Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 83

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 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

how to add a reference in the reflist section

When I am trying to add a reference in reflist - I am disturbing the look of it with poor editing techniques . I tried to use " Prove It" which is given in my preferences/gadegets - but I am getting Citation exceptions.

Any tool / suggestion that can help me put quality edits is welcome. I am also open to review other articles as I am avid reader and has decent writing skills.

Niranjan gat (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Niranjan. What you're doing is an easy mistake to make - you're putting the references under the heading "References", which is understandable; but that's not how the software works. What you need to do is put your references in the text of the article (after whatever statement you wish to reference) and enclose them between <ref> and </ref> tags. They will then appear correctly under the {{reflist}} template. There's a bit more information here, which might be of use. Hope this helps. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Friend . I understood and in the process correcting my last two edits . Thank you for your help. If anyone finds this problem - I should be the first man helping them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranjan gat (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Links

Recently I came upon this featured article: Mothers of the Disappeared and noticed that Nicaragua and El Salvador were not linked in the lead, but rather further down in the article. Is it not generally accepted practice to link as soon as words are mentioned in an article? Rob van vee 07:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a rule of thumb rather than an "official" policy, but generally yes, appropriate terms for linking should be linked in the first (and usually only the first) instance. Overlinking in the lead section (the first paragraph) is generally not a good idea (it makes it hard to read, and since the lead is basically an article synopsis, it should be the most legible part of the article), and that may be what prompted the structure at Mothers of the Disappeared. The question, really, is how much information the articles on Nicaragua and El Salvador would provide to someone who wanted to find out about the song; if they provide details vital to understanding U2's work then they should be linked as early as possible, but if the information there is only tangential, there's a case to be made for linking further down the page, to avoid overlinking the lead. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui! Rob van vee 08:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My article page was rejected

I have created an information page for my company Y Media Labs which got rejected. I believe that I have provided quality reference sites.

Can you please guide me as how the article can be approved?

Arnabme (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arnabme. Firstly, you would need to completely rewrite the page. It currently reads like a marketing brochure, filled with peacock terms that extol the company's virtues. That's totally unacceptable in an encyclopedia; the tone of our articles needs to be neutral.

Secondly, you need to provide third-party sources - Y Media Labs own website is not acceptable as a source to demonstrate that the company is notable. Have a look at the inclusion guidelines for companies: if Y Media Labs meets those requirements, then you should be able to find sources unrelated to the company that prove it. These need to go into the article as references.

Sorry to be brusque, but at present, the page is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it needs to be completely gutted, resourced and rewritten to stand any chance of inclusion here. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You also need to be careful abot copyright violation, with material copied from http://rawdesignr.com/mobile/ymedia.html. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Todo, reminder, or edit delay script?

Hi,

I just finished adding the following sentence to an article: "In April 2013, his first novel for young adult audiences, "Nine Days," will be published."

Is there a way I can set a reminder or create some sort of time-delayed FIXME flag or script to update that sentence once April has passed and the tense needs to be changed? Or do I need to count on my shoddy memory and/or the massive goodwill of my fellow editors?

Thanks, Joehjoeh (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Joehjoeh. It sounds as though you may want to insert Template:Update after following the sentence, which, after the date you set in the template, will display a "dated info" tag at that point in the article and add the article to a category of articles needing updating. Alternatively, you might just wait until the book is published and then add the information in the past tense (which is probably what I'd do). Deor (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

An automated option is the Template:Show_by_date {{show by date|year|month|day|text before|text after}}. — nerd fighter^(academy) 13:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Announced publication dates are fairly frequently not met (although, admittedly, one this close to the present is more likely to be met than one farther in the future). Nevertheless, one would be taking a risk by using {{show by date}}. Deor (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Changing the formatting of text (specifically, usernames)

Hello! I don't know how much this has to do with editing articles, but I've noticed lately that many users have signatures that are formatted differently. I went into settings and found where this is done, but I am not sure how to properly format text. Where can I find a guide on how to do this? Thanks, Sirwins5550 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! First you have to make a user subpage entitled something like: user:Sirwins5550/signature. In that page you can format the text (you need to know some basic HTML). Next you enable Wikimarkup as the signature in preferences, and paste: {{SUBST:User:Sirwins5550/signature}}. Your customized signature should now show up :) — nerd fighter^(academy) 02:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't actually have to use a subpage. You can also enter the text directly in the Signature box. See more at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. Signatures are formatted in the same way as the wiki markup of pages. They have to be, since a signature is saved as wiki markup when you sign. Help:Wiki markup has some general help, but much of it is not relevant for signatures. You can see how others formatted their signature by clicking edit. See also the description of <font>...</font> at HTML element#Presentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but transclusion of templates or other pages in signatures is not permitted. See WP:SIG#NoTemplates.--ukexpat (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note the SUBST. This means that it is a substitution rather than a transclusion. — nerd fighter^(academy) 02:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, yes. Not enough sleep. Apologies.--ukexpat (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Substitution is also strongly discouraged - if your substituted signature is too long, it still violates the policy, and if it's an acceptable length, it should simply be raw signature syntax. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What to do when only half of an article is a copyright violation

