Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 75

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 70 ← Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 → Archive 80

Getting Rid of an NPOV Dispute

Hey there!

I'm lost trying to figure out how exactly remove an NPOV dispute from an article. Does it disappear automatically? Does the original editor who disputed the neutrality have to remove it? Is there a third party that can evaluate it?

Any help would be super appreciated.

Thanks!

Gotstyle (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Maintenance templates are not removed automatically. If you think the issue has been adequately dealt with, you can remove the template yourself. If you do, you should explain on the talk page why you have removed it, or at the very least explain in your edit summary.--ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I will try that. Thanks! Gotstyle (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I suppose my next question would be how to remove. On the page's Talk section? Gotstyle (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You are referring to The Royal Conservatory of Music? The template ({{POV}}) is on main article page. So you would just remove that template from the page. You should not remove the discussion (if there is any) on the talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thank you so much, and if it pops up again I'll know to contact that editor and inquire as to how to correct any perceived issues. Thanks again! Gotstyle (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome!--ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on his talk page, I would say "Porsha Williams Stewart". TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How old are you?

Alright. Nthep's picture as the Teahouse host got me thinking - Are all Wikipedia users generally as old as him? I remember one particular user talking about their grandchildren, which appeared quite old to me. Frankly, now I am slightly scared because it appears I do not have a life even though this is my age to be having one

So, how old are you? And how did you get into editing Wikipedia?

I'll start - I'm 17; soon to be 18. And I was (and still am) a ferocious reader here before I started WikiGnoming small errors I could find. Soon, I created my account, and am now a full time editor. Sorta. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A week away from being 24. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thirty six years, four months, twenty seven days. I started by working on articles related to my home town and high school back in 2006. --Jayron32 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
19, I actually started editing because I thought it would be a good idea to rename Aluminium Alumin(i)um. Turns out that wasn't such a good idea, but I've been editing ever since. Ryan Vesey 00:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Soon to be 65; saw and fixed errors in telephony articles and added to Neighborhoods in New York City articles before retiring; now it's a full time job including Wikiphoto expeditions by bicycle. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am too old, but I too started by cleaning up articles on my high school and towns I have lived in. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Too old isnt an actual age!!! Whats your real age? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Twenty. Started editing because while researching topics for a new engineering job, I saw lots of articles that were lacking, like Fixture (tool). So I thought "Hey, there's a library here with lots of good reference books, I'll start building these up." When I started, it was a stub that was disjointed and very lacking in content. Since then I feel like I've done a lot to expand it. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm 13, soon to be 14. Just like Soni I loved reading WP articles and at first I used to correct minor spelling and grammatical mistakes. Now, I also try to expand some stubs by finding content on web. --Yashowardhani (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 1 year 9 months 13 days 20 hours 12 minutes.......... or if you are not asking WikiAge, then 25 years 2 months 14 days 10 hour 23 minutes....... or if you follow Bhagavad Gita then I (also you) are "entity" without any starting or ending, so age not applicable!   --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I am 13 years young and I have been reading Wikipedia for a while. I never noticed the 'edit' tab because I was on the mobile site. I started editing Dog Eat Dog, then decided to create an account. I made a lot of edits on Western School of Technology and Get Squiggling. I got blocked for sockpuppetry because Wikipedia kept logging me out. To be honest, I made one vandal edit on Big Time Rush (band) and got blocked. When this block expired, I expanded my knowledge and Wikipedia and here I am today, still learning. JHUbal27 Roar! :-) 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Were you AgentRobert?! Classic stuff... caption = BTR backstage during a mall tour. From left to right: Logan, James, Kendall Shit, and Carlos was a personal favourite amongst many in those BTR-caning days...   Basket Feudalist 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think I am one of the older Wikipedians...I turned 12 a couple of months ago. Cheers! Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

Account blocked as sock puppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 
 GaramondLethe 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am gladly needing assistance for this account as it has helped throughout Wikipedia, and has other two accounts, I do live in a College area, but I use the two accounts to help make other edits in case of faults but I do like to help in editing other articles.--GoShow (............................) 16:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

what happen here? MicrosoftPaint (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The user who posted the question was a sockpuppet. So he was blocked and the discussion was closed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How should I report possible copyright violations in an already created article?

