Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 239

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

Archive 235

←

Archive 237

→

To Delete or Not to Delete...

From my experience, the whole AfD is a source of frustration. It seems there are guidelines, but also when something is nominated there's a voting contest. Power by numbers. Enough "keeps" and it stays. Sure, good rationale helps, but...take my recent nomination: Kyle Minor. This is an author with some good publications. Some are notable. He is an assistant professor. But, after carefully reading through the guidelines at WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC--as well as the caveats, it seemed to me he doesn't clear the hurtle of notability. After the nomination, I get called a "troll" and someone says "of course he is notable, he reads to crowds at NYC." Where does one go with that? This a sample of what we have for dialogue here on WP ladies and gentlemen, and it doesn't look pretty...

For the record (on AfD), I don't think there should be a "weak keep" or "weak delete" there ought to be good reason that makes it strong on either side. If it is indeed a case of "weak keep" then why not delete and have this subject try again when he is notable? Am I off here? Anyone want to check out my nomination and see if this is on target? So, that's my statement, and question(s). Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Jim. Your initial nomination seems sound to me, though reasonable people can and do disagree about what meets notability requirements. The AfD process is not supposed to be a voting contest, and editors need to demonstrate a strong rationale to keep or delete something (i.e., a large number of votes with no basis in relevant policies is not worth very much). Administrators closing the discussions should be aware of these issues. On the matter of 'trolling,' it was an unfortunate comment obviously. It can be tough sometimes to remember that editors on the other side of computer screens are real people, so ill-considered comments come out sometimes. My advice is to just not take it too personally, and try to focus on content, not contributors. Keihatsu ^talk 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jimsteele9999, about the "weak keeps" and "weak deletes", but that is pretty ingrained in AfD culture. When I feel indecisive, I abstain. Competent administrators will place much greater weight on "keep" recommendations that identify new reliable sources, or "delete" recommendations that analyze the shortcomings of sources and report failure of good faith efforts to find more. Comments which don't show an understanding of policies and guidelines, and the reliable sources, can and will be disregarded. Most closing administrators do a good job, in my experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to the above editors for the responses. Keihatsu, I appreciate your comments. I do not take it too personally, as I've been called worse. But if someone insults me, it's usually after they know me. Keihatsu, feel free to chime in on the AfD with your insight.And thanks to those lurkers out there reading.

A couple of other notes: the fact that the feckless "weak keep' or "strong delete" stances are ingrained in the WP culture is all the more reason to discuss them, bring them out in the light, and hopefully end them, albeit eventually. There ought to be just "keep" or "delete." If it is a "weak" keep, why bother? You know where I'm going with this...and, for the record, nearly every single deletion discussion I have been a part of involves power by numbers. This goes for authors, in particular, with an online presence. They seem to canvass very well. Also, from my experience, closing admins are curt in their rationale. This suggest flippancy--something I'd hope people with proficiency stay away from.

Anyway, I did also want to ask if anyone out there reading this had suggestions for an article I have worked on. Specifically, A Flock of Seagulls(band) needs an image. This is a band, noted in the article, for a specific appearance. It is how they are remembered, and how they were distinguished to begin with. But there is no image. Why? Well, I have, in the past, attempted to put graphics up. I will admit most of these attempts were ill-advised, and violated WP policies. But some were legitimate files. Bona fide attempts. Some weren't even covered in the extensive, labyrinthine policy Wikipedia directs editors to regarding uploading graphics. For example, if I had a picture of the band, then altered it, through I don't know, some graphic arts program, and then uploaded it, would that be acceptable? Is that "user created"? Technically, if I made it, I can trademark it. What about images that border on public domain? What if they qualify in England? If anyone can shed light on these queiries please do. I think you in advance for your time.

Cordially,

Jim Steele Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Jim Steele, Regarding the images, keep in mind that there is a reason that the policy isn't simple. Wikipedia isn't like your average Internet user's blog, we need to worry a bit more about the potential for some corporation to sue us for copyright infringement. Even to defend and win such a lawsuit would suck up serious $$. I don't know most of the details about image rights but for what it's worth my default assumption is always "if you aren't sure then you probably don't have the rights to it". Just because you edit an image in Photoshop or some other program doesn't change the intellectual property rights. If you didn't have the rights to begin with you still don't have the rights after you edit it. The same usually goes for images that "border on public domain". Many of the images you can find on your average blog or fan page for example can't be re-used. However, for the Flock of Seagulls there is an exception for images related to things like album art work I think that can be used. I think this is the place to start: Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free_album_cover --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mad Scientist, thank you for the response and advice. My belated thanks to Cullen328 as well. I do think this "teahouse" idea is a good one. I remember my adopter, Steven Zhang, a noble and experienced editor, if you guys have ever heard of him. He once had an idea of something like this. I wish I kept in touch with him, as I am not even sure if he is still alive. Once question, though, Mad scientist, why does the WP Image Use Policy state that copyright is generated by "creativity," if in fact using a program to change an image isn't good enough? Now, while I don't consider photography an art for, I could theoretically take a photo someone took and alter it a certain number of ways, including making it three dimensional, and wouldn't that be a creative way to generate a legitimate image for a WP article? I apologize if I am coming across belligerant here, I am just curious and have never got a good answer, and I find the people answering people's questions in this tea house to have that rare combination of patiance and proficiency in all things WP. Lastly, the image for vagina seems to me user generated with a potential copyright snafu. Just saying.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Target of ThankYou Notification

Please, tell me, where do the Thank You-Notifications, sent from the "difference between versions"-page, go, and how do they look like to the addressee?

