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.
Occasionally, I'll see an article where the talk page is so long and cluttered with resolved discussions from years ago that it's difficult to read. Then occasionally, I'll see things "archived". Is that a matter of just deleting things or is that a separate process? Can we delete things off talk pages if they are no longer needed? Bali88 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
To editor Bali88: Deleting is okay; old discussions can be found in the page history. However, archiving is preferred, especially on article talk pages. To do this manually, simply copy and paste old discussions into subpages called /Archive 1, /Archive 2, and so on, and add a template such as {{archives}} to the top of the main discussion page. (How to archive a talk page has more detailed information.)
I have been writing a quite short article to explain the definition of the word Flagship in regard to an international organization that I among others around the world run called The Flagship Movement. After writing the article and editing the existing disambiguation page of this word by adding our definition into it, I received a message saying that my article will be deleted due to "Non-notable certification". I have been trying to understand this concept but as I am completely new to Wikipedia as an author I feel that I am a bit overwhelmed to say the least. Can someone please help me with this and show me how and where I can state my case for the existence of my article?Captain Greenbeard (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Captain Greenbeard. Basically, it looks on the surface like the article didn't have any references to show notability. The article needs to have references to show that the organization is well known and is of broad interest. Vjmlhds(talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Vjmlhds and thanks for your reply.
So if I would include links to other websites that reference our organization, would that be enough or are there other references I need?Captain Greenbeard (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:ORG is what you want. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". Also, I will place some info on conflict-of-interest on your talk page. --NeilNtalk to me 01:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Establishing consensus
How do we establish a consensus on Wikipedia? I'm currently involved in a discussion on the MOS to add a policy. It seems that everyone in the discussion agrees on what to add, but there are only 4 people in total involved in the discussion on the talk page. Is it ok to call it a consensus when there are so few people discussing it? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eventhorizon51. Going by past experience, most discussions looking for consensus on a topic usually go about 7 days. My best advice, give it 7 full days so everybody has a chance to either "speak now or forever hold their peace". Vjmlhds(talk) 23:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
More time is better...and changing "policy" based on a 4 person discussion is likely to be questioned once the change is made. --Onorem (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The Manual of Style debate in question has to do with a subset of that guideline having to do with films. Though this specific MOS is important, it is not as likely to receive in-depth attention as revisions to the main Manual of Style. I skimmed the debate, and it seems like a thoughtful, high-level discussion. You could always send a neutral message to other editors involved with editing film-related articles. MichaelQSchmidt comes to mind. 06:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed several articles where the lead was awkwardly trying to use the title exactly as it's written. For example: say there was an article called "The murder of John Smith" and the lead reads "The murder of John Smith is a situation involving the murder of John Smith" or something silly like that. There are times when I think it reads better to just say "John Smith was murdered on...". Is there any rule on this particular thing? Bali88 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to use this image from the National Geographic web site in a Wikipedia article. I have never added an image to an article. I sent a message to NatGeo asking whether they would object to that use of their image, explaining that it would entail making a copy of the image rather than simply linking to it. I received this reply:
Your email was forwarded to me regarding usage of a map produced by National Geographic Maps.
We are giving you permission to use this map.
Let us know if you need anything else.
Thanks!
Regina Peregoy
Office Manager-Maps
Given the above, would I be within WP policy to use this image? If so, can you point me to relevant Help pages about how to do that? Mandruss (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Hey Mandruss. Unfortunately, the query you made, though a display of great initiative, was not the right type of inquiry and the permission is not effective. Copyright is a thorny area and often counterintuitive at first blush. For your typical website, the permission to use would indeed be all that was needed (if transmitted by the third party in a verifiable manner, not by your say-so). But at Wikipedia we strive to only feature content that is free for re-use by our end users. So everything (not being used under a claim of fair use, which I'll get to) is licensed by us for re-use under a highly unrestricted license, allowing our readers to take our content and use it and modify it, even for commercial purposes. The dual license are the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL.