Dear editors: I was checking out some of the articles listed for cleanup at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup and I found one, Hill Forts of Rajasthan which has a section copied from the 2006 article Chittorgarh Fort. The two pages were not created by the same user. Wikipedia talk:Cleanup has a discussion page, but it seems to be about the page, not about the articles listed on it. Where is the best place to report this problem? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Anne :) I can say based on this report that the paragraph is most likely copied. What would need to do now is determine which one was added first. Just because the page wasn't created at the same time, or by the same editor doesn't mean that the content was created by different editors. It may help to use the WikiBlame tool to see what editor added it on each page, and when. If it's the same editor, and around the same time, leave them a note explaining that they should reformat it on one of the pages. If it's two different editors, or at different times, explain to them that they need to provide attribution on the page that was copied to, saying something along the lines of "This page incorporates text from [[link to other page|this page]], which is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. A full list of contributors is avaliable here" (link to the page history there). On the subject of reporting it, as far as I know there's not really a place that you can report it and get something done fast, but here's fine too :) (well, there's probably some sort of noticeboard, but sometimes those are really slow and backlogged). There's also #wikipedia-en-help connect, the IRC channel for help editing Wikipedia. Someone there should be avaliable most times to help you! Thanks for finding that! gwickwiretalkedits 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for the advice; as always I learned a lot. By looking at the page history I found that the large block of text was part of a newly created page, and then a couple of hours later was copied into another article by the same user, so no copyright violation is evident, only some duplication. As a new user, I don't feel ready to start acting with authority, so I'll let it go now. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
If you want to tell us the user, or shoot me an e-mail (I have my Wikipedia e-mail enabled) I can take a look for you. Happy I could help! :) gwickwiretalkedits 01:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It is Satya1992. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help figuring out copyright for old pictures

Hi,

I have some pictures of some individuals that I found on the internet; have no idea of who took them, but the subjects are late 19th century/early 20th century.

The individuals in question already have articles on Wikipedia, but no images.

I'd like to upload the pictures so that I can add links to the wiki articles for these individuals.

Some of the pictures were taken in Canada, and the others may have been taken in India, but since these were both part of the British Empire at the time, I assume copyright would be governed by British law?

Can anyone give me some guidance on whether I can upload them?

Thanks!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, perhaps you could use non-free rationale for the images and upload them under number 8: "Images with iconic status or historical importance". Please take a look at WP:NFCC for further information regarding this. TBrandley (what's up) 15:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and for pointing me to that page. I'm not sure they amount to "iconic", but the "historical importance" might work. There's also number 10: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

archiving question

can anyone tell me why the first section of my talk page has been un-archivable since it was first posted about 4 months ago? cheers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The comment does not have a timestamp, so you will need to move that message manually. TBrandley (what's up) 03:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
If you're feeling lazy or just want a nice hack, you can add a timestamp by typing 5 tildes ~ like ~~~~~, which will add just the time/date and not your signature. Ocaasi t | c 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

cheers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

new here - would appreciate feedback! Thanks! :D

I'm not sure where I fit in here yet but I like to help out. Any constructive feedback on my contributions so far by experienced editors are greatly appreciated! Thanks Kap 7 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I shot you an email.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Gilderien Kap 7 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tito Dutta

Are we being too generous with our "lacks notability" assignments?

I found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Institute

It is a major "progressive" organization with 86 college chapters and tens of thousands of student members.

Sounds notable to me.

Brhebert (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Brhebert and welcome to the Teahouse. I would agree that it is notable - that said the article is lacking sources to inform and indicate to our readers it is notable. We would need to add references by a third party to demonstrate to all that the subject is notable. References would also help in the credibility of the article its self.Moxy (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I added one reference, it was odd that a very active and political group with as many connections as this has so few references. Are some of these designations issued automatically when an insufficient number of references are attached?

Brhebert (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, yes they are. Notability is not evident without references. We can assume notability, but we can't have it be proven without references. Hence why we are very nitpicky about references :) gwickwiretalkedits 02:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it a "software" designation or due to an editor? 98.119.1.57 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Brhebert. I think you are confusing the normal definition of "notable" with the Wikipedia definition of "notable". By saying something is not notable we are not saying that it isn't important or famous or useful. All we mean on Wikipedia when we say not notable is that it appears to not meet our specific standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, which by definition is a tertiary source, we only publish what others are writing about. That is all notability means here---it seems there are not enough articles out there in reliable sources about the subject of the article (in this case the Roosevelt Institute). It really isn't saying anything about the subject of the article itself at all. So please don't think that we are in some way "dissing" the Roosevelt Institute. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
It's very odd to have a discussion about Notability without a link to the actual Notability rules page - please read it. Roger (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My sister needs a general Wikipedia page

Hi i am trying to set up a general wikipedia page for my sister. She has 5 relatives on Wikipedia and i feel that because she is on Reality Tv she gets shamed and flagged and not allowed on Wikipedia. I just wonder how the rest feel about reality tv because i know it is not the usual standards of Wikipedia profiles. Lorenzo atl (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. You will need to tread carefully because of your conflict of interest. Please take a look at the notability guidelines for people. Does your sister meet those guidelines, that is, has she received significant coverage in reliable sources? If you think she has, please consider using the articles for creation process to create a draft article for review.--ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I will do. I love Wiki and have other family on here and would just like for her to be on here also. Thanks again. Lorenzo atl (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Lorenzo. I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but no, your sister doesn't need a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is here for its own purposes, and not for people who want to get publicity for themselves, or their relatives, friends, bands, companies, charities or products. If your sister has already been written about somewhere reliable, then we want an article about her, but if she hasn't, then I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to write about her. --ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It would useful to have links to the five other articles mentioned too. Basket Feudalist 17:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
What is the name of your sister? --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we are talking here about one of the women featured in The Real Housewives of Atlanta. NtheP (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The name is Porsha Stewart. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I do need someone to help me on wiki

I do need someone to help me on wiki... I am a polymath and I can help in many areas and languages. My options right now on wiki are: 1. learn by myself step by step...in this jungle...and get to my full power in a couple of years 2. try to get someone to help me...