Thank you. Purgy (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I just thanked you for the edits you just made here. There should be a number that appears in the banner at the top of your window. If you click it, the thank you's will be there. Also, every time your name gets wikilinked, and every time someone reverts an edit you have made will also appear in the same place. John from Idegon (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Up to now, I estimated this to be a supplement to my Talk-page, I now know this being a Special page. Actually, you sent me two of those thank yous and I received an additiotional illustration from W.carter. Thank you both, cordially. Purgy (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"No consensus" policy

Greetings. This policy states that a proposed change to an article should fail when there is no consensus. Does this apply when there is no participation in the discussion? If so, how should I resolve the following two problems with that?

It effectively means that no potentially contested or controversial changes can be made to articles that have very low interest.

It means that any watchers can block a proposal by simply remaining silent, without giving any reasoning, and this is contrary to other policy.

Thanks. Mandruss |talk 07:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss. I believe the policy you're citing is assuming that some kind of discussion has taken place because it says "Some discussions result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:". The examples you're giving seem to be slightly different. For example, you can just be bold and edit articles without discussing these edits with anyone first. If your edit is really an improvement, then most likely it will be left alone. On the other hand, if your edit is undone or changed, then that is a sign that at least one person considers it to be problematic. In such cases, you should probably try to discuss things on the article's talk page and explain your case using Wikipolicy rather then engaging in edit warring. If you wish to make a substantial change to an article, then it is usually a good idea to try and discuss this first on the article's talk page. If you post something and nobody responds after a reasonable amount of time, then go ahead and make the edit. Then, it's just wait and see. If it's a good edit, other editors will leave it alone. If it's not, then you'll find out soon enough. For reference, you might find "Wikipedia: Silence and consensus" to be an interesting read; it's only a essay, but it does talk about this kind of thing. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding Social Profiles to Brand Pages

Hi,

I was editing a brand page and it's a brand that has quite an active social presence. So I was wondering if it was a common activity for a brand's most prominent social profiles to be added as 'External Links'? I believe it would add value to a brand page as it offers more information and resources that are relevant to the company.

Thanks

Plestan (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Plestan. Under Wikipedia's external links policy, the only page that should be linked to is the brand's official website. In some rare cases, this may be a Facebook page, but for the most part, the EL section should only contain www.brandname.com or whatever the brand's official website address is. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Plestan. Does linking to a social media site add to an encyclopaedic understanding of the company? Usually not. Does it add value for the company's own purposes? Probably, but Wikipedia is strongly disinclined to do anything that adds (or reduces) value for the company's purposes. --ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

ineed to know?

Answer these guys what coin becomes double it's value after half is taken?Karan shankar (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Karan, WP:REFDESK, the answer you're looking for is half-dollar or halfpenny. Nthep (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing a POV tag

I created a page and shortly thereafter received a notification that the page had been marked with a POV tag for promoting the subject as an asset to her employer.

I have since made edits to the page so as to make the language more neutral. How do I know if it's now considered neutral? Can I remove the tag?

Thanks!

A. R. Goodman (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, A. R. Goodman. Are you asking about the article Mimi Alemayehou? --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz. Yes, I am referring to the article Mimi Alemayehou. Thanks!

A. R. Goodman (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is improving, but it would be good to check with the editor who tagged it before removing the tag. Mr. Guye, since you tagged this article POV, would you care to comment? --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

user name problem

I am trying to creat a wikipedia account. I used the user name naytz. The "Account creation error: Username entered already in use. Please choose a different name." message did NOT come up. However when I clicked "Create Your Account" a message came up about session hijacking, reloading the page and trying again. I did this, but now, when I put in "naytz" as the username; the "Account creation error: Username entered already in use. Please choose a different name." message is appearing. 24.126.118.223 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi 24 - not really sure what happened there, but the account has been successfully created (see Special:Log/Naytz). Have you tried logging into it? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I just logged in. I should have tried that first. Btw I tried to submit this response 3 times with "join this discusion", and then asked a new question as to why it wouldn't work; but its not going through. do you know why?24.126.118.223 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naytz (talk • contribs)

You have to refresh the page to see posts if you post comments that way. If you use the edit button next to the section header, comments appear immediately. --Jakob (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Documentaries as sources?

