections called "Notes" and "References". The former contains citations, and the latter contains a list of books and news items to which some of the citations refer. As you said, I need to add a section for explanatory footnotes. What would you suggest as a section name, and should I change the existing section names? For example, would it make sense to have separate sections called Notes and Footnotes, when those two terms seem to be used interchangeably? I'm sure there's some MOS guidance on this, somewhere, but I can't find it. Mandruss (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anon126: To further complicate matters, after reading some of WP:OR I'm not certain my explanatory note is consistent with WP guidelines on sources. Could you look at my sandbox and give me your opinion? The note is currently at the bottom of the Notes section.

@Mandruss: You can also use a combination of the templates {{Cref2}} and {{Cnote2}} to do the same thing. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To editor Mandruss: I've found some guidance at WP:FNNR, a section of the layout guideline, but it states that multiple styles are acceptable. I think the explanatory footnotes should be in a section called "Notes", and maybe the citation footnotes could be in a section called "Citations"?

About original research: Yes, the explanatory footnote on the map seems to be OR; I think it should be removed. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was very helpful to me. I have a new twist to add Mandruss' question. I want to do exactly the same thing (i.e. have a separate note and reference section), but I want to be able to add a reference within my explanatory footnote. Is this possible?

Thanks,

ChristopherJamesHenry (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi ChristopherJamesHenry and thanks for your question. Please see my comment above, Cref2/Cnote2 allow you to embed a non-templated reference in a note above the reference section. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ChristopherJamesHenry (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

1 How to get an article semi-protected

1 How to get an article semi-protected and get a good article rating. 2 Some of the stuff in the input of info box is not being displayed on the output. Shakeeluddin (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Shakeeluddin, thanks for stopping by. This is actually three questions :-)

The grounds for placing a page under semi-protection are fairly limited and are basically about preventing unregistered editors (IP addresses) and new users editing articles, so it's normally a vandalism or edit war stopper but the vandalism has to be fairly frequent or the edit war ongoing. It's more likely to be applied to a high profile subject or a biography of a living person than other articles. If you want to request protection you do so at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. What you can't use protection for is maintaining the status of an article just the way you like it, it's a basic premise of Wikipedia that all editors can edit all pages and Ownership of articles is a no-no. I suspect we all get pretty protective about articles we have had a lot of involvement with but that gives you no more rights over it than anyonw else and you should expect, in fact probably welcome, others challenging your opinions. That sparks discussion and hopefully consensus about how to improve the article. Which leads onto;
How to increase the status of an article. The basic criteria for a good article are found at Wikipedia:Good article criteria and in a nutshell are

it's well written
it's verifiable with no original research
broad in coverage
neutral in tone
stable in content
illustrated, where possible

If an article comes within the spehere of interest of a particular Wikipedia:WikiProject - check the article talk page for this, then that project may have more guidelines about what constitutes a good article in that area. Articles nominmated for good article status are reviewed by another editor, who shouldn't have had any major connection with the article to date. They will do an assessment against the 6 criteria and discuss with interested editors how to improve the article if those criteria aren't met straight away.

If an infobox isn't displaying all the information you've put in, a possible explanation is that you are using parameters the infobox doesn't actually support. Pretty much all infobox template pages - for example Template:Infobox person, contain a list of all the parameters the infobox supports, if you try and use something extra to these it won't be recognised in the output. there are also certain parameters that are dependent upon another parameter being used, so miss the first and the second would not be seen even though you have entered information against it. (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Nthep means "and the second would not be seen even though you have entered information against it" - Arjayay (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did (now amended) Nthep (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank u very much.Shakeeluddin (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to read again what is says at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, as I see that you have made a request there. RFPP is for cases of repeated vandalism or an ongoing edit war. There is no obvious sign of vandalism, and you need to understand Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. It could be argued that there is an edit war going on, and you would appear to be one of those participating so you need to be aware of the possible consequences. If you disagree with another editor's changes, don't repeatedly revert them, but discuss them on the article's talk page. Semi-protection would, in any case, not help the situation because all the currently active editors on the article are WP:autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And you have now had the answer to your request for page protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

