Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 169

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165 ← Archive 167 Archive 168 Archive 169 Archive 170 Archive 171 → Archive 175

Help deleting resoled issues notification on page

Please would someone be able to help me with the errors that are still appearing on Company page?

wiki/Global_Reach_Partners

Myself and a colleague have tried to address them. I am aware that we havent got any secondary sources, but I think we have sorted the issues below:

This article uses bare URLs for citations, which may be threatened by link rot. (Have addressed in the references section) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. (Link from wiki/Foreign_exchange_company)

Thanks,

LauraLauraSnora (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Laura. If referring to a Wikipedia article it is useful if you provide a wikilink, so in this case: Global Reach Partners. If you have sorted out the problems, any editor can remove the tags, including an appropriate edit summary to explain the edit. I have done that. For future reference, you ought to read Wikipedia's advice on conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dale Bozzio page questions

No, because she is still alive therefore there is nothing to stop anyone from taking a photograph of her and licensing it freely. Thus a fair use image is not required and therefore not permitted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
So I need to find a photo that someone took and released to Flick like this Steve Harvey pic [1]? What sources do I need to hit for free usage? What criterion am I using on this list of images to allow usage? Is it only some websites, like Flickr or Twitter, that open it up for free usage by their EULA agreements? Is there a tutorial video of hunting down and posting Wikipedia images? Alatari (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I found this video on YouTube about CreativeCommons search and it reveals the hidden search option filter on google about licensing which I didn't know about. Advanced Image search location It gives me one image located on Wikipedia [2] labeled for free use but I would have to crop out her band member. Alatari (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
If you want to upload a photo of living person, you should not upload it to Wikipedia, but to its sister project, Wikimedia Commons. Images uploaded to Commons can be used in Wikipedia articles without any problem. Commons only accepts images that are freely licensed (see here: [3]). It is really not important where you find the image. You can use Flickr, Google search, or any other search method, but there must be evidence that the image is freely licensed. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, this is the confusing part. I found some images of her that people have placed on Flickr and given a free to share license BUT when I look closely they are photographs taken of a video that's playing on a television set likely tuned to MTV or VH1. So they are photographic reproductions of copyrighted material. So I should ognore that Flickr image no matter what the uploader says of the pictures licensing. So you see what I'm seeing here is the Bing image search with license choice free to use. Number 1 looks likely fan-taken at a autograph session some years back that I'll go with. Pictures 2, 5, 7 and 12 look like illegal reproduction of her video, 10 looks like an illegal reproduction of album cover and the rest of the images aren't Dale Bozzio (couple might be her ex husband Bozzio). Now that I have learned how to use Bing image search with copyright, I'll do better at these in the future. Thanks for the response Vanjagenije and any other comments you have on my thinking here. Alatari (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You are totaly right. Many people upload photos to Flickr and tag them as "free", although the photos are copyrighted. We should not automaticaly believe Flickr users, but we have to analyze case-by-case. Yes, this photo really looks like genuine free image. The page is taged with a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA) at the bottom, so you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for another lesson! I wouldn't have scrolled down all the way and looked for the CC license. I'll have to make that a habit. Alatari (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, in this primary source interview [4] she says declaratively that she is Italian and she believes in God. I'm not finding any secondary sources for this information. Alatari (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that you need secondary sources to prove someones ethnicity or religion. Those are personal matters. If she says that she's Italian, than she certainly is. Nobody can know that better than her. You don't need other sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Translating Between Different Wikipedia Languages

I often see big discrepancies between articles in different languages, including topics that are of equal relevance to both audiences. As an example, the article for Pope Lando has a picture in the English but not in the German version. I think I can provide significant value to Wikipedia by translating and reusing content across languages, but I'd like to make sure it's ok. Do you have pointers for doing such edits?

AlexInWikiland (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AlexInWikiland, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are certainly right. Translating articles from foreign language Wikipedias is one of the ways to contribute to English (or any other) Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia project is independent of each other, so it is quite possible to have very different articles on the same subject in different languages. Translating articles from one Wikipedia project to other is possible, and you are welcomed to try to do it. But you should follow some rules. If you are interested in translating foreign-language Wikipedia articles into English, than you should read this: WP:Translation. If you are interested in translating English Wikipedia articles into other languages, than you should read this: WP:TrU. If you still have any question, feel free to ask. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding images, I too often find that an image exists on one language's page, but not on another. Unfortunately, we cannot simply hotlink images between languages, however if an image exists on Wikimedia Commons it can be used across all Wikimedia projects. Sometimes an image exists only on, for example, ru.wikipedia so can't just be coded in, but if the image is explicitly marked as being Public Domain or Creative Commons, you can have the image moved to the Commons (see Wikipedia:Moving to Commons) at which point all projects can use it. Though it isn't necessarily required that articles be identical across all languages, if you can fill in major lackings across languages, and definitely if you can find "missing" photos, that is very useful indeed! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Page move and bots