I want to know whether citing a documentary as a source would be okay. Would it be okay if the editor gave the author, the name, and the time the content they added is mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonno234 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Jonno. Sure, a video source can be as useful as a print one, so long as it is still considered reliable (see this page for more information on what makes a source reliable). To cite a video, use the template {{Cite AV media}} to do so. I would set it up thusly: {{Cite AV media|people = DIRECTOR NAME (director)|year = YEAR|title = TITLE OF DOCUMENTARY|url = WEB ADDRESS (if availible online)}} That should probably be the minimum required; there are other parameters you can add if you know them, click the bluelink Cite AV media above for a description of all of the optional parameters for the citation template. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)}}

Hi Jonno234 - Take a look at {{Cite AV media}}, it or the related {{Cite serial}} and {{Cite episode}} are probably what you need. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, previously I was scared to cite documentaries as sources but now I will cite away! And sorry for not signing my comment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonno234 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Making a link from an image

I have .gif files which are icons of flags and I want to make the flag a link to, for example, the French version of my page. How do I do this? If I use as my image, then the link is to France and not to the link I want and I get a [1] as the link to my page using etc. Any ideas? GilesLow (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@GilesLow: I think you might find Template:Click useful. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Links as References?

I am totally new to Wikipedia and not 'savvy' to Wiki language so I am having trouble finding the right avenue to use to find answers to my questions . . . everytime I think I'm on the right page I never get there again! So . . . My article was rejected as 'notable' but in need of more references. Are 'links' considered to be references? How do I reference things that are just general 'local' knowledge? Csboes (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Csboes: don't worry, everybody here was new once. References need to be to sources published in reliable places: major newspapers, books from reputable publishers, websites with a reputation for checking facts. User-contributed sources such as forums, most blogs, and wikis (including Wikipedia) may not be used as references (wikilinks to appropriate articles that may help a reader understand the subject are welcome, but they are not references). Sources don't have to be online as long as a member of the public can in principle get hold of them (eg by ordering something at a public library). They don't have to be in English, though if there are English sources they are preferred. Sources closely connected with the subject (such as a person's or a company's own website) may be used only in limited ways. See reliable sources for more information, and Referencing for beginners for how to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Stub?

I alreadey read the stub page that tells you what a stub is but i don't know;what articals are considered too short and a stub?Keslerdo (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Keslerdo and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm going to make an attempt at an answer here. An article is too short if it does not have enough information to indicate why an article on the subject belongs here. It must show that the topic is notable and explain the topic's importance. Some types of information are automatically notable such as broadcast radio stations in the United States, while bands that play music have to meet a much higher standard, since everyone wants to add their garage band.

A stub is an article which is short but has the capability of being expanded by using independent reliable sources.—. Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.

How can i create a private Wikepedia Artical

I Have an idea for an artical that only I want to view, How can make it so? (Zucat) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.65.137 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can not do that but try your sandbox;your sandbox will let you experiment;but not make articals so you can't do that.Keslerdo (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Everything in Wikipedia may be seen by anybody. If you want to do something private, Wikipedia is probably not the place for it. If what you want to do is work on your own creating an article which will eventually be part of Wikipedia, then I encourage you to create an account, read my first article, and start working on your article in your user space or in draft space. By custom, people do not edit other people's drafts unless there is a serious problem like copyright; but anybody can see it if they happen to find it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to know

What kind of edits are wrong? Too insignificant or considered vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiImprovment78 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay,first of all sign all your posts with 4 ~.So no edits are considered too insignificant for articals;but for user pages ;No.So if you edit user pages with permisson from the user you can give it a whole makeover;but keep it theirs.If you are talking about articals do not post mean things in ramdom places in the articals;or user pages.Keslerdo (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WikiImprovment78. No edit is wrong if it is done with the intention of improving Wikipedia. Every edit is wrong if it is done with a different purpose. There is no limit of how big or small an edit can be. Having said that, if you make an edit, somebody may disagree with part or all of your edit, and undo it. That does not necessarily make it wrong, just that somebody else disagrees. Then you can have a discussion with that person and agree on what is best for the article in question. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Added Films Where Actor Was Not Credited

When editing the films of an actor, can I show a film where the actor was in the film but not credited? JeffEditTry (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JeffEditTry. Yes, you can mention uncredited performances, but you need to cite a high quality reliable source for each performance. Something more solid than IMDb. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Image is Everything

For this article, A Flock of Seagulls, which I have worked on, and some editors have helped me or tried to but I am a slow learner. Just wondering if this is legit: http://lyrics.wikia.com/File:A_Flock_Of_Seagulls_(band).JPG