registered at both WP Commons and WP

Hello, I've been editing at Wikipedia for a few years now, and just opened a Wikimedia Commons account for the purpose of uploading some photos. I notice that I can go to WP articles when my WM account is open. It has the feel of having two different accounts, which I understand is not a good thing. But I'm OK as long as I don't edit with my Wikimedia account, right? Thanks for help in clarifying my situation! EMP (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The confusion might be that here on en-wiki you are using the account User:EMP, but on Commons you are using User:Early morning person. The latter has a unified login across the various Wikipedias and Commons, but the former does not have a global account; User:EMP exists as an account on Commons, & elsewhere, but these are presumably separate from yours. I see that you changed your en-wiki user name from User:Early morning person to User:EMP in March, but that applies only locally, not globally. You presumably can't get a global login under your new name, because it is already taken at Commons and elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to look into this so thoroughly. Mystery solved. I tried unsuccessfully to use EMP to register for WM Commons and was wondering why this happened. Thanks for the explanation.EMP (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little surprise that when you requested the name change it wasn't pointed out to you that the name wasn't available globally. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

speedy deletion

my article was speedy deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. i want to write that article again.what should i do?Marium Khalid Makhdoom (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marium Khalid Makhdoom! Welcome to the Teahouse! I am guessing the first thing you should do, is to read up about WP:G11. Are you happy that you understand what it means? If not, let us know what's confusing, and we can help you out right here at the Teahouse!

If you have a conflict of interest regarding a product, person or company, perhaps it would be better to write about a different topic instead? Like for example the geography, flora and fauna of your home town? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Original references remain after adding citations. Will they be removed?

I just wrote a draft of an article and added inline citations. The original references with bullet points are still there. Will those be removed after submission? Deesm (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deesm, welcome (back?) to the Teahouse. No, they will not get removed automatically; it is fine to remove them yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

can edits be requested?

I was looking at the Smart (automobile) page to see if the company name is written with a capital S or all lowercase - as it is in the logo.

It is inconsistent throughout the page, and doesn't seem to follow any kind of rule. Not wanting to go in there and edit, being a newbie to editing on Wiki, I would like to ask someone else to take a look at it and make a decision on the inconsistency. I am also interested in knowing how this decision will be reached. 46.189.33.82 (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a relative newbie here myself, but I'll offer my take anyway.

My instinct is to look to reputable news organizations who are known to take adhere to solid journalistic principles, and ask what they would do.

As far as I can tell, The New York Times consistently capitalizes that. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for Wikipedia, in my opinion.

My rationale is that the company can lower-case that all they want, but they can't expect the rest of the world to do so when it seriously hurts the readability of prose text. The whole purpose of capitalizing a company or brand name is to make it easily identifiable as a company or brand name. This especially applies when the name is an English word. I would have less of a problem with lower-casing Ikea or Samsung, for example. Mandruss (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. In answer to your general question: if there's an improvement that you think can be made in an article, but you think it needs discussion, or might be contentious, or you're not confident in making the change yourself, the thing to do is to start a discussion on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Smart (automobile)). If your suggestion has been up there for say a week, and nobody has replied, then either make the edit to the article yourself, or look further afield: in the first instance, try to find a suitable WikiProject to discuss it with. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "if it's good enough for the NY Times" comment: that isn't a bad argument but there are better sources for Wikipedia standards such as the Wikipedia Manual of Style --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: I agree with you and I should have been more clear that the NYT comment was specific to this context, not a general rule of thumb. I doubt that MOS provides guidance pertaining to this particular situation. Cheers, Mandruss (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I (very belatedly) looked at the Talk page, and there is already a section on this topic. It ends, in 2009, with a consensus in favor of capitalization. It sounded like all of the body text was fixed at that time; apparently there have been many updates since then where the editors didn't see that discussion, and nobody else caught it. Now this is looking like a no-brainer, and not a lot of boldness would be needed to go in and capitalize everything now. Mandruss (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Is a video an acceptable reference?