What this means in application is that permission for our use is not what we seek. Rather, what we need is for the person or entity who owns non-free copyrighted content to free up its restrictive copyright to the world; to change it to a free copyright license that is compatible with our licenses.
We do allow use of copyrighted material under a claim of fair use, if it meets the stringent standards set out at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, but a map will rarely meet these requirements because it is always possible a free equivalent either exists or can be created (that is, it fails WP:NFCC#1). In that regard, because this is a map type image, you can create such a map yourself (in the universal sense; I don't know if you have the skills to do so [I personally do not]). But, if you don't, you might try making a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit, for taking the time to give me such a thorough response. But I'm suddenly feeling much less desire to use the image...:) Mandruss (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Mandruss: If you want a map like that, I'd be happy to create one for you. Philg88 ♦talk 17:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Philg88, I'm contacting you on your Talk page.Mandruss (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
How to reply.
Hi. I asked a question in teahouse and someone replied. How do I reply to that person?
Wayner27 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You can hit the edit link alongside the section heading for your question, then type your reply below the message to wish to reply, indenting by preceding your message by one more colon than the message to wish you are replying. Alternatively you could put a message on the editor's user talk page by using the "talk" link in the editor's signature and adding a new section; in the latter case it would be helpful to provide a wikilink to your original question to put your later message into context. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
What does the "lock symbol" that sometimes appears next to a link mean?
I wanted to try and report the user above for persistent vandalism, although I'm unsure if he's already been banned. A "lock" symbol also appears next to his contributions link.
Ah, well I now know he's already been banned (I had to check his talk page, which I had failed to notice existed). Still, what does the lock symbol mean though? :) Flipandflopped (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Flipandflopped: Good question! The lock symbol has nothing to do with users being banned. It simply means that the link is secured using the HTTPS protocol. Philg88 ♦talk 17:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Note also that the IP user has not been banned. Wikipedia had a distinction between blocked and banned; the IP was blocked temporarily, the block has now expired, but the IP has not edited again since then. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for the information and for the distinction. I won't make a ban request unless the IP becomes active once again. Flipandflopped (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Review of new articles
Hi. I submitted an new article for review on March 22, 2014. Could someone please tell me how long it may take until I get a response? Thanks.
Wayne Wayner27 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wayner27, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that there is a large backlog at articles for creation and you may have to wait for a month or more for your article to be reviewed. Philg88 ♦talk 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You can see the age distribution of the pending queue at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. While you are waiting for review, you might improve your chance of it being reviewed more quickly if you tidy up your references. Have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners, and particularly at Same reference used more than once. Apart from having multiple separate entries for the same reference in the list which {{reflist}} has given you, you also seem to have listed each reference again separately (and unnecessarily) in the references section itself. It also isn't clear why you removed the accessdate parameter from your citations; it is a useful aid in retrieving information from archives later if the url becomes stale. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi David. Thanks for your response. I've tried to clean up one reference entry so far per the instructions under "same reference used more than once" but it didn't work. It still lists the full citation. I don't understand what you mean in your statement "Apart from having multiple separate entries for the same reference in the list which {{reflist}} has given you, you also seem to have listed each reference again separately (and unnecessarily) in the references section itself." Is the reflist the numbered list at the bottom? Is the "references section itself" the bibliographic list at the bottom? I did not type the bibliographic list. The reason the access date parameter was removed from citations is because another Wikipedia editor told me to. I had inadvertently put in [today's date] in the access date field in the wizard but no longer wanted that date to appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayner27 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as the accessdate parameter is concerned, the editor was answering your question as to how to stop it showing the retrieval date; he wasn't suggesting that you should do so. I can't see where you have tried to combine references used more than once; can you give us a diff? The references section is the section that says:
==References==
{{reflist}}
You don't need to put details of references in there if you have supplied the details between <ref>...</ref> tags at the place where the reference is used. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Lock Symbol on Link
I have a similar question about a lock symbol like the post below. I'm trying to link to an outside source (The Iowa Women's Archives) source 11 and a lock appears next to the link:
Welcome to the Teahouse, UIKaren. In this case, the lock symbol indicates that the website uses the HTTPS security protocol, and is therefore a "safer than average" website. I am not aware of a way to remove the symbol, which is useful for our readers who may be concerned about the security of websites they visit. Cullen328Let's discuss it 20:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
As the answer to the earlier question said, the padlock is indicating the use of the "https:" prefix. It can be removed by removing the "https:" prefix, as in this edit. No, that padlock symbol isn't related to Wikipedia:Protection_policy. Pages protected under that policy will show a padlock of appropriate colour at the top of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Can someone help a newish user properly add images?