Dear editors: I was about to add a reference to the The Rarely Herd article when I became suspicious of the writing style. I checked Google books and found that quite a bit, bit not all, of the text is copied from this book: Allmusic Guide to Country. Should I nominate the article for deletion? If I delete the infringing material what's left won't make sense. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! Well, perhaps you should consider typing the information out in your own words, so it won't be a violation. Thanks! — nerd fighter^(academy) 01:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah....—Anne Delong (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're not keen, I can start on it if you'd like. What sections are copyright violations? — nerd fighter^(academy) 01:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is best to just delete the violations immediatly then rewrite it. I think I gave a very bad example Anne by not deleting the copyright violation below immdediatly whe nit appeared. I only collapsed it, but Fuhghettaboutit did the right thing by deleting it once they saw it. As long as the entire article is not a violation there is little reason to nom for AFD, but the violation must go.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's done.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy Infringement: Own the copy

Hi,

I have made several attempts to create pages on the behalf of my unit however they keep being declined/removed due to copy infringement rights. I have the right to use/distribute the copy. How does one proceed?

The topics are niche and as the copy on the website explains the topics well I was hoping to use that.

I would appriciate any feedback on the copy below.

Thank you!

Sholmberg82 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. If you own the copy right you must agree to release it with our CC atribution license. To do this you must use OTRS to verify who you are and that you agree with the use of the text on Wikipedia under the proper license. See Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read through the content, and I see another problem. It is full of industry jargon (ie, "summary indicators", "standard error", "longitudinal data"). If it is re-written so that a person not involved in statistical analysis can understand it, there will no longer be a copyright problem. As it stands, it is likely that it would be tagged as too technical and confusing, and containing intricate detail not needed in an encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note. Just removing or changing certain words may not clear the copyright issues. Copyright is not just amatter of the exact wording but close paraphrasing as well. If the author is willing to give up the full copyright it may be best practice. I would think that, as the author, it can be a duanting task to alter your own wording enough to not be close paraphrasing, but then a very talented writer would have no problem. It is up to the author I guess.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses.

It seems that in order to have the current copy (cleared by our team) approved by Wikipedia I will need to adhere a note on our website giving up the copyright which is not possible. Sholmberg82 (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Heya Sholmberg82. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Even if the copy you wrote for Wikipedia were "cleared by your team", it wouldn't prevent anyone else from coming along and changing it, including adding to it, removing from it, rewording it, or rewriting it entirely. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as we discourage people from editing Wikipedia about subjects they have a close relationship to. --Jayron32 04:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jaron, I am pretty sure Sholmberg82 was refering to the team at the website the copy originates from and not "our" team referring to OTRS. Sholmberg82, you need not add a note to the site itself, but yes, you do indeed need to give up the full copyright for a creative commons license which, as Jayron adds, does mean others may copy it elsewhere as well as alter, add or chnage the text on Wikipedia. The best solution, if the originating site is reliably published with editorial oversite is to use it as a reference and create original prose summerizing the material. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed "our team" was the team approved by the subject of the article, hence the recommendation to read the relevant policies on article ownership and conflict of interest. --Jayron32 12:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How to build a communications/private project page?

Hi guys, for a 3rd year university project i am using Wikipedia as an engagement tool and want to communicate with other members and certain members in my group using Wikipedia alone. I was wondering if there was a way to create a sort of private project or communications page, similar to that of the talk page for each user, but one that allows communication with only a selected number of individuals. I was told this was the place to ask for this kind of advice, if not then sorry for the clutter!

Any help is much appreciated! Thanks, Lewis Lewishiley (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lewishiley, and thanks for stopping by the teahouse. There's no expectation of privacy here, and accounts should be tied to particular individuals, not groups. That said, there are wikipedia projects where like-minded individuals can discuss articles that interest them (see WP:MED for a good example). Generally, though, anything that goes up on wikipedia should be (in one way or another) improving the encyclopedia. If your class project doesn't fall within this goal you should probably consider creating your own wiki, perhaps using Wikia. Garamond Lethet c 19:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse! I'm afraid that all Communications on Wikipedia are completely public. You best bet is to set up a group on Facebook or another social network and collaborate privately from there. Thanks! — nerd fighter^(academy) 21:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm deeply uncomfortable with nerdfighter's suggestion above, and would strongly advise against it - you potentially lay yourself and your group open to accusations of meatpuppetry and stealth canvassing if you do so. Communication on Wikipedia is intentionally open and transparent; whilst setting up a userspace page with which to communicate to selected editors is perfectly permissable (and fairly common, especially with school/college editing projects), technically any Wikipedia editor should be able to view and edit it (even though few if any would do so in practice). Yunshui 雲‍水 10:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tense for non-fiction and reviews