If no I will try again. If no, please explain. I have read the Image Use Policy at least three times now. Thank you and good night. Cordially,Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jim! Probably not. Photographs of living, public personae, which are under copyright are usually not allowed at Wikipedia. That's because a properly licensed alternative could be created and uploaded by someone. That's the essence of the image use policy; as much as possible, images need to be released under the same license as the text at Wikipedia is, and exceptions are only allowed for situations where it would be literally impossible to create such an image, so we are forced to use one under the guise of fair use, and even then, the use is confined to as limited a use as possible (low resolution, only in articles it is directly related, limited usage, etc.) Since the members of the band are still alive, and still performing publicly, someone can still take a new picture of them and release it under the correct license, so pictures which are under copyright in such situations should still not be used. I hope this makes sense... --Jayron32 03:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jimsteele9999! If the photo satisfies each of the non-free content criteria, then I believe it's OK to use. I've noticed that you have already added the file to Wikipedia here, so I guess you can try to use it. It might be good idea to wait a little bit, however, to see whether it survives before immediately adding it to the article. It also might be a good idea to discuss it on the article's talk page just to get some feedback because it is certainly not something that would qualify as a minor edit. Although I agree that it would be nice if A Flock of Seagulls had a picture or two, I personally do not think that adding that photo will necessarily increase a reader's understanding of the article to such a degree that not having such a photo would be detrimental to that understanding. For what its worth, there is already an photo of Mike Score licensed through Wikipedia Commons that is being used on his article and the band's Spanish Wikipedia article. I actually think your photo is better, but just not sure if it's acceptable. The rational you're using is "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question", but you want to use it for the band's page and not for a specific album or compilation page—all of which, by the way, are already using other images. It might be a good idea to also ask at the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard for advice just to make sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jimsteele9999. In my opinion, there is no way that this photo complies with non-free image policy. The rationale you wrote claims that this rectangular black and white photo without text is the cover art for A Flock of Seagulls (album). Album covers are square and usually have text. This particular cover is already in the article, and is cartoonish and very colorful. It shows a room with yellow walls and a window looking out on a red sky. There is a blue TV. Your image rationales must be accurate and it seems this one isn't.

Non-free images must be used in one specified article. Those that aren't will be quickly deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Enhancing a Wikipedia article

Dear Wikipedian Editors

I recently looked up an article on Leonard Joseph Victor Compagno, who is possessed of a rare Italian surname. He is a world authority on shark-like fishes, a sort of shark Einstein or Shark king with Jewish blood on his mother's side, also French, and Greek on his father's side, as with Calabrezi Italians in general. Permit me to help you with his biography, if you like, as I have little time to struggle with the text editor and a lot of material to contribute. I am L.J.V. Compagno, and found the article to be excellent if limited! Keep up the good work! I wish I had the Wikipedia as a child in San Francisco, but I made do with physical libraries there. I still have an Encyclopedia Britannica that my mother bought me! I've been using computers since the 1960s. Best regards, Leonard PS. Can you do a Wikipedia article on the Afri-Oceans Conservation Alliance, and Ms. Lesley Rochat, the protagonist of the AOCA. PPS. I get between 84,000 and 400,000 ++ hits on my name, using the Google search engine. Yow!105.184.161.68 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Leonard. It is not recommended for people to edit their own biographies on Wikipedia. However, each article has a talk page, and if you know if a published article by a journalist or other established author who has written about you, your can mention this on the talk page along with a link if possible, and a request that the information be added to the article. Unfortunately, first-hand information that hasn't been previously published elsewhere can't be included. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Metric conversion puzzlement

I created a footnote showing metric conversions, per MoS Wikipedia:METRIC#Unit_conversions for conversions within a direct quotation, footnot #16 in the 5th paragraph of this section. Two issues I’d like some help with from other editors: first, conceptually “miles per gallon per ton” is not straightforward, so does that also need a footnote with examples in explanation? Second, the footnote seems a bit clunky to read. Does anyone have suggestions for simplifying this information? I've lost the plot a little trying to sort out how-much-info-is-really-needed vs. how-much-is-too-much? --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding your first question, what kind of example do you think is needed for "mile per gallon per ton"? It seams to me that examples and further explanations are not needed. What is needed in my opinion is to link it like this: "mile per gallon per ton" or ""mile per gallon per ton". That way, it becomes clear. If one is interested, he can click the link and learn more about these units. Regarding your second question, the footnote seams fine to me. It is very clear and simple. Helps understanding the issue. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Thanks for the feedback. I like the idea of wikilinking the rate variables. It’s the “per ton” piece added to the fuel rate that I’m thinking may cause confusion–that is, I wondered if a brief explanation on how towing weight affects fuel efficiency would be helpful. I guess I’m really asking, “What is the level of science/mathematics/engineering proficiency we assume for Wikipedia readers?” Anyway, here’s the kind of explanation I thought about adding in a footnote:

A tug’s fuel efficiency rate is reduced as the weight being towed increases. For example, if a tug has a fuel efficiency of 1200 miles per gallon per ton, it pulls one ton at a rate of 1200 miles per gallon, and

if it pulls two tons, its rate would be 600 miles per gallon (1200 mpg/ton divided by 2 tons);
if it pulls ten tons, its rate would be 120 miles per gallon (1200 mpg/ton divided by 10 tons).

What do you think? Too much?--Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no established consensus on such specific topics. I think you may add it to the article if you feel so, and you should discuss it with other editors on the article's talk page. Article talk page is the best place to discuss topics related specifically to the article. Or, you can write a whole new article "mile per gallon per ton" if you find reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hidden Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

I've created and edited the page 22Cans and it has been placed in the hidden category Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. I used the 'find' box to find every instance of "accessdate" within citations on the page, but all instances have an associated usage of "URL". What am I missing? Thanks!

