Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 103

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

I am trying to find a place

To ask some question a little less related to wikipedia. Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Miss Bono - always happy to see you here. See Help:Contents/Directory#Interactive assistance (help forums).Moxy (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Moxy... and I am alwys happy to hear from you. Thanks for the help. i aready asked my question at the Misc. section. ;) Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

hey ya!

i was wondering... if I take a picture and modify it, will it work for upload it to Wikipedia??? Will it lose all its rights?? Miss Bono (zootalk) 14:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer is almost definitely not. You need to give us more information. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i have a pict (it looks like a shot from a normal person, not the press or a professional photographer) can i modify it (for a userbox) and upload it?? just wondering. Miss Bono (zootalk) 14:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If the picture was taken by somebody else, they hold the copyrights for that image (in most cases anyway) regardless of whether it was taken by a professional photographer/quality of the image etc. Modifying it doesn't transfer the rights of that image to you. See Commons:Derivative works for details. Chamal ^T•C 14:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your language is unclear. If you took the picture yourself, then you will normally own the copyright, and you are free to modify it, and (providing you make the appropriate declaration when you upload it) you can use it in Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project. But if you mean that you have found a picture somewhere, then you will not own the copyright and you may not upload it whether or not you have modified it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry... Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be sorry Miss Bono. Copyright is a very tricky thing. A little friendliness, patience, and understanding and everyone can understand how copyright and photographs work more :) It sounds like, if you found the photo someplace else (i.e.a cool photo of Bono you found on a fan website, or a photo your cousin took even), you'd have to get a written statement from the copyright holder and mail it to our volunteer customer service team proving that they allow you to free the image into the world of open licensing and upload it to Commons/Wikipedia. However, it's often tough to get that permission, so it's best to use your own images, or images that are freely licensed (giving proper attribution.). You can read more about examples of free licensing here. I hope that helps a bit! :) SarahStierch (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It sure helped! Thanks a lot. i wish my cousin could take a pict of Bono ;)...I really wish waaa :'( Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarah is right, Miss Bono. Image copyrights is one of the most complex areas on Wikipedia, and even among admins there are very few brave enough to deal with image copyright issues (and I'm sorry to say I'm not one of them)

You learnt something new and avoided a mistake, so there's nothing to be sorry about. Chamal ^T•C 15:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I made an image by myself to fill the image field for the userbox. Take a look to see if I made the right thing: File:U2_by_u2_book.png Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Miss Bono, I've found that it is often easier if you can get in touch with whomever took the photo to get them to upload it to commons and release it for everyone to use than it is to get written permission and make all of the appropriate arraignments of mailing stuff in and what not to prove permission to use. This is especially true if you know the person personally (like your cousin), sit down with them and help them upload it! Technical 13 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you made that image yourself, as you say, then you are the original copyright owner, and you are entitled to release it into the public domain, and that is fine. You do realise that "Proud of own it" is not grammatical English? Your earlier version "Proud to own it" is. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As you may know (if you don't well, I am telling it to you now :D) English is not my first language and I made some grammatical mistake but I corrected as soon as I was aware of it. Thanks a lot. Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Miss B, do you want it reverting back to the last version which say "Proud to own it"? NtheP (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

yep, it would help but I've heard that at the moment, the 200px version shows the second version/second upload of the file. And that it will be updated automatically by a bot within the next 24/36 hours. I am just waiting Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the image should update at some point. NtheP (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Nthep. Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ummm... Bot's don't update images generally speaking. You "may" need to clear your cache to see the current version of the file. Technical 13 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ohh, I see. Thnx... I'll work on that. But I see now a ne version of the image... Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the old versions and a purge of the page now shows the correct "Proud to own it" version. Previously even a purge wasn't showing the correct version. NtheP (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks again Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit link

It seems I have made some (settings) changes recently, and the "edit" link is right beside section header (not at the corner_. I can't figure out what changes I made! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tito, I think the Wikimedia (or whoever runs and owns Wikipedia) set the thing like this. I haven't changed any settings in a while, but today I log in I also see the [edit] button right beside the section header. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo 06:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay, here is a screenshot --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Same here. Arctic Kangaroo 07:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to put it back as it was, put

span.mw-editsection { float:right; }

into your /common.css file. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Worked perfect! Also meta:Change to section edit links --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that link Titodutta, I was curious too. I thought it use to be a gadget that did that, but apparently not. Perhaps one should be made? Gadgets can be simple css code too. Technical 13 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

my entire screen no longer looks like Wikipedia, what should I do?sincerly, zeroro 14:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What are the problems you're having, Zeroro? It could be due the recent UI changes, or it could be a problem on your end. We'll probably be able to help you better if you can tell us the details. Chamal ^T•C 14:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

nevermind it just took a while for that to take effectsincerly, zeroro 14:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do?