I see a section on tense for biographies and one on of fiction but I find myself waffling on tense for non-fiction and reviews. Is it "Smith writes/wrote that birds have wings". Obviously he wrote it in the past, so wrote seems correct. But "Smith explains hydroponics" sounds better to me than "Smith explained hydroponics". A review is even more complicated to me "Jones writing/who wrote for the Herald complains/complained that Smith's book is/was really obtuse." Silas Ropac (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure whether there's a relevant policy, but I'm quite certain it's the present tense. Reason being the book/review hypothetically exists. So it is still present. Get it? Happy editing. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bonkers is correct that the review still exists, although the author may have written it long ago. So you could say, "In 1982 Smith wrote" or you could say "Smith's 1982 review explains", and either would be true, since the writing happened long ago, but it is still being informative today. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both, so that helps. For instance I think these are both right:

In a discussion about the book's content: "Smith writes that pigs can fly and he explains in detail how."
In background about his life: "Smith wrote thirty-two books about pigs and said he wanted to write more."

So it just depends if it's coming from the work or not. But I'm still stumped on:

Jones wrote in the Times that Smith's book is horrible.
Jones writes in the Times that Smith's book is horrible.

I think (1) is a little better, but either seems wrong considering for (2)we're already established that "A writes B" is okay when describing a work. Silas Ropac (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to use (1) more, but I believe it's a matter of context. If it is in referral to the Jone writing the review, then (1) would be more appropriate. If it is in referral to the review itself, then I think (2) would be a better choice. A matter of linguistics, really. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it seems like there is some ambiguity in the last example. But in general your rule is helpful: if the work is the implied subject, then present tense. Silas Ropac (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

is there a citation template for an online .PDF?

Hi, guys and gals. I need your help. Is there a specific template for citing an online .pdf? If not,is there one that is easily adaptable?Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! You can just use the {{Cite web}} template, assuming the PDF is online.^King Jakob _C2 12:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Many citation templates like {{Cite web}} have an optional format parameter, for example |format=PDF. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You could use {{PDFlink}}, like this:

{{PDFlink|[http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/pdf_reference_1-7.pdf PDF Reference, Sixth edition, version 1.23]|31.0 MB}}

which would produce:

"PDF Reference, Sixth edition, version 1.23" (PDF). (31.0 MB)

Though if you want to add more parameters then you probably want {{cite web}}, which as PrimeHunter mentioned has a |format=PDF option. benzband (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! I will know better the next time, but I actually just used the generic {{cite}} template and that worked just fine. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The software automatically inserts a PDF icon for links ending in .pdf, but you can still add |format=PDF to also say "(PDF)" in the citation. {{Cite}} has the parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

how to edit incorrect image captions

In several places I have found incorrect captions for images, but there is no way of editing them nor doing the uploader seem to have to provide verificatable sources for there captions. so question : how can a person edit image caption text????

triphala108Triphala108 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This question really requires a little more detail. Could you please provide a link to the articles and images in question? For the most part images do not actually require sources for captions, although captions do indeed still fall under the same policies of all other prose they do not require an inline citation or sources to verify. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)--Amadscientist (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

this is one example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Airlangga.jpg the caption given is without citation and is quite a questionable claim. many similar like this triphala108Triphala108 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Internal links in Infoboxes.

I am working on a Infobox president where the "office2=" is "office2=Mayor of Vienna" The result is a redLink because the page to be linked title is "List of mayors of Vienna". If I use a piped link (without bracket, because they show up), everything that appears after the pipe character is omitted. So, if I write "office2=List of mayors of Vienna|Mayor of Vienna" I get the link "List of mayors of Vienna", which is not what I want to see. Thanks in advance. Carlotm (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

hi, i see you're on the advanced topics of infoboxes. i believe that in the office holder you need to put [[Mayor of Vienna]] (with brackets) and the redirect will take it to the list article. ~~(and no not in the documentation).~~ sometimes, it's easier to cut and paste from an example like Michael Häupl.--Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 01:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it works and without brackets. But the question is not yet solved because I wanted something more. Sorry for not having fully explained this before. Because of the complicated history of Austria, I wanted the reader to see this: “Mayor of Vienna (Second Republic)” or even better: “Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic)”. Do you have any suggestions as how to link this text to the page “List of mayors of Vienna”? Thanks.Carlotm (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You can link any text to any link by using a pipe: | to separate the two items, for example:

[[List of mayors of Vienna|Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic)]]

looks like: Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic) — and links to List of mayors of Vienna

~Is this what you had in mind? ~I hope this helps, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. Yes, this is what I want to achieve. But if I do what you suggest I see this [[Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic)]]. The link correctly send you to List of mayors of Vienna. The double brackets are fully visible though. If I do what you suggest without the brackets, I get List of mayors of Vienna. Neider is good. Carlotm (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think the problem might relate to using a template which pre-formats the parameter as a link, therefore the brackets become redundant. You might try it without the brackets, but I suspect that the "pipe" character would be a problem, in which case I would have to defer to somebody else with more knowledge on such things. ~Regards, ~Eric 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The documentation is at Template:Infobox president#Usage. You didn't link to the article or give the full infobox code but maybe the problem is that you have an order2 parameter and therefore needs to write office2=List of mayors of Vienna{{!}}Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic). If this doesn't work then please post the full infobox code so we can see what goes wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your indication was just right in point. Thank you very much.Carlotm (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Book that is part anthology

I'm working on The Age of Intelligent Machines. It's a 600 page book that is mostly a monograph. But it contains about 23 stand-alone essays, from 2 to 15 pages in length. I have the main content of the book mostly summarized. I'm wondering about the essays. Right now I have an organization section which just lists the authors of all the essays, which I think is kind of boring but I guess useful for searches. I'm thinking of maybe including mini-summaries of 3-4 of the essays which are by the more "famous" authors. Is this fair, should I briefly summarize them all, or just not summarize any. I realize I can do whatever, but just wondering what would make the best article, in WP terms. Silas Ropac (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Silas, welcome to the Teahouse! Are any of the essays well known, or discussed at length in reviews of the book? If not, you might be better just leaving them out (beyond the listing of authors you have already included). Sometimes an article is clearer and more readable if some relevant but unimportant information is left out. Obviously it comes down to judgement and there's no right or wrong answer. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. No review mentioned the contents of the essays, just that they were there and who some of them were by. Yeah I would say leave them out, at least for now, thanks. Future generations can always add them in. Silas Ropac (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Choosing pages to edit

How do I find a list of the most popular pages within a subject area so that I know where to edit first? Is it possible to see lists of topics that are most often searched but have no pages or very short/inaccurate pages? More broadly, I'm looking for tips on how to make more high-impact edits. RoenTree (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the Teahouse with your question. You can use http://stats.grok.se/ to see view counts. I would suggest chosing subject areas you are interested in and then check the view counts. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Is there an easier way to compare multiple pages than searching each individually? For example, is there some tool I could use to see highest- and lowest-traffic pages in the category Flora of Washington? RoenTree (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know of.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer your question, but another useful page that shows articles needing editing is "Getting started" Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey RoenTree. For not-yet-created articles with the most incoming red links, sorted by year (though not by category), please see Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Note that while it contains 2013-12 entries, older entries can be found at Wikipedia:MWA/old. For not-yet-created articles in categories (but with no indication of "wanted" status), please see Wikipedia:Requested articles. Finding existing articles by category that are in dire need is more hit or miss. You could just explore articles that are stubs and marked with a stub template in a specific area of interest. For example I note that you seem to have edited articles on rivers in Washington State and although there's no perfectly refined stub template for that I can find, you might explore Category:Washington (state) geography stubs (and see the nested lower stubs in that parent category by county). Also, some Wikipedia:WikiProjects maintain lists of wanted and missing articles as well as a list of article in their ambit they deem most in need of work. See. e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, RoenTree! If you're interested in plants in general, then WikiProject Plants might be a useful place to look at. They have a list of popular pages about plants, which has the page views as well as the article's quality. Also, if you look under statistics, there's a table of articles by quality and importance, so you could pick out stubs and start-class articles (the two lowest quality classes) which have been classified by project members as high or mid in importance. The Plants WikiProject also maintain a list of requested plants. Hope this is useful! Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your detailed replies. I will look at those pages for some more ideas of where to edit first. RoenTree (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What advice can you give on errors noted?

Hi. I submitted an article on my second visit and came here to view questions and responses. Good stuff - and lots to learn! I think my article is properly positioned for review, but at the bottom are a couple of notes:

Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move).
Warning: A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title.

There's also a red note about a missing reference, but I have subsequently removed all the citations (I think) and replaced them with hot links to URLs because they are easier to use and less trouble to create.

I have done a fairly extensive re-write over the past few days and assume the readers will access the latest, which is the cleanest and most suitable for review. Please advise.

Thanks! Alkoller (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Inline citations WP:ILC are the way to go and are easy to insert using the tool 'cite' at the top of the edit box. See referencing for beginners WP:REFB for how this tool works.