Diraffe (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Diraffe: Hi Diraffe. This has been fixed by user:Lixxx235 in this diff. What happened was that you accidentally used a back slash ("\") instead of a pipe ("|") in one of the citations for the URL parameter, i.e., you had \url= instead of |url=. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Move

Please move Invictus Games (multi-sport event) to Invictus Games, it is far more notable-more views in under a month than the company had in one month, more Google results etc.. Also, the ask a question button here doesn't work, my question was lost. Thanks, 86.174.210.234 (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. I've moved the company article to Invictus Games (company) and requested deletion of Invictus Games so that the article on the sporting event can be moved there. Thanks for bringing this up! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Streamlining Teahouse Notification

Now I get talkbacks from the Teahouse on my talkpage, which generate a notification on my notification special page. Each of this talkbacks encourages me to remove a template, where I do not know exactly at which place this template is to be deleted. On all, for each talkback? Meanwhile, I am experienced enough to like to get rid of each single talkback, but I want to keep, at least until further notice, the notifications for them.

May I, please ask for a HowTo on this? Purgy (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Purgy, and welcome back to the Teahouse. When you ask a question on the Teahouse, and somebody answers it, a message is placed on your Talk page to let you know the answer is there. You have two such messages at the bottom of your Talk page currently; once I finish typing this message you should have a third. These messages are purely for your information, and if you don't need them you are free to edit your Talk page and remove them at any time. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

...which you can do by editing your talkpage and deleting the text at the bottom that reads:

== Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! ==

{{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|More on indenting... HTML|ts=[[User:MadScientistX11|MadScientistX11]] ([[User talk:MadScientistX11|talk]]) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)}}

== Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! ==

{{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|Target of ThankYou Notification|ts=[[User:John from Idegon|John from Idegon]] ([[User talk:John from Idegon|talk]]) 19:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)}}

I think that's what you were asking. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gronk Oz,Yunshui, sorry, you missunderstood my question. The situation as is, is transparent to me. I would like to change it, if possible, so that I do not receive any talkback on my talk page, but only a notification, which is now, so I assume, generated by receiving the talkback on my talk page. I am looking for the place of this template, I am encouraged to remove, which would stop receiving talkbacks, but generate notifications only.

BTW, how do you create this UserID {{U|Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy}} at the beginning of your reply? Thanks. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, a template is a page that's copied onto another page using double curly brackets - in other words, when the Teahouse message says you can remove the template, it means you can remove the message created by the code inside the {{}} (and attendant headers, signatures etc., see my message above). The notification you get is caused by the template being added to your talkpage, and as this is done with an automated script, I don't think there's a way of preventing it. You could ask Writ Keeper, since he designed the original script; there might be a way to disable it for your talkpage.

Oh, and the user ID was also created using a template - {{u}}. If you remove the <nowiki> tags around it in your message above, it will display in the same way as in Gronk's message. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yunshui, just now I am totally entangled, since neither your (2x) nor Gronk Oz's talkbacks appear on my talk page. Regarding this user template, must I assume that you type in that whole content U|Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy? or is there a short cut. Thanks Purgy (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That's because I didn't send you one - I figured you'd be watching this page. I'll send one for this message, just so as you can see it in action.

The way the user template works is as follows: The brackets {{}} tell Wikipedia's software to look at the template mentioned and copy the content of the template page onto this page (or wherever you've put the brackets). The U or User tells the software which template page to look at. There are also some additional parameters, separated by pipes |; for this template, they are the username to link to (Purgy Purgatorio) and instructions on how to display the link (Purgy). You might find this essay helpful in explaining a bit more about templates. In answer to your question, then, yes, you need to type the whole code, although you can leave out the display instructions and just have it display your full username. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Purgy - sorry about the confusion. There are a couple of different topics here, so let me tackle them one by one:

Firstly, I am not sure but I think the Teahouse only sends a notification for the FIRST reply to each question. I know this contradicts what I said before, and there is a good reason for that: I was wrong.
The way I created the UserID {{U|Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy}} at the beginning of my reply was nothing fancy; I just typed it. Sorry if you were hoping for something clever; I don't do clever on Fridays.
Finally, and I think this might be what you actually wanted, if you click on "Preferences" near the top right of any Wikipedia page, then select the "Notifications" tab, it will allow you to make extensive changes to what notifications are sent to you.

I hope that helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all! Sorry for being a blockhead, but I do not get, why I received no teahouse talkback from Gronk Oz, although he was the first to answer, and how and where the intended talkback of Yunshui was originated. Is it something that only you as a host see?

I roughly get what a template is, but really, I expected something fancy&clever, comparing U| with User: and curlies with brackets. I thought of auto-fill-in as a reply, or such.

The preferences do not appear suffiently deep to me, and extensive? no, not to my needs (restricting teahouse templates to send only notifications).

Final one: Is it meaningful to bother Writ Keeper with the OP, or is Teahouse anyway only for firstly beginning absolute newbies?

Thanks in advance. Purgy (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Might be easier to explain it like this: When you sign up as a Teahouse Host, you get access to a small family of scripts (coded by Writ Keeper) which does a couple of things. Firstly, it adds an extra link to users' signatures on this page, a little "TB" button that, when pushed, adds the Teahouse Talkback template to that user's talkpage. We have to actually click on that link to send the message; it doesn't happen automatically, which is why you'll get talkbacks for some responses but not others.