I need help... where/who shall I cry for help? Franky Wan (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! If you would like to learn about the encyclopedia and how to contribute, you may seek adoption by an experienced editor at adopt-a-user or simply ask questions when necessary at this venue or the help desk. As a side note, what help are you looking for? TBrandley (what's up) 03:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
tks a lot Brandley

I just discover that "adoption" programm, so I am waiting to be adopted. Where do I need help? 1. how to interact with other people here 2. who is who here...and "who" is a bot? 3. how to edit pages? I begun a couple of new ones...I see a lot of things I would like to add on so many other pages... 4. What kind of "teams" work on what? what are the modus operandi for those teams? 5. I can write in many languages... how shall manage my participation? 6. I am a referree in in many areas for academic papers... how shall i help here? tks for your attention Franky Wan (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Franky Wan great to see this enthusiasm to learn more - have you looked at Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual yet (I love this manual)? There is also Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers an essay that is down to earth and blunt.Moxy (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
tks Moxy Franky Wan (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Creating references.

What is the easiest way to create references? I have been cut and pasting existing references and then substituting the information. I sems like there should be a better method. When pressed for time, I have just put the url in the ref brackets. What is the preferred level of reference.Pikachudad (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pikachudad and welcome to the Teahouse. First let me say there is no preferred style per say. There are many help type tools (see below) - HOWEVER I personally just add <ref>www.thewebsite.com</ref> in articles then I use Reflinks that adds title/dates/publisher/accessdates etc, to bare references automatically. (Interactive mode recommend).Moxy (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Howdy, PikachuDad. Looking at your contributions, looks like you may be asking about creating external links like you attempted on the Louisiana_Science_Education_Act talk page. In cases like that, the information enclosed in the <ref> tags doesn't show up because there's no ==References== and {{reflist]] for them. You can create the link to the external sources by using single brackets around the URL. If you leave a space after the URL, you can add a title. For example, [http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=472973 the law's original text] will show up as the law's text. Have we answered your question? Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 04:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Both responses have been very helpful.  :) Pikachudad (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

what does preceded by mean exactly in the book info box

In How to Create a Mind I copied the book info box from another article. I'm not sure what "Preceded by" means precisely in the book info box? I filled it in with his previous "futurology" book, which seems to make some sense. But that is not his previous book, because he writes "futurology" but also self-help / nutrition books. So should "preceded by" point to his previous book, his previous futurology book, or should it just be left blank? Silas Ropac (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Silas, infoboxes and other things in {{...}} are usually templates and often have documentation on their template page. In this case it's Template:Infobox book which says:
preceded_by
Title of prior book in series (do not use to connect separate books chronologically}
followed_by
Title of subsequent book in series or sequel (do not use to connect separate books chronologically)
PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks those are the docs I couldn't find. In this case then I would say the fields are being misused, although the word "series" is not actually defined here. Arguably Kurzweil's futurology books form an informal series. At the very least it's convenient to step through them (while skipping over his nutrition books). I'm not going to blank them out certainly right now, but good to know. Silas Ropac (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Priority of deletion versus cleanup tags

This is really wonky, but it seems logical to me that, when an article is being discussed at AFD (or through PROD or Speedy Deletion), that maintenance tags should appear below the detetion notice. I suggested this change at AWB's suggested features page but neither the leader there nor I have been able to find it in the manual. Is this a standard or is it a matter of opinion? Andrew327 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Andre, welcome to the Teahouse. I have to say does it really matter? AWB is really good at lots of things but it strikes me that if you add to it's logic "look for other tags and position your additions according to these rules ..." then it's going to make it a lot more complicated to maintain and develop. Most of the semi-automated tools like AWB, Twinkle, Stiki etc just add to the top (in most cases) and while it might look a bit untidy at times, I don't, personally, see this as much of an issue especially where deletion tags are involved as fairly rapidly those get resolved one way or another. NtheP (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How can I search for articles by status?