If a page is moved, is there a way to request a bot to correct all instances of the old name? Is there any alternative to manually changing hundreds of links? In this case, I moved Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty to Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 13:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Khanate General ☪, and welcome to the Teahouse. When a page is moved to a new title, the old title (usually) automatically becomes a redirect. So, all links in other articles that point to the old title, automatically redirect the user to the new title. For example an article "Republic of China" was sometime ago moved to "Taiwan", but still if you click to "Republic of China", you'll be taken to the "Taiwan" article. Changing all the links is usually not necessary, although it would be useful to have the same title of a particular topic throughout all the articles. As far as I know, there are no bots doing this job. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I usually go ahead and do the work when I move a page. It's probably not necessary, but there are a couple of exceptions. When I created a disambiguation page, links to the original article that had to be moved would be sending readers to the disambiguation page. We want to avoid that, especially if people can't figure out which page they were being sent to. Another situation is TV and radio stations that change call letters. Since the former article name can be reused when a new station takes the letters another station gave up, the changes have to be made.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Formatting issue for notes and photos

Can someone please take a look at Sword Gate House and help me out? I've run into this error a few times, and I can't figure out how to fix it. Notice that there is a photo at the bottom left of the article. The citations all are formatted so that they appear to the right of the photo. BUT, the corresponding footnote numbers themselves are justified to the far left even though (1) that causes them to be removed from their authorities by a few inches and (2) that causes them to overlap the photo. How do you set up the formatting so that both the footnote numbers AND the authorities themselves appear to the right of the photo? That is, how to you protect the photo from any overlapping elements? And, while I appreciate any guidance, I'd really appreciate any advice that doesn't involve a work around of moving the photo. That is, assume that the relative positions of the photos must stay where they are. Is there any way to fix the footnote problem?ProfReader (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

One solution would be to add the {{clear}} template at the bottom of the last paragraph. This will cause the references section to appear under the picture. Samwalton9 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That is an improvement, but if there is a way to keep the basic formatting with the footnote numbers moved to the right, I'd love to hear it. I just tried that {{clear}} suggestion, and it admittedly fixed the problem, but it left a gaping chasm of white space between the end of the article and the first note. I might try that on some of the other pages where I have run into this problem, but on this page, I think the size of the photo and length of the articles require a different fix.ProfReader (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I am by no means an expert on this type of formatting issue, ProfReader, but I do want to report that when I look at the article on the desktop site, using a Droid Razr mobile device, the article looks beautiful, with no white space problems or formatting errors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::There is a left or right parameter, see: template:clear. I went ahead and added {{clear|left}} which seems to get favorable results (go ahead and revert if you disagree). ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, all! That looks much better. I'll have to play around with that template some more since I have seen the same issue on a few other articles that I monitor. Still, though, I'd love to know if there is a way to just move the footnote numbers to the right. That is, is there a way to have the photo against the left margin AND have the footnotes running down to the right of the image BUT without having the footnote numbers (and just the numbers, not their content) overlap the image? Do footnote numbers automatically and invariably line up against the left margin?ProfReader (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So, I've been playing around with this, and the true nature of the problem has struck me. It seems that WP "protects" photos from being overlaid by text, but that doesn't seem to apply to the corresponding footnote numbers - just the unique text. Using the CLEAR option mentioned above works pretty well, but even using clear|left or clear|right still results in a white space and pushes the first footnote down to the first line of text that clears the bottom of the photos. It might just be me, but the appearance of that is not great. The same problem happens when you have a list of bullet points (say, within a subsection of an article) and the same section containing the list of bullet points also includes a left-justified photo. The text of the bullet point automatically bumps to the right, just clear of the photo. But, the bullet point itself stays stuck on the left margin. Especially when the bullet list section of the article is in the middle, it can look really bad to force a big white space section using the CLEAR option. The bottom line just seems to be that WP automatically prevents overlaps of images by forcing user-entered text to the right to clear the image, BUT auto-created materials like footnote numbers and bullet points remain stuck on the left margin even if that space is already occupied by a photo. Isn't there any way to automatically position the WP-generate characters (e.g., footnote numbers and bullet points) to the right of photos along with the accompanying text?ProfReader (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is, WP:VPT is the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

how to "register" that a page has been edited

I'm working through a few of the pages on the "need copyedit" list. A couple of them I've copyedited and I think they're in pretty good shape -- that is, I think they could be taken off the "need help" list. How and to whom do I register this info? (ie, who do I tell that an article HAS been copyedited and is probably ready to fly on its own and should be taken off the list)

AND/OR a couple of them need WAY more than copyediting. So, I've done copyediting (and again, how do I 'register' this) but I also see way more problems such as content that is partial (or wrong, as far as I can tell) or needs attention -- so, perhaps, after my work it could be taken off the "needs copyedit" list but it definitely needs to be on the "help" list.