I have edited the Infobox of this page but it is not appearing in after the edit. What's wrong?Zince34 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zince, welcome to the Teahouse! I just checked the infobox on that page, and I don't find anything wrong. Happy editing!

Arctic Kangaroo 06:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Artic, and did you click edit, go to the edit page and see column 5, i.e test cricket?Zince34 (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the documentation of Template:Infobox cricketer. Perhaps you want to check that everything is fine? Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo 07:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

But the article remains the same!Zince34 (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Zince, but I'm not very good at handling this sort of tech or code. Perhaps, someone else who passes by your question may know better. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo 07:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've understood the problem. Thanks for the help!Zince34 (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this resolved? The discussion is unclear. If not, I'd be happy to take a peek... Technical 13 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is resolved.Only four columns are allowed and I wrote on the fifth column!. Zince34 (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

New Article Page Needs YOUR Help!

I was researching Google Glass when I came across another form of a wearable computer called Epiphany Eyewear. I had two paragraphs written when "Reddogsix" came on the page and added a "Speedy Deletion" notice.

Can someone please help me do some work on this page so it does not get deleted? If Google Glass is OK for Wikipedia, then other forms of wearable computers should also be OK.

There's tons of data available for Epiphany Eyewear. But I'm just one person trying to make this page. If you have an interest in the wearable computer topic, please help. Or, tell me what I am doing wrong here. I'm fairly new.

Thanks for your help and consideration. 301man (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 301man. The problem with the current version of the article is that it is referenced to company websites, which are not independent and don't show notability; and to a university student newspaper promoting the venture of an alumni. The Google product, on the other hand, has been discussed in many independent, reliable sources. So please read and understand WP:RS and demonstrate the notability of the product with high quality, independent sources. Here is a possible source. Feel free to ask further questions, and thank you for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, if you're confident that, given enough time, you can write an article about Epiphany Eyewear that meets WP:42, then you should give WP:AFC a try. By creating a draft article there, it can't be speedily deleted, so long as it isn't (for example) a WP:COPYPASTE copyright violation. (Of course, if it turns out that the current article doesn't get speedily deleted, then there's no need to take this route.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much for your comments and direction. The page was completely deleted. I spent hours of research and didn't keep a copy to even see what I did. Woke up today and it was vanished! Sad. Not fair. Wish I could see what it looked like one more time! I will start it again using your suggestions, just don't know when I'll be able to do it. Thanks again for your help. 301man (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello there 301man... pls see Why was the page I created deleted? an essay about the reasons why it may have been deleted. It also has a section that explains the "several" options available for you to gain a copy of the work (page).Moxy (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ALL for your feedback. Seems like I'm spending more time being hammered by two people (Eeekster and JamesBWatson) than helped. I'd rather spend time researching and improving things. I'm very confused and frustrated. If any of you will help me keep a page I'm working on Erick Miller to NOT be deleted, that would be great! I bumped into Miller a few times in California and I believe he's onto some world changing technology. Your help is appreciated. Thank you 301man (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse 301man! I want you to be aware that just because your article was deleted, does not mean it is gone. Quite often in the case of an article being deleted that was still in "draft stages" if the article is not a blatant copyright violation, you can leave a message on the deleting administrator's talk page explaining the situation and request that they WP:USERFY the article to your userspace and you can place the {{Userspace draft}} tag at the top of the page or you can request that it be undeleted to, in this case, WT:Articles for creation/Epiphany Eyewear and add the {{subst:AFC submission|T}} tag at the top of the page, for further development as a draft. I hope this helps and alleviates some of your concerns of hours of work "lost". You may want to read up on WP:Writing your first article and you may want to use the Article Creation Wizard. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How to not repeat a source 6x

I need to source a simple bullet-pointed list of 6 awards received that I have added to an article. They were all listed on the subject's official web page in a similar list, so the source for them all is that single web page. Obviously I don't want *citation clutter* going on with the footnote repeating itself in the References section 6x. But I can't seem to find anything that tells you how to condense that (you know, how some articles have 5 a, b, c etc going on when a source is used more than once). Is there a template for that? A snippet of code to add to the regular code? Would it be acceptable to just add the citation to the very last award on the list? Or would I be better off using a semi-colon riddled paragraph instead of the list? TYVM in advance. ScarletRibbons (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, ScarletRibbons! I remember being quite confused by that as well at first. Instead of opening with <ref>, you would open the citation with <ref name="something short to call it">. For example, if it were a book by Peter Laufer, I would probably put <ref name="Laufer">. Then, for all of the following times you use that reference, instead of putting the whole citation, you would put <ref name="what you called it" />. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

TYVM for the fast service :-D Just to make sure I'm clear, the quotation marks are necessary, yes? ScarletRibbons (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not strictly speaking, if there is no space in the name they are not required.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the usual style for that specific kind of thing is to introduce the list with a clause, and then cite that, like this, vaguely...my list contains the following:^[1]

this little thing,
this little thing,
and of course, this one.