An example of native vegetationUser:Wood Geek has been adding content on soil composition to dozens (hundreds?) of US geographical articles. The information is quite useful, but it's added in a way that it challenges readability and breaks formatting. (For examples, see charts at: 1, 2, 3) Could someone please provide him with some tips on how to better add the info? Thanks. 70.134.229.138 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I see the problem but don't know how to solve it. Here is a proposed solution I came up with:
Native vegetation based on NRCS soils information shows:[1]
^Nelson, Steven (2011). Savanna Soils of Minnesota. Minnesota: Self. ISBN978-0-615-50320-2.
How should I proceed?
I have just finished my first translation from Swedish of a major article. It is still in my sandbox. It is the first draft and I have numerous questions about things in the article and some about formatting.
Should I submit it and by that start up a discussion about it, or should I leave it in the sandbox for a while, write my questions on the sandbox talk page and invite others to help me edit the article while in the sandbox?W.carter (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi W.carter and welcome to the Teahouse! You have obviously put a lot of work into this translation, well done! As you say, it does need some attention, and if you like I will copyedit your draft tomorrow and fix up some other Wikipedia style issues. Philg88 ♦talk 17:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much! That would be very much appreciated. Since I am a newbie there are so many thing I do not know yet about how such an article should be presented in Wikipedia. There are some concerns I would like to point out, but instead of littering the Teahouse with them I will post them on my sandbox talk page.W.carter (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Sandbox
Isn't my submission supposed to be in the Sandbox. The only way that I can access it is to go back to old Talk transcript where it is hyperlinked.Wayner27 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Wayner27 and welcome to The Teahouse. You can also access your submission through your contributions. This can be accessed by clicking on "Contributions" at the top of any English Wikipedia page when you are signed in. At least I think that's how it works; my preferences are set differently than most people's.
Hello, Tharthan. Please explain what it is that you think has a ridiculous name. I don't know what "stutch" means - it looks like a typo to me, but I can't think what it might be intended to be. --ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I was asking about why Wikipedia:Tea Room is not called what it is supposed to be. I haven't been here in a while, hence my confusion. Could you explain?
Stutch is not a typo. Stutch means "piece" or "section." Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm still unsure what you mean. Special:Contributions/Tharthan shows you have posted to Wikipedia:Help desk earlier. Did you think the help desk had changed name to Teahouse? That is not the case. They are different help pages. Our encyclopedia article Tea house says: "tea houses often serve as centers of social interaction". Tea room redirects to it. Wikipedia:Teahouse was created in early 2012 and hasn't changed name since. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
/ˈθɑrθən/, where is "stutch" used? My OEDs (Compact and New editions) are packed away, and since I retired I don't have home access to OED Online. Wiktionary, M-W, and Yahoo! reference all come up blank for it, and UrbanDictionary (never too reliable in any case) has three irrelevant definitions. --Thnidu (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, Ander-Saxon.* That hardly counts as English. Have you really not been here for the past thousand years?
* A Google search produced a link that didn't actually include the match shown in the snippet: "stutch, stetch (OE stycce), piece."
@PrimeHunter There used to be a Tea House area of Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia:Tea Room redirects to here. Please explain.