Thanks Wordy24 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wordy24, welcome to the Teahouse. Such things are specified with cleanup tags, usually at the top of the page, or the top of a section if a tag only applies to that section. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for a long list, including {{copy edit}} at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Copy editing. You can remove or change tags when suitable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fast reply. So, to remove one of the tags, do I simply delete it from the header when in "edit" function. So, if there's a header that says do I just delete that entire header if I've done what I think is the necessary cleanup? and will this also remove it from the master list of work needed? Wordy24 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You go in to "Edit Source" and delete the {{cleanup |date= June 2010}} tag and save your edit. Checkingfax (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you only have to remove the tag. Maintenance categories like Category:Articles needing cleanup from June 2010 are automatically added by such tags. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
ThanksWordy24 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing comments

Is it possible to edit the comments you leave to describe any "edits" you made after hitting the "save page" button? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean is it possible to change an edit summary after saving it? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. That's what I meant, but I've figured it out. Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No, but see Help:Dummy edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Help on making some steps on making a page

Hi, I was working on edits, and now I'm trying to work on making some missing pages by creating an article. Can you help me by giving proper steps including on how to publish it online? I'm may be on a year now but I not so familiar to making articles. Thanks (Bmechanic (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC))

Hi, Bmechanic, and welcome to the Teahouse. I just want to remind you that in the future, you should leave your question at the top of this page, not at the bottom, because it can be unnoticed this way (The easiest way is to use the "Ask a question" button at the top). If you want to write an article, we have an excellent how-to manual here: WP:Your first article. This manual explains pretty much everything about creating articles. You should read it carefully. I know it's long, but it will save your time in the future if you read it now. When you read it, and feel ready to write an article, you may use this wizard: WP:Article wizard to write it easily. If you still have some questions, or need some advice, feel free to ask. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Vanjagenije, thanks, but I need some step-by-step process and when I want to create an article but leave it to under other wikipedians to contribute (which is clicking "Request an article be written on a topic"), what should I do? Thanks and happy holidays (Bmechanic (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC))
I don't quite understand what you want to ask. Any time you write an article, you leave it to other Wikipedians to contribute. That is the whole point of Wikipedia: anyone can contribute to any article. "WP:Request an article" is used when you want to ask others to write an article, and you don't want (or know) to write it yourself. So. if you want to write an article yourself, than "WP:Article wizard" is really a step-by-step guide to doing it. If you just want to ask others to write article on some topic, than you should use "WP:Request an article", and add the topic of the desired article to the list. Does this answer your question? Please, feel free to explain in detail what you want to do, that will give us better opportunity to help you. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I say that if I want to request for an article to be made in Wikipedia (after I click the "Request an article be written on a topic" in the Article Wizard), what should I do next? (I know I have to click the respective topic, but what's next?) Anyway I already got the process for the page making. Thanks! (Bmechanic (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC))
I got it. When you click on "Request an article be written on a topic" you are taken to this page: WP:Requested articles. You should then click on the topic area to which desired page belongs. For example, if you click on "Philosophy", you will be taken to this page: WP:Requested articles/Philosophy. There, you find the exact topic to which your desired article belong, then you click "edit", and add the title of the article to the list. You should also write as much information as possible. That's it. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But where to put? I was wondering if you can help me or not. Thanks (Bmechanic (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC))
You just put it to the list. For example, if you want to request article on ethics, you click "edit" next to the "ethics" section in the Philosophy topic area (that would be this). Then you just add your request to the list and save, like this:

==Ethics==}
* [[Lenn E. Goodman]] [http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/philosophy/_people/_goodman.html]}
* [[Katastematic pleasure]] - [http://books.google.com/books?id=tSg7AAAAIAAJ&dq=Katastematic+pleasure&q=%22Katastematic+pleasure%22#v=snippet&q=%22Katastematic%20pleasure%22&f=false Epicurus: an introduction By John M. Rist]}
* [[Inclination (ethics)]]}
* [[Title of your article]] - additional information about the subject of the article.

Vanjagenije (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for review of changes to existing article

I have been asked to improve an existing Wikipedia page - John Travis (physician). The article has a notification dating from April 2009 indicating that it lacked inline citations. I have sought to address this on a new draft (contained in my sandbox) and have also done some additional editing to clean up and strengthen the article - creating an infobox with an image, dividing the article into sections and adding sections (on the Illness-Wellness Continuum, university posts and NGOs).

I haven't changed the actual page as yet (the changes are saved in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fbell74/sandbox). However, I would be grateful if someone could have a look at the draft to make sure there aren't any issues with the amended version. I contacted SarahStierch and she suggested removing some external links that I had included and which I've now removed. She also suggested including more secondary sources and removing any content where this isn't available. I've added secondary sources but haven't removed content as it seemed relevant and I felt it had other sources to support it. These were largely what was in the original article, which appeared to be okay.

Also, please note: I have a financial connection with the subject of the article and wondered whether I should note this in the comment box outlining changes to the article or in my own user page. Any guidance on this would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Fbell74 (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fbell74, firstly you should take a read of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guide if you haven't already. The best place to declare your COI would be on the talk page of the article when moved to article space, as well as probably on your user page. Some areas I'm concerned about are: the Early life and education section having no inline references, for someone described in the article as having achieved "national renown" there are relatively little secondary sources on the subject, the IT applications section contains one primary source and nothing else, the Opposition to male circumcision section isn't entirely neutral as the first sentence goes a little overboard on the description of what male circumcision is, and the Work on parenting section has no sources either. This isn't a detailed review, just the things that stood out to me as I read through. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Samwalton9. Thanks for taking the time to look over the draft. I'll make a note on both pages to make the COI clear. I did read the Wikipedia page on this before but I might have missed the guidance on this. It looks like there are a few areas to address (I'm grateful for your specific about which parts to focus on). I can see that the section on male circumcision could do with being made more neutral so I'll take a look at these as well. Thank you Fbell74 (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

editing a template does not appear to be affecting the pages that use it

I have recently moved the article Showgrounds to The Showgrounds, Sligo Town because there are many showgrounds with articles on Wikipedia and I also created a disambiguation page Showground.