Hello! Is there a way to search for articles within a particular category by status (Good Article, Featured Article, etc) e.g., is it possible to search for all stub articles related to bacteria? Additionally, if I create a user subpage for an article draft, would my draft by listed under "what links here" for my pages' various links? Thanks so much! Xorph (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Xorph, finding all articles in the way you want isn't too difficult as all articles that have a status assigned appear in the category or a sub-category associated with that status. So for example all Featured articles are in the category Category:Featured articles. When you get down to stub articles it depends more on whether the article has been tagged with a stub template or even if an appropriate stub template exists. Fortunately there is a stub template for bacteria called {{bacteria-stub}} so everything that has had this template attached is in the category Category:Bacteria stubs and there are 601 articles currently in that category.
In answer to what links here, the answer would be no. What links here checks for incoming links to the page that is links to your page not from your page. So, for example, Special:WhatLinksHere/User talk:Xorph for your user talk page (User talk:Xorph) shows one incoming link and that is from this page because this page contains at least one link to your talk page. NtheP (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers, NtheP! Xorph (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I just have an extra tidbit of advice. Go to WikiProjects and you can find Wikipedians who share interests with you. For example, in WikiProject Microbiology, there are 8 featured articles. I found that . Hope this helps! JHUbal27 Roar! 21:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

how do you get photos?

i have no idea how to do this!!!!!!Tomsterr (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

 
The wikicode [[File:Caracal CincinnatiZoo.jpg|thumb|A Caracal at Cincinnati Zoo]] puts an image into an article
This is usually easy, but can be hard. Don't be surprised if it does start to make your head spin.

Two steps:

a. Upload an image to Commons (This may already have been done).
b. Add an image to an article at Wikipedia.

It's a two-step process. You can't do it in one. You can't use images just because they're on your own computer / phone, or if they're already out on the web somewhere.

Where to get photos from:

1. Use something already at Wikimedia Commons. Go to Commons and either search for or browse the categories to see if there is something there already. You want a Puma? Go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Puma and start clicking on stuff to see what you like.
2. Take a photo yourself. Upload it to Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload Follow the instructions.
3. Ask in Wikipedia projects or article talk pages for help from others.

Stuff not to do:

  • Upload things to Wikipedia, rather than Commons. There are very few times when you need to do this, and they're all complicated. If Commons won't accept it (probably because of copyright), then ask again.
  • Upload stuff that you didn't photograph yourself. This gets very complicated - copyright again. Ask beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Machinima Secondary Sources

I am going to be editing Portal:computer Graphics linking in the art of Machinima.

Where do would you find a good secondary source for Machinima?

I am considering looking at 3D game-based filmmaking: the art of Machinima (Marino,Paul 2004)

Tasha.Bluck (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Machinima Primary sources

Where do you find a good primary source for Machinima?

I have looked at "Machinima.com" which I consider this to be a good source. More sources would be helpful if possible

Thankyou Natbrock (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A new section on 'Virtual World'

Dear Editors,

I am new to editing Wikipedia and have been tasked as part of a University assignment to edit the page 'Virtual World'. I am keen to add a new section regarding the governance of the virtual world. I was wondering if there are any tips to create a section that will be accepted pretty quickly?

In addition, if you have any knowledge relating to my proposed section e.g. a primary or secondary research source?

Thank You Amosjfrancis (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mr. Francis! Perhaps you would find the WP:REFDESK useful for on-wiki sources. If you're looking off-wiki, I honestly would suggest simply googling it. I have little knowledge on the subject, as I said below, but if you can't find any online sources, check out your university library. You can cite books, magazines, newspapers, periodicals, etc. in addition to websites on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guideline on citing sources for more details. Good luck with your project! Go Phightins! 03:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Virtual World Primary and Secondary Sources

I am currently editing a Wikipedia page on Virtual World, I was wondering if anybody could help me with finding some Primary sources?

I have looked into "virtualworld.com", and consider this to be a Primary Source so far.

Also, I am looking into Secondary sources, if anyone could help with my research for this?

Thank you

Adale1204 (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adale1204 and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, we look for secondary sources, as they are less promotional than primary sources. You can read more about our policy here. As for your specific question, I am not too knowledgeable on that subject, so I won't be of much help, but perhaps you could find someone from an associated Wiki Project that could give you some guidance. Go Phightins! 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

how to translate a wikipage and link it back to the original

I need to translate an existing wikipage into 3 different languages, how do I link them back the original page after the translation has been completed?8meinv8 (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi 8meinv8, and welcome to the Teahouse! Here's an example: if I wanted to make a link to the Cat page on Japanese wikipedia, I would add at the bottom of the English (and other foreign language) articles the code [[jp:ネコ]]. "jp" identifies the language being linked to, and it corresponds to the two-letter name of the wikipedia: en for English, de for German, fr for French, etc. So before the colon should be the two letters, and after it should be the name of the linked article in the language you are linking to. I hope that helps. —Rutebega (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
If you translated a page from another Wikipedia (such as French Wikipedia) to English Wikipedia, you need to add {{Translated page}} to the talk page. See here for more info. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

how to cite the original book in a book article

I wrote a new article, my first, called How to Create a Mind. The Content section is a summary of the book. I put an inline citation to the whole book for the first paragraph. But what is the best practice? I could put the same citation for every paragraph in the summary, but that seems a little silly. Instead of citing the whole book I could have cited specific pages for every line of the summary, but I haven't really seen people doing that for book/plot summaries. Silas Ropac (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Silas, and welcome back to the Teahouse! It's generally necessary to cite individual passages from a work. If you'd like to use the same reference more than once, you can do so without duplicating the footnote by using a refname tag. For a full explanation, see multiple references to the same footnote. I hope that helps! —Rutebega (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes that is helpful. Looking at some Featured Book Articles I guess the best articles do actually cite various and different pages throughout the book as well, not just cite the whole book over and over. Silas Ropac (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I updated the article: How to Create a Mind. Thanks, seems better. Silas Ropac (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I create a new page from my sandbox area? Like a subpage within the sandbox?