That's what I think I see the most. Or, if you're using multiple pages from the same source, you can just use one named reference, repeat it like Brambleberry said, and then use TEMPLATE:RP to make something like this...^[a]^: 1

Revent (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that *clause* idea is excellent! And TYVM for the template link as well, I *think* I've got it now! Sorry for the delay in response, I've been off looking for sources for this article, which has hardly any & has been flagged for it, so I'm pretty much giving it a rewrite to correspond with the plethora of them I've unearthed. Y'all are SO helpful here! :-D ScarletRibbons (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Cannes Film Festival Red Carpet Walk Free image

Can anyone suggest any site which offers free image of Cannes Film Festival Red Carpet Walk? I need one of Paoli Dam's red carpet walk in 2011. --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tito, do any of the files at this Commons search appeal to you? —teb728 t c 06:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Searched there! No! I need Paoli Dams 2011 red carpet walk! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's rather unlikely that you'll just come across a free image of a red carpet event on the internet, since most professional photographers don't like to release copyrights for their work. Most such images here/at Commons are taken with explicit permission from a photographer or from Flickr (where such photographs are sometimes released under a CC license compatible with our policies) but a quick search didn't reveal anything like that for Paoli Dam. Your best bet would be to find a photograph, and then ask the photographer for permission to use it on Wikipedia through WP:OTRS. Chamal ^T•C 06:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep the "requesting permission" as the last option, I have had a terrible experiences there. I have just posted a suggestion --Tito Dutta (contact) 08:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You want to verify this, as I'm not actually rereading the policies to see exactly how are stated as I write this, but you should be able to search for a 'web' copy of the television coverage. Then, extract (or ask someone else to) the still image that you want. Crop the image and reduce the resolution to an appropriate size. At this point, your use of the television still is 'fair use' (she was an incidental part of their coverage that you are illustrating), and the actual image itself is a creative 'derived work' that you own copyright in. You can then put it under the Creative Commons License. Essential to all this is that you maintain attribution for the 'original' still. Revent (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'creative' part is your choice of exactly how to reformat the image for this context, btw. Revent (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that won't work. Cropping a television still may be "fair use" in some contexts, but we don't permit it here... unless, perhaps, the article in question is specifically about Paoli Dam's appearance at Cannes in 2011. Our requirements are more stringent than simply "is it legal"? Powers ^T 01:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, as 'mere illustration' it totally fails #8. Glad I 'qualified' what I said. Revent (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with my signature?

Hi. I recently switched from my default signature on Wikipedia to a more complex one, which involves multiple types of formatting. However, when attempting to save the new signature (under Special:Preferences), the messages " • There are problems with some of your input" (at the top of the page) and "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." (to the right of the box for inputting the signature) were displayed. I made sure that the box was checked below to treat the signature as wiki markup. I do not know what is causing the signature to fail, as it displays properly when it is manually placed onto talk pages. This is the exact text of the signature:
<big>|</big>[[User:JPæst|J]][[Special:Contributions/JPaestpreornJeolhlna|~]][[User talk:JPæst|Pæst]]<big>|</big>
Which displays as:
|J ~Pæst|
Could someone tell me what is wrong with this signature and how it should be changed? Thanks. — |J ~Pæst| 01:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would love to help you with this! I have a couple questions first. Why is the username attached to your Special:Contributions different than the one that your User: and User_talk: link to? Are you aware that the font element is deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, invalid in HTML 4.0 Strict, and not part of HTML5? I'm assuming your signature "should" be:

<span style="text-decoration: overline underline;"><big>|</big>[[User:JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #00FF0F;">J</span>]][[Special:Contributions/JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #0FF;">~</span>]][[User talk:JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #00F;">Pæst</span>]]<big>|</big></span>

which will look like |J ~Pæst| and if that doesn't fix it, I'm wondering if your non-latin character is causing an issue... Technical 13 (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Technical 13. To answer your first question, I used the shorter name ("JPæst") merely to shorten the signature so that it would fit within the allotted space for the signature's markup. "User:JPæst" is a redirect to User:JPaestpreornJeolhlna, and "User talk:JPæst" is a redirect to User talk:JPaestpreornJeolhlna as well. Also, I was not aware that the font elements are deprecated; thank you for pointing that out! As for the non-ASCII character, "æ", I am almost completely certain that it is not the problem. When I tried replacing the character with "ae", for example, the same messages were displayed—instead of saving the signature. Unfortunately, the new signature you provided does not work either, even without the "æ" character. Do you know what might be causing this? — |J ~Pæst| 02:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the length of your signature is the issue here. The entire code for the signature can't be more than 255 characters, and the signature text box in your preferences automatically truncates the code at that length IIRC. I'm guessing that since part of the code would go missing in this case, it would of course be invalid HTML. Chamal ^T•C 02:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Your original signature is accepted if the font color is in quotation marks and it stays within the 255-character limit. The signature suggested by Technical breaks the limit and is truncated, leaving it misformatted. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Why do the font colors need to be located within quotation marks, even though the code does not require it? — |J ~Pæst| 03:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the details of when quotation marks around attributes are optional or mandatory in HTML (in XHTML they are mandatory). Browsers are forgiving about many things. I simply tested your signature to see what was required there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Even

<u><span style="text-decoration: overline;"><big>|</big>[[User:JPæst|<span style="color: #3F3;">J</span>]][[Special:Contributions/JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #0FF;">~</span>]][[User talk:JPæst|Pæst]]<big>|</big></span></u>

is 235 characters and should work... I removed your #0000FF because it is so close to the default link color Technical 13 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay... So, yeah... Scripts and bots don't follow redirects, so your user talk shouldn't be a redirect... Luckily,

<u><span style="text-decoration: overline;"><big>|</big>[[User:JPæst|<span style="color: #3F3;">J</span>]][[Special:Contributions/JPaestpreornJeolhlna|<span style="color: #0FF;">~</span>]][[User talk:JPaestpreornJeolhlna|Pæst]]<big>|</big></span></u>

is 250 characters and "just" within limits. This will make scripts (like the one I used for your talk-back) and bots actually post to your active talk page and not the redirect page. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! I'll definitely use these ideas—I greatly appreciate them. ☺ — |J ~Pæst| 04:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this blog OK?

Hi, I am currently writing an article about butterflies. I have long known about this blog and I find it quite reliable and the info is accurate and written with reference to notable, scientific books. As I know Wikipedia finds blogs unreliable sources, I just want to ask if this blog will be considered reliable if I use it as a source in my article. Thanks. :) Arctic Kangaroo 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Indded! That's an excellent blog! It is unfortunate that they are not using a custom domain! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Like you said this looks like a special case, although personally my approach would be to try and find the original sources which those blog articles reference. That said, I think Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be a better place for this question, as the editors there would probably be the Wikipedia experts on sources. Chamal ^T•C 16:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

While blogs are generally non-RS, some are deemed as exceptions... E.g. "Official" blogs ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a fun blog, and I will probably subscribe. However, this is by two anonymous writers without citations; there is no way to know how accurate the information is. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, I have some of those books. Pretty reliable, actually. And, I also know some of those people. Arctic Kangaroo 15:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the blog list their names? I spent some time searching and could not find them. Can you post a link? Do they have any credentials or documented experience, publications? -65.129.159.247 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to use the actual books they get the information from as references yourself, since you have them. It's more useful for readers, or future editors who want to elaborate on the article. Also, it's a more authoritative source, if for nothing else than the fact the blog could have typos, etc.

Since they give sources, it'd really only appropriate to use the blog as as source for the statement 'this blog says that', unless you've personally tracked down each of their cites, and then citing the blog would be redundant.

Sources don't need to be available online. The requirement is that sufficient citation exists that an interested person can properly identify the reference and verify the cite.

You can still point readers to the blog, and inform them of your use of it, as a 'general reference' instead of an actual citation.

~~Revent (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, he's a 'topical expert'. I read the 'blog' part and thought it was just a well researched 'anonymous amateur' site. It just needs to be clear that it's 'his' site (i.e. that the authors are specifically named in the citation. Revent (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply IP: Everything's here. And BTW, that "Commander" is the person mentioned in the link, and Horace is a early stages expert in tthe group.

Looking around more, I think what you should do is use ButterflyCircle in the "publisher" field of your citation, and make it a link to this page. Normally you wouldn't use an external link there, but I think it's ok here in order to establish the blog as a 'reliable source'. Revent (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Corrections of bad punctuation reverted

Hello all. Since having joined not long ago I've been adding commas to articles where they have been missing. These are commas that are required to set off non-restrictive appositives. Here are some examples:

London, England, is the largest city in Britain

Charles, Prince of Wales, is a member of the British monarchy

She was a student at Magdalen College, Oxford, for five years

I'm on holiday from June 1, 2013, onwards

There are many occasions on Wikipedia where the second comma isn't present, and thus the sentence is ungrammatical. A lack of commas where they are required also distorts the meaning of the sentence. The second commas aren't optional. They must be present for the sentence to make sense.