The second thing the script does is pop-up a REALLY ANNOYING (you listening, Writ?) message whenever we save the page, reminding us to press the talkback button... which is why you'll get a talkback for most responses.

And hey, kudos for using the {{u}} template correctly in your last reply! Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That annoyance is a feature, not a bug. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

But seriously, the deal here is quite simply that I coded these scripts long before the notifications existed. Back then, thr only way to notify someone of something was by posting something to their talk page, which would cause something affectionately called the Orange Bar Of Doom to appear at the top of their screen. The Special:Notifications way of doing things didn't get implemented until a year or two after that. Now that that's a thing, though, we can actually generate notifications simply by including a wikilink to one's userpage. So, when I link to your userpage (like this: User:Purgy Purgatorio), you'll get a notification. Similarly, I can link to User:Yunshui, and Yunshui will get a notification too. The {{U}} template that Yunshui is talking about is simply a shorthand way of creating a link to a userpage, but because that's what it does, it can also be used as a shorthand for sending someone a notification. Now, there are some subtleties to notifications that I'm glossing over, and unfortunately, those subtleties make it more difficult to code notifications into a script than one might think. But I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with something. And yes, it is meaningful to loop me into things; I like scripting things, especially when it's helping out other people or the Teahouse. It's not a bother at all. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I never knew that was how the messages got into my Talk page when I asked a question here - thanks for the explanation, Yunshui. I learned something, so I can go home for the day now! --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all! Yunshui, sorry for you being annoyed :) anytime when supplying me with your friendly information, and no kudos appropriate just for omitting a parameter. Thanks for the hosting secrets.

Gronk Oz, have a clever weekend and thanks, too. :D Writ Keeper, I feel honored, that you chimed in and added valueable information for me. I have simply no experience, but having a script that automatically fills in the last user-id into the {{U}} template would simplify replies, imho, selecting under the last, say, five, would make it almost perfect in my imagination. Forget it, but real thanks. Purgy (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Purgy Purgatorio: Actually, that's pretty close to what I was thinking of: I was thinking of running something to extract all of the links to userpages/user talk pages in the section you're currently editing--which should catch most people commenting in threads, since nearly all signatures will contain one or the other--and then giving you a dropdown menu to choose who to ping and a button to insert a ping for you. (And the honor is mine. :) ) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, what else! Ohh nooo, that's coffee, not tea. ;) Purgy (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I know the notifications aren't automatic. Sometimes I check to see if someone has received one and if not I add one. Usually this is only if I add something to responses already here, or if I am the only one to respond. I'm not a host since I'm hardly ever here and don't know that much, but I do answer questions that haven't been answered if there happen to be any when I read, or add something if I feel something was left out.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, I suggest to, at least, add the user template of the OP, like I did with yours. I noticed your valueable comment by chance only. Purgy (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Purgy Purgatorio I'll try to remember. I usually notify the person. I thought of why some people don't get notified. If Sinebot has to sign for the person, the notification might not happen.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee:I would have been sad to have missed these cursory comments of yours. Thank you! Purgy (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How to nest bold and italic?

Starting with bold+italic, continuing with italic and ending with bold+italic ended in bold +italic for everything and " ' " twice in between. Thanks. Purgy (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Purgy, welcome to the teahouse. I think this is right:

'''''starting with bold plus italic,''''' a ' here, ''continuing with italic'', a ' here, and '''''ending with bold plus italic'''''

produces this:

starting with bold plus italic, a ' here, continuing with italic, a ' here, and ending with bold plus italic

Let us know if this needs to be slightly different. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping, sorry, you missed the specs a bit, you included non-bold-non-italic text in your example. Problem is still unsolved. Purgy (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm let's see.

'''''starting with bold plus italic,'''''''continuing' with italic'''''''ending with bold plus italic'''''

does not work because it produces:

starting with bold plus italic,''continuing' with italic''ending with bold plus italic.

Someone else please solve this conundrum? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The wikitext parser is terrible, and there are probably some problems when you try to do it. Just bail out if it gets confusing.

Starting with bold+italic, continuing with italic throwing in some random 's and ending with bold+italic' again. produces

Starting with bold+italic, continuing with italic throwing in some random 's and ending with bold+italic' again. (when in doubt, bail). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Purgy Purgatorio: Just use the template {{'}} by placing doubled curly braces around any apostrophes that are being used as apostrophes and not as markup. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:, YES, Fuhghettaboutit is the true solution. Thanks. :D

@Martijn Hoekstra:, I am only afraid you'd soon get extinct due to the HTML-hunters round this place. ;) Thanks. Purgy (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I'll let them worry about them. HTML isn't worlds cleanest language, but it's definitely cleaner than WikiText. It's reasonable to prefer to have everything in wikitext, but once you have to use transclusion magic to include an ', at that point consistency might just be less important than clarity. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Promo tone flagged twice by zealous editor

When editors change as in delete a section of an existing wiki article that states a fact how is the considered promotional? Also if it's flagged as promotional the editor should be helpful not just state wiki nomenclature and expect newbies to contribute. Why can't I chat with anyone live? SiliconvalleygirlSF 09:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC) SiliconvalleygirlSF 08:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiliconvalleygirlSF (talk • contribs)