@Thnidu Ander-Saxon? I've never heard that term. In any case, due to Old English being the earliest form of the English language, I find it perfectly all right to continue the terms that have been lost during its time period. And, as a Germanic linguist purist, I prefer to use ceunde (native) Germanic terms when I am able (though I mostly just wish to use less Latin derived terms [that is, unless they are Germanic in origin or come from Celtic or something like that. Well, even though "piece" might be from Celtic, I'm still not a big fan of it...]) I'm not against loanwords, I'm just against the perpetuation of Latin in English, as that's not fair to English. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, Wikipedia:Teahouse is the only Wikipedia feature which has been called Tea House. There has never been a feature called Tea Room. The redirect at Wikipedia:Tea Room was created after Wikipedia:Teahouse and has always redirected to it.[1] It's common to create redirects for similar names so users can find a page without entering the exact title in the search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Tony Holkham: Hi Tony! I went ahead and deleted the IP's edits. Next time you see an IP posting vandalism/offensive remarks, go ahead and be Bold and revert those edits. Also, I encourage using Twinkle to warn the IP to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonWu (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you may have chosen the wrong option in Twinkle, Brandon, as I see no sign of the legal threat. But of course the warning is a bit academic as the IP hasn't posted for more than 2 years. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
What option should I have chosen then David? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't use Twinkle, so I've no idea. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
To editor Tony Holkham: Because the message is so old, I think the message should have been removed without warning. But if it were recent, I think {{uw-agf1}} (not assuming good faith) is the most appropriate template message. (I use Twinkle.) In this case, though, I think the comment should not have have been removed, and the unregistered user should not have been warned. It would have been a good opportunity to introduce the copyright and similar policies. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-automated warning messages are exceptionally useful for those editors protecting the encyclopedia against obvious vandalism committed very recently. I truly appreciate the work that such editors do. But a personalized message, written in response to an intelligent editor's genuine assessment of a particular situation, is the best possible form of communication, especially for out-of-the-ordinary situations. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
To editor Anon126: I am a bit confused by your response. First you say "I think the message should have been removed", then later you say "I think the comment should not have have been removed" (my emphases). What am I missing? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
To editor Gronk Oz: Sorry for not making my response clear. I mean that, in this case, the comment should have been removed, but if it were not so old, it should not have been. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Chat
How do you use the chat feature? When I open it, I cannot type into the field. Thanks. Wayner27 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this, but if you are actually having a problem, the people who can solve it are at WP:VPT. If you are not having a problem and just don't know how to use the feature, perhaps someone else can help.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions· 20:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to edit Kristen's wikipedia page to include her various charity work but I received a message that it was protected and I couldnt edit. Here is the message plus the sources.
Kristen Stewart- Charity work. In
November 2009 actress Kristen
Stewart particated in a JDRF walk to
cure diabetis. Kristen Stewart
has participated in several charities
which include her donations to
shoe revolt in aid of the fight against
domestic sex trafficking.
Kristen Stewart has donated her vans
to gain money for the charity
that relies on selling donated shoes to
raise the funds. She has also
supported Oxfam and redcross in her
philanthropist ways. She is also involved in the 'gewa project' which is a charity that raises money for rural Tibey. On December 12 2012, she appeared in the 12-12-12
concert at Madison Square garden
on a pledge to fans and well wishers
to join in the donations towards
the victims of hurricane Sandy. In the
same charity she also donated
her Zuhair Murad dress which she
wore to the last Twilight premeire
for the cause. The glamorous gown
was put up gor auction by the robin
hood foundation and the money
received assisted the victims. Kristen
Stewart was also able to raise
$500,000 for charity to assist the
hurricane Sandy relief efforts, through
a 15 minutes meeting with a
middle Eastern prince. She is also hoping to open a half-way house for sex workers.