The red line is because you had one reference left in the text and you did not have a reference section to 'hold' it... I have added that. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks VERY much. Getting there one step at a time! 70.119.189.6 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing the tags for clean up projects

Hi Team,

Can someone help me with a guide or knowledge base which would help to remove tags made "This article may contain original research." or "This article needs more links to other articles". Would love to be more active on clean up projects. Appreciate your assistance.

Thanks, YaseenHalfLifeKiss 19:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfLifeKiss (talk • contribs)

Thanks, this can be closed. I found out from one of the answers below.HalfLifeKiss 19:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfLifeKiss (talk • contribs)

Hi HalfLifeKiss and welcome to the Teahouse! Great, you're question has been answered. Feel free to come back any time you need help. Happy editing, Go Phightins! 20:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing the name of a page.

HI, Can you please help me by correcting the name of the page Shamba Joshi as "Sham Ba Joshi". Sham Ba Joshi is a kannada writer whose actual name is Shankararaav Baaladeekshit Joshi. So i felt "Sham Ba Joshi"(as it is the same in kannada) much appropriate than Shamba Joshi and I dont know to correct it myself. Thank you. Srinidhisu (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Moved to the top of page.^King Jakob _C2 18:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse! If you look at the row of buttons near the edit button and look right from there, you'll see the view history button, a star-shaped button, then a gray arrow. If you click on the gray arrow, you should see an option saying move. But unless the rename (called a move on Wikipedia) is uncontroversial, it's best to discuss it on the article's talk page (alternately, the page of a relevant WikiProject). ^King Jakob _C2 18:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Srinidhisu, welcome to the Teahouse. Doing a very quick Google search shows that the English version of Shamba Joshi is far more common that Sham Ba Joshi. Not very scientific I know but enough to make me think that a move without further discussion might not be the way to go at the moment. If you think that it's imperative that it's moved I suggest that you start a discussion at Talk:Shamba Joshi explaining why the move should be made and ask others for their opinions. Leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics might also help get you some other editors involved. NtheP (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating a web address

Hello, Please advise a complete novice. I have offered to keep up to date the Wikipedia entry for a local historic house. Its website address has recently changed, and when I deleted the old one and tried to type in the new one, all I got instead was the number [1] in square brackets and a faint blue arrow. When you click on the arrow, you are immediately taken to the correct website, but it would be better to show the full address, I think. Perhaps my problem arises because [1] is also one of the references cited in the text and shown as a footnote. Apologies if I have not used the correct jargon. Llandafflady Llandafflady (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Llandafflady, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you entered something like this [http://www.google.com] and it came out as [1]? External links like this have a two part format of [web_address display_text] (note the space in between the two elements, so if like I think you did then you didn't put anything in for the second element hence it just showing as [1]. If you change your entry to [http://www.google.com www.google.com] or [http://www.google.com Google] then you should get your desired effect like these www.google.com or Google. NtheP (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. Once you've created enough subheadings (off the top of my head I think it's four) a table of contents will appear automatically. If you have fewer headings than that, you can add the code __TOC__ to the page at the point where you want the contents list to appear (that's two underscores on either side, by the way). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Zoe. If by "contents" you mean a table of contents (TOC), then one is automatically generated when the article has more than three section headers. You can also force its display when there's less than three, but this is rarely used.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional information re film biography

Hi, im new here so forgive me if this is the wrong place to put this info / question, I have just watched a film named Reign of Fire (2002) and spotted an extra in it, namely Joffrey Baratheon from Game of Thrones actor Jack Gleeson. He is not named in the credits, nor is it listed on his film biography on IMDB or Wiki, but it is clearly him.... (search Jack Gleeson Reign of Fire and view images) just thought i'd bring it to the attention of someone more Wiki-capable to possibly edit his page (Panthara82 (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Panthara82, welcome to the Teahouse. Unless there is a reliable third party source that credits Gleeson with a role in this film then it's not information that should be added to his biography here. I'm not questioning your recognition of him, it's just that wikipedia doesn't work on "I know it to be correct" type additions. NtheP (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing Article Title

How do you change the title of a submitted article if there was a typo error? Thanks... Rosexcel (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rosexcel. You move the page to the correct title, in exactly the same way as you moved it from your sandbox into article space. Normally this will leave a redirect at the old spelling; if you want this removed altogether, you can tag it with {{db-g6}} (or just ask me nicely and I'll delete it for you!). Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah, scratch that. I've just realised you want to list the page as "eFans", with a lowercase E - to do that, rather than move the page, you need to add the text {{lowercase title}} to the top of the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice. The title is now eFans :-)

By the way, I noticed that the URL is still EFans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFans_%28social_network%29

I tried moving it again just in case the URL will become lowercase but it did not happen. Any idea?