Your edit here [1] added promotional material, including a commercial link and a blog. It was correctly removed by user DAJF. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello SiliconvalleygirlSF. There is a way to chat. You can read about it at WP:IRC. Most of the communication on Wikipedia is on these talk pages, though. They are a little awkward, yes, and replies take time, but Wikipedia editors are all over the world, and a particular one may be asleep or away from his or her computer when you are editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. How can I get the Uwadvert2 off my account? SiliconvalleygirlSF 00:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiliconvalleygirlSF (talk • contribs)

Hi @SiliconvalleygirlSF: You are free to remove discussions from your own talk page, though archiving is preferred. Note that the message DAJF left for you is simply informative, and nothing more. The message is not "linked" to your account in the way other websites might link official "warnings" to an account, and removing it will not remove the records of the discussion from the talk page's history. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Big thanks to superhamster and Anne Delong Got my signature working! Yay!

SiliconvalleygirlSF (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing Conflicts in Teahouse

Please, how often do these editing conflicts happen? I'm already considering to use my own scratchpad, because of being afraid to overlook the conflict message.

This message should be more flashy, imho. Purgy (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Purgy. The frequency of edit conflicts is related directly to the editing volume of the page. So, if you try to edit an article about a major plane crash 12 hours after the news broke, you may run across an edit conflict almost all the time. When making your first edit to an article about an obscure 19th century politician, an edit conflict would be a big surprise. The Teahouse is pretty much in the middle. I run across edit conflicts when there is an interesting discussion in progress. I back up and copy and paste my text into a fresh edit window, and it usually goes through.

Drafting new content in a scratch pad is probably a good idea when working on a hot article or discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

And I just got hit by an editing conflict! :) Hello again Purgy, the frequency of editing conflicts depend on the number of editors engaged in a discussion and how eager they are to respond. So, hot topic: lots of editing conflicts. And "in my humble opinion", please do not use text or lol abbreviations here since not all users know what they mean, they are flashy enough. Once you get used to the Wikipedia, you learn to read the more subtle nuances of the site, and then you are grateful that they are not too flashy. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when you see the edit conflict message, the text that you wrote doesn't disappear (that would be quite annoying if you spent some time typing out a response). The point of the screen is to give you a chance to deal with the edit conflict. The software will give you two text boxes at the edit conflict screen: an editable text box at the top of the screen that gives you the text of the edit that caused the edit conflict (i.e. the most current revision and the one without the content you submitted), and at the bottom of the screen, a read-only text box that displays the text that you submitted. You can copy-and-paste the content from the lower text box to the upper one, making adjustments as necessary, to save you the trouble of having to use a scratchpad. See Help:Edit conflict for a more intuitive explanation on how to deal with edit conflicts. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

With regards to overlooking the message, my advice would be to wait and verify that the page saves your content successfully before moving on. If you press "Save page" and the page doesn't reload with your submitted content, then you may have to deal with an edit conflict. Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all, thank you for your info, especially the hint to the hotness made things more obvious to me. What a hot tea in this house! :)

@W.carter:, I allow myself to double disagree to your opinion:

firstly, in the light of that many Wikipedia abbrevations, I have the PPOV that LOL-ing should be allowed under all circumstances, ROFL-ing might be deprecated, RTFM contains a rude word, but I do not find IMHO needing expansion, imho. :) I do not know, if it is sensible, to start a discussion on this, given this here situation.

secondly, I am rather convinced, that only because I'm new to this here environment and therefore still cautious, I noticed the additional block of text next to the flashy teahouse ad. Honestly, the painstakingly check on a "chat" page like teahouse, which Mz7 suggests, is not a standard procedure in my behavior.

Thank you all again. Purgy (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Purgy, then we have to agree to disagree. And you certainly proved your point by using even more abbreviations that usual in your post, excluding many users from this discussion.:) Even if the Teahouse may seem like a cozy little "chat page" where you talk to two or three editors, it is actually visited and read by about 500 users daily, many of them not native English speakers and a Teahouse is a place where you should be courteous to all guests. Even though I am familiar with many expressions in the English language, I had to look this one up before answering your post. And since this is an encyclopedia, clarity is a prime directive. A more relaxed language can be used on user talk pages, but preferably not here. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted with few references?

i submitted an article that was rejected . . . 'noteworthy' but needs more references. I'm now working diligently on the article. To help me out, I looked at similar subject articles (Fripp Island; South Carolina Lowcountry; East Tyrol) and noticed they have been published with only 0 to 2 references.

My questions are: How can one be accepted while another is rejected? My article is more extensive than the ones listed above and had more references. Can I submit only a portion of my article for publication and then add/edit it as I gather proper references for additional sub-topics? I've added quite a number of references to portions of my 'noteworthy' article. Should I submit it now? How often/ how many times can I submit it?

It's a lot of questions, but I think I can really get into this. I have an idea for two more articles and would like to donate my time to a local Ecological Organization but want to know what I'm doing before speaking up.