Some such corrections I've made recently were reverted and challenged. Two editors both thought I was adding serial commas. One editor thought it looked like there were too many commas. This is where some people get confused. I'll demomstrate with some lists.

The first sentence below contains a serial comma, the second doesn't. The serial comma is, of course, optional. It's not required for most sentences to make sense. (In some cases it helps but let's not get into that now; let's not complicate things.)

He was educated at Eton College, Rugby School, and Magdalen College, Oxford.

He was educated at Eton College, Rugby School and Magdalen College, Oxford.

Now let's say that our fictional student, he, whoever he is, didn't go to Eton at all but instead continued his studies at the Sorbonne.

He was educated at Rugby School, Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Sorbonne.

That's a list with three items. The comma after Oxford is required because it closes the appositive of Magdalen College which is Oxford. This comma can't simply be removed. Without it, the sentence's meaning is different.

I managed to explain to some editors why the absence of a comma in such a place is wrong. But two more editors simply don't understand or haven't attempted to. One says that they don't want to get into a "pedantic discussion" and that my edits look "like an attempt to enforce one variety of English on articles it doesn't belong to"

My edits haven't been accepted and that seems to be the end of the matter. The error still persists on the article.

Is there someone senior here who knows their way around the English language and can settle this dispute? Inglok (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Inglok! I feel your pain. However, wikipedia is such a large place and there are so many articles that need these fixes. I agree that you are right, however, having been here actively just a few short months myself, I know that your best bet is to just let it go on those articles for awhile. You can always get back around to them later (give it a couple months). A couple commas, no matter how important to the sentence structure isn't worth getting in an edit war about. Quite plainly, it's the difference between knowing your shit or knowing you're shit. Or perhaps in this case, it's the difference of helping your uncle, Jack, off the horse or helping your uncle jack off the horse. (using these examples makes the people that don't get it catch on sometimes, and it's fun if it doesn't