Thanks. Rosexcel (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained further. Due to technical restrictions, article titles always start with a capital letter (the page is still actually located at EFans (social network), hence the URL remains the same) - what the {{lowercase title}} template does is force the first letter of the title to display in lowercase. Searches for "eFans" (as opposed to "EFans") will still find the page without difficulty. You can't actually create a page called "eFans"; the software just won't let you do it. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Based on my experience, I don't think it's possible to change the case in the url. I haven't seen a single article with a first letter in lowercase in the url. Anyway, readers don't usually type the title in the url, they do a web search and the first thing that comes up is the wikipedia entry or they rather use the wikipedia search. In case you were wondering, even if you type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/eFans_(social_network) in the address bar the same page will open up. Hope this helps. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the info :-) Rosexcel (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

All of that said, the page still probably needs to be retitled. The best title to locate it at would be Efans (with the code {{DISPLAYTITLE:eFans}} located at the top of the page instead of {{lowercase title}}). You should then create redirect pages at EFans, EFans (social network) and probably EFans.com to direct anyone finding those pages to the correct title. There's no need to have the "(social network)" addendum, since there are no other sites names eFans to disambiguate it from. Ask me for a hand if you need help with any of this. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Creating a shorter URL to a Wikipedia page

Hi, all -

I have created a Meetup subpage to let Wikipedia users know about an edit-a-thon that is being hosted by my university. Is there a way to create shorter URL... I suppose aliases could be the word?... for long Wikipedia page addresses?

At the moment, it's difficult to direct interested students to wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup: etc, etc, and it would be easier to be able to say wikipedia.org/something concise. I hope I'm explaining myself reasonably well.

Is this something that is possible to do?

Just curious - thanks for any help you can provide! Czarinanc (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Heya Czarinanc, have you thought of a service like bit.ly? --Jayron32 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, didn't know if there was a more efficient Wikipedia-provided solution, but if that's the easiest route, I can certainly try it. Thanks! Czarinanc (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Czarinanc. I don't know if you're going to say "duh" to some of this but if you're just worried about length of what people are viewing, then there's a few things to know. Any link on Wikipedia can be linked using wikilinks, instead of a URL, by enclosing the title in doubles brackets. So we can shorten it in that fashion:

[[Wikipedia:Meetup/unc edit-a-thon]] (which produced Wikipedia:Meetup/unc edit-a-thon) is shorter than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon

Wikilinks can also be piped to anything you want people to view. A piped link is one where the text displayed for the link is different than the title of the page, and is placed by placing a pipe (one of these → |) between the page name and the display name. For example:

If you type: [[Wikipedia:Meetup/unc edit-a-thon|edit-a-thon]] the displayed text when you save will be edit-a-thon.

You can also make a URL display whatever text you'd like, by placing the URL in single brackets (not doubled ones, as used for wikilinks), with a blank space after the URL followed by the the text to be displayed. For example:

If you type: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon edit-a-thon] the displayed text when you save will be edit-a-thon.

Finally, if you need to post a link on some other site to the URL of the Wikipedia page, the same sort of trick to display whatever you'd like is available through HTML:

<a>Link text</a> is the form, so: <a>edit-a-thon</a> will do the trick.

Hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Another URL option is that "enwp.org" redirects to wikipedia so for example; to link to Wikipedia:Meetup/unc edit-a-thon just use "http://enwp.org/Wikipedia:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon". -- Cheers, Riley 07:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WP is a case insensitive namespace alias for the Wikipedia namespace so http://enwp.org/wp:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon also works. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Button to submit for review disappeared

After composing my draft article for creation, I saved it but I edited it a few times afterwards. Along the way, I accidentally must have done something that removed the box that says submit article for review.

This is my article for creation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EVFIT_%28Federation%29

Since I could not find the submit for review button, I used the move operation but it ended up here. Still there was no button for submission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EVFIT_%28Federation%29

What shall I do to submit this for review when I do not see the submit button?

Thanks for your help.Rosexcel (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rosexcel, welcome to the Teahouse. You removed the box with the submission link in [2]. I have restored the box so you can submit by clicking the link. The page has been moved back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EVFIT (Federation). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ros and welcome!