Hello - I'm sure you've answered this but I didn't find the right answer in my search. Just wondering if I can link to a video segment - a TV interview, for example - as a reference, if the video hasn't been transcribed anywhere? Liftplowblade (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. As always with reliable sources, context is important, and sources should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, however there is no rule that explicitly and categorically prevents videos from being cited on Wikipedia. Template:Cite AV media or Template:Cite interview, I believe, are how you would do so. Is there a specific video you wish to cite, so we can help evaluate its reliability? Go Phightins! 21:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Liftplowblade. To expand a little on what Go Phightins! has said: video sources are often primary sources, which means that they can be used but in rather limited ways. But a TED talk by an acknowledged expert on a subject, for example, may well be a valid secondary source, useful in general as a reference. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit is an example of me citing a TV programme that also happens to be available online as a video. (The diff at the top shows how I added it, and scrolling down shows what it looked like in the article). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As another example, in this edit, I transcribed a comment from an interview posted online from a TV segment. Go Phightins! 22:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both. At this point I am going to avoid using a video. The kind of thing I am thinking of is just a TV interview with someone, where the Wikipedia page is about the interview subject. Also thanks for the reminder on primary sources. I am a little concerned about using a lot of print interviews of an actor to update that actor's page. I think my strategy for now will be to make sure any info from one is sourced at least one more place. I'm starting with something relatively simple to ease myself in. Liftplowblade (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation

Where do I find who made the website and the date it was made? 70.39.231.183 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. This depends a lot on the website, so if you have a specific URL you want to cite, place it here and we'll try to help. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How can I review articles for creation

Thank you for inviting me. I would like to become a reviewer. How do I do that. Sincerely --Notsniwllewdrib (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Notsniwllewdrib, and welcome. Reviewing articles at articles for creation takes some experience and familiarity with Wikipedia's rules, so I don't think you are ready to do that yet. To start on the "path" to that, you can read the introduction and contribute to existing articles first. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Notsniwllewdrib. Any editor is welcome to participate in the reviews at Articles for Deletion. The key to success there is to base your recommendations to "keep" or "delete" articles on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is good training in preparation for becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer. Please feel free to ask for advice, as I have a lot of experience there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

page creation

Hi,

I've created a new page and its listed in wikipedia, but when I use the search bar its not showing in there. Can you please let me know the reason for this and how can I get in there.

Thanks and BEst Regards

Plsntgg (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Plsntgg: There is a delay before new articles appear in the Wikipedia search results. Not sure what it is, but I suspect a day or so. It is something one simply ignores. After all, Wikipedia is not about instant gratification. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How can I be sure the article I resubmitted is in the queue for review?

I (thought I) resubmitted an article after addressing the critiques of the previous version and revising extensively. It has been longer than I expected (based both on previous experience and on the estimate I received when I submitted or at least attempted to submit), and my confidence is wavering that the most recent version is actually in the queue for review. My efforts to verify the status of my submission have provided only partial reassurance. (Note: A yellow notice appears at the bottom but the pink notice from the previous rejection remains at the top.) What is the best way to be sure I actually succeeded in resubmitting my article and that it is percolating up to the top of your backlogged submissions? Moonandback (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moonandback. Your submission (I assume we're talking about the article on the Society for Nicotine and Tobacco?) is still in Category:Pending AfC submissions awaiting another review - the previous reviews are logged at the top of the page to help you improve the draft. There are a couple of thousand submissions at present, though, so the backlog is rather extensive, and the wait may be a month or two. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You had redlinks to 2 nonexistent templates in the external links section, so I have corrected those for you. While you are waiting for review you might want to deal with the external links in the body of the text in contravention of WP:External links. You may wish to turn some into references, but in any case the remainder need to be removed from the body text of the article. These things in isolation wouldn't necessarily cause the submission to be rejected, but when the review queue is as long as it is I would expect articles to be accepted more quickly if they are free of obvious defects. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)--David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Referencing an online survey

Just placed our first inline citation at "Cognitive Computing" and got a warning message.