I have a sandbox associated with my id but I don't know how to create a subpage within that sandbox. Soossw (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! If I were you, I would just create the page on your sandbox page and when you are done, follow the directions at WP:MOVE to move it in to article space. You may also want to take a peek at Wikipedia:Your first article for some handy tips. Good luck, and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page or right back here at the Teahouse Q/A board. Happy editing! Go Phightins! 02:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi and welcome! If I were you, I would just create user pages. You can work on separate articles and they won't be deleted. Also, like Phightins said, you can move them into the mainspace when you are ready.To create one, use this URL template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Soossw/Title_of_article&action=edit Separate each word of the title with an underscore ( _ ). If you need further assistance, feel free to e-mail me or talk me. *Temporary signature* JHUbal27 GO RAVENS! 02:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

... or just use the wikilink User:Soossw/Title of article. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As David says you can type User:Soossw/Title of article in the search box. This generates a red link which you click to create the page. If you need to find your subpages later there is a blue link to them down at the bottom of your "my contributions" page.--Charles (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I figured it out myself, finally. Reading a couple of help articles helped. Now I can't find the one I read yesterday but I figured it out. The help can be overwhelming here!

Thanks! Soossw (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to create a list?

Dear editors: I was looking up information for the page that I was creating about the Peterborough Canoe Company, and I found that there were a large number of these companies in and around Peterborough, Ontario - probably because of its location on the Trent Trent Severn Waterway and the many nearby lakes. Some of the companies were bought out by others and the history is complicated. I thought of making a page called "Canoe manufacturers in Peterborough" or even "Canoe manufacturers in Ontario", or perhaps "Boat builders in Ontario" to be more inclusive, and then listing them all with their location, start and end dates, and if they just closed out or were bought out, renamed, etc.

Is this an appropriate thing to do? I thought about how the use of categories can help people find them without a list, but some of the companies were small or short-lived and may never have their own page. Any opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anne and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the core policies is that we are not a directory. It is hard to see how such a list would be compatible with the policy which you can see at WP:NOTDIR if you wish. Lists on Wikipedia are normally lists of notable entities which often all have a page.--Charles (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, your answer has saved me from wasting my time. Can you suggest what would be a better approach to the topic of the history of the canoe building industry in the Peterborough area? There has been a great deal written about this in books and in newspapers, plus displays in museums, clubs built around the restoration of the boats, etc., so I'm pretty sure it's a notable topic. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like there is a good article waiting to be written on the subject. It all depends on the sources and books and newspaper articles are good sources. It may be worth looking around at how articles on similar subjects have been done, especially ones that are rated as B class or good article on the talk page. You may find chunks of useful code such as infoboxes that you can copy/paste and modify for your article.--Charles (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but this sounds like a larger project than I had in mind, and may take some time. If I start on the page but can't finish it for a while, is there a way to keep it private until it has enough content to make sense? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Anne, keep it on your sandbox page or start it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, neither are totally private (nowhere on Wikipedia is) but unlikely to attract much attention from other editors unless you ask for help. NtheP (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
You can if you wish create a new userpage just for such a project by typing in the search box User:Anne Delong/name of project. You can then take as long as you wish working on it without interference. When ready it can be submitted to articles for creation or it can be moved directly to mainspace using the move tab at the top of the page.--Charles (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. I wasn't so much concerned about other editors seeing it as I was about it being picked up in Google searches. It's a little disconcerting browsing for references on the Internet and finding the article that you are working on and have ended in the middle of a sentence already being indexed. Anyway, I have a project to undertake in the future.

—Anne Delong (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. If you want to prevent your page from being picked up in a Google search, just add the code __NOINDEX__ (that's two underscores on each side) to it. I think I'm right in saying that pages at Articles for creation are automatically noindexed, so there's no need to do this if you take the AFC route. Good luck with your article! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That's just what I need. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi everyone. I am just trying to learn how to do this and feel a bit lost. How does one check if a page is live or not? Salyounis (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If a page exists it should appear with a search. All articles go live once they are "published" by hitting the "save page" button in the editing box.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

New Editor Question

Hi, I am still very very new to the wiki editing realm but i want to know if someone can check my wiki page as i have tried to fix the issues at the top but i dont know where to go with this... The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tribute_Show

Cosmoshunter (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look at the article again and see if I can fix the 'issues' you refer to.... What you need most is references to independent reliable sources (see WP:42 for a pointed summary). Are there references from the Australian or Age newspapers???? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I could not find any better sources. You may need to wait untill the show is covered in major media. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.. We are getting some articles written over the next couple of weeks so i will add them in.. Thank you for the replies :)

Cosmoshunter (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikinews a reliable source?