Done I moved the page at least 3 times (with the last move by PrimeHunter.) I submitted the article by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page (that's how you can submit it to Articles for creation.). I also even reviewed the article so you don't have to wait for 2,000 other articles. Unfortunately, it has been declined. If you need any help with anything else, leave me a message on my talk page or e-mail me and I am happy to help. Both links are located conveniently in my signature. Happy editing! JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt response and for acting on my first draft. Looking forward to learning many things here. Rosexcel (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

How to align tables

Dear editors: On my List of fiddlers I have some tables near the bottom of the page which have multiline table entries. I would like the cells in the tables to align to the top. I tried adding valign="top" to the table description, but it seemed to have no effect. Am I putting it in the wrong place? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

hi, i see you're an experienced editor if you're tackling tables. ok, i see if you research, you need to put valign="top" at each row; i did the american style section.

also you might want to combine the tables into one, and let readers sort using sortable titles. (i.e. make the style sections into another field that people could sort by). more info here Help:Table/Sortable tables. also check out Template:Sortname, which will sort name field by last name. i've been known to cut paste all this code into spreadsheet; and use concatenate and fill functions to arrange; then cut paste back.Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a sortable table at the top of the article, and it did allow me to remove the "Fiddlers by nationality" groups, but it doesn't sort the styles properly because many fiddlers play more than one style. These tables are just flatfiles. Also, I intend to put anchors beside each group and link them to the articles about fiddling styles. I am not a really experienced Wikipedia editor, but I have a lot of experience with computer and web applications and programming, so mainly my questions are about the interesting formats and policies peculiar to Wikipedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

well, table syntax is a bear, and the documentation is poor, so you are above average. yes, normally tables prefer one value per cell and simple rows. you might consider column span multiple rows [3], but that duplicates artist name. the elegant solution is one table, but it's ok as is. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 02:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Making a new page

Hi. I'm trying to create a new page. However, Wikipedia tells me that the article exists already, while it is just a redirection to another article. It is "The Isle of Illusion" and I am getting redirected to "Deltora Quest". How do I get rid of the automatic redirect so I can write the article? Nick1372 (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You simply need to edit the redirect into the article. To access the redirect page itself, after navigating to The Isle of Illusion and then being redirected to Deltora Quest (series), you will see at the top of the page, just under the title "(Redirected from The Isle of Illusion)". Click on that blue link to The Isle of Illusion and edit away.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick and welcome to the Wikipedia.

If you think The Isle of Illusion should be a separate article from Deltora Quest (series), either just click on this link or just follow these intructions -

Go to the article The Isle of Illusion.
It should redirect you to Deltora Quest (series), with a note "(Redirected from The Isle of Illusion)".
Click on "The Isle of Illusion" from the note to reach the actual page without getting redirected.

Once you have reached the actual page, you are free to edit it as you see fit, and try to improve it. Don't forget to remove the #REDIRECT [[Deltora Quest (series)]] from the page so it does not redirect.

Hope this helped. Feel free to ask any further questions if you need to!

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Nick1372 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

entry of a living person

How to judge whether it is proper to establish an entry of a living person, for example, a professor in academic?Sanmishui (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Sanmishui. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidance. You should be able to determine notablility using this guideline. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe what you're looking for is the notability guideline for acdemics. If this person doesn't meet that guideline, you could try the general notability guideline, but otherwise, he is probably not notable. Go Phightins! 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Jinx...you owe me a soda Phightins. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Pepper? Go Phightins! 02:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page - Bot Archiving

Something WAS seriously wrong with my talk page. Somehow before I undid it, my Clue Bot III completely deleted everything on my talk page including messages that were left a few hours before. Is this common?? Is it possible that it was vandalism instead?? How do I fix this, permantantly? I think it will happen again, but I still want my message archive ect. Thepoodlechef (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm no expert on Cluebot but a quick look at the way you have the instruction setup on your talk page and Cluebot's instruction shows one big difference. You're setting the age in days and Cluebot's instructions say "The age parameter should be set to the number of hours a thread can go without a reply before it should be archived." - emphasis as per the original. Try changing age to 120 and see if it makes a difference. NtheP (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tagging

I found, through the tag Very Short New Article, a page (Chandler Poché) that would meet the criteria for G10 Speedy Deletion. As a non-admin (or auto confirmed user, for that matter) am I allowed to put a speedy deletion template on the page, or is that restricted to admins? Revolution1221 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Revolution 1221 and welcome to the Teahouse! You absolutely are welcome to recommend articles for speedy deletion whether or not you are an admin...I'm certainly not but I have tagged a boatload of them. I have tagged this one since it was an attack page and we want to remove that ASAP. Thanks for the catch, and in the future, please do tag attack pages as quickly as possible. Thanks and happy editing! Go Phightins! 20:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Best way to proceed

Good afternoon. My company has tasked me with 'updating' it's wiki page. The current page is nowhere close to what I envision our new page to be. the company is Amesbury Sports Park, if that will give you an idea of what I am working with. I am a person with very basic computer skills. I would prefer to use the article wizard as that seems to be the least complicated way of getting a traditional looking wiki page. Is this something that I can do since there is an existing pagge? Am I stuck working with that page? Michelle Amesbury Sports Park (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I hate to break it to you, but the bottom line is that it is a bad idea to edit where you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, you writing your company's article is not likely to reflect a neutral point of view, because even if you do so subconsciously, you're likely going to flaunt it in a way. My suggestion to you would be that you make sure your company meets our notability guidelines (make sure that it's received coverage from a variety of third party reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, etc. and then create a userspace draft which you can submit to Articles for Creation, a venue at which an experienced editor will review your article to ensure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Sorry it's so complex, but we have had issues with people flaunting themselves or their company and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will do as suggested! Michelle Amesbury Sports Park (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...you may also wish to review WP:SPAMNAME.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of a blog to illustrate a disagreement?