Am I referencing this correctly? Thanks? HadoopNation (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@HadoopNation: I am assuming your warning was for WP:COI and also a user name that seems to refer to an organisation, neither of which are liked very much. Please read and understand those warnings, asking the person who left them for you to explain in detail. Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The link to the user's user talk page doesn't work because the user has been renamed to GaryHadoop, for some reason without leaving a redirect. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Intimidation

Hello everyone! I'm feeling very upset, as I received a message on my talk page about me sending a Welcome message to someone who was editing for 10 years. Should I tell him that I'm sorry, or reply? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 11:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Brandon. That message is gratuitously nasty and far out of proportion to your honest mistake. I would remove it from my talk page and just ignore.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks Fuhghettaboutit! Thanks for helping!WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrandonWu: Anytime! And thanks for the message at my talk page. You will occasionally run into, uh, people with less than a convivial disposition. Try not to take it too personally.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I think you came across just about the crankiest person on wikipedia. Sheesh! Don't take it personally. Bali88 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

undo, thank

When I make an edit, the history entry simply shows "undo". How do I change it to undo|thank?CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Umm... why would you want to thank yourself? The option isn't there for your own edits because there isn't any need for it (one assumes that you're pretty happy with your edits, otherwise you wouldn't submit them). I can confirm that other users do have the option to thank you for your work (by way of demonstration, I've just thanked you for the above edit). Yunshui ^雲 _水 19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I wouldn't want to thank myself (I'm not that vain, almost...(ha,ha)). I just didn't know how the system worked. I knew I was missing something very simple, and thanks for showing me how simple it is.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How to restore date on a Requested move

I asked for a Requested move [4] for a page but another editor removed the tag [5] or whatever it's called. I restored the tag,[6] but now it's no longer listed in the requested moves list. How do I restore that?

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is still on the RM list, bottom of today's entry. Yunshui ^雲 _水 19:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be interesting as it duplicates an RfC which the OP closed due to unfavourable results, and so far the RM is getting the same results, which is a tad unsurprising. Collect (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I closed the RfC because when I started the RfC I didn't know about the Requested move process, which is the appropriate process in this situation. I told Collect this and apologized for the snafu yesterday. [7] ... Also, what is "OP"? Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lightbreather. "OP" means "original poster", namely, the person who started the thread. In this case, you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Why was I speedily deleted? Where and how can I work on a draft and not lose it?

In your directions you say to create an article in the subpage of my user page, take as long as I need to make a good article, and then move it to the main article space.

I followed those directions and was working on the article when I got this notice. I had tried to enter help-page conversations, but never could find a place to type in my questions. (I am so glad to find this page at last!)

My article is about Olivia Maria Braida, a well-documented Botanical Artist and teacher of Botanical Art. There is a huge list of published articles about her. She has published many books and hold many design patents. Why was my article speedily deleted?

I had only written one reference - to her sister's website. Her sister is a writer. Is that what caused this to happen?

I earlier tried working in the sandbox, and then lost all my work.