) Technical 13 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Technical, but I'd quite like to get the bottom this. Inglok (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just about to head to bed myself, but if you can offer some links to some pages, I'm sure someone will be by shortly that can assist you further. Technical 13 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Technical. The most recent dispute is about Prince Harry of Wales of all articles. Here's the latest sentence in question: Prince Henry of Wales is the younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. My first edit was undone by Fat&Happy. I spoke with Fat&Happy who agreed that I could put the comma back. I did. Then it was undone again, this time by GimliDotNet. I put a message on GimliDotNet's talk page but I got no reply. I again put the comma back. It was again undone, this time by Leaky_caldron. Now, I'm not sure of the difference between an edit being undone and not accepted, but either way the result is the same: my edit is in some way being rejected. Inglok (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I should say that, for the sake of clarity, I didn't include some content of the sentemce in question, namely two parenthetical clauses. These don't affect the jist of the sentence and therefore the validity of my argument. The full sentence can be seen on the article. Inglok (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, don't touch anything on that page again. They're gonna get ya on that 3RR thingy! Plus, the usage has changed on inserting commas in groups (apples, oranges, and bananas, for example). When I was a kid you didn't dare put a comma before the *and*. Now it's accepted practice & OK. And you have to read the sentence's context. If a comma wouldn't ordinarily go after *England* as far as the sentence flows, then you don't put one there just because *London* precedes it. For example, I would never write a sentence like, "John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, took Constance of Castile as his second wife in order to pursue his claim to the Castilian crown". Because that comma after *Lancaster* doesn't go with the sentence's flow. I wouldn't say "John of Gaunt, took Constance...", would I? That's what your commas after titles are implying, that a comma is required after the subject of the sentence, & it isn't. So I can see why people are taking them out, sorry. JMHO. ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, ScarletRibbons, but your comment makes no sense. Inglok is quite right on the basic question and is also correct that there are missing commas in these situations all over Wikipedia. I myself frequently add commas after expressions of the "June 1, 2013" and "London, England" sort when I run across them in articles. The main problem is that few people are familiar with the niceties of traditional punctuation style, so that they tend to confuse the use of commas to separate things, as in series, with the use of commas to enclose things, as in nonrestrictive appositives. (By the way, Inglok, in your example "He was educated at Rugby School, Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Sorbonne" I'd use semicolons for the series punctuation—"He was educated at Rugby School; Magdalen College, Oxford; and the Sorbonne"—to prevent ambiguity.) I think Inglok may want to join the Guild of Copy Editors or at least to bring up problems like this on their talk page, where he or she is likely to meet with a more informed and sympathetic response. Perhaps the members there can recommend appropriate tactics for dealing with the resistance of other editors to simple copyedits. Deor (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't resist mentioning that "London, England, is the largest city in Britain" is not British English as she is writ. It's only American English that has this "New York, New York" thing. Thus this particular example falls under WP:ENGVAR. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about that, Demiurge, but I am a bit less sure now. I asked someone whom I regard as an authority and she thought it might have a touch of ENGVAR but was not sure. Inglok has produced some references, but I think at least some of them are US sources - certainly one was a usage guide from Princeton. I would like to see some reliable UK sources which make it clear whether that appositive comma is or is not required in BrE. Inglok has been very persuasive (as well as polite and tolerant, giving the bashing they've had!) over this, but in fact although their arguments are well-put I still don't see anything absolutely definitive which says it must be used in BrE - just an assertion from them that it is so. In other words, I accept that it is correct in AmE but I am not yet convinced that it is - or is not - correct in BrE, and I would like to be shown, in RSs, definitively one way or the other. One problem, though, is certainly that Inglok is being misunderstood - they are working quite specifically on this question of appositives and people are popping up LR&C to say no no you don't put an Oxford comma there and really it just makes it all more obscure; Inglok is then being lectured on something they didn't do! I think that Deor's suggestion of taking it to GOCE might be wise - IF agreement can be reached that it is correct in all flavours of English then fine, it should say so somewhere and then the argument - and references to it - can be centralized, and people correcting it can say see MOS:APPOSCOMMA or whatever in their edit summary. Otherwise, Inglok is going to have to continue fighting this same battle on thousands of pages, especially those on BrE-related topics, and it's going to get messy. I say centralize the argument, produce reliable sources, have an agreed approach to which we can refer on edit summaries and talk pages. I don't want to read any more on what individual editors think about this comma - their views are (with all due respect) boring, unreliable and they often don't even understand the point. I want to read unchallengably reliable sources which specifically deal with it in BrE. Nothing else is any good here. 82.45.217.156 (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of interest: I'm British. I don't want to challenge other editors but I do think it might be interesting, given that we seem mostly to be discussing BrE usage here. 'Nuff said. I am stfu now for a while; a long while, I hope. Love, light and peace (thank you Spike) to all, 82.45.217.156 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"'London, England, is the largest city in Britain' is not British English"? I'm British, and that is exactly how I would write it. I can't even imagine what alternative you would prefer, Demiurge1000. Maproom (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The place to discuss edits is on the article talk page. If you discussed the first reversion there instead of on the r3verting editor's talk page the other editors might have seen the discussion and not reverted you. It is not too late. Don't revert again, but post on the article talk page, and readh a consensus there, then correct the punctuation. Once you have consensus for the edit on the article talk page, you will not be at risk of 3RR because other editors will revert to support the consensus for you. Try it with all the articles, and you may gain a supporting army. -198.228.216.147 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that works. The OP is talking about hundreds, probably thousands, of articles - they surely can't have a separate discussion of this on each talk page? I still think that it needs centralized discussion in one appropriate place - that is what would give the army of supporters. Discussing it over many talk pages will only annoy many people. Centralize the discussion, gain consensus in one crdible place, refer back to that consensus when making the change. 82.45.217.156 (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The poster is having the discussions on multiple '"user talk pages, and theses should be a single discussion on the article talk page. The example the user gave is one article being discussed on 3-4 different editors' talk pages. Yes, a discussion about the punctuation changes can be had in a central, community location and linked back to. But the place to link to, in order to prevent edit wars,.must be linked to on the article discussion page, when a question about the edit arises. Centralizing the discussion, reaching consensus, then posting that consensus on editor talk pages each time will not reduce the edit wars. -198.228.216.175 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

TLDR, skimmed tho. The relevant section of the MOS is MOS:SERIAL, at least for the case of everything except London, England, and the like. The reference for those is the ~~third~~ second example in MOS:COMMA. It's a matter of logical punctuation, not common usage. Revent (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the 'correct' pointing is: He was educated at Rugby School; Magdalen College, Oxford; and the Sorbonne. Revent (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Prince Harry of Wales, the lead I see

Prince Henry of Wales (Henry Charles Albert David, born 15 September 1984), commonly known as Prince Harry, is the younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales.

is, strangely enough, correct. It's an exception, because in "Charles, Prince of Wales" the comma is not separating a modifier. "Charles, Prince of Wales", including the comma, is a proper name. It's not the same as writing "Harry is the son of Charles, son of Whosis, and Diana, daughter of Whatsis." You're not adding a serial comma, but it's still wrong in that specific place. Revent (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Translating articles, keep getting "Cite error $1" - can someone show me what I'm doing wrong please?