Hello!

Out of curiosity, is Wikinews a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? Ajaxfiore (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ajaxfiore, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, Wikinews is not considered a reliable source, because anybody can edit it. For the same reason, we generally don't cite youtube, IMDb, or personal blogs. Additionally, having made a few contributions to the project myself, I can verify that it isn't all that accurate. You'll have to find sources elsewhere I'm afraid! —Rutebega (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree - but the references used to create the articles would be fine in most cases. That said we must be careful how much news is imported from there - as the reason we have Wikinews is because Wikipedia is not a news paper but an encyclopedia.Moxy (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

dissambiguation pages for given names?

Dear editors: I found this page Airton (given name), and my question is, is this a proper use of a disambiguation page? The "Anne (disambiguation)" would be really long.... —Anne Delong (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne! One correction: Anne is very long (for a disamb set index article)! Fortunately, its length is limited by the fact that these pages focus only on notable people and subjects. Whenever more than one subject share the same name, it's considered appropriate to have a disambiguation page or SIA to help readers find the one they're looking for. —Rutebega (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Saving a Draft

Hello! I was wondering if it is possible to save an 'in-progress' page to be edited later. Right now, it appears that I need to create a whole page and publish it in one sitting. Is there a way to save a draft for editing later in the week?

Thank you! Kkramer09 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. There are essentially three ways to save a draft. One is to put the {{construction}} template on the page. The other is to write the article at your sandbox, which can be accessed on the top-right part of your screen, just right of the icon saying talk. The other place you can work on a draft in peace is Articles for creation. Happy editing! King Jakob C2 21:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Process for Deletion of an Article

Hi, I'm having a great time working on Wikipedia articles and have learnt loads... But this is regarding an article I came across- Spectrum Mall (Chennai) which according to me did not suit Wikipedia standards.... So my enquiry is a detailed explanation of how a page can be sent for deletion and whether my judgment was right or whether I shouldn't decide if articles are to be deleted or not.... Thanks in advance!!!! Ajayupai95 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ajayupai, welcome to the teahouse! You can nominate a page for deletion at WP:AFD - let us know if you have any problems. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
My *feeling* is the same as yours. As suggested the process is to nominate for deletion... a discussion will ensue and a consensus will be reached. Reading through WP:N - the section on coporate notability should help. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • We have a guide to help you understand the whole process of deletion (its complicated) the whys? and hows? and what to do can be seen at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.Moxy (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disappearing page link

Dear editors: I kept forgetting the names of pages that I wanted to visit, so I decided to create a subpage User:Anne Delong/Links to keep track of them. I am trying add a link to "Category:Pending AfC submissions", but when I save the page nothing shows up. What could be wrong? I guess I could create an external URL link, but I'd like to know why the internal link isn't working. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a good question you've got there. Whenever you wikilink to a category, like Category:Example, it means you're putting the article in the category. I think you'll find your link at the very bottom of the page where it says categories. Does that help? King Jakob C2 16:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
To be a little more specific, the normal way of adding wikilinks to pages, when used with a category, actually adds a page to a category, rather than creating a wikilink to it. So, since you typed [[Category:Pending AfC submissions]], you actually added your User:Anne Delong/Links page to the Pending AFC submissions category. To create a wikilink to a category, you need to put a colon in front, like this: [[:Category:Pending AfC submissions]]. This will render as Category:Pending AfC submissions. The colon in the front is also how you make wikilinks to files (things in the "File:" namespace); without the colon, the file itself will be inserted into the page, rather than a wikilink to it. Does that help? (By the way, I fixed the link for you; you can see the change I made here.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Writ Keeper. I presume that removing the offending link also removed my useless (to others) page from the list of pages to be reviewed, since I didn't find it there. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it did! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mechanics of doing a merge

I have read WP:MERGE and Help:Merging#Performing_the_merger but I'm not entirely clear on the exact mechanics of what I think is kind of a tricky merge. There are two book articles (The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near) which contain timelines of predictions. And then there is one predictions article (Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil) which contains essentially those same two timelines. But the each timeline has been edited independently for years, so they differ a lot.