Needless to say I am frustrated! Help!Diana Colson (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diana. Sorry to hear of your frustration - Wikipedia is a steep learning curve, as you're no doubt discovering. I've declined the speedy deletion tag, since userspace drafts are perfectly acceptable in your userspace - you might, however, find you draw less attention if you move the draft from your userpage (which is meant to be about you, at least a bit) to a subpage like User:Diana Colson/Olivia Maria Braida - I'd be happy to do this for you, if you aren't sure how. If you need assiastance with the formatting, sourcing etc. then this is the place to ask. Best of luck with your article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 19:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please - move the draft from my userpage to a subpage for me. I will be so grateful! This subfile name would be perfect: User:Diana Colson/Olivia Marie Braida-Chiusano (I spelled MARIE incorrectly in my first question - it's Marie, not Maria)

I hope this means I will be able to reclaim the writing I have already done today.

Thank you SO MUCH for your help! Diana Colson Diana Colson (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow - I don't know where that fist paragraph came from - I did not write it.

My statement starts with "Yes, please..." Diana Colson Diana Colson (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the page to User:Diana Colson/Olivia Marie Braida-Chiusano. You can also find it by clicking "Contributions" at the top of any page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you renominate AFD's that have already been kept?

Occasionally I'll see an AFD nomination where there has been a previous AFD discussion that ended in a decision to keep the article. Is it appropriate to re-nominate articles that have already had a "keep" decision? Does this have any bearing on the current AFD discussion? Bali88 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bali, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you may renominate an article for deletion, with good reason. For example, if you believe the last discussion wasn't a a very solid display of community consensus, or if something new has occurred since the last nomination that makes you believe the article is not worthy of inclusion. I wouldn't renominate an article without solid reasoning, though - if you simply disagree that the article should have be kept, but the discussion resulted in a solid 'keep' consensus, I wouldn't renominate it.

Note that if you believe that the last AfD discussion wasn't appropriately closed, there is Wikipedia:Deletion review for that. Also, if the discussion ended very recently, a renomination is generally not accepted for at least a month or more. Immediately renominating an article for deletion will typically result in a "procedural keep". Hope this provides some insight, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I've never nominated an AFD, nor do I have any desire to at this point, but I've noticed other people do it and wondered how it was to be handled. Bali88 (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a regular participant at AfD, it is not a good idea for an editor to nominate an article for deletion when recent consensus to "keep" was clearcut and based on policy and guidelines. However, if consensus was borderline and there were good arguments to delete, another round of discussion in a few months may result in a different outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Add ref tooltips to refs

In my testing of citing sources, I found that I can't get the blue tool tips that popup in a regular article's references. I have been testing in my regular user sandbox. Is this because my sandbox is in the user namespace instead of the article namespace? Thanks, -24^Talk 22:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Negative24: Yes, nail on head there -24! Took some digging but the script's creator states in this thread that "...ReferenceTooltips doesn't run in the userspace. It only runs in the article space, the Wikipedia: namespace, and the Help: namespace." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I know I've been using the Teahouse heavily and I thank all of the editors for the help I've been receiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negative24 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been noticing this difference, too, but never got around to coming here for an explanation. After reading the above, I'm just wondering whether it's impossible to make ReferenceTooltips run in the userspace. Since a sandbox is for the purposes of testing things, it would be great if things behaved the same as they do outside the sandbox. And it's distracting, albeit perhaps more so for someone like me, who's both newbie and ADD -- where's the tooltip? oh yeah I'm in my sandbox -- then try to recover my train of thought. I haven't a clue as to the technical considerations -- barely know what a userspace is -- but since when did that stop me from open my mouth? Cheers, Mandruss (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

File

When a file is linked to an article, the name of the articles appears in the file page. Is the article shown by done by magic words ? Zince34' 10:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zince34 and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is not exactly. When the article containing the file is created or updated, the Mediawiki software framework picks up the [[File:XXXX]] sequence as a reserved character string and reverse categorises the article as a member or relation of its own eponymous "file" category. Sorry, if that's a bit of a clunky explanation but I can't think of an alternative way to describe the process. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

How does one strike text during a discussion?

Often, especially in deletion discussions or the likes of that, I will notice that if a user changes their mind or accidentally makes a duplicate vote, they will strike it with a line.