Thanks for your answers and your time. Csboes (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, first off, the submission and review process that your article is going through has not always been commonplace. Many of the articles you found were probably written before that time, and might not be accepted today. Second, it's perfectly fine to trim down your article now, and then add more information later once you have the sources. And third, there's no limit to the number of times you can submit a draft. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Csboes: Hi Csboes. The fact that other pages exist and have been accepted/not deleted/not tagged for maintenance and so on and appear similar to this one is irrelevant and has no precedential value. For any problem you encounter in an article and which which goes against our policies and guidelines, you will see many other articles with the same problem, not yet addressed. This occurs because of the highly decentralized way in which content is added and reviewed. Please see by way of analogy What about article x? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of page was reviewed by user

May I, please, ask for a most precise specification (or a link to such) of this notion reviewing a page.

My phantasy is overwhelming on points to research, information to spread, suspicions to delve in, ... My questions also belongs to the range of a review of a page. Is it only this page, all pages the author edited, touched, read as logged in, ...

I do not protest, I only want to know. Thanks. Purgy (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Purgy, this is most likely to be a check of one specific page that the editor has created, and the check has merely confirmed that the page created is not a serious problem like a copyright violation or attack page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping, sorry again, you missed the specs most precise again. This is by far not the requested amount of precision. Sorry. Purgy (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Purgy. Many things on Wikipedia do not have precise definitions. I do not see the answer to your question anywhere on WP:review, which I think is the most likely place for it. Therefore I suspect that there is currently no answer, though I may be wrong. You are welcome to try and create a specification: perhaps starting a discussion on WT:Peer review would be appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this may more likely be related to Wikipedia:New page patrol or related practices, but that page may not be as precise as desired either. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Purgy. It is difficult to be specific without knowing which page you are talking about. But every time it has happened to me personally, it has been explained here: Template:Whydidyoudothat. I hope that goes some way towards explaining; if you need to know about a specific incident then I can only suggest you contact the editor who reviewed it and ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all! I still think this a matter, that should not go that lightheartedly, nobody knowing what's really going on with this. But in the light of my steadily growing -ahem- experience, I decided to take it as a compliment. and just say thanks. Purgy (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Purgy, I am sorry if you got the impression that we were not giving your question the weight it deserves. The problem is that the word "review" is a very general term - there are many different types of reviews, performed by different people for different reasons. Some use quite specific standards, others only have general guidelines. For example, when an editor creates a new article via the "articles for creation" process there is a process to have an experienced editor review to make sure it meets the standard policies and guidelines for what makes an acceptable article, as described in the process at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions. On the other hand, when an article is nominated as a Good article there is a separate review process to make sure it meets the much higher standard there. So in order to give you a more specific answer, we will need to know the details of what review you are concerned about. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all, please do not assume that I would I assume my questions deserving any weight, especially considering my still most innocent newbie state, in fact, I am just a pedantic nitpicker, trying to learn the local habits not by imitating, but by understanding them. So I intentionally did not mention the page having been reviewed, because I did not want to point to it, and also did not want to generate an allusion of critique on reviewing. Gronk Oz, ColinFine, Arthur goes shopping, thanks for the links. Purgy (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to insert photo of an Article

Hi, the Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beita,_Nablu, is Missing photos and I want to give you one Therunfire (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Therunfire! To upload an image to Wikipedia it must be either in the Public Domain or your own work. If your image is either one of those, you can upload an image to Wikimedia here or directly to Wikipedia here. If you are unsure of the copyright of your image, stay on the safe side and don't upload it. Once you've uploaded your image, you can place it in the article wherever you see fit. Thanks, Dathus (Talk | Contribs) 13:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusion about adding external links

I am a bit confused after trying to edit this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_advocacy#Copenhagenization

I wanted to add relevant supporting links but have run into a battle with another user. I wanted to link to a TED talk by one of the individuals mentioned under Bicycle Advocates - Mikael Colville-Andersen - but another user keeps undoing it, even though allowing a link to a talk by another one of the people mentioned.

I also thought it relevant to add the appropriate credit to the poster on the right, but the same user keeps undoing that, too, calling it "promotional". It is merely crediting the copyright holder, which is just polite, as well as what the source site asks us to do.

It is a bit frustrating to battle with some other user on a simple issue.

What do you all think about the situation?

Thanks so much for your time. Elle.

Luielle (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what is happening here. Your first edits to that article were to add the text "Mikael Colville-Andersen's company Copenhagenize Design Company has also been instrumental in broadening the acceptance of the word." which is promotional as well as a photo credit even though photo credits are listed on the file pages. This was after making this giant edit to Mikael Colville-Andersen which was filled with puffery like "Colville-Andersen has been instrumental in orchestrating the global bicycle boom" and "He is a sought-after keynote speaker". In short, all of your edits thus far have been to promote Mikael Colville-Andersen. Helpsome (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the person in question. I'm looking forward to a second opinion. Luielle (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said otherwise. I was giving a more thorough overview of the situation. It is bigger than you simply trying to add one link and me disagreeing. Helpsome (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Luielle and Helpsome. It would be useful if you could discuss this on the article talk page, politely, and if you can't reach agreement, we will advise who can help resolve the issue. Other editors may also help you with the discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC).