Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 129

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 125

←

Archive 127

→

how do you do spoken articles?

i really want to know(Norville21 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

HI, Norville, and welcoime to The Teahouse. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia should tell you what you want to know.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Should sources or notability be explained on Talk pages

I am a new editor and would like to know if a note in the Talk page on a source ie "this is the leading journal in the field" is helpful in establishing notability as well as not having the sources challenged when submitting Articles for Creations. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, just include it after the reference. For example <ref>Smith, John. Hello World. Internet Press, 2008. (Smith is a leader in this field.). If you need any more help, feel free to contact me on my talk page. the one sean 19:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do! HeatherBlack (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

how do you add a .gif file to wikipedia?

i made a .gif file that i want to insert into 1998 QE2 but don't know how to. the picture is not on the internet and i just have it in microsoft paint right now. (also i made the gif online and the paint file is in .jpeg format.) how do i insert it in a way in which it will work and be visible? thanks exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find useful advice at Wikipedia:Uploading images, and also at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my listing on wikipedia.

Dear Robert Laculus (Referenceing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_S._Brown),

Regarding the changes to my listing on Wikipedia, they seem to have held for the most part. These changes were basic the facts, i.e., where I was born, how long I served in office, who was my predecessor, and where I graduated from college. Are you asking me for my birth certificate and college records to validate the corrected information? The recent postings (disclaimers) that you have placed on this page infer that the information on me is not to be trusted. I would prefer that you eliminate my page altogether rather than make this inference. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cameron S. Brown Cameron S. Brown (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Cameron S. Brown: You cannot do that, since the page does not belong to anyone in particular. If the subject does not conform to the notability policy, it can be deleted WP:AFD. But I'd recommend attempting to add sources, which will get rid of one of the tags. ^King Jakob _C2 13:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction

"... was being helpful..." Cameron S. Brown Cameron S. Brown (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability means having been "noticed" for doing something, not having done something. That means having been written about about by other people or organizations. These newspaper or magazine articles, books, radio or TV interviews, etc. don't need to be online. They just need to be by reliable third party sources. In your career you have been interviewed and written about. Those articles will mention your age, education, and background. It's not that we don't believe you. We just need the sources in the encyclopedia article.

We are also interested in the meaning of what you have done. An encyclopedia article isn't a resume. What were the issues when you ran? What were your positions on things? What things did you get done in office? StarryGrandma (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Cameron S. Brown. Since you clearly meet our notability guideline for politicians as a former member of the Michigan Senate, there is no realistic chance that your biography will be deleted. StarryGrandma gave good advice about the type of coverage in reliable sources that we are looking for. We do not want birth certificates and college records, as these are primary sources, and we want independent, reliable, secondary sources, like major daily newspaper coverage for example. I recommend that you post links to any such sources that are online on the talk page of your article. This is much better than direct editing of the article about yourself. I will put the article on my watch list, and encourage other Teahouse regulars to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I posted links to five newspaper articles on Talk:Cameron S. Brown. I don't have time to add them to the article now, as I have to go to work. Anyone else is welcome to pitch in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

how to translate an existing article into another language?

hello, I wanted to translate an existing article into 2 different languages..I don't know how to proceed(Naskiya (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well speaking the languages you wish to translate is probably step 1. After you know the languages proceed to the wikipedia of that language (find the list here) and see if the page exists already. If it doesn't, great! Create it and on we go. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You'll find further advice at Translate us. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lists of Governmental Institutions and Commercial Enterprises

On the Counter-IED efforts page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-IED_efforts#Preparing_the_Force), I want to add Training and Conferences sections. Is it appropriate to just make a long list of training courses and annual conferences? Should it be comprehensive? What should be my selection criteria?

dbabbitt (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cropping an image

How do you crop an image on Wikipedia? (Monkelese (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Check out Cropbot Checkingfax (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically you need an external program on your computer. I suggest downloading GIMP at [1]. Save the image, open the program after you set it up and then you can use the crop tool to make the image whatever size you are looking for.Mark Miller (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Photoscape is free and has many crop options including setting desired aspect ratios. Microsoft Paint will crop freehand only. Photopad (also free) is not bad. I've found GIMP very unintuitive to use but it's certainly been around a long time Chrismorey (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

COI

I have a question on my mind... it's been there for two months. (Almost) everybody here edit article of their own interest. I edit a lot of U2... does that mean I have a conflict of interest?? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

NO! Unless of course you actually ARE Bono's wife in which case yes ;) Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, do you Theroadislong or anyone thinks I am Bono's wife? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you were Bono's wife, then wouldn't you be Mrs. Bono instead of Miss Bono? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Psss pss Brambleberry... That's because I want to mislead everyone (I'm joking) :P I couldn't register as Mrs. Bono exactly for COI, my first username was Ali Hewson. So smart! :P Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Miss Bono - I wouldn't worry about it, honest. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

About what Jethro(being Mrs. Hewson or the COI stuff)? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Both. Anyone who has a head on their shoulders wouldn't be concerned with either given your editing history. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Jethro, does my editing history show something wrong :? ??? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

MissB, no one thinks that you have a conflict of interest on any U2 topic and your edit history does not show anything to worry about in any respect. NtheP (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'll tell my husband there's nothing to worry about ;) (super joking). I am not Bono's wife. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss your COI, Miss Bono, if and when the band hires you to do PR work for them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it21:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Cullen I wish. Not even in my dreams they would hire me for designing they're website :P I don't want they hire me because I would have to move on form U2 related articles and that's a huge problem my friend... :( Wikipedia wouldn't be so fun, then. I am happy if they just sign an autograph or take me to dinner... maybe play the guitar and sing along with Edge and B. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Miss Bono, you are perhaps not aware of the two different meanings of "interest" in English. Your interest in U2 is the common meaning: something that excites us, or we are passionate about. The other meaning is less common except in legal contexts, and means that your well-being is affected by the matter in some way (often your financial well-being, but it might be your reputation or your relationships). The phrase "conflict of interest" always uses this meaning: in the Wikipedia sense, it means that a person's "interest" (their reputation, or their relationships) may pull them to act in a way which is not in the best interests (same meaning) of Wikipedia. Having an interest in something in the everyday sense is no bar to working on an article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I could only wish that your edits on U2 were what COI was. Dealing with real COI editors is a huge pain. Take a look at my talk page if you are not a believer. You are a fine editor, Miss Bono. Glad you are around! Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both ColinFine and Gtwfan52 now I can breath, I understood what interest was... Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I become a rollback or reveiwer

Do I have the qualifications for becoming a reviewer or rollbacker. BenisonPBaby BenisonPBaby 15:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, BenisonPBaby! You don't seem to have that many edits, which can be a problem when you ask for permissions. When you have at least a thousand you might want to try again, but even that will still be a stretch.

Also, while I see you have some vandalism experience with Twinkle, the requirement for being a rollbacker is a detailed contribution history showing your vandalism reversions. Although I don't have rollback, I believe Twinkle is even better in that it allows you to rollback good-faith edits.

A reviewer must follow the guidelines listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer.

Also, next time you have a question you should use the "ask a question" button so that the question shows up at the top. Happy editing!öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits deleted

My edits were deleted on Miss International US page and wanted to understand why?Mrsilintl2004 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The link to the page is Miss International (United States). —Anne Delong (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mrsilintl2004, and welcome to the Teahouse. The editor who deleted your edits should have left a better explanation, but next time if someone doesn't, you can leave a message for them on the article's talk page or, if that doesn't work, on the editor's talk page and ask them. I think I can see that the reason here is that the article was about Miss International, and you were adding information about a different pageant. A mention that there is a sister pageant would be appropriate, but not lists of winners and other data. If you really want to improve the Miss International article, you could add some references to news reports or magazine articles about it. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding organization

Hi I started adding my employer page, to get started I searched my company name in Wikipedia it search displayed as not available, it took first character as capital and started creating page I wanted to change it to small how to change itSri.sabni (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is has to be ggk tech but currently it is Ggk techSri.sabni (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a limitation of the software that Wikipedia uses that first letters of article names must be upper case. You can use the {{Lowercase title}} template to force the title to display as lower case.--ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can Someone Get Back to Me about my article on Cathy Luchetti

I've contributed before and have just created an article on Cathy Luchetti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cathy_Luchetti) which I believe has been saved, i.e. posted for the reviewers to look over, suggest changes, or approve. Can someone please get back to me on where this article stands in the approval process? Bwisok (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't seek permission. Seek forgiveness after you've created it.

dbabbitt (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft isn't in the approval process. In this edit you deleted the template which included the link to resubmit it after you'd updated it, so I've added it back for you. Before you resubmit, I would suggest that you revert the section headings to normal sentence case (see WP:MOS#Section headings and WP:MOS#Capital letters). Upper case is regarded as SHOUTING. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll definitely change the case to sentence. Can you provide the exact link to the article that contains the template that I had inadvertently deleted? I'm not sure where my creations actually exist. That may explain the deletion of the template. bw Bwisok (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If you click on the link that says "this edit" in the third sentence of my reply, that is a link to the diff where you removed the template. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, David, for your prompt response. bw Bwisok (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Article about the Jersey Murders in 1987

Hey, I tried to create an article about the Jersey Murders in 1987. I wrote a book about the events happening there and on coincidence I noticed that there is no article about the events on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the submission of the article always gets declined."This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia" What can I do for that it is being uploaded? thanks Jeremy Josephs (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can see a number of issues that are clearly bothering the reviewers. Firstly, the tone of the article isn't quite right: it does read like a newspaper story and not like an encyclopedia article. That isn't a criticism of your writing, merely pointing out the difference in the required tone. See articles such as Murder of Teresa de Simone for an example of how to maintain the narrative without becoming too newspapery (I know that's a made up word, I'm hot and need a Pimms!) It isn't perfect, but it should give you an idea of the style to aim for. Your proposed article also needs more references, and using your own book as a reference is a bit iffy: using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. The sources you used in the writing of your book would probably be more suitable, for example. The most important thing is notability; you need to express how and why this crime is notable. Most crimes, by Wikipedia's standard, are not notable, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time. They only become notable if something further gives them additional enduring significance: a change in the law or police codes of practice, for example, arising as a direct result of the crime. An often quoted example is the murder of Adam Walsh which led to the creation of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Keri (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

adding images to articles

I am finding it impossible to add an image to an article ......... why is it so difficult?

I uploaded the image to Wiki Commons........ and tried to use the codes to add the image to the article entitled "Kilmainham" without any success. Copyright is not an issue as it is my own artwork. RiposteMsriposte (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Msriposte, welcome to the Teahouse. You should use the file name and not the url, like this: [[File:Cill Mhaighneann 700 AD.jpg|thumbnail|A painting of Cill Mhaighneann in 700Ad]]. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

New-ish user in need of guidance

Special:Contributions/Mycroberts really wants to try to drum up business by adding links to his employer's website via WP:CITESPAM. (See [2], for example.) I believe under the rules of engagement, we're supposed to try to turn him (or her) into a productive contributor. Anyone with more patience than me want to take this one on? DanielPenfield (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating a New Article

I tried to created an article for "Roy Wilkins Center for Human Relations and Social Justice" but it keeps getting deleted because it saying it's not important. I don't understand why it isn't because it is educational and it is a research center at a well known University. IsAbdi (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a common concern. The entry was most likely not of significant notability in reliable sources. If you are to find various reliable sources, then you may recreate the article with them, but the reliability must be assured. In addition, upon research I found that the article was labeled as having copyrighted material from another website. These are significant concerns that may hinder an article's acceptable creation. Best, TBrandley (T • C • B) 04:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IsAbdi. As TBrandley says, this is a common issue, and often stems from misunderstanding the special way that Wikipedia uses the word "notable": it is easy to think that "not notable" means "not important". It doesn't. "Not notable" means that there are not enough reliable sources to make it possible to write a decent, reliable article about the subject. The Center might be important, but if reliable sources independent of it (major newspapers, books etc) have not written about it, then it is impossible to write a good article about it.

It may also be that the reliable sources exist, but the article you created does not identify them: the onus is on you as the creator to make the article demonstrate that the subject is notable. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the deleted article you submitted. It consists only of a statement about what the organization is and its fine aims, There is a section heading for projects, which is the place to make clear its importance, but nothing was written there. More important, comparing it with the center's website, I see it was copied from there. We don't do that. It's a page copyright to the Regents of the Unviersity of Minnesota, and only someone authorized by them to give permissions could give us permission to use it, and only by following a rather complicated procedure. It is much easier to write from scratch, avoiding anything that looks like public relations jargon.

However, the center is part of the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, which has an article. There is often (rightly or wrongly) considerable resistance to including articles on institutes or research or advocacy groups located within a single part of a university, so I think the best solution will to add a paragraph to the page on that School. It can be referenced from the website as long as it isn't a copy or close paraphrase--as a part of an article it doesn't have to prove its own individual notability,and it still has the possibility of being eventually expanded into an article. You can then add a cross reference, which we call a redirect, pointing to that larger article, so people who might look here for the name of the center will find some information. If you need help with any part of that, ask here or ask me directly. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

how to write thanks letter

yeaterday i lost my money but today i got it because of police so now i want to write a thanks letter to police,how to write it125.115.163.38 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for the diligence in recovering my assets.

Best regards,

signature

But we're really here to answer questions about Wikipedia and how to collaborate on creating content.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You should ask at the Ref Desk Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PR for a Portal

Hello everyone! I requested a Peer Review for Portal:U2 and I don't know why the page is named Wikipedia:Portal peer review/U2/Did you know/archive1‎ with the Did you know in it?. What did I do wrong? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello MissBono. I can't tell you how that occurred but I have moved the page to Wikipedia:Portal peer review/U2 and requested deletion of Wikipedia:Portal peer review/U2/Did you know/archive1. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, LukeSurl Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, portals are quite obscure corners of Wikipedia, with low levels of editor input. You may find that nobody contributes to this review request. You clearly know a lot about U2, and you are clearly a skilled and diligent Wikipedian. I would encourage you to be bold and work this portal into something that you think is top quality. You are probably one of the best qualified Wikipedians to work on this project so go for it and have fun! --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank youso much for the kind words, LukeSurl. I am updating the portal regularly. But how will I know if the portal is in a top quality?? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Looking at Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review it seems that a more active corner of Wikipedia than I thought! I hope you get some useful feedback. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources

Can someone help me understand how to correctly cite my sources? It is telling my my sources are 'bare'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilee33 (talk • contribs)

Good question! Please take a look at WP:LINKROT - in brief, it's all about verification: a bare URL can end up as a dead link, which is no use to anyone trying to verify a source. So, we use a citation template, such as {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} which when completed properly, gives a lot more detail than a bare URL and, if the link goes dead, gives the reader at least a fighting chance of using the details to find a live link, or perhaps a paper copy of, say, a newspaper to verify the source, should they wish to do so.--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Come To The Stable" /Movie

Love this movie; watch it at Christmas every year. In the movie is a piece of music, called, "Catlaina Romano"(Gregorian Plains Chant), is referred to. Question, how/where, can I find this? In the movie, it seemed to be preformed by Nuns in an Abby? 99.25.124.195 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 99, and welcome to The Teahouse. Your question belongs on the Entertainment Reference Desk. This is a place for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We have an entertainment reference desk?--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 19:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor?

I've just come across some chat about the new Visual Editor, which seems to have been deployed. But the "edit" tab (as opposed to "edit source") doesn't appear when I try to edit an article. It isn't clear whether this should happen automatically, or I have to set it up somehow. Db4wp (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:VisualEditor. One way of avoiding the problems of Visual Editor is to use Internet Explorer. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment. I was at a library with Mozilla Firefox and for the first time ever, I encountered those "edit source" buttons and it got me worried. Even here at home I was seeing "edit source" until I changed my status to "online".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Visual Editor isn't activated everywhere yet. If you are editing an article in the main encyclopedia, though, I think you should see the edit button. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

deleting my new page

I want to delete a page I opened. I can edit and remove the body but how can I remove the title and page? Octane79 (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Octane79, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you've created Nemrud (band) and now wish it deleted? We have a set of speedy deletion criteria here on wikipedia, one of them is known as G7 and is for pages where the author requests deletion. I've tagged the page for you so before too long and administrator should come along and delete it for you. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nominate for good article

How can I nominate Voyager 1 for a good article. BenisonPBaby 07:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenisonPBaby (talk • contribs)

Hi there BenisonPBaby, welcome to the Teahouse. I could write out all the instructions here but as it has it, the Good Article project has fairly comprehensive instructions which can be found at this link. Before you nominate though, take a read of the criteria for a good article. If you're happy that Voyager 1 meets the criteria, great! Just follow the instructions at the GAN page. If you have any problems feel free to ask Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Record of most consecutive eight-ball breaks

Record of most consecutive eight-ball breaks 71.34.242.70 (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This page, the Wikipedia Teahouse, is for discussing editing and improving Wikipedia. You may like to take your inquiry to the reference desks. --LukeSurl^{t c} 08:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

looking for input on potential edit disagreement

I'm having a disagreement with another editor and thought I would ask for input here. Its regarding the article Scientific Method In the Overview section the first sentence is: "Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years" IMO and I consider myself between well read and an expert, to say that the scientific method goes back a thousand years is outside the mainstream of most academic thought. However, I also consider "in some form" to be weasel words, they leave so much wiggle room the statement could be true depending how you interpret it. In any case it jumped out at me when I read the article. Then I looked at the reference which is the following, I'm copying the text as it appears in the ref at the end of the article rather than the actual reference code which I'm not sure would work here outside of the article, but this is what a user sees when they look for the justification of that statement I claim is contentious:

"^ a b c "How does light travel through transparent bodies? Light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only.... We have explained this exhaustively in our Book of Optics. But let us now mention something to prove this convincingly: the fact that light travels in straight lines is clearly observed in the lights which enter into dark rooms through holes.... [T]he entering light will be clearly observable in the dust which fills the air. —Alhazen, translated into English from German by M. Schwarz, from "Abhandlung über das Licht", J. Baarmann (ed. 1882) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Vol 36 as quoted in Sambursky 1974, p. 136. He demonstrated his conjecture that "light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only" by placing a straight stick or a taut thread next to the light beam, as quoted in Sambursky 1974, p. 136 to prove that light travels in a straight line. David Hockney, (2001, 2006) in Secret Knowledge: rediscovering the lost techniques of the old masters ISBN 0-14-200512-6 (expanded edition) cites Alhazen several times as the likely source for the portraiture technique using the camera obscura, which Hockney rediscovered with the aid of an optical suggestion from Charles M. Falco. Kitab al-Manazir, which is Alhazen's Book of Optics, at that time denoted Opticae Thesaurus, Alhazen Arabis, was translated from Arabic into Latin for European use as early as 1270. Hockney cites Friedrich Risner's 1572 Basle edition of Opticae Thesaurus. Hockney quotes Alhazen as the first clear description of the camera obscura in Hockney, p. 240. "Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough."—Alhazen (Ibn Al-Haytham 965-c.1040) Critique of Ptolemy, translated by S. Pines, Actes X Congrès internationale d'histoire des sciences, Vol I Ithaca 1962, as quoted in Sambursky 1974, p. 139. (This quotation is from Alhazen's critique of Ptolemy's books Almagest, Planetary Hypotheses, and Optics as translated into English by A. Mark Smith.)"

Yes, that's the whole reference. Its not exactly clear to me how that reference supports the text. I'm also not convinced the reference itself is considered an authority on the philosophy of science or the scientific method. I brought this up on the Talk Page of the article and the discussion with the other editor is there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_method#First_sentence_in_overview It seemed we weren't communicating. BTW, I have a feeling what may be going on here is partly the other editor wants to give credit to someone who normally may not get credit in western academic circles and that is fine with me, as long as what is said makes sense and is backed by references. I just didn't feel I was making progress toward that with the other editor and thought someone might give me some guidance. MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider writing subarticle of Scientific Method: Hello, MadScientistX11. Now "everyone" knows that light does not travel in a straight line, but curves in a strong gravitational field, as suspected even by Isaac Newton in the 1700s, just as experiments on the Space Shuttle confirmed how time slows down over dense areas of the Earth's surface. As for the article "Scientific Method" it should also reflect the mindset of Albert Enstein, in developing theories by deduction from first principles, guided by assumptions such as Einstein's emphasis on the "method of logical simplicity" to avoid complex factors, such as the infamous "cosmological constant" which Einstein had added and made his formula fail to match Edwin Hubble's data about red shift in movements of distant stars. In cases where an article seems to be a wp:BATTLEground area, then consider writing a sub-article, such as "Scientific method in the 19th century" or whatever sub-topic the sources note as a significant subset of the overall topic. Splitting a topic into sub-articles often diffuses the edit-wars, and then later, the text from a subarticle can be summarized as a section back in the main article, perhaps a few weeks later. Meanwhile, each subarticle provides an avenue to explore other related concepts about the subject, which might reveal some new insight, by serendipity. As Einstein noted, "For scientific endeavor is a natural whole the parts of which mutually support one another in a way which, to be sure, no one can anticipate." Thanks for noting that problem here. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your response and your answer is similar to the replies I'm getting from the other editor that I find so frustrating. I'm trying to ask some very specific questions about the beginning of the article on the Scientific Method That article should be about THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It should not be about theories of light. What you started to do there is typical of what the article currently does. It goes into long digressions about various scientific discoveries. What the article IMO in no way does is provide a clear, concise, well referenced definition of the main ideas behind the scientific method. MadScientistX11 (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to document I got some help from another editor IRWolfie and I think the resolution made sense and improved the article. I still think the Scientific Method article needs a lot of work and isn't yet up to the high standards of most serious science article on Wikipedia but this was a good step in the right direction. MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Content on articles and the scope of the article is a matter of consensus. Disagreements on content should be directed to the appropriate venues of dispute resolution. The teahouse volunteers can and may give specific advice but in no way is our advice superior to or authority over any article or editor. Advice is also not resolution. Resolution comes when BOTH parties agree on the outcome through either compromise or discussion to end the dispute one way or the other.Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 18:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one on Portals

I've been racking my brains by reading this, trying to figure out what is missing in this. Can anybody assist me? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is something missing.....it must be pretty obscure. You seem to have touched about everything. Anyone else?--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 00:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why but no one reviews it. Mark Miller Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ask at Wikipedia:Portal on the talk page. Perhaps editors there would be willing to review the page and give advice on a topic they have knowledge on.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 18:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) I will ask. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How to change Advertisement notification to off

This email is in regards with SherWeb's page on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherweb.

We're looking to improve the page so it's not an advertisement. We have read the guidelines and want to make sure we're on the same page and on the right way... Can you help us a bit? Can you confirm the recent changes made are correct? Nicdupsports (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nicdupsports and welcome to The Teahouse. I would say everything but the last sentence under "Business model" should go, and that last sentence should go under "History". The removal of the "16th fastest growing" may have been correct because that's not a particularly high number. There's still work to do. Some of what's under history still feels like someone's trying to advertise, but some wording changes would fix that. Things like "This metropolitan city" and "facilitates".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

my article is said to have too much of a "promotional" tone

Hi, I keep trying to create an article for this mail client that I use--Inky Mail. Everytime I create the article it gets deleted right away and is said to be too promotional. In my opinion it doesn't sound promotional--it sounds just like all the other articles. I would like to send my article to someone and have them edit it--is that possible? Because I'm not getting direct answers from the people that keep blocking me and deleting my articles. Mtully95 (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mtully, welcome to the Teahouse. it wasn't written in a neutral tone, that's the essence of the problem. You can't use terms like "is known for its unique smart views and relevance sorting" and "has been embraced by the press". The first response to these types of claims is "says who?" Ok so there was a reference to Forbes that sort of supported the second claim but it's not enough, there need to be far more references and the language needs to be toned down. What is needed are more reliable sources that comment upon the software. NtheP (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Inky has been written about by notable magazines---am I supposed to include every article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtully95 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You can include as many as you feel necessary to establish that it's a notable product and if you're going to try and justify flowery language (and to be frank I wouldn't bother) you'll need several for every claim. You also need to make sure it's balanced so if there is criticism you need to include that too, not just the good stuff. So if several reviews have said it's relevance sorting is great but a number of others have said the rest of the UI is pants, you must be even handed and included both. NtheP (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay great--thanks! I submitted my article for review, but when I go to my profile it says that I've submitted nothing. Is there a way for someone to check and see if what I submitted was received? I know it won't be edited for a while though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtully95 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Inky Mail was declined, because you submitted it without including any content. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You should only submit the article once it is actually done :) -- ^t numbermaniac^c 06:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Recently an article that I was working to improve but did not create was nominated for deletion.

Miss International (United States) is an article nominated for deletion stating that the same editor has been updating for years. I do not know that to be accurate as I am a new editor who only in the last week or week and a half attempted to improve it. It appears that there have been discussions in the past to delete article and the resolution was to keep.

I concur that the article should be kept. What do I do to comment in the section to add to the discussion. I was attempting to do that, but I am still learning this system. Thank you. The Miss International and Mrs. International Pageant systems have been going very strong since at least 1985. Several celebrities such as Bob Eubanks and Grammy nominee and 1994 Country Music Association Vocalist of the Year Pam Tillis have been a part of the cast. The pageants have also been featured on major television programs. Simply because it had not been televised on major television networks should not be a reason to deem it not notable or of importance. There are several cast members who have also appeared on ABC television programs such as the bachelor, bachelor pad and others. Thank you for your help. Mrsilintl2004 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mrsilint|2004. The main problem with the current version is the lack of citations to significant coverage of the pageant in reliable, independent sources. That type of coverage makes a topic notable here on Wikipedia. The pageant's own website is not independent so doesn't show notability. In order to comment in the deletion debate, click on the blue link in the notice at the top of the article. Please be aware that this is not a vote, though, but a policy based discussion. So it would be best to add references to the article, or at the very least, link to such reliable sources in the debate, to show convincingly that the topic is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding a photo properly

Hi!

My name is Ben and I am trying to improve the Wikipedia page for Lucio Dalla. I am trying to upload the picture from here: http://www.sudpress.it/sudlook/sites/default/files/Lucio-Dalla-sorriso-436x291.jpg

I went through the upload forms twice, filling in all the information and citing the sources and copyrights and I still can't get get it to work and onto the wikipedia page for him. Please help! or could someone with a minute please upload it? I would greatly appreciate it. Take Care.Benjamin Belovich 01:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbelovich (talk • contribs)

Hello Benbelovich and welcome to the Teahouse. The upload appears to be present on the article at the moment, but because it is a non free image and Wikipedia strives to use content with as free a license as possible, we limit the use of NFC (non free content). In order to use NFC, a full ten point rationale explaining why this image should be used must be made to demonstrate that it passes our NFCC (non free content criteria). The most difficult of these criteria is NFCC#1, when it comes to images of people because it is likely that a free alternative can be found. Let me take a quick look to see if anything shows up with a cursory look.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 03:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

So Ben, there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is, even though the bad news is-that the image you uploaded does not pass NFCC#1 because it can be replaced with a free enough license... there are indeed a few CC 2.0 images available at Flickr. Let me contact you on your talk page to explain how best to proceed.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding needed citations

I am brand new to Wiki and I have an interest and knowledge in music. I saw a musician article that has a note that it needs citations. I know that I can add the citations but I may need a bit of help on formatting some sources. It appears that an experienced Wiki contributor wrote the article. How do I contact him to offer my assistance with citations? Or can I just start adding them?Mudpuppie (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mudpuppie. Welcome to the Teahouse and also to editing Wikipedia. You don't need anyone's permission to improve an article. Be bold, and just do it. We have a good introduction that may be helpful to you, called Referencing for beginners. Feel free to come back to the Teahouse whenever you have a question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Talk page??

Is there is anything wrong if I edit my own Talk page, say, I delete some of its entries, especially which are scolding me? BenisonPBaby 17:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenisonPBaby (talk • contribs)

Hi! You are free to edit your talk page the way you want. But do not edit other user's edits with bad faith to make them imply something different. Also, you may delete all the warnings on your talk page. But it does not get you off the hook. In fact removing it gives an acknowledgement that you are aware of it. Any administrative action would not stop if your talk page has no visible warnings as the history still preserves them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Template for company

Hi, when I search for my company page, as it is unavailable I think of creating it. When I am creating the page I am not able to select a template. I need an info box for my company and directions to select a template.

How to add pictures in the text and info box.

I wanted to draft my content, preview it and then push for publish. I tried doing this but when I saved the content it had been pushed for publish and ,subsequently, content was reviewed and was omitted. So, before the content is published I would like to review it twice and thriceSri.sabni (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The content that you published was omitted because it probably did not meet the notability requirements. You see, not everything has a Wikipedia article and not everything should. Please go through the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to check out if the company for which you are creating the article meets the notability or not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sri.sabni. In this instance the article was deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion as blatant advertising (a prior version was deleted back in 2011 under a different criterion). The deletion log entry is here. The problem was that the language was very far from neutral, reading like a commercial. The entry was also a copyright violation, as it was a cut and paste of the content at the company's about us page from its website. If you want to write an article that "sticks" you will need to use your own words, write in a neutral manner, and cite to reliable secondary sources (published sources independent of the company that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, like books and newspapers) to both verify the content and show notability, as Dharmadhyaksha refers to above. Regarding the infobox issue, you probably would want to use {{Infobox company}}. If you visit that template you'll see it has documentation providing instructions on usage. How to add pictures is a topic unto itself but see the image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the rule for British English vs. American English spelling?

What is the rule for British English vs. American English spelling? For example, color vs. colour and normalized vs. normalised. NothingInTheSun (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule, policy or guideline that requires one variant over the other. There is a Manual of Style guide for spelling variants (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling) but is not about which is the one we must use, but explains how variants are preferred in dictionaries and certain locals, but is not a policy page requiring adherence to one over the other. As with all content, consensus determines content.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Effectively, Wikipedia has a roughly proportionate distribution of British English and American English (and other variants), which is achieved by a largely unregulated process. Generally if an article is about an American subject it will be in American English, if it is about an British subject it is written in British English (for example we talk about the colors of the Flag of the United States but the colours of the Union Jack). For articles which don't relate to an English-speaking region the usual practice is once it's written in one variation, it stays that way. It's somewhat chaotic, c.f. Orange (colour) and Violet (color). --LukeSurl^{t c} 23:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For the policy section that Lukesurl has summarized, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, often know by its shortcut name, WP:ENGVAR, and the related policy points below it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

extended discussion

Uhm, I feel bad correcting editors, but that is not a policy page. It is merely the manual of style guideline. Also...it is just the short summary of the full MOS guide I have already listed. But thanks Fuhghettaboutit.

One other thing not mentioned, if the article title uses one variant, the article uses it as well. If the article begins using one variant, consistency calls for that variant to be used throughout that article.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel bad but you should endeavor to be correct if you're going to attempt to do so. WP:ENGVAR is not at all "just a short summary summary of the full MOS guide [you] already listed." WP:ENGVAR is the policy page; it doesn't summarize MOS:S at all and, in fact, MOS:S says nothing on the topic. You simply cited the wrong page in your reply to the OP, and now you're compounding that. I use the word policy advisedly for canonical guidelines as with many editors. You should read Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your tone indicates that a nerve has been struck. My apologies if such has become an irritant to you. Unfortunately, you are still incorrect. WP:ENGVAR is simply a "shortcut" to the section of the Manual of style guideline. Seriously. Not an exaggeration or a mistake. As such it is: "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Guideline pages can be found in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and Category:Wikipedia guidelines. For summaries of key guidelines, see also List of guidelines." Wikipedia policy: "have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. All policy pages are in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and Category:Wikipedia policies. For summaries of key policies, see also List of policies."