I was going around and tidying up the links that pointed to Showgrounds and found that it appears in a number of articles (e.g. St Colman's Park) due to the Template:League of Ireland grounds. I went and edited the template and the link seems to work OK on the template. But when I look at articles like St Colman's Park the change to the template does not seem to have taken effect. What is wrong? Kerry (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is just a case of the web cache being outdated. When a template is updated, it takes a while for pages to be "rebuilt". This can be solved by purging a page's cache - check out Wikipedia:Purge for details and instructions on how to clear the cache. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Kerry (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Note however that a purge only affects the purged page and not link tables. The latter requires a null edit. But often it's better to just wait for the updates to happen automatically. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. You anticipated the question I was just about to ask. Kerry (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

Should quotes always have to be full, or can it be cut short...like for example the author quotes "The tree is finally growing, it wouldn't be the case years ago, the leaves are looking nice, bouncy and healthy...if I don't add "bouncy and healthy" and maybe more will that be fine or I have to write all of it? (Monkelese (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Monkelese, and welcome to the Teahouse. Of course, you don't have to quote the full sentence, if some parts of it are not important for the topic. You can shorten the quotation to give only the part that is useful for the particular topic. But, when you do that, you have to clearly indicate that the quotation os shortened, usually using ellipsis. To learn more about quotations, see here: WP:QUOTE and here: MOS:QUOTE. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Monkelese! One more thing... be sure that if you leave out part of a quote, it doesn't change the "point of view" of the quotation. For example, if a a reviewer says that a play "had lovely costumes but was very boring", it changes the tone of the review to write the first part but not the second, unless the article was just about theatrical costumes. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Format for Wikipedia

I have been trying to upload a biography of a singer to Wikipedia. However it is being rejected because the formats have been in Doc., EXE. and OTD,. I cannot find out as to what format Wikipedia will accept despite the amount of information given by Wikipedia. Please advise. Country music (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has its own format. I have put a number of useful links on your user talk page. Among others, try Wikipedia:Tutorial. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In general, the best way I have found to get your copy on Wikipedia is to write it on Wikipedia. The process is discussed in the links the previous host left you. If you want to work offline on your computer, the best procedure is to use a simple word processor like "Notepad", and then copy and paste your work into a Wikipedia edit window. If you use a standard word processor like "Word", there will be formatting information that does not show in Word that will copy to Wikipedia, making a mess out of your work. John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking BLPs to their user accounts

Should I link BLPs to their wikipedia user accounts? If yes, how? Theemathas (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Theemathas, welcome to the Teahouse. It shouldn't be done in the article but it can be done on the talk page with {{Connected contributor}}, and it can be listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Beware of not outing editors who want their account to be anonymous. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Somebody apparently already done both of them on the page I was intending to do add the link. I didn't look for the link in the talk page before. Thank you, anyway. Theemathas (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't my account autoconfirmed?

Just tried to make an edit. Knowsetfree (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Knowsetfree! It should be autoconfirmed; what were you not allowed to do? (It may have been that you had been accidentally logged out, which happens sometimes.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper. Wow, quick response at the Teahouse which I've not used before. I just tried to make an edit to [Devyani Khobragade incident] but it locked me out. I am logged in on the page though. Knowsetfree (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm, that's weird; there's no reason I can see that you wouldn't be allowed to make an edit to that page. Can you try to make it again? If it still doesn't work for some reason, let me know, and I can give you the confirmed right, which is exactly the same as autoconfirmed. There's no reason that you shouldn't be autoconfirmed, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you see an "Edit" or "View source" tab at Devyani Khobragade incident? What exactly happens when you click it? Quote part of the message you see and say whether there is a red or grey box. If it's red then you may just see an informational message which doesn't prevent you from editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It would appear that Knowsetfree isn't in the autoconfirmed user group for some reason. I don't know what I'm talking about. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. In user rights management it says "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users", whereas, a spot check of a brand new contributor does not contain this message, and on the other end, a spotcheck of a number of autoconfirmed users does not show the check box for "confirmed" to be ticked, so I don't think that's dispositive of whether a user is or is not autoconfirmed. I actually changed the right to confirmed, but that probably did nothing. The answer to PrimeHunter's questions probably needs to be seen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Special:Listusers doesn't show whether an account is autoconfirmed. Some users incorrectly think they cannot edit a page when they see a red note saying the page has been semi-protected. I suspect this is the case here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Doh. I even checked this with my own account, I have no idea why I didn't notice that. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The other possibility is they tripped an edit filter and had autoconfirmed removed... If that is the case it should be fairly easy to fix. Technical 13 (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
This however isn't the case...
[20:22] <+Technical_13> !rights Knowsetfree
[20:22] <+Helpmebot> The user rights for User:Knowsetfree are: confirmed, user, autoconfirmed
Was another idea at least. Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hook change after GTG

Hi hosts, this question concerns WP:DYK. Recently I reviewed a DYK nom and cleared it for promotion but the editor has requested a hook change now. Can it be done because the article still has'n't been promoted. There seems to be no advice for situation like this. Thanks. Soham 13:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Soham. They can suggest an alt, and it can be re-reviewed I think. You may be better asking this on DYK talk, which is a specialist talk page. Thanks, Matty.007 14:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go for a re-review. I would have asked at DYK talk but in most cases I see talk pages for most projects remain inactive, I mean I came here for a prompt reply which I got also. Soham 14:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Not DYK. 590 watchers, to the Teahouse's 500, usual response time is a few hours... Just a heads up. Thanks, Matty.007 14:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Did'n't know. Thanks for the HU though. Soham 14:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Page information in the 'Tools' drop out on the left of the page has that sort of info. Thanks, Matty.007 14:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Hey, is it possible to nominate a page for deletion without being an administrator, or at least request the action of an administrator? Thanks! I'm not there. Message me! 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! Yes, in fact any deletion (other than an obvious speedy deletion) should be nominated at AfD, whether by an administrator or not. If you want to nominate a page for deletion, see the guide at WP:AFDHOWTO Samwalton9 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
There is another process between WP:speedy and WP:AFD, see WP:PROD. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

How can I add reference notes to my article?

Hi, I've submitted an article for creation under the name Oriental Renaissance. Your editor (MatthewVanitas) seemed to like it but rejected it because my reference notes have disappeared. I've now spent a day (!) trying to discover how you do simple reference notes for Wickipedia articles and cannot understand. It seems immensely complicated. Can you please tell me in simple language how to add a ref. note such as the following: Rawls,John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press,1971,p.1. I understand you need to start with [1], but I don't understand at all how to create a "section" for the references. I know there is a tab for "section" but still can't make this work Help will be much appreciated.Smncr (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read WP:Referencing for beginners? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Go to your Preferences, then to Gadgets, and enable: Proveit. When you go to Edit-Source you will see a Gadget at the bottom of your screen called Prove-It. Put your insertion-point where you want the Reference to be added. Click on the up-arrow and it will expand Prove-It. Click on "add a reference" and fill out the fields. Follow the prompts. Hope this helps. If you don't want to use Prove-It you can use Citation-Templates. See: WP:REFBEGIN. Checkingfax (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I add a References section like this:
==References==
{{reflist}}
If I add that wikitext to this page right here, what's between your ref tags above, will appear here:
References
  1. ^ and end with 
(this space intentionally left blank)
So if you put the author name and book title etc between the ref tags, instead of putting "and end with" between the ref tags, that's what will appear in the references section instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

While reading an article, I clicked on an external link, which proved to be missing.

While reading an article, I clicked on an external link, which proved to be missing. Should I try to edit this? 89.249.79.67 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is general guidance at Wikipedia:Link rot. If you say which article and link it is then we can say more. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If you can find a current URL for the link, or an equivalent live link, please add it to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I sometimes add {{dead link}} after dead links that make me feel uncomfortable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

to make a posting "notable'...

This pertains to the article "Storming Robots". Targeting toward issue 1 and 3: about notability and being verifiable.

I have added references from the following notable independent sources:

1) Knowledge @ Wharton High School hosted by University of Pennsylvania : http://kwhs.wharton.upenn.edu/2012/01/aboard-the-international-space-station-programming-robots-in-zero-gravity/

2) Garden States Woman Information and Resources for NJ Woman: http://www.gswoman.com/index.php/item/536-i-work-like-a-slave-but-love-what-i-do

3) Press Release from NASA Site: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jan/HQ_12-029_SPHERES_Challenge_Winner.html

4) Hunterdon Chamber Internet Radio Show: https://www.facebook.com/BigC.HCCRadio?ref=stream&hc_location=stream

5) NJ Star Ledger coverage : http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/07/branchburgs_storming_robots_ta.html

6) Hunterdon Democrat: http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2013/12/readington_robotics_team_softw.html

Will these be sufficient to remove the issue 1 and 3?

Please advise.

ESKCheung (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ESKCheung. Reference #1 is an unsigned article on a website for students, hosted by a prestigious business school. I think it is reliable but have my own doubts about whether it a solid source for notability purposes. #2 appears to be a self published blog, #3 is a press release and #4 is an online local "radio" show. These do not show notability. The last two are the best sources from a major newspaper and a local offshoot. #5 is the best. A minor problem with #6 is that it seems to be highly localized news. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. 1 : even when it is run by students, it is indeed backed by a very prestigious business school.
  2. 2 : It is definitely not a self-publishing blog. I know the couple who founded this Garden State Woman organization. They do good things for advocating entrepreneurship among female.
  3. 3: yes, it was a press release. But it was released by NASA which is definitely notable.
  4. 4: I can understand.
  5. 5 : good one.
  6. 6 : Yes, they are local. However, can they be verifiable sources?