I've been picking up articles in need of translation (I need the practice) but am utterly clueless when it comes to Wikipedia formatting. Twice now I've noticed the message "Cite Error $1" appear at the bottom of the page, but can't see where it came from. I have copied references over from the original articles, I'm simply translating the text as is. Could somebody please show me where the mistake is so I can fix it. Example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Perrot_d%27Ablancourt

Many thanks, Littlemissnomad (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question! You need to add the {{Reflist}} template to display the inline references. I have added it for you.--ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We should also add a {{Translated page}} template to the talk page to indicate you have translated from another language version of the article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood - thankyou! Littlemissnomad (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

changing a name on an article

I am trying to change a name on an article but it would not save. It says it is up for review but does not get saved.Aaboa (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You have to Help:Move the article! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

how to edit playstation 3

when i go to edit the playstation 3 information on the right box it does not shows it.Ibrahim2k01 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ibrahim, welcome to the Teahouse. The infobox for Playstation 3 is at Template:PlayStation 3/infobox. —teb728 t c 23:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

New article: Istle, Istle fiber, or Tampico (fiber)?

I'm creating a new article that describes a type of vegetable fiber from the agave plant, often used for coarse brushes. I first came across the term as Tampico bristles for brushes, and only later came across the synonym istle. When Googling, tampico fiber gives XXXX results, istle fiber gives 4,390,000 results, "tampico fiber" gives 43,700 results, and "istle fiber" gives 908 results.

I have an extremely basic draft of the article at User:Dtgriscom/Tampico (fiber) (little more than some copied paragraphs and a number of links).

Any thoughts on the correct title/focus for this article?

Thanks, Dan Griscom (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And, only now discovered that there is a redirect from Istle to Agave americana. However, the latter doesn't mention fibers at all, and I believe that istle comes from a different type of agave plant. So, I still believe there is a need for a new article, and calling it Istle is a legitimate option. Thoughts? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Dan! Where-as there are a few title options, you may wish to first create the article using the article creation wizard and then when you are ready to submit it, place a note on the AfC article discussion page stating your concern and requesting it be reviewed. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears Tampico, Tamaulipas Mexico is the region the fiber was mainly shipped from[1], and the name of the region eventually got attached to the fibers as well. Note that it's also called "Ixtle" and in searches you also see fibre (as opposed to fiber). Other names I see are "Tula fiber" and even "Mexican fibre". When looking for the common name to use, always default to book and news archive result before using any general web search. Looking at those results this/this, this/this and this/this, I'd say the best name looks like Tampico fiber but it's not far from a toss up. Some great source to start from IMO for writing the article are [2], [3] [4] and others found through this search. Note that you can drop the URLs of the book sources into the this citation tool. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

URL needed

I need the URL of the first result of this search page. See the article title is "Manual for Public relations department". I am facing very hard time to decode it. --Tito Dutta (contact) 12:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Tito! I believe that http://www.wr.indianrailways.gov.in/uploads/files/1306911877549-PR-MANUAL.pdf is what you are looking for. Technical 13 (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Do you know any decoder of such PDF URLs?--Tito Dutta (contact) 13:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In Firefox I see the url in the browser address bar after clicking the link. I can also see it in the html source of the Google page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You have Adobe PDF reader (or any similar PDF reader) plugin installed in browser. I don't have updated Adbobe reader, so when I click on the URL, it asks me to download it directly! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You will need the latest Adobe Reader or other similar pdf reader. Technical 13 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you view the html source of the Google search page? If not then which browser do you have? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My signature

At last i've created my signature. Need some comments to know whether its nice or not. Mohammad Sabbir♥ 09:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would either darken the background a smidge, change the text color to a dark color, ~~or add a little shadowing to the text~~ on second though, shadowing would make your sig too long. Your contrast ration is bordering something that couldn't be seen by someone with color blindness issues. Other than that, the only thing I'm concerned about is the linefeed at the end of your signature causing the timestamp to be bumped down to a new line and put in a set of <pre>...</pre> tags. Here are some possible modifications:

Mohammad Sabbir♥
- [[User:Md31sabbir|'''Mohammad Sabbir''']][[User_talk:Md31sabbir|'''♥''']]

Mohammad Sabbir♥
- [[User:Md31sabbir|'''Mohammad Sabbir''']][[User_talk:Md31sabbir|'''♥''']]>

I personally think that modification #1 looks better just darkening the background a smidge. Anyways, happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed signatures seem to use a lot of pink. You should be mindful of the traditional associations of this colour regarding gender and regarding sexuality if you choose to use these signatures. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My proposed signatures are based on the user's previous signature (they chose to modify to my first suggestion). I only adjusted it slightly to improve to contrast ratio so that their signature could be seen using the color they chose. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

using OpenStreetMap?