Hi. I have reviewed a Wikipedia article about "same references", particularly not listing out an entire reference more than once, using a ref code. I could not get it to work. It still listed out the entire reference. Could someone please help? Also, what is the difference between a reference list and a reference section? Thanks. Wayner27 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wayner, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you're talking about a particular reference multiple times throughout an article? Wikipedia:REFERENCE#Repeated_citations has a nice guide to doing this. Essentially, the first time you place a reference, you use the following syntax:
<ref name="name">Text of the citation</ref>
Every time you want to use the same reference after that, you can just use the following:
<ref name="name" />
Let us know if you need more guidance. As for a reference section/list, they're referring to the same thing. The reference section of an article is the section that contains a list of references. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Wayner27 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
How can I see exactly what changes are made to an article?
When someone have been kind enough to correct an article I´m working on, how can I see exactly what changes have been made? As a newbie I have to learn and sometimes small and subtle changes are hard to see.W.carter (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
If you click View History at the top of the article or page, you can then pick out individual changes - WP:DIFF - so that you can see a comparison of what exactly has been changed, for example like this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank´s a lot! Very helpful.W.carter (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@W.carter: One more thing you can do is go to the Gadgets tab in your preferences and select "wikEdDiff, improved diff view between article versions..." I find its diff view a vast improvement over the native one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I have this but sometimes even that's not enough. Sometimes it looks like major changes have been made because somehow the software doesn't show exactly what changed. It seems to show that large sections of the article were deleted and new large sections added, when in fact only a few words were changed.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions· 20:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this typically happens when a block of text is moved. The differencing software detects it as a deletion and an insertion, and it is then difficult to see, sometimes, if any text in the moved block was also changed. Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
how do i put my company details
how do i create a company details page Inishwan (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that you don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising website. Your attempt at promotion has been deleted, and you have been given advice at your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
How long will my user page take to be reviewed?
I started a couple of days ago.SillyPotatoe (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about User:SillyPotatoe/sandbox, you submitted it for review only 16 hours ago. Review can take more than a month. Your submission contains no serious encyclopaedic content and will obviously be rejected. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm working on editing a page about a musician who has done some impressive things that I think are worth including on his page. He has played for the pope, at Live Aid in 1985, and for President Obama at the White House. The only problem is, the only proof that he was at these events and performing are photographs and videos. Being a percussionist, he wasn't always given credit as being part of the performances on websites and in articles. Can anyone provide some guidance on how to properly cite the existence of someone in a youtube video or photograph? Or...will this information just have to be left out forever because no one wrote an article about it with his name in it? Thank you for any help you can offer. MortPanteau (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, MortPanteau. An interesting question. It seems to me that these images or videos will be primary sources: the guidance for primary sources says "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". So as long as the image has been published by a reliable source (which would have to state that the image was taken at the event in question), and as long as it is clear and not in doubt that the image showed the person in question, I would say that it could serve as a reference for the fact of his having been there. But it would not be adequate for any interpretation or conclusion (eg if the photo did not show the musician playing, I don't think it would be a valid source for saying that he had played at the event). --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine, thank you so much for the information! Now, the million dollar question- how do I cite a primary source? Just like any other citation? Again, thank you for your help!!MortPanteau (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:NOYT, YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable sources. If this is incorrect, can someone please correct it? Mandruss (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mandruss - that is indeed correct. The full description as to why YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable sources, is because the majority of YouTube videos are uploaded with no editorial oversight (meaning that anyone can upload a video, manipulate the video's contents, etc.). The exception are YouTube videos that have been uploaded by an official account of some sort (e.g. the official National Geographic account posting a documentary on penguins), as we know such content can be considered reliable. This is similar to Collin's requirement to use images as sources as stated above, which is that the image be published in a reliable source. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 11:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Get back suggestions of articles that need editing?
Hello! When I created my account, first time i logged in there was an overlay asking me if I want to begin helping straight away, offering me a randomly chosen article that needs editing. How can I get this offering overlay back? Is there a category where all those articles are to be found? Any link? I'd like to help and right now I got the time to... :) Razalduria (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Is wikia part of wikipedia?SillyPotatoe (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
To editor SillyPotatoe: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: no. Longer answer: A Wikia account can be used across all Wikia wikis, and a Wikipedia account can be used across all Wikipedias in different languages, as well as other Wikimedia projects (Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc.), but the two are not related (except that they use the same underlying software). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Asking for review of an article
Hi
I just edited an article which had multiple issues. I tried my best to address some of these issues. The last time the article was reviewed was in 2012. How do I ask wikipedia editors to review the article since I made some changes?