I am in lost here to do this. So, I went to look up other ones who are in Wikipedia to find clues. Then, I came into the Livingston Robotic Club, as it falls into similar categories, but have no issue. I attempted to find some hints where I can improve “Storming Robots” posting. Unfortunately, I found LRC does not seem to have much of anything to back up its notability either; not even have NASA, Star Ledger, the business school. So, I really need some direction as pointing out the difference so that I can learn to improve it. ESKCheung (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In the end, you need to make your case to the AfC reviewers, ESKCheung. We have broad consensus here that press releases do not establish notability. Not NASA press releases, not White House press releases, not Secretary General of the United Nations press releases. None of them. By coincidence, about 30 years ago, I had a minor editorial position that required me to evaluate NASA press releases. Boy, do they send out a lot of press releases! And 96% were worthless, and went into the round file. A small percentage were wonderful, and got attention. "Self published" and doing good things are not mutually exclusive. Does this website have professional editorial control and an established reputation for fact checking? It doesn't seem so to me. I have tried to evaluate the sources you brought forth, identifying their strengths and weaknesses. My assessment stands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

notable books and papers?

Is it acceptable to create an article about a notable book or scientific paper? Open Research (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Open Research, and welcome to the Teahouse in 2014. It is acceptable to create an article about any notable subject; but I'm not sure if you're aware that "notable" has a special meaning in Wikipedia: it requires that the book or paper has been the subject (not just mentioned in passing) of several other pieces of writing published in reliable places; and the article should be written almost entirely from what is said in those other places, not from the content of the book or paper itself (which is a primary source). I suggest looking at your first article.--ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Links not turning blue

One question: I've created two pages today, but the links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pan_Pacific_Swimming_Championships , are not turning blue. Wikipedia is having some problem today? Janperson (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Janperson. When a page is created it can take some time for other pages to update and recognise that the page exists. To get around this you can purge the page which updates it. The easiest way to do this is to add ?action=purge to the end of the URL in your address bar and hit enter. I've done this but I can't tell if this has fixed your problem as I don't know which links you were referring to :) Samwalton9 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
For me, the links to your new 2010 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships – Women's 100 metre freestyle and 2010 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships – Women's 200 metre freestyle are blue. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@Janperson: Sometimes when this occurs it may not be the Wikipedia page that needs cache purging but your own computer, which is falsely displaying parts of a page as they appeared before a change was made because its showing the old content stored in its memory. If that might be the case here (and especially if you're still seeing the links as red following Samwalton9's purge), try bypassing your computer's cache.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Does only one reliable source automatically mean that the article can't be notable?

Is it correct? Eozhik (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, it could indeed be notable. Because fundamentally, extensive coverage is *not* the only factor that can make something notable. Things can be notable for other reasons. However, on a different note, if there is only one reference in a long piece of content, it is unlikely to be properly referenced, and the article would be seen as weak for that reason instead. Open Research (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that the subject can't ever be notable but yes somewhere in the region of at least 3-5 reliable sources would prove notability of a subject. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Could you, please, specify, which corollaries can this imply? If an article devoted to, say, a phenomenon in social life, contains only one reliable source, is it a ground for its deletion or, maybe, merging it with the article devoted to the person who first noticed it? Or maybe for something else? I did not find a clear rule. Eozhik (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
And, excuse me, suppose again the article describes a social phenomenon. It is true that I can give only those quotations which the author of the concept already used? As far as I understand, there must be a rule about that, but I don't see it. Eozhik (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Eozhik. It doesn't matter whether it is a social phenomenon or anything else; if it has been written about in only one reliable source, any article will almost certainly get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Just because an article currently contains only one reliable source doesn't necessarily mean that other sources can't be found and added to the article, Eozhik. Such an article should not be nominated for deletion without a thorough good faith search for other sources. Quotations about the concept need not be limited to those by the creator of the concept. Independent coverage is actually better evidence of notability. But all quotations must be properly cited. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Eozhik! It is hard to answer your initial question in the abstract, because the level of proof required for notability varies with the subject of the article. For example, gazetteer subjects, like geographic features, settlements and some schools (high schools and universities), only require proof of existence. Being in the GNIS is enough reference to show notability for settlements and geographic features. Is more referencing good? You bet! On the other hand, musical groups have a rather high standard for inclusion, which can be found at WP:NMUSIC. Hope you find this helpful. If we can give you advice on a specific subject, feel free to let us know and we will try to help. In some cases, it is not possible to give a completely objective answer. There are numerous articles sent to Articles for Deletion each and every day. The notability is debated and a consensus is formed that then dictates whether the article stays or goes. It isn't, unfortunately, an exact science. John from Idegon (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your answers!!! I understand that my question is too abstract, so I'll try to explain the situation. Actually, I indeed need a help. I have two problems, a little one and a big one (and I am afraid, this will be abstract even after explanations, so excuse me in advance).
1) A little problem is about quotations. A typical case is the following. Not long ago I created a section "Criticism of Hegel by Schopenhauer and Popper" in the article "Hegel" in Russian Wikipedia (excuse me again, this is philosophy; I understand, this is abstract, so I promise to be concrete as best as I can). Of course I cited Schopenhauer and Popper, but besides this I gave three additional quotations from Hegel to illustrate that Schopenhauer's and Popper's accusations were not accidental, what they write is typical for Hegel. I immediately faced accusations that these three additional quotations are "original research"... I did not find the corresponding explanation in the list of Wikipedia's rules, so it is not clear for me who is right here.
2) That was the little problem, now the big one. Not long ago I created an article "Oracular philosophy" in Russian Wikipedia. I faced the same little problem here, but besides this a big one: it turned out that I can't find other reliable source, but the book by Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies. That was a surprise for me, and I asked help at the talk page of the article devoted to this book, and besides this at several forums on philosophy, in particular, here. From what people explained me I got an impression that it will be better to rename the article, since the term "Oracular philosophy" is not very popular among philosophers (they prefer to use other words), anyway, I would like to point out a problem which I find to be typical. Formally, the implication