How do you do this? I don't see it in the editing toolbar, but that might just be cause I'm oblivious. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flipandflopped - you can strike text with either of the following markups:

<s> text </s>

<del> text </del>

For future reference, you can find all the wiki markup formatting options over at Help:Wiki markup. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, like this: "~~I have no idea how to strike text~~ Yes I do! Now, at least!" Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Equations

How do I create good-looking equations? Not stuff like ln(x^2+1), but like how you would write it in a real (paper) notebook? James Woodward (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MATH and learn LaTeX. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources needed?

I noticed Judgedtwice adding information without a source. (By the way, this is not tattling!!) I asked him if he needed a source here, and he responded here:

Hi Jwoodward48wiki (talk · contribs)

In reference to : "Do you need a source for your recent change to 1st Cotabato South Infantry Battalion (Ready Reserve)? Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)"

Changes made to the organization of this unit is standard among all Ready Reserve Units of the Army Reserve Command. I dunno if you still need references for that? Thanks for the heads up though. :):) Judgedtwice (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we still need references for information such as this? Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, add a reference. Better safe than sorry. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

When an editor asks for a reference in good faith, then either the reference must be provided in a reasonable amount of time, or the material must be removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

How to slightly alter an infobox template?

I have just added an infobox to the article on Yin Yoga. There's a heading for "Founder" but in this case, from my study of the refs, there are really three people who are known as founders. Is is possible to change the heading to the plural, "Founders"? EMP (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Early morning person: Hey EMP. I have edited the infobox template itself to include the pluralization capability and altered the article accordingly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Really appreciate your help. Having capable people like you around to figure out things like this makes my life at WP a lot easier! EMP (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help EMP, and thanks for the kind words.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328, please note: Jwoodward48wiki asked how to make a TOC and explained they wanted it for their Talk page, which is not an article page and is not the situation your response addresses. You didn't answer the question; @Anon126 did, and deserves our thanks for helping the newcomer attentively. --Thnidu (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thnidu, the information I provided applies to user talk pages as well as articles. Tables of contents are a standard, automatic feature for pages with four or more sections, but many new users do not know that. So my answer does apply to their talk page. I think that I provided useful information to the editor who asked the question, but you are welcome to disagree. In all honesty, I did not know that it was possible to "force" creation of a Table of Contents, but now I know that It can be done. Not every Teahouse host knows every single editing trick, and that is why we often work as a team in answering questions here. Thank you very much , Anon126. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yes, I mistakenly assumed that you knew about __FORCETOC__, and had skated over the OP's question, and I apologize for that and my tone. Thank you for helping out the (?)newcomer. --Thnidu (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Thnidu, and please take a look at Jwoodward48wiki's talk page, which now has a TOC since I added a fourth section there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jwoodward48wiki: You can also use __TOC__, which puts a TOC in the exact position of the magic word (i.e. you can use a TOC to split the lead section into two with text before and after). This is slightly different behavior from __FORCETOC__ where the TOC is placed immediately before the first section heading. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Philg88. I'd forgotten that distinction (±FORCE), if I ever even knew it. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody! This is really helpful to me. I'm so glad that experienced editors are willing to help out newbies! Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to, Jwoodward48wiki! This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --Thnidu (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Skins, scripts, and huh?

I want to run Anomie's link classifier. I clicked on the correct link, but then it said,

"Looking for your skin file? If you see this message it is probably because you followed a link of the type Special:MyPage/skin.css or Special:MyPage/skin.js and one of the following things went wrong:

If you are not logged in then you can't use personal skin files. Login or create an account to start using skin files.

If you are logged in: You probably don't have javascript enabled in your browser. Then you have to manually select the right skin file. Below is a list of your skin files for the different skins. If you don't know which skin you are currently using, see "my preferences - Appearance". Note that code you add to the .js files will have no effect if you have javascript disabled, but code in the .css files will still work fine."

and then went to,

"Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. Before creating this page, please see Wikipedia:Subpages.

Start the User:Jwoodward48wiki/vector.js page

Search for "User:Jwoodward48wiki/vector.js" in existing pages of namespace User.

Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.

Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.

If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?."

Huh? What is all of this about skins, and why can't I do anything with them? James Woodward (talk 22:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! I get it now. James Woodward (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

indentation

@Jwoodward48wiki: If you want to indent a piece of text, start the line with one or more colons, not spaces. IUsually successive comments are successively indented, but since that would obscure what I'm trying to say here I've taken the somewhat unusual step of using a subhead instead.)

:This text is indented.
produces

This text is indented.

(with a little extra vertical space around it)

whereas

This text is indented and is rendered in typewriter font. What's more, it is not word-wrapped, but will probably run off the right margin of the window. And it is enclosed in a frame, with a lot of extra vertical space.
produces

   This text is indented and is rendered in typewriter font. What's more, it is not word-wrapped, but will probably run off the right margin of the window. And it is enclosed in a frame, with a lot of extra vertical space.

See Help:Wiki markup#Indent text on this subject. There's much more detail on WP:INDENT. And take a look at Help:Wiki markup as a whole; there's a lot of information there, too much to absorb at one go, but you should know what's available and where to find it. --Thnidu (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of a product with brand logos on it

Hello! I want to add a picture to TerraCycle, and do you suppose this [8] would be okay? How would I go about explaining how "no free media" is available? If I can't add this picture, am I allowed to take a picture of the product myself and then upload it? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, but use of that image is not OK here on Wikipedia, Bananasoldier, and yes, you can take your own photo. How can you possibly say that "no free media" is available, when you could buy that product, take a photograph of it yourself, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons? If your photo over-emphasized the brand logos, then it might be a copyright violation. But consider a photo of an urban street scene, with billboards and signs with company logos in them. The copyrighted logos are secondary to the main scene and are allowed. But if you crop or zoom in on a logo, so that the primary subject of the photo is no longer the product (or the street scene), then you have a copyright problem. The rights to this specific photo clearly belong either to the photographer or to the company, and I see no justification to use this photo without permission. Bottom line: take your own photo. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you, Cullen328. I also have one quick question: Can I use these images [9] for the Wikipedia article and count it as fair use, or do I have to take the pictures myself too? Bananasoldier (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't think you can use these, either, Bananasoldier. If you want to add photos taken at the company offices, go there and take the photos yourself. I do that kind of stuff all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Stamps free pictures?