Thanks for the response. What if there is no possibility of finding independent third party sources. e.g. this is a small college in India. It was established in 1997. I am referencing the "about" section of official college website to state that it opened in 1997. Are you stating that referring to the source it is not a strong case for references? Similarly, regarding the courses the college has to offer, obviously the best source would be the college website or some published material. So is that unacceptable?
"Random article" brought me to Modern Montessori School (which is in Jordan), and I googled for more information. There turns out to be something else called Modern Montessori International, in England, which as far as I can tell is entirely unrelated to it. This, ISTM, could easily be a source of confusion. I wanted to add a hatnote about the difference, but there's nothing in WP:HAT about disambiguating the topic of an article from something with a very similar name that
doesn't already have an article and
you're not about to add an article about
I boldly went and used the generic {{hatnote}} to add
Hey Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:HAT actually does have just what you need, located at Wikipedia:HAT#Distinguish. I've gone ahead and changed your hatnote to the proper template for you. The page can definitely be a pain to go through, but searching the page using CTRL + F often helps to find what you're looking for. As for linking to other articles on the English Wikipedia, you can use wikilinks instead of making an external link to the article. Hope this helps, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 06:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Noticed that you definitely do know how to use wikilinks. Just a heads up that we do have an article on Modern Montessori International, it just needs...er...a lot of work. For future reference, placing external links in a hatnote is not standard practice. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 06:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, SuperHamster. Now I feel dumb for not checking for a wikipage for it, and {{Distinguish}} takes internal links. Of course, that third example
would have worked just fine with my external link.
But as you said, Wikipedia:Hatnote#External links says Don't do that. So there's no acceptable way to warn a user "This page may not be about the thing you're looking for, but we don't have a page about that thing". That seems wrong, don't you think? --Thnidu (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Thnidu: Good question - if the subject isn't notable enough to have an article, then I imagine it's not worth mentioning in a hatnote in the first place. If a subject should have an article but doesn't, the only option then would be to create an article first, and then link it. Currently hatlinks should not link to not-existent articles. I personally would support placing redlinks in hatnotes to promote article creation, but that's not the current consensus I suppose. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I've seen the format of {{Distinguish}} used without a link because there was no article, to make it clear this was not about a certain topic.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions· 20:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: Now that you bring it up, I think I have too. Haven't seen it used much though...I guess there are a few circumstances where it might be a good idea. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 05:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Can I find our who the author of an article is?
I have further information that I would like to submit to the author of an article.Is there a way to contact them? Thank you.BCrompton (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BCrompton, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles are written by the community - anyone is free to edit articles, and they are all collaborative efforts. This means that there is no one sole author to an article. If you'd like to see the editing history of a page, you can click on the 'View history' tab at the top of an article. If you'd like to bring up something regarding the article, the best place to do this is to head to the article's talk page (reachable by click the 'Talk' button at the top of the article) and post your comments there. Hope this helps, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 00:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If you're looking for the original creator of an article, you can go into the page history and then select the "Oldest" option, which will bring you to the first publicly viewable revision of the article. For older articles, the first few revisions may have been lost, but I don't exactly know why. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello K6ka. In 2001, its first year as a much smaller project, Wikipedia used different software called UseModWiki. Since then, the software has been MediaWiki. As a result of that software upgrade, the earliest editing history of the oldest articles is not in the current database. However, backups of the earliest data are available to researchers. See Wikimedia Foundation: Old Wikipedia backups discovered for a detailed description. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
No link on disambiguation page
Hello all,I'm curious as to how a topic becomes listed on a disambiguation page when no article has been written about it. I'm looking to add an article about such a topic, but I'm wondering if its already been attempted and taken down due to lack of notability. Is there anyway to see if this is the case? Thanks