only one reliable source the article is not notable

- is not legal in Wikipedia, since there is no such a rule in the instructions. In the rules on reliability in Russian Wikipedia, it is only written

"Желательно наличие нескольких независимых источников."

In English translation:

"It is desirable to have several independent sources."

"Desirable" and "Necessary" are different things.
In my opinion, this looks like a provocation: on the one hand people are encouraged to write articles according to instructions, but when they do this it turns out unexpectedly that there are "hidden rules" which allow to delete your work. You find yourself in a situation where you must spend a lot of time and nerves on disputes (in Russia philosophical disputes are always disputes with political opponents), without guarantee that your work will be preserved. Wouldn't it be better to do everything from the very beginning according to clear rules? That is the problem, as I understand it. Eozhik (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello Eozhik and welcome to the Teahouse! The number of independent reliable sources needed is directly proportional to the topic and the length of the article. If you have a four sentence stub, then indeed a single source may be justifiable. If, however, you have a many section -- takes hours to read -- article, then tens or even hundreds may be more appropriate. The key is that they must be proportionate, having one or two sources for a multi-section article won't cut it and if you have tens or hundreds for a four sentence stub, that is what is known as over citing, which is just as bad. Technical 13 (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you, Technical 13. That is important. I think this must be reflected in rules. Eozhik (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Eozhik, please also be aware that each language Wikipedia is an independent project with its own policies and guidelines. We don't speak for Russian Wikipedia at the Teahouse. Here on English Wikipedia, the General notability guideline speaks of "reliable sources" in the plural being required to establish notability. As the minimum whole plural number is two, in most cases we expect to be able to find at least two sources giving significant coverage to the topic. But it is not necessary that two or more sources actually be in the article. And sometimes special guidelines are so universally accepted that no one will support deleting the article even if it has just a single source. For example, there is wide agreement that Olympic athletes are notable. So if there was an article about an Olympic archer who competed 100 years ago that had only one reliable source, and more sources couldn't be easily found online, we would almost certainly keep the article. The strong presumption is that a search of undigitized paper copies of archery journals and home town newspapers from 100 years ago would yield additional sources. We operate under general principles guided by editorial judgment rather than rigid rules. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Cullen, thank you. What about that "little problem"? When A expresses his attitude to B, is it necessary to give only those quotations from B, which A already mentioned? Eozhik (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Making an article visually appealing

Could someone point me to a few articles that make use of techniques that improve readability through visual appeal? Or guidelines on this? It seems to me that some Wikipedia pages (such as this tearoom home page) have been constructed to be more visually appealing and I'd like to learn more about that. Thanks to all and a Happy New Year to everyone. Open Research (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Open Research. We don't use the sort of graphic elements you see on some project pages such as the Teahouse within articles themselves. The main techniques used to increase readability and visual appeal are adding photos and other images, and the creation of sections and subsections. When an article has three or more sections, a table of contents is automatically generated, and this helps readability. Infoboxes are also often used, which include a portrait in a biography, a book cover, movie poster or album cover for articles about such works, or a logo for an article about a company or organization. There are other techniques, but these are the most important ones.
We have about 4,100 featured articles, which have gone through a rigorous peer review. That is less than 1/10 of 1% of all our articles. I suggest you take a look at several from the List of featured articles to see some of the techniques used in our very best work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Order

Hi there, I have been editing articles on Nichiren related articles for quite a while - even though there are some edit wars going on . However, I am not happy with the structure of the article on Nichiren especially with the sections following " Posthumous titles and status in major lineages", Any advice on a somewhat logic order? Catflap08 (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catflap08. The first advice, which I offer without hesitation, is "Do not engage in edit wars. This is very important. Don't do it. Do not do it. Discuss matters on the article's talk page. Ask for help with dispute resolution if you need help. Report editors who do engage in edit wars to the edit war noticeboard. But you must have clean hands to complain about someone else's misconduct.
Clearly, the Nichiren article will be controversial, since three rival schools of Buddhism revere this person. I am surprised to see an About.com article used as the first source, since that website is usually not considered a reliable source here. I see you've made a brief comment on the talk page about your structural concerns. I recommend going into greater detail there. You can post a neutral request for input on the talk pages of other recent substantive contributors, but you have to be even-handed. You can't just inform people you think are likely to agree with you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cullen,

cheers for your comments. These days I do not engage in edit wars … lately when a dispute comes up quite a number of other editors do come to aid or I seek help. This is most useful especially when religious beliefs a concerned. There are one or two articles I stay mostly clear of as I just can not be bothered any more. What I meant though was if there is any guideline on how to put order to notes, references, literature … it seems to me that in the article in questions those sections seem to be all over the place. Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming countries before they exist