The merge instructions seem to imply you will copy over all the source material and add it in one big edit, where you need to use the special edit summary "merged content from XXX". To do that in this case would require solving all the overlaps in the whole timeline, a lot of decisions and judgement calls. I'm wondering if there isn't an alternate procedure where you just kind of chip away at the destination page, bringing little bits over. Then when done, delete the overlapping parts on the source page. This would create more history as to all the little decisions that were made. Or is it required to really do it all in one big edit? Silas Ropac (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse! Usually users use the proposed mergers process to merge articles, and if not, usually you can just merge all of the important notable reliably sourced details to the main article. It is not required to be done in one edit. TBrandley (what's up) 15:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, although as I understood it notability relates to whether a subject should have its own article, but it wasn't the case that the "the details" in an article had to be notable themselves. You don't want unimportant or extraneous details certainly, but "notable" in particular I think applies to articles not details.
As for sourcing, almost none of the source or destination text is sourced! It all does come from his books, but there are few to no citations.
In the end we don't really want the union of all pages here, we want a much leaner list which is properly sourced. With that in mind I'm tempted to just delete the source sections (source pages remain), that resolves the duplication. Then work on chopping down the destination page, maybe using the old source page as reference. But it seems counter-productive to painstakenly merge all this text, only to then start chopping it way down. Silas Ropac (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Your correct, articles are usually the topic of notability but I when I stated that I meant to remove trivia-related details. If not of the details in the article you are viewing are referenced, then consider finding sources yourself or if there are none, I suppose it should perhaps just be deleted through the deletion processes. TBrandley (what's up) 00:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. Yeah it's almost trivia, it is organized by year but within each year it's unstructured. So for the "year 2019" it has a bulleted list of 40 things predicted to happen that year by the author. And then the other page has a similarly long list for the same year, but not identical. So if we merge the two, or just delete one version, we've accomplished something, cleaned up all that duplication. But then the resulting text will still have a lot of quality problems. I think I will have to consider them in time, maybe leading to other questions! 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas Ropac (talk • contribs)

Does Wikipedia have options

Does Wikipedia have options for blind (not just visually impaired) people, e.g., text-to-voice software or braille?

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! There is a project called the spoken Wikipedia where a Wikipedia editor has recorded him/herself reading an article. Articles that have been spoken have a little audio symbol in the top right. I am not aware of any braille, however. I would say your best bet is to use articles that have been recorded. Unfortunately, that only applies to a handful, but I suppose some is better than none. We do have a project of editors trying to make Wikipedia more accessible to the impaired, so you might want to ask at their talk page, but spoken Wikipedia is the only one I'm aware of. Thanks for the great question! Go Phightins! 11:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Just as a side note, User:Graham87 (one of the absolute coolest Wikipedia editors and admins around) is blind, and is a better editor than most of us who aren't blind. His user page says that he uses "the screen reader JAWS with a speech synthesiser to access the Internet." If you need some advice from experience, I'm sure he'd be willing to talk about it if you ask him on his talk page. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How exact does the wording have to be in order to be a copyright infringement?

Dear Editors: Does the wording have to be exactly the same to be a copyright infringement? For example, text on this page: Fremantle Bowling Club and this web site: Fremantle Bowling Club are similar but not identical. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Anne, welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm not an expert on copyright and therefore won't pretend to be one, however there are only so many ways you can say when something was founded. That said, you are right that that is close paraphrasing, which is a concern. I would suggest perhaps welcoming the article's creator (assuming it's a newcomer) and gently explaining copyright to him. I don't think that's necessarily copyright infringement, but it could be a gray area. Thanks for the question, Anne, and keep up your marvelous work! Go Phightins! 03:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The same user has just created this page Booroodabin Bowls Club which is a direct copy from theboo.net.au/wp/home/history, and this page Petersham Bowling Club, copying from thepbc.org.au/, all in the last few minutes. Should I tag them for deletion, or is something more needed? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well spotted, Anne. Close paraphrasing requires a slight judgement call, but in this instance the copyright infringement was obvious: aside from changing the voice of the text, the wording was identical. I've speedied both the Fremantle and Booroodabin pages (the Petersham one was already gone by the time I got there). Deletion tagging (using {{db-g12}}) would have been the appropriate course of action in all three cases. I'll have a word with the user about copyright issues. Thanks for being vigilant! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Going through their contributions, I'm seeing more and more copyvios; thanks again for raising this. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Image uploading questions

Hi, I've been trying to upload an image for Numidia, Pennsylvania, and the one I've got is presumably freely licensed, as it is from the EPA, but the File Upload Wizard doesn't list the EPA as an option for the government agencies section. Also, the Upload Wizard asks for a date, but the image isn't dated. Is that OK?

King Jakob C2 22:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome back to the Teahouse. Just to be clear, we're talking about the EPA not Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection or as we Pennsylvanians refer to them, PEPA, (OK actually I think I'm the only one who calls them that, but I digress), correct? Go Phightins! 22:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely the EPA.King Jakob C2 22:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Then as far as I know, that should still be all right as the E.P.A. is a government agency. Anyone else? Go Phightins! 23:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I would place it under "US Federal Government" when uploading, but just to be sure I would also consult with the Commons Help Desk. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What are the Wikipedia stylistic rules?

I am experiencing difficulty in getting an piece accepted by Wikipedia,in effect, on the grounds that my draft 'reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article. The need to follow the Wikipedia 'house-style' is self-explanatory and the presentational rules involved, although complex, can be learned and followed. Similarly the injunction against 'original research'. However, the disapproval of the 'essay' seems to be based on a preference for a particular style of writing that is not explained. Is this merely a matter of writing as far as possible like George Orwell rather than Edward Gibbon or are there specific rules to be learned and followed? Pjbjas (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to ask whomever gave you that criticism, as such judgements are pretty subjective and he or she could have meant any number of things. —Rutebega (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia: Manual of Style, which is more of a guideline than rule-book; however, some editors use "rules" from this MoS as justification for reverting edits.   It would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with it, especially as it relates to the type of article you are editing.   While you're at it, the Wikipedia: Five pillars is also a good thing to become familiar with.   "I hope this helps," ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Pjbjas, and welcome! The issue with writing which is termed to be "like an essay" versus the sort of writing one would expect for an encyclopedia article has to do with the tone and purpose of the writing. An essay advances a position; that is it generally lays out an exposition of the position, presents evidence to support that position, and then draws conclusions based on that evidence. That basic structure is what makes an essay, well, an Essay. Essays are, almost by definition, one-sides writing which presents a personal perspective on a topic. Wikipedia articles try to take a neutral perspective, and instead of advancing a position, should instead merely present information about a topic in a dispassionate (though hopefully interesting) way. Wikipedia strives to provide a view which is both dispassionate, and which represents the preponderance or "world-wide" view of a topic. Where there are multiple, sometimes competing views, Wikipedia tries to present them so as to reflect the world-wide consensus: if there is roughly a 50/50 split in the world on a topic, Wikipedia should reflect that ambivalence. If one view is decidedly considered a "fringe" view, then Wikipedia should give it similar status. I have not looked over your writing yet, but generally, when you are told that you're writing an "essay", that means that the writing seems to advance a position rather than present information. Does that help? --Jayron32 19:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As an example, the article that you created: Lucius Petronius Taurus Volusianus, includes a Conclusion section, which is appropriate for an essay, but not for an encyclopedic article. One must also be careful about not over-using "weasel words" - especially in unsourced text. I've noticed quite a few terms such as: "likely", "seems to be" and "It is possible that..." -which gives the article an essay tone. ~"I hope this helps" ~Eric F 22:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC):[modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)]

How to make a disambiguation page?

ERP on Wikipedia leads to Enterprise Resource Planning. I have to do some searching before I found the other ERP (Event Related Potential). There should be a disambiguation page. Sneazy (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To make a disambiguation page read WP:DISAMBIG. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sneazy and welcome to the Teahouse! To make a disambiguation page, you first need to:
  1. Start a normal article page with (disambiguation) as the suffix (normally)
  2. Add a list of links to articles, optionally separated by sections for related articles
  3. Add the {{disambiguation}} template to the bottom of the page
Additional things can be done to the page, but the page should be fine with just those three steps. And yes, please see WP:DISAMBIG for more details. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a little bit lazy. Ajaxfiore (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually there is already a disambiguation page for ERP which includes Enterprise resource planning and Event-related potential. Ajaxfiore (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not a big problem; I have made the same mistake several times here.   Also, I was just realizing that too (ERP exists and has existed for a while). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, ERP has been a disambiguation page for 10 years. Why do you think ERP on Wikipedia leads to Enterprise Resource Planning? Maybe you followed one of the redirects which do lead there, for example ERP software or ERP system. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, Google only showed one version of ERP. On that version of ERP, there is no disambiguation link, so I assumed that there was the ONLY 1 ERP page. Sneazy (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, we have over 10,000 articles containing the "word" ERP, and no control over which page(s) Google chooses to display for a given search term. If a Google search is restricted to the English Wikipedia with ERP site:en.wikipedia.org then it gives thousands of results, with Event-related potential currently being the second for me. Enter ERP in Wikipedia's own search box to the top right of any page to get to the disambiguation page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it's best to mark each ERP article with a disambiguation tag. That may take some time. Fortunately, there seems to be only a limited number of ERPs on the current disambiguation page rather than 10,000. On each of those page, I think I am going to mark each page with a disambiguation tag, which is presumably something that states the following written in italics:

"The following page is about __________. For disambiguation, click here." Sneazy (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't do this. It goes completely against Wikipedia:Disambiguation and would be reverted. We disambiguate article titles which could mean different things. The article called enterprise resource planning is clearly about enterprise resource planning. It would be pointless to start it with the statement "The following page is about enterprise resource planning", right below the article title. A popular Wikipedia article may be the first Google hit in Wikipedia for many different search terms. We don't want to try to guess these and place a bunch of hatnotes to other articles or disambiguation pages with titles which cannot be confused with the present article. The first Wikipedia hit in a Google search on "ca" is California. Does that mean the article should start with a "disambiguation" link to CA? If people didn't reach the article they wanted from Google then they can enter their search term in Wikipedia's own search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_75&oldid=1136067554"