Pbbalduc (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Pbbalduc. If any editor reasonably believes that an article ought to be created on a notable topic, and the title of the topic is ambiguous, then the topic can be mentioned on a disambiguation page. Normally, this will be a red link. See WP:REDLINK for details. It is up to an editor acting in good faith to make a quick determination as to whether or not the topic is likely to be notable. An administrator can check whether any such article has previously been deleted, but there are many topics once judged not notable that are notable today. A singer could have been non-notable three years ago, but an emerging star and therefore notable today. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
To elaborate on Cullen's excellent answer, anyone can check the deletion history of an article by searching the deletion log. On that page, entering a page title in the 'Target (title or user)' field will return the deletion history of that page. But as mentioned by Cullen, an article being previously deleted for a lack of notability is not a sure indication that the subject is still not notable. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 07:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Heh, of course Cullen - it's surprising how much I've learned myself while answering questions at the Teahouse. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 06:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Pictures of art
I'm currently working on an article about Swedish artist Einar Jolin and it would be nice to be able to show some pictures of his paintings. There are none at Wiki Commons. I have a book printed in 1957 with pictures of paintings even older than that. Can I scan some of these and use in the article or is this still a violation of some copyright? - W.carter (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi W.carter. I've already posted the requisite info on the talk page of the draft you're working on. Philg88 ♦talk 10:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
On my edit page, what is the (+35) or other number in either green or red?
It says bytes, but I really don't understand...Great Politburo (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Great Politburo and welcome to the teahouse! One character (i.e. letter) is a byte, so if I removed the word 'the' from a page, it would have a red '-3'. However, prose is not the only thing affecting bytes, non visible wikicode does as well. If I added a wikilink to the word 'Wikipedia', it would have a '+4': I added four bytes, the '[[' and ']]' Hope this clears things up a bit! Best, Matty.007 10:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey everybody! I am currently thinking about adding an image to an article, but I have a few questions. First of all, the image is from Wikimedia. I'm assuming that this is okay and not a copyright violation, but I want to make 100% sure that it's okay to use it before I upload it. Next, I want to crop the image as it has only one person in it that I want. How exactly do I do this, and once I crop it, how do I upload it? Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, good, an easy image question, Twyfan714. Any image you find on Wikimedia Commons can be used anywhere for any purpose, as long as you credit the image properly. That includes derivative works, such as cropped and otherwise edited versions. Download the highest resolution copy available to your computer, crop it as you see fit, and then upload the cropped version to Wikimedia Commons with a new file name. Credit the original file name and original photographer, and all will be well. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Hey Twyfan714. I assume by Wikimedia you mean the Wikimedia Commons? ([the] Wikimedia [Foundation] is actually the organization that hosts all projects, all Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikispecies, etc.) If so, all files there are can be used here freely (so long as they aren't undiscovered copyvios but don't worry about that). They can also be used here natively, so you don't need to upload it here; to use a Commons image just place image syntax just as you would for a local image. But of course, if you download an image and then crop it you will need to upload it, but upload it back to the Commons, making sure you provide attribution back to the original image. As for how to crop it, there are many different image manipulation programs you can use. You could, for example, use GIMP (which is what I use – poorly, and see How to Crop an Image Using Gimp) or Paint.NET or Adobe Photoshop, or a host of others. Then go to the Commons and click "Upload file" under the participation menu on the left hand side of the page. If you get stuck somewhere along the line, come back here and we'll be glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit and Cullen328, it helps. Unfortunately, I am still slightly confused. I'm attempting to add an image to The Wonder Years article of Fred Savage. I am considering using an image entitled File:Ken with Fred Savage (253706301).jpg (I am not putting the image itself here, because it is VERY big), possibly in a new cast members section, and crop it so the image just features him. However, when I searched his name on Wikimedia Commons, this image did not turn up. I had to look at a category page with his name on it in order to find this image. Two questions in regards to this: 1) Why didn't this image turn up when I searched his name? 2) Is this a red flag of any kind for me about using this image? Thanks!!! Twyfan714 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@Twyfan714: Yes, it looks like that article should have just such an image. The fact that the image is big is not an issue if you wanted to use it as is. You can change the size an image appears easily. The basic image syntax is [[File:Name.abc|thumb|number px|caption text]] In "number px", you can choose the size by playing with the number such as "200 px", "300 px". Much more information is available in the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.