Dear editors: I have been editing a section of the article about Handedness which deals with scissors. I would like to add a sentence stating that there is some disagreement about whether left-handed children should be taught to use only left-handed scissors. I found a web site in which people are asked to weigh in with their opinion on this subject. It's not a scientific survey, but it does illustrate the pros and cons nicely with about 100 opinions so far (Survey says...), and my statement would not include anything about which opinion is correct. Is this a situation in which a non-authoritive source could be used? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I suppose you could use the poll if you phrase it a certain way. For instance, "In survey X, 75% of people held position Y" would work, but you'd need an authoritative/reliable source to say "75% of people hold position Y". Does that help?^King Jakob _C2 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I just wanted to use the source to illustrate that there is some disagreement. The section I am editing made no mention of that and sent the reader off to a Youtube video promoting left handed scissors that started with an ad for an insurance company. I figured that the purpose of the section was to drive traffic to the video for monetary reasons, so I have been rewriting it from a more neutral point of view. I wasn't going to mention particular numbers from a small survey, which are not likely accurate. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

hi, i see 2 google book sources that might have some reliable info [4]. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 14:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be very careful using a blog to illustrate a disagreement because you could be open to criticism of original research and synthesis. If there is a better source that talks about a disagreement and has examples, I would cite that instead.--LauraHale (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

i would second the note of caution. there are a lot of these "general topics" or even wp:Vital articles, where the references are a grab-bag, (you are correct, this is why we put u-tube in external links). no book, journal search, and list have been done. i would encourage you to do that in a systematic way on article talk, rather than chase item by item: harder, but should produce better article. it's the Wp:Article development process. see also Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't find another site that illustrates the controversy. However, I did find a couple of useful references to add to the section. As to the suggestion that I create a research outline, I will be leaving that to someone else. I came across the article accidentally while working on my interest in Bluegrass music, because it has a section on left-handed instruments. I feel that I have done my duty in reducing it from nearly 70,000 bytes down to 63,000 by removing jargon, repetition and excessive research detail, so I'll return to my previous task. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I have created a stub on Leela Bordia - Could you plz see and tell me if i am on the right path?

Thanks

The iWriter (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello iWriter and welcome to Wikipedia!

Seeing the article, I would say that Leela Bordia might not be able to stay in our encyclopedia. Why? Because I think she is not notable enough to be here.

If you think there is atleast one verifiable external source talking about her, add it. The more the sources, the better. Then the stub might be good enough to stay. Otherwise, we need more sources.

Also, we use our signatures only when talking to each other, so everyone knows who said what. We do not use them while writing articles; and so we do not need to add our signatures there.

Hope this helped! Cheers!

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A Google Books search shows a full page profile of her in this 1996 book. The article needs high quality references to independent sources, and needs to be written from the neutral point of view. All promotional language should be removed. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi iwriter. One thing you need to watch is that a lot of your article is copied almost word for word from various paragraphs in this source, which may also be similar to the one you used. It was her citation for an award she won from the Chamber of Commerce in India. Unfortunately, we cannot accept text copied or closely paraphrased from sources like this because it is a copyright infringement which can get Wikipedia into legal trouble. It would be okay to just quote one sentence from that brochure, but it needs to be inside quotation marks, and the source needs to be credited much more clearly. I find that in writing articles, it's best to gather information from as many different sources as possible before writing. If you depend on only one source, it's much harder to avoid copyright problems. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

here's a harmony magazine article [5], passing mention here [6]; [7], would be better with an interview in business press.Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 17:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Submitted for Review?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Redrice_School

I have written an article, but don't understand its current status. 1) at the top "Article not currently submitted for review." 2) at the bottom is shows "This submission is waiting to be reviewed"

Please. Have I done anything wrong? If so, how to I fix it? Or is it just a matter of waiting for it to be reviewed by someone before it can be made Live? Thank you. Andrewstimothy (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia! As you can see for yourself that article have actually been submitted for review. I guess you didn't read the message which appeared when you submitted it. The message was as follows :

That means a robot will automatically update the status of the submission after some time. You just have to keep on improving the article. Regards. Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help.

Andrewstimothy (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)