I'm happily going through the list of "articles that need expanding" and expanding several on Canada in the "dates series": 1750 in Canada, 1820 in Canada etc. However, the political/ social/ geographic entity called "Canada" didn't exist until 1867. As a Canadian, I find it weird to write on "Canada" before it existed. On the one hand, this is a geo-nerd kind of technicality: obviously the elements that eventually became Canada existed in 1750, 1803, etc, so it's perfectly fine to write under the overall dates heading. So, I'm NOT proposing changing the overall heading ("1750 in Canada"). But it might be helpful to put an italicized note sub-head for each "in Canada" page prior to 1867 that says something such as "Canada didn't come into existence until Confederation in 1867; the events and people discussed below lived in territories that eventually came under the umbrella of Canada." Or some more felicitous heading. So: a) is it OK to make such a sweeping addition -- to probably a couple hundred pages b) is there any fast way to bulk-add such a change or does it go page by page? c) and wordsmiths come up with a catchy way of saying this? Thanks Wordy24 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wordy and welcome to The Teahouse. Any change that would affect hundreds of pages should certainly be discussed. But as for the mechanism by which you would do it, I would say start with WP:VPT and maybe they can also point you to the right place for discussing whether you should make the change.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Wordy24 and welcome to the Teahouse. My understanding is that the word "Canada" was used by both the French as in Canada (New France) and the British as in The Canadas and Province of Canada, all of which are historical usages describing geographical areas that are now the provinces of Quebec and Ontario your country. Accordingly, I do not see the problem with using the word "Canada" in these articles as long as there is nothing misleading within the articles themselves. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 11:11 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Cite Web: Work vs. Publisher

Hi! When I open the Cite Web template editor, I am given two parameters among others: Work, and Publisher. What is the difference between these two parameters, and what should I be filling in to them?

Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Work is a subset of Publisher. If you were citing the Keiser Report on RT you'd put down RT as the Publisher and the Keiser Report as the Work. Checkingfax (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
For [5], what would be considered the Work, and what would be considered the Publisher? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, Bananasoldier, the work is GameTrailers and the publisher is Viacom.There can be some subjectivity with websites, especially those owned by multinational corporations, with many levels. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I change the illustrations of my team's playing kit?

I have recently updated the WIKI page for my local football club. During the preceding years we have changed our club colours so as a consequence the current illustrations are incorrect but do not know how to go about updating them? Can anyone help me please? See Home colours/Away colours Mangotsfield United F.C. Oaklandsraider (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Oaklandsraider and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to change the team's kit in the aerticle's infobox, you ahould edit the article's markup. At the beggining of the articles markup, there is {{Infobox football club}} template. Inside that template, there are those lines:

pattern_la1=|pattern_b1=|pattern_ra1=|
leftarm1=AAAAFF|body1=AAAAFF|rightarm1=AAAAFF|shorts1=A90000|socks1=A90000|
pattern_la2=|pattern_b2=|pattern_ra2=|
leftarm2=FFFF00|body2=FFFF00|rightarm2=FFFF00|shorts2=000000|socks2=FFFF00|

Those define the kit colors. You should change them to change the colors. Codes like "AAAAFF" are color codes. You can find all color codes here: Web colors#Hex_triplet. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks that has resolved all my questions except one. Our Away kit comprises an all yellow shirt with a black horizontal band on the shoulders (from right to left) but not on the sleeves. I cannot find a template for this design. Can you help please?Oaklandsraider (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Different patterns (stripes, dots, etc.) are defined by adding different values to the "pattern" parameters, like this:

pattern_la1=_shoulderson

"pattern_la1" is for the left arm of the home kit, "pattern_b1" is for the body of the home kit, etc. This part of the infobox template is taken from Template:Football kit, so for more information and examples, you can see: Template:Football kit/doc. The list of all patterns is here: Template:Football kit/pattern list. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Our home shorts are aqua with a white stripe either side. I understand that the pattern and colour for plain aqua is shorts2=000000 but what do I neeed to add to this to include the white stripes?Oaklandsraider (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If you type this code:

{{Football kit
| pattern_la =
| pattern_b =
| pattern_ra =
| pattern_ra =
|pattern_sh =_whitesides2
| pattern_so =
| leftarm = 00FFFF
| body = 800000
| rightarm = 00FFFF
| shorts = 00FFFF
| socks = 00FFFF
| title = Example
}}

You'l get this:
Example
Is that what you wanted? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_169&oldid=1138271334"