Anyway, regarding cropping it and then uploading that cropped image, the only restriction in the copyright license is that you must give credit to the author of the image on your re-upload, so you would click edit on the existing image, copy the author field, and then use that on your upload, i.e., [http://www.flickr.com/people/42274165@N00 Alan Light]; provide other details from there and state that you cropped it from that original image, linking its name. I don't know why the image didn't come up when you searched for it – it did come up when I did the same search; it was the fifth image displayed for me. Nope, no red flag:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again Fuhghettaboutit! I've downloaded the image and am currently viewing it in Windows Photo Viewer. I have another question regarding this (sorry for all the questions, btw! It's just this is more complicated than I thought it would be): Would using the snipping tool be another good way to crop the image? Or would something like paint.net be better? Thanks again! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It makes no difference at all which software tool you use to crop, Twyfan714. Do it in whatever way you find easiest. Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again everyone! Sorry if I asked so many questions! Twyfan714 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
We are here to answer all good-faith questions, and yours are perfectly fine, Twyfan714. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to confirm, Twyfan sensibly asked a question at Commons:Upload help with a concern about possible copyright violation. The photo in question was published on a Flickr account under a CC-BY-2.0 licence, and confirmed as being under that licence by a trusted reviewer. This means you're free to crop it and upload it as long as you credit the original author and the source, as well as noting that it is a crop of an existing Commons file. The only other thing to note is that the image you were looking at is a scaled-down version of another image, so I'd recommend downloading the larger one (File:Ken with Fred Savage (2082192262).jpg) at the largest possible resolution and crop that instead. Cheers. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Difference between PROD and XfD
So looking through Twinkle's options I saw that there are two similar options. One is PROD and another is XfD. It seems that PROD is more of a hybrid between CSD and XfD but I'm not sure how they work. Any help would appreciated. -24Talk 02:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Negative24: Welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, a PROD sits on an article for seven days and then an admin can delete the page. Anyone can remove a PROD for any reason or no reason. The exception is BLPPRODS, which are used on unreferenced biographies of living people. These remain in place for 10 days and can only be removed if reliable sources are added. Does that answer your question? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 02:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jakec: When would a PROD be used instead of going through AfD or XfD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negative24 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
When no reasonable person could object to the deletion of the article. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
More specifically, PROD should be used when two conditions exist: (a) no WP:CSD criteria are applicable for speedy-deleting the article, and (b) deleting the article in its present state would not arouse any controversy (that is, you are confident that a full AFD would result in a non-contentious decision to delete). What often happens is that the article is escalated to AFD if the PROD is removed and the article is not improved. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for answering my question. -24Talk 11:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
can an outside editor come to my talkpage and revert some posts I had manually archived
I manually archived a post to my archived part on my talk page. Someone using a ip address account..
now today two different ip posters have posted on my talk page saying please do not delete my message.
Question, I can either delete or archive a post on my own talk page can't I?
Carriearchdale (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes you can remove such posts - the guideline is WP:OWNTALK which includes:-
"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred." "There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details".
However, as the editor correctly stated on your talk page - a reply would be polite ... - Arjayay (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Differences between regular user reviewing and a reviewer
So looking through the different user rights on Wikipedia, I saw that one was reviewer. I had just been checking out the page WP:RCP which described similar programs. What is the difference between WP:RVW and WP:RCP as a regular user? Thanks, -24Talk 23:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Negative24: Hey Negative24. The reviewer flag allows users to review edits to articles placed under pending changes protection. patrolling recent changes, by contrast, requires no permissions to perform. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}