Are stamps considered free pictures? Sometimes stamps have pictures that are of interest when writing an article about an artist. Is it possible to take a picture of, or scan, the stamp and upload it as a free picture to be used in an article? - W.carter (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior to 1978, USUALLY yes. HOWEVER, it is best to NOT use a living person or copyrighted artwork regardless of the age of the stampCoal town guy (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@W.carter: (e/c) As with most copyright questions there is no one size fits all answer without a specific item to assess; the answer would depend on various factors, such as when the stamp issued and in what locality. But Commons:Stamps/Public domain might provide an answer. For example, for USPS stamp, they are usually in the public domain if issued prior to 31 December 1977, and if in Sweden, which I see you are from, they appear to become PD "70 years after the death of the engraver" (which presupposes tracking down who that was, and when they shuffled off this mortal coil). Copyright can make your head spin. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Just as complicated as I thought then. I will ask someone about the specific stamps when the time comes to use them. - W.carter (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Looked. So what special permits do these files relate to? "File:Slanias 1000e frimärke.jpg" (picture taken just six years after the engraver died) and "File:Slott Sturehov kakelugn frimärke 2011.jpg" (stamp from 197?). Ok, the depicted painting and tiled stove are old, but the engravings are not. The uploading user have stated them as "own work". - W.carter (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@W.carter: Just like here, where you can't assume an article that exists is a good example because there's lots of poor content or content that should be deleted but has not yet been reviewed and nominated for deletion, the same thing is true of files at the Commons. If you look at the talk page of the uploader of both, you'll see many notices questioning the copyright status of his image uploads and many being deleted. I don't want to discount his work – this user has taken numerous valuable photographs, but I believe here he has fallen into the trap of uploading images as his "own work" without considering that his photograph is of a work that is itself copyrighted. This is a mistake I've seen many times: a person thinking that if they snap the photo (or even take a screenshot), the resulting image is theirs to do what what they want with, without considering or understanding that if the work depicted is copyrighted, that copyright has not magically been conveyed to them. That would appear to be at play here and both are copyvios.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi W.carter Prima facie both the images you mention are copyvios and will need to be deleted from Commons. All may not be lost, however. Have a look at File:Stamp-autumn.gif, which has a valid "fair use" rationale for English Wikipedia. Which article do you want to use the stamp(s) you mention in? That will be the key as to whether you can claim fair use. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw the users talk page and noticed there were numerous questions about his pictures, but I just wanted to make sure. The stamps/pictures are for the next article and I am exploring options for the pictures. I do not want to rely too heavily on "Fair use" if other options are available. Being a bit wiser now (much thanks to User:Philg88) I'm starting at the "evidence-gathering" end of the work since this article will require so much more than just translating. (Sorry, no spoiler here.) I will of cause get back to User:Philg88 talk as soon as I have something more substantial to present. - W.carter (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

first article needs to be reviewed; problem uploading image to the infobox

I have my first article ready to be reviewed -- how do I submit it for approval?

My article has an accompanying infobox on the "talk" page. I want to upload a photo that the photographer (copyright holder) has given me permission to upload. How do I get the image approved? Nanos1066 Nanos1066 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nanos1066: May I suggest you hold fire if you mean User_talk:Nanos1066/sandbox, because it is nowhere near ready. It needs references and actually some meat, too. Read User:Timtrent/A good article to get the trick to it.

Uploading the picture is different. If I remember correctly Commons:OTRS has all the procedures you need to go through. Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nanos, you can upload your picture and mark it with "OTRS Pending" but if the email doesn't come through in a reasonable time after then it will be deleted. You should refer the photographer to WP:CONSENT and ask him to follow the procedure there, this will ensure that the permission used a) gets to the right place and b) has the correct information in it.

I had a look at your article at User:Nanos1066/sandbox, the information you have at User talk:Nanos1066/sandbox needs to be moved over and included in an infobox like {{infobox person}}. You need references from independent reliable sources adding, at the moment all you have is his own website; and you really need to look at the wording to ensure it's neutral in tone. To me, it currently reads like a book cover biography being full of words and phrases like "most sought after", "premier", "widely recognized as", "highly acclaimed", "prominently exhibited", "were central to" to which my first reaction is to add ^{[according to whom?]} to each one. If the phrases are justified by independent sources then fair enough but otherwise drop them. It might make the article read a little less exciting but an exciting read itsn't the point, a fair, balanced read is. As it currently reads it really is something of a peacock biography. I don't doubt his notability but more care needs to be taken that any article about him is an accurate reporting not a homage to him. Nthep (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit an Editing Page

At times, I see that when I edit a talkpage, there are some amboxes and notifications over the editing space which are not found in any other eding pages. How do we do that ? Zince34' 11:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Zince34. Without knowing what specific pages you mean I can only respond generally, but click edit at the top (not a side edit link) of one of those pages where you see these boxes and notifications and then look for various codes on the page. They might be provided by templates, which will start and end with doubled curly braces like {{name}} Copy one and preview on your talk page to see what it does. Or it might be in a table, which will start with {| and end with |} You might also take a look at Wikipedia:Userboxes, and see the Wikipedia:User page design center. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I misread your question. I think I need coffee. I think what you're seeing are Editnotices.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)