I created an article on the Diamond Valley Railway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Valley_Railway). I've just come across OpenStreetMap and their connection to Wikipedia. I've never seen this used on another article but it seems like an excellent way to show the location of something like this. (The examples cited on the OpenStreetMap wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WIWOSM are out of date).

Given I've never seen it used I'm reluctant to stick my neck out. OpenStreetMap has the railway's area marked as a distinct location.

- Any advice on using the map in the article? - Should the OpenStreetMap object have a link to the Wikipedia article Tjej (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a pleasant little article aborning, in a topical area of which I know little. I also know little about OSM so shan't comment about going from map to article, but for going from article to map we generally include Template:Coord which leads to a choice among many different map sources. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added coordinates to the article. Clicking on them takes the reader to a GeoHack page where (as Jim.henderson says) a number of map resources are available, including Open Street Map. In accordance with WP:ELNO #15, we avoid directly linking to specific mapping services. There's been some discussion about linkage of OSM to Wikipedia here, with references (at the bottom of the thread) to similar discussions by OSM members. There still seem to be some problems with that, though I can't claim to understand all the intricacies. Deor (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also been working on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_railway.

I have added some links as `ref' tags to the OSM "objects" (called `ways') for two of the Aeromovel lines "in operation" . One advantage of this as opposed to a map reference is that it shows the exact line on a map. (I also added links back to wikipedia from those "objects"). If someone was interested in more detail on the subject this would be particularly useful. (I spent 15 minutes on Google earth myself trying to find one of them, without success. On OSM I can just type in "Aeromovel" and they pop up.). I read the extenal linking policy and I can't see how these links would violate it.

Portals

How could I add an Article to a portal? Zince34 (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your question could refer to different features. Please specify the article, the portal, and give an example of an article which is already added to a portal in the way you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've not created the article, it is in a work in progress stage here and I asked after it is created how can I move it to Zimbabwe and Cricket portals.Zince34 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Those Portals are managed by the respective WikiProjects so it would be best to consult WT:WikiProject Cricket and WT:WikiProject Zimbabwe. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Zince34' 10:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Depending on what you mean by adding an article to a portal, we may be able to resolve it here. Maybe you don't know the right terminology and actually want to add the article to a WikiProject or a category. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Resolved

Thank you very much for suggesting some modifications for my signature. I've choosen modification #1 :) Mohammad Sabbir♥ 13:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Glad I could help. Technical 13 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User Infobox needed

I need a user infobox to describe my info in my user page . Where can i get them and Which one should i use? Mohammad Sabbir♥ 13:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in {{Infobox user}}, that is the one I use on my user page (feel free to take a look). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars

Can you please tell me What are barnstars and how can i get them? :) Mohammad Sabbir♥ 17:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. A barnstar is a form of what we call "Wiki-Love". You get barnstars from fellow Wikipedians for having done something they appreciate. For example, I have received lots of barnstars for things ranging from reverting vandalism to helping write and maintain articles to making a funny joke. You can't really set out to get barnstars, but they are a nice surprise. Go Phightins! 17:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks friend Mohammad Sabbir♥ 17:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL Phightins, are you bragging about your barnstars? Ya know, lots of other people get barnstars too. Just saying. Also, worthy of noting, you may also get badges from time to time in addition to barnstars. Technical 13 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Wasn't trying to brag, sorry. Go Phightins! 17:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I was editing for over 5 years before I got my first barnstar. It wasn't until I began to give barnstars out to others that I started receiving them. Give some love and get some in return!--Amadscientist (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

war for Mogadishu-number of Pakistani casualties

Dear Wikipedia you mentioned one Pakistani dead in that operation but the fact is there were around 24 Pakistani troops who lost their lives in operation Black Hawk Down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.80.37 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello 182.185.80.37, welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably you are referring to the 24 Pakistanis troops killed 5 June 1993 in the conflict leading up to Black Hawk Down. This is reported in Battle of Mogadishu (1993)#Mission shift. The subject of the article, however, is the battle of 3 and 4 October 1993, where one additional Pakistani was killed. —teb728 t c 23:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)