You asked me to review an essay. I ask that editors review the policy page itself, which is Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Understanding the differences, as well as the similarities is something that may help editors navigate discussion and better collaborate.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think what Fuhgettaboutit is aiming for is that best practices are best practices regardless of what name you hang in front of them. There are essays, guidelines, and policies that may describe what is a Good Idea, and the fact that something is called an arbitrary name, be it essay, guideline, or policy, does not change its status as a Good Idea, if it is indeed a Good Idea. --Jayron32 00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that is accurate. It seems to me that what the editor was saying is that I was compounding a mistake, when in reality it was they who were compounding a mistake. It is easy to just say, all guidelines, policy and essays are "best practices". The simple fact is, they are not. Some essays are simply humorous, while others are just the opinion of one or more editors, while essays like Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle‎ are supplements to our guidelines. Guidelines are such that they are considered to be practical, but not best practice and should be treated with common sense (you decide what is defined as "common sense"). It is not my intention to make a single editor feel belittled or inferior. It is my intention to be specific, accurate and within our policy, and guidelines when dispensing advice to questions here. I extend an apology to Fuhghettaboutit if anything I said may have offended them.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 01:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I should note that, if you're going to refute a point I make, please refute the point I make and don't invent a point I didn't make out of whole cloth merely to have something to refute. I never said "It is easy to just say, all guidelines, policy and essays are "best practices"." What I said, in different words than I used above, was that good ideas don't stop being good ideas because someone hangs an arbitrary label on them. The goodness of the idea is what is key, not the label. I never said all ideas were good ones, I said that the good ones don't stop being good ones because they are called "essays". --Jayron32 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, Mark Miller, that you were the one who got twisted panties and felt the necessity to jump back in and demonstrate to everyone exactly how "right" you are. Just the sort of passive-aggressive know-it-all-ery that really puts people off Wikipedia. Keri (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Seems to me Keri, you are creating drama for no reason. Seems to me your accusatory tone and name calling puts people off Wikipedia even more. If you have an issue with me...this is not the appropriate venue. My points above were to clarify our policy and guidelines while your point was to be very rude.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 01:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your tone indicates that a nerve has been struck. My apologies if such has become an irritant to you. Unfortunately, you are still acting in a passive-aggressive, patronizing manner. Save it for someone who gives one. Keri (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of passive aggression is noted....as is you aggressive nature on this page. If you have an issue with me personally, take it to my talk page as I have advised on your own talk page.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 01:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for what I've started. NothingInTheSun (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be: it's just a website. Sometimes, as with all online communities, longer-standing members such as Mark and I clash horns, but ultimately it means nothing. We will still log on tomorrow and do whatever it is that we normally do on Wikipedia. Keri (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

When I got back from dinner I expected to see here at least some mild chagrin once you realized your gaffe. Now I am met by the above wall, with you continuing to stand pat on your error. You are either knowingly ignoring the facts, or have still failed to read the pages. We are not debating some philosophical moving target or subjective issue. The pages say what they say so please go read them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling (MOS:S), the page you cited, says nothing whatsoever about Wikipedia's stance on preference for one variety of English over another, nor opportunities for commonality, nor consistency within articles, nor national ties to a topic. That is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (WP:ENGVAR) and its following subsections address and what was and remains responsive to the OP.

The sad part is we have a questioner whose answer is now obscured and has received incorrect information if he follows your first post, your continued insistence on pointing him or her to that non-responsive page, and your continued assertion that ENGVAR is a summary of it. We are not here to win or one up each other. We are here to give good advice for new users. The sole reason I posted was because you had cited the wrong page and didn't provide the relevant information that WP:ENGVAR does and while Luke summarized it a bit, a correct link to the relevant policy page was warranted. I provided it (neutrally, without tagging your error). It should have ended there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

National varieties of English - See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling. That means there is another full page about that specific section. The other sections you bring up, I nut shelled and stated the exact same information. All you are doing is complaining about the fact that I disagreed that ENGVAR is a summary of the full MOS Spelling. It is and I stand by that and my original answer.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 03:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(This is the Teahouse, right?) —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. I think the questioner has quite enough information now. Can we collapse this discussion now? It seems counter-productive to the aims of this page. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)