Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Freedom to Edit...

Hi, tis is Ajayupai95 once again...With another problem. I made a particular edit on a page Ministry of Defence (India) where i found some content that was unnecessary and so I made a careful edit with a detailed edit explanation... Today I looked up my Watchlist and found that my edit had been reverted.. And the edit count says and I quote "VANDALISM DELETED. Members of the Indian Police Service, Indian Forest Service and others in central get promoted to Joint Secretary in GOI after 26 to 27 years of service by the federal cabinet. Joint Secretaries are listed in the Order of Precedence." Please can anyone clarify and explain to me if I'm wrong??? If not how to tackle such reverts of edits made carefully??? Ajayupai95 (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ajayupia95. If your changes have been rejected the correct procedure is to start a new discussion thread on the talk page for that article and explain why the change should be made. If the present version is not referenced it can be tagged as needing references by adding {{cn}} which produces a citation needed tag. You will need references to support what you are adding. If you are still not satisfied after allowing a week or two for other editors to comment there are further dispute resolution procedures that can be followed. I would personally ignore the comment about vandalism the first time it happens but if that persists it can be reported to the administrators' noticeboard.--Charles (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

inserting photo into article

I have a photo which I have taken of a Lehigh Co PA Parkway which I frequent. I would like to place this photo into the article listing park sites in the county. Can I do that, or does it need to go through the County first? Apologies if it's a particularly ignorant question.Final4one (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse! As far as I know, nothing in a picture of a park or parkway should be copyrighted. Therefore, as long as you're willing to agree to our license, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons and use it! The license we use here, the CC-BY-SA 3.0, basically says that anyone, anywhere, at any time, can use your image for any reason, even commercial, but they have to provide a hyperlink back to the file page on Commons, which will link to your userpage and allow them to contact you for attribution. It also states that anything they use it in must be licensed similarly, so nobody can go copyright your image. If you agree to those terms, go to the link above and upload it! The same account you use to log in to Wikipedia should work there :) After you've uploaded it, put this on the page where you want the image to show: [[File:<name of the image, without the brackets around it>|thumb|<a caption, again without the brackets>]] and it'll show up for you! Thanks for being willing to take pictures for us! gwickwire^talk_edits 05:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll do that later today. I've only become involved in this noble enterprise for a few months. Once I figure things out, they seem to work just fine, but I'm easily confused, so...and thanks for your time and effort at this.Final4one (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding an External Link within an Article as a Reference

Hello-the college I work for is mentioned several times in an article about the larger university in which it is housed. The university's other colleges are also mentioned, and some of those colleges have links to their respective web sites. I would like to have my college's link included for reference purposes. How do I do this without violating any policies? Thank you-EstarrbEstarrb (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What article is this about? We should take a look at it to see what it is you are referring to. Inline external links are actually not generally allowed in articles, but your use of the terms external links and references interchangably is confusing because they are in fact quite different things. Roger (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Roger. I'm so new to this and didn't use the right terms. The links I am talking about are not external web site links; rather, they are links to individual articles on Wikipedia about the respective sub-colleges. I guess my college would need its own article to cross-link to; however, since I am an employee, I cannot create this article. Correct?Estarrb (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Estarrb. You can link to other pages on Wikipedia using double square brackets, so [[Wikipedia]] creates a link to the article Wikipedia. If pages on the sub-colleges exist, double-square-bracketing their names will create a link to their respective pages. If an article on your college doesn't exist yet, it may still be a good idea to format it like this - if there's no page at the other end of the link, what you get is a redlink, which looks like this. Many editors, on seeing such a redlink, will try to turn it blue by creating an article on the topic in question, so by redlinking the college, you improve its chance of being written about.

Whilst you can, in theory at least, create an article about a subject you're affiliated with, it's fairly strongly discouraged. However, if you can write in a neutral voice and limit the content to include only sourced information, there's no reason you shouldn't attempt it. If you want to have a go at writing an article on your college, I'd suggest doing so at articles for creation, so that it can be reviewed before being posted. You'll also want to read the guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. I hope that helps to answer your question. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This is very helpful, and I will try both of your suggestions.Estarrb (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello all, hope you are doing well. I was going through some articles and saw some pictures are outdated. I would like to include new ones, but I heard there is some process that has to be done with WikiCommons? How does that work? I can't just put a picture from the internet, I have to upload it there first and wait for approval, then edit the article? Thank you very much :) Zalunardo8 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. If the images you are here about are in the public domain, or freely-licensed with such license being one compatible with our free licenses, then they may be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons and used here immediately. The vast majority of images you find on the internet, however, are copyrighted. Note that an image is assumed fully- and non-freely copyrighted unless you can show how it entered the public domain or was freely-licensed. So in general, you very much cannot cannot just take a picture from the internet and upload it. If you want to run a particular image by us to check though, because you see some indication it is free but you are not sure, you can post a link here (or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) for a second opinion. By the way, there is a Free Image Search Tool (FIST) that might help you find a suitable replacement image. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, thank you so much for your answer!! Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I complete uploading my photo to "Pagedale, Missouri?

The file number is listed on the page, but I'm stuck after that24.216.76.116 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I guess it was you who uploaded commons:File:Baerveldt Park.JPG and tried to add it as "File:PA240428" in [1]. I don't know where you got "PA240428" from but I fixed the name in [2]. Maybe PA240428 was part of the original name made by a digital camera. Thanks for uploading the file with a descriptive name and not a number. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A reference I wanted to use is on the Spam List.

One of San Francisco's newspapers is currently on the Spam list. I'd like to link to an article the Examiner ran on SPUR: not many secondary sources exist for SPUR, the Examiner is widely read within San Francisco, it's good to have an alternative point of view/voice to the San Francisco Chronicle. This article is by no means crucial to the SPUR entry, but it does seem unworkable to have one of the newspapers of one of the larger cities within the U.S. on the spam list. Thanks in advance.Ravenforaday (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ravenforaday, welcome to the Teahouse. The link http://www.sfexaminer.com/ to The San Francisco Examiner can be saved without activating the blacklist. Please post the specific link you want inside <nowiki>...</nowiki> so we can examine it. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that even if the only link to an online version of the article is through a blocked site, that does not mean you can't simply cite the newspaper article (providing sufficient attribution; typically: newspaper, title of article, author, date and page), without giving a link. We like courtesy links because it makes verification easier, but they are not required at all. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The talkback template

I'm new to Wikipedia and still trying to get to grips with the basics. With the talkback template, do I leave a message for someone else on MY page and then add the { { Talkback|username } } template (using the username of the person I'm trying to contact), or do I place the talkback template on their page?

I know this is very basic stuff but if someone could clarify this that would be brilliant!

DanielleForrester1991 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Danielle, welcome to Wikipedia. Talkback is used to let another editor know you've replied to them somewhere else. Therefore, it always goes on their talkpage (this creates the bright orange "You have new messages!" banner on every page they look at) and should direct them to wherever you've made your reply (thus, if I wanted to let you know I've replied here, I'd leave the template {{Talkback|Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions}} on your talkpage - which I'll do now!) Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, you've made it much clearer! I think I read too much into the Template:Talkback page.

DanielleForrester1991 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing Videos

What are the locations of the best videos on Wikipedia about editing? I found a great one about how to do citations and I'm wondering if there are more on Wikipedia.Gustav38 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gustav. You can find all the available Wikipedia instruction videos (that I know of, anyway) on this page at Wikimedia Commons. Hope that helps. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My teahouse scripts not working

Hello,

I don't know how the Teahouse scripts are working for all of you, but since I have to do a lot of work to post a simple Talkback, I assume they are not working fine for me. Could anyone show a screenhot of how the page looks, and how they post Teahouse TBs to other users?

Also, I very much suspect I've done something which does not allow my scripts to work properly, which is why I have to manually place the TB for every answer I give. Can anyone find what's the problem I am facing?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Which browser are you using? Because there are known problems with Internet Explorer and the Teahouse scripts. AFAIK, they work fine with other browsers, but in some set ups, IE messes up. I have two computers with identical versions of both Windows 7 and IE, and oddly it works on one but not the other. I'm using Google Chrome now as my primary browser, and haven't had a single problem since switching over. --Jayron32 07:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrome. But firefox does not show the option either. (A screenshot of how you do your tbs might be good) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a screenshot that you'll find here. Normally there is a little TB and when I click that the rest happens. I hope this helps :) heather walls (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Now I know that there is a problem with my teahouse scripting because of which I do not see this TB. Anyone have any idea what it might be? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I adopt a user?

Hi. I want to adopt a user, but I have some questions. First of all, am I qualified enough to adopt a user? Second, How do I adopt a user? and third, What does adopting a user entail? Thank you. JHUbal27 ^Roar! 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The Adopt-a-user program is explained at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Please let us know if you have any further questions.--ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jhubal,

First, there is no qualifications for Adopting a user. Anyone can do that. But what is required is experience on Wikipedia, and to be familiar with almost everything around here. So, while you are completely free to try adopting someone, I suggest you want for a month of two before you are familiar with everything here. Before trying to adopt someone, you may also want to get adopted yourself. :)

Second, to adopt a user, you may add yourself here - List of adoptees. Then you either wait for someone to ask for adoption from you, or just try to find users who want to be adopted. This category might help you in doing so.

For your third question, adopting a user entails familiarizing your adoptee to all basic stuff on Wikipedia. Worm's adoption HQ gives a very good idea of the various lessons that are involved, and what needs to be taught. You may also look at the adoption HQ of some of the other adopters.

Hope this helped.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Currently waiting adoption by Go Phightins! JHUbal27 ^Roar! 11:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

help appreciated: unable to use my Wikipedia ID to log in Wiki Outreach?

Hello there, i've tried to log in onto https://outreach.wikimedia.org with my id/pw, it recognizes it as being used in the unified login system but does not accept it. Do I need to create a separate user/id for that site or should is there a way I can use my normal login info? Many thanks! slv (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! The best advice I can give you is to merge your accounts. I don't know if that website counts, but try this and let me know if it works. JHUbal27 ^Roar! 21:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks JHUbal27 for the prompt reply. I haven't created a second account actually, I have a single account that works pretty much everywhere except for WMF (understandably) I thought the reason I couldn't get on the outreach.wikimedia.org is because it is a 'backstage project" but it I can edit on other backstage projects like Wikimedia Labs so can't be that. Maybe just access level. I just wanted to get a feel from the Outreach team/moderator about the efforts and current goals/strategy for that program. For example is this site/team involved in any other outreach program besides curating the relationship with existing volunteers, etc. The site seemed quiet. Maybe someone on the teahouse would have a bit of background on this project or direct me to a place where I can enquire/find the information? Thank you!! slv (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. I was really confused with what you wanted to know, but I dont think I would know it either. But if you wanted to know about something, you can simply contact Jimbo at his talk page I am sure someone looking at his talk page would know the answer, and reply to you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Their talk page also seems to be active. You may try asking there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

SUL does not work on Outreach. This is a known bug. But I am surprised that your current account login doesn't work when you try to log in from the Outreach homepage. I suggest that you create a new account on Outreach using the same username. If that doesn't fix the problem then please let me know on my talk page. --Pine^✉ 05:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pine, will try that. slv (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Standards

Hi, I am currently editing the [Virtual Film Making] page and it says that the page doesn't currently meet the standards and needs cleaning up, can you explain to me what the standards are? Thanks MarinaLouise (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marina. Quick note as I'm running out the door. I've reformatted the references to start meeting attribution standards and made some other tweaks, but a great deal of them are not reliable sources. The article also appears to have quite a bit of peacock language in it, that is, it is not written from a neutral point of view. I'm late!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit I'll look over that and make the required changes :)

MarinaLouise (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting DYKs reviewed...

Hi this is Ajayupai95 once again, I just wanted to know how a DYK gets reviewed??? I've forgotten this part... Thanks!!! Ajayupai95 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. You will find that all explained at Wikipedia:DYK#The DYK process. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Finding Citations

Hi guys, I'm currently editing the article Computer animation for a university assignment and noticed that there are a number of citations that need verifying. A colleague of mine has taken up one of them but I'm having trouble with the other. The citation is needed for this statement:

In theory, realistic computer animation can reach a point where it is indistinguishable from real action captured on film. Where computer animation achieves this level of realism, it may have major repercussions for the film industry.

I'm struggling to find where this information could be sourced from to verify the statement as being correct. Personally I feel the wording of 'may' doesn't stand strongly enough either way. So, my questions are, firstly: Where would you suggest I look to verify the statement? and secondly: If you find a statement to not be true, what is the policy? Do you remove it and explain your reasoning or do we talk about it and then follow the general consensus from the replies? Jbaron88 (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jbaron88. That looks to me like something best sourced either from a textbook on the subject, or from an academic paper. Seeing as how you have access to Hull University Library (I'm taking a stab in the dark that you're one of the students working on the Machinima course), that would probably be the optimum place for you to look; I'm sure some of your course texts might contain appropriate statements. Alternatively (if you've lost your library card) I'd recommend running some searches through Google Books and Google Scholar to see what you can come up with. Either way, such a speculative statement does, as you surmise, definitely require a citation to avoid accusations of original research.

In the instance that you find a statement in an article to be untrue, the best course of action depends somewhat on the circumstances - generally, it's appropriate to remove the text and start a discussion on the article's talkpage. However, if another user reinstates the text, it's usually a bad idea to remove it again - instead, present sources supporting your position, and try to get some sort of consensus amongst other editors. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Yunshui. You're quite right, I am on the Machinima course. That makes much more sense now regarding an untrue statement, I'll try find a source to support my stance and take it to a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks again. Jbaron88 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Cancel review and move to article

Hi,

I had created this page:User:Expertsleuth/Nanma Niranjavan Srinivasan as draft and submitted it for review. I have since added some more content to the page. The contents are the same as I have put in a Malayalam article with the same name.

I would like to cancel the review on my draft page, and move it to an article.

Can I do this move? Expertsleuth (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hide Contents on Talk Pages

I want to organize my talk page into sections (Super OCD), but the contents page keeps showing up. I understand why this automatically happens; however, for now, I do not want it, because it is messing up the page formatting. Is it possible to do this? Austinuity (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just add the code __NOTOC__ (double underscores on both sides) to the top of your page; this will disable the table of contents. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks! Austinuity (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Userbox Alignment

On my user page, I am trying to put my userboxes in a right-aligned table; however, the formatting just doesn't seem to want to cooperate, and one of my userboxes is leaving a space the width of a userbox. Austinuity (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a look: let me know your thoughts. ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... That fixed it, but I had it that width because I don't want it to get too long when I add a lot of userboxes. Austinuity (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I make the page curation toolbar appear?

Hello again! I have been looking at pages on the New Page Feed, and each time the Page Curation tool bar would appear. It was kind of in the way, but it had a minimize button, so I shrank it down to a small grey stub. Later, though, I wanted to review one of the pages, so I tried to unminimize the tool bar and I accidentally closed it. Now I don't know how to get it back. I tried reloading the page, I tried clicking on the green "review" button, and I tried closing my browser and starting over. What should I do? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. Go to the Toolbox list of links on the left hand side of the page and click "Curate this article". That should reanimate the toolbar. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On this subject. I don't have that in my toolbox. Any thoughts on that? Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you looking for that link for any random article, or for an article that has been logged as created within the past 60 days? Only the latter will provide the link, because only articles in that span are subject to the page curation process. If you're not getting that link for articles in the framed period, then I have no idea unfortunately.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Attributing in non-fiction book summary

If I'm summarizing a book by Smith and I have a "Content" or "Summary" section, is it better to explicitly attribute everything to Smith: "Smith says the earth is flat. As for as birds Smith insists that birds don't fly. Finally Smith concludes pizza is square." Or do we assume everything in the summary is what Smith said and write "The earth is flat, birds don't fly, and pizza is square.[1]" where maybe you cite smith. I've seen both styles, even within a single article. Maybe there is a guideline to when to attribute and when to just state? Silas Ropac (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse! As far as I know, that depends on whether "Smith" is repeating a well-established, documented fact or not, I.e. Barack Obama is a human. For that scenario, you need not add the words "Smith says" or "Smith claims". Whereas for controversial statements that the mainstream oppose, you should do so. (I.e. Smith claims that Bonkers The Clown was the assassin who killed Pedro Blanco Soto in 1829) Get what I mean? Happy editing. Cheers :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that sounds reasonable. But I'm guessing you can attribute the main idea to someone, but then state the supporting sentences as "facts":

Smith claims that the clouds are full of a little gnomes. They live in the clouds and control the weather, for example when it rains it is because they are crying. Sometimes the gnomes even create hail by dropping marbles.

Seems clear the whole thing is attribute to him, without the repetition of "Smith this" and "Smith that" in every sentence? Silas Ropac (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, yes you could. Happy editing and happy Valentines. Cheers. ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 (Nonsensical Babble) ☯ 14:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping this neophyte! I did add the original name from the camera. Now, today I didn't make that mistake, but I'm not seeing a photo I uploaded a few minutes ago to "Bel-Ridge, Missouri" of Gutnecht-Arrowhead Park. Am I maybe not waiting long enough for it to appear, or should I try again? Thanks24.216.76.116 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Accepting an AFC submission

Hi,

I was wondering if there's any special protocol to accepting an AFC submission, or do you just move it into article space. Thanks,

^King Jakob _C2 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, King Jakob. Before you review articles on AfC you should go here and read all the instructions. There are manual ways to approve articles, but there are also some scripts you can install that will automate it for you. You should become familiar with all the contents of the linked page before you review articles. Thanks for helping out. AfC is a realll busy place! Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Like Gtwfan said, you can install the Yet Another AFC Helper Scrtipt in your preferences under gadgets. Once you clear your browser's cache, click on the arrow at the top of the page (next to the star usually). Under "move", should be review. This will allow you to Accept or Decline articles. If you can't find a reason to decline an article, then accept it. The script will do everything for you, you just need to click a few buttons. Hope this helps and have fun reviewing pending AFC submissions! JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 12:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy against putting up a resume on Wikipedia?

Dear Editors: I went to the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page expecting to find a line like "Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume". There were helpful shortcuts down the side and one of them is "WP:RESUME". I clicked on it, but it redirects back to the same page, and there is no other mention of the word "resume" on the page. I am wondering if this is a glitch, or if there was a policy about resumes and it has been removed. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Anne, have a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site point #1. NtheP (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome back to the Teahouse, Anne Delong! Yes, whenever it says "shortcuts" to the side of a page it links back to that page. That just shows you what shorter thing you can type in to go to the same page or section as opposed to writing out the whole thinga nd checking. There is, however, a policy about resumes called Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the correct area. If I was trying to explain to someone why he or she can't post a resume, I wouldn't refer anyone to that page. It's really rude. It's the first time I've seen something on Wikipedia that is sarcastic and makes fun of people. Maybe I should tag it for POV. Where is the correct page to put in a request for a clear and concise paragraph in the policies which specifically mentions resumes, but doesn't send new editors to that page? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the top of that page you will see a declaration that it is a satirical essay, not a guideline or policy page. It is definitely not the right page to point someone unless they understand the concept of satire. Roger (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anne, read the link I posted, it does mention resumés. NtheP (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I didn't find it because I didn't put the accents in my search term. I guess I'll have to figure out how to do that. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anne, usually when I see this question, I direct the user to http://www.wikibios.com/ as an alternative outlet.--ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen that site. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for giving you the link to that article. I neglected to read the warning about how it was satirical and thought that it was legitimately serious. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Differences templates in French and English language Wiki.

Dear Editors,

I'm working on translations of the entries relating to the Centre de l'Imaginaire Arthurien at the request of the director of the centre. There seem to be some differences between the templates supported by the French and English language versions. Is there a source that describes the equivalent templates and any differences between them?

Any advice will be thankfully and gratefully appreciated.

Warm regards

Errvay (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Errvay :) I can't say I'm fluent in French, but knowing the processes of en.wp and fr.wp, I can say that I can most likely give you an en.wp equivalent of a French Wikipedia template. If you want to link to one, just put a colon, then fr, then the full page name (with any prefixes) like this: [[fr:<prefix, if one>:<name of article/template/page>]] without the < and > around the two fields. Thanks for translating for us! gwickwire^talk_edits 21:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I am still gathering the references. Many internet sites have removed the articles so I am looking for the published copies from libraries. Also can I use an interview of the artist as a reference? Thanks 74.103.30.151 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gwickwire, that's very helpful.

Errvay (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You can use an interview only if it was published by a reliable source. All sources must be available in published form somewhere. Roger (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

hi, if you're looking for the equivalent to French "infobox:chateau" it's Template:Infobox military structure. lost in translation: english chateau infobox not implemented. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hello- I am trying to create a company profile page and I want to be sure that I'm keeping in line with the conditions and guidelines Wikipedia has. Is there any way to have someone edit the pages content before I post to be sure it's approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcauley (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the excellent question! Before I can respond accurately, would you mind responding to these points:

1. Are you an employee of the company? 2. What is your proposed article name?

Thanks for wanting to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I highly recommend typing up a draft in your own Sandbox before submitting the article, and if you don't know how to do that, feel free to come back. Cheers, and happy editing, Kevin12xd (contribs) 23:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Lmcauley! WP respects our right to privacy and you are not required to tell anyone anything about your employment etc. and its not appropriate for other editors to ask for that information (though I believe that Kevin's request was an innocent attempt to help you).Please try Article Wizard for your new article but please keep in mind that a company must be notable and have had significant coverage in the media to deserve a WP article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Keithbob, but you are wrong. Editors who have a conflict of interest are supposed to declare such conflicts, mainly so that they can be assisted to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about subjects in which they have a personal interest. Roger (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Make sure you aren't simply copying and pasting content from the company's web page -- that's a copyright violation and the page will be deleted. However, you can use the page as a source -- it just isn't considered "independent" and does not help to establish notability. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 18:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I second Roger; to avoid a possible conflict-of-interest, it might be helpful to know if you are indeed an employee of the company. Cheers, Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I"ve responded on the talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this from the talk page question and I have a comment and question if anyone cares to discuss it. You know, I kind of agree that flat out asking someone who they work for when they haven't done anything "wrong" could be perceived as an invasion of privacy. I would consider explaining the policies first, assuming good faith, and then dealing with and problem that arises later. Or at least I hope I remember to if I am in a similar situation in the future. :) What do you think? heather walls (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-Hounding

Thank you for the invitation to the teahouse. One question: What can I do against Wiki-Hounding? (See my contrib-list). Thank you Boldpot1 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome again Boldpot1 = Michael Kühntopf = HaTikwa = Schweizerfreund = Hounding Patrol = Okdone = Nainomides = NoHounding = .... Your jewiki has been blocked because it is considered spam, and you have been blocked because you know why. --Boldpot (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this thread. If you could explain further I'd be happy to try and help you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

the short answer is not much. there is a wp:el guideline, which this editor is enforcing. it's kind of a red flag to link to this site, and it's unclear what the utility is since they are mostly blank articles. if you want to edit productively, you could use other source material. there is also wp:cleanstart if you don't want to appeal your block.

pot, it's kinda bad form to project what the editor knows or dosn't, since it looks argumentative. when you follow post on help pages, it reflects poorly on you. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 23:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

indeterministic compiler

I'm very new at this so forgive me whatever transgressions I may have committed.

I recently made an edit that produced very strange results. I have backed the edit out.

Goto the page "machin-like formula". Open the version dated 19:54 2-15-13. Scroll down a few lines, just past the line "Machin-like formulas have the form:" Now hit the refresh button on your browser (several times). Most of the time, the page will render just fine. About 3 times out of 17, the compiler will get an error:

"Failed to parse (Missing Texvc executable; Please see math/README to configure.)"

I've probably done something wrong, and under ordinary circumstances I would start doing trial and error experiments to figure out exactly what it is in the source file that causes the error. Given the indeterministic behavior, however, it is difficult to perform controlled experiments. I tried copying the entire page to my sandbox, but the problem never manifests itself in the sandbox. Smwolfe (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Smwolfe. This is way over my head so I can't provide any targeted help on what you should or can do—maybe someone else will be along who can—but the issue you are seeing is discussed at:

• mw:Manual:Enable TeX/problems#Error : Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable); and
• mw:Manual:$wgUseTeX#Diagnostics.

Note also that questions such as these are sometimes best raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where the developers and tech gurus hang out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smwolfe, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a bug and not your fault. I have posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Missing texvc executable. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

When does article go live?

Hi all, thank you for the invitation to the lovely tea-house!

I wrote an article in my user-space, and submitted it for review. That was at least 7 or 8 days ago. Is it just backed up, or have I done something wrong? Is there something else I need to do? When will my article go live? It was an article on Freight Claims.

Thanks! Suzanne Turner (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. To hit the review queue the page needed to be moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freight claim which I've now done. So now it's joined the 1409 others awaiting review - I'm afraid you'll just have to be patient. NtheP (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Suzanne, you submitted it correctly. It was already in the "review queue" Category:Pending AfC submissions before Nthep moved it. It has now been accepted at Freight claim, probably by an editor who saw your post here. It can take a while for submissions to be reviewed. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How can I destroy loads of confidential documents?

Hi guys, and thanks for the invite! My question is: I've got lots of confidential documents that I need to destroy. I don't have a paper shredder and I'm not sure I'm comfortable shredding them in my workplace. How else could I destroy all this confidential data? Identity theft is no joke! Lamb Ham Jam Man (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We advise on editing Wikipedia here rather than general advice.--Charles (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It is kind of you to respond to my question. I see I am going to have to be more specific in order to get an answer to my question. I am not used to programming computers. If I wanted to find out how to destroy lots of confidential documents, and did not have access to a shredder, which part of Wikipedia should I edit in order to find out the answer? Thank you! Lamb Ham Jam Man (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

None. A computer cannot destroy documents. If you have further questions on this matter, you may wish to ask at our Reference Desk. The people there may be able to give you a better answer. As was said before, we are for questions regarding editing Wikipedia, not about life issues :) gwickwire^talk_edits 18:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not just a life issue - it is a life and death issue! Identity theft is no joke! I would expect an encyclopedia to be more informative! But I will try my luck at the reference desk. Thank you all. Lamb Ham Jam Man (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia isn't supposed to just have the answers to your everyday problems. An encyclopedia is an academic reference tool, which is for use for specific reference on specific things, ex. Lady Gaga or Hydrogen. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lamb Ham Jam Man. Really I can't think of any way to destroy them on site without just taking the plunge and buying a shredder. They really are not very expensive. It's probably a piece of crap, and you might want to go a bit more expensive to get better quality, but they even have one listed at Office Max's website for $24.99 (that's just an example; you might be in another country for all I know). I know that there are also shredding services that will come to you for high volume jobs but we're talking mucho dinero. The only thing I can think of--not truly secure but I bet it works fairly well--pour disgusting leftover food that will rot over the papers as you throw them away in the regular trash. Very few people will bother searching through that trash when some less funky offerings are in the next pile. Note that the people above are right that this desk is really not geared as a general help forum but for questions specific to using Wikipedia, but the tone used is regretful and not one I think that should have been employed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Text alignment in my user page.

Hello! I'm a very new contributor & editor to Wikipedia! I just wanted to know if it was possible for me to align my text or other elements in my posts / pages to the center! Hopefully I haven't missed anything obvious!

Thanks! Nick. J. Austin (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nick. J. Austin! Your problem is a very simple one to fix. You simply put <center> to the left of the text that you want centered and </center> to the right of the text that you want centered to center it. I must warn you, though, this should never be used in article space. Even when you're quoting, there are other quote templates. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response & advice, much appreciated! Nick. J. Austin (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I add the Title and post?

I apologize for how simple this question is, but how do I choose the title and publish? I may have done it successfully, but I just can't tell. Qualitycontent (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qualitycontent. I presume you mean the article currently hosted on your userpage. Basically, you need to move that page into article space. However, moving an article from a userpage correctly can be messy if you don't know what you're doing (in future, it'll make things easier if you use your sandbox), so in this case I'll do it for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You can move pages yourself once your account becomes autoconfirmed, meaning once your account is 4 days old and has made 10 edits.^King Jakob _C2 14:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the question enough for a sub heading within Computer animation

What is the difference between computer assisted animation and computer generated animation?

I will be giving brief descriptions of the two and also giving examples of movies that are produced using the two individually. Do users feel that this would be ok to add to the Computer animation page? The whole reason I want to create this is because someone had posted this question on the talk page.

Many thanks JLM003 (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Go for it; be bold! Let me know if you ever need any help. :) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I add a wikipedia entry of a company in which I'm not related?

Hello, this is my first post. I'm a collector of gift cards and I use some of second-hand auction sites out there. Today I was searching for an accurate description of "Dutch aution " and I noticed that some of those sites are not in Wikipedia but others are (some of them are way younger sites than those not included). My question is: Can I add them or it goes against the terms? I readed the rules but only found those restrictions:

- Not personal websites - Not blogs - Not affiliates (Don't know exactly what this means)

It would be my first "page" in Wikipedia and I don't want to mess things out.

Cheers! BeatrizBibi (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi BeatrizBibi. The most important thing to consider when creating an article is whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. This usually requires that the topic has already been covered in multiple, reliable independent sources (defining those terms as they relate to Wikipedia is quite a long process, but this page summarises them fairly succintly). If you have such sources, or think you can locate them, then I'd wholeheartedly encourage you to create the article. If it's your first attempt, you might want to consider using the Articles for Creation process, which will give you an opportunity to have your work reviewed before it goes "live". Best of luck, and should you need any help, just ask! Yunshui 雲‍水 11:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Yunshui 雲‍水, that was a fast answer! I'm glad to read words from real people, I always thought Wiki was about writing and reading alone. :)

when you point for "reliable independent sources" that means online newspapers and that kind of stuff? I think I will find those requeriments for the older ones for sure.

I'm going to check now the links you provided.

Cheers! BeatrizBibi (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What counts as a reliable source is based on the context of the article in question. The identifying reliable sources guidelines are a good place to start. You can also ask over at the Reliable sources noticeboard if you're in any doubt about a particular case. Since we only create articles for things that are notable, we expect good sources to exist because of that. If you are having lots of difficulty finding reliable sources or constantly questioning whether they are reliable, you may have a problem with the notability of the company that means they shouldn't have an article at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because one company has an article does not always mean another company in the same field should. One final tip: whatever you do, avoid any boilerplate statements (such as corporate press releases) regardless of the source which publishes it! -Rushyo ^Talk 17:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What type of edit is this?

Recently I came across this edit, and it seems to be promoting his video (assuming that his username and the author of the video linked in the edit are very similar). I reverted it and said "vandalism", but I am not quite sure what this type of edit is called. I've heard of COI and POV, but I don't quite understand them. Koopatrev (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Vanispamcruftisement is the technical term, I believe... Seriously, though, such edits fall under the broad heading of self-promotion and spam (and the lesser heading of unreferenced contentious claims), and you were absolutely right to revert it. Good move. If you want to learn more about such edits and how to spot them, take a look at the guideline on recognising and preventing spam. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you're asking about the semantics, I'd flag this one under WP:SPAM myself. It's not technically vandalism until it is done after a warning, at which point it is considered disprutive and vandalism per WP:Vandalism as "Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning." In this case I'd recommend placing the uw-spam1 template on their talk page to let them know. -Rushyo ^Talk 17:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically the first time that someone does that it is a "good faith edit". That is the reason for the warning. Apteva (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:POV

Hello, I am under the impression that the term "best known" is a little biased and subject to WP:POV. I.e. Dan Brown is best known for the 2003 best selling book, The Da Vinci Code.... Which is why I removed the "best known" in the lead. A'm I correct to do so? The edit was subsequently reverted (twice); to refrain from an edit war, I seek resolution here. Is "best known" POV, or is it based on case by case? Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bonkers. Depending on the sources provided in the article, the term "best known" could be POV, original research or entirely correct. If a reliable source cited in the article says (for example), "Dan Brown's name is universally associated with his book , The Da Vinci Code," then you've got yourself a good case for retaining the phrase. On the other hand, if the argument for keeping it is something like, "I'd never heard of him until that Tom Hanks movie came out", "all his other books suck", or, "there are fifteen billion Google hits for "Dan Brown + Da Vinci Code", then the use of "best known" is definitely questionable. As with everything regarding Wikipedia content, the sources are the key. Therefore, in answer to your question, I'd say you'd need to consider this on a case-by-case basis. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, are you saying that so long as the "best known" sentence is cited by a reliable source, it is alright to retain it? Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, yep. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC) slightly longer and more considered response ...although there are arguable exceptions. For example, you'd be unlikely to need a source saying "Barack Obama is best known as the President of the United States", since that's pretty much the de facto reason anyone would search for him on Wikipedia. Apply common sense; if someone of something is self-evidently only known for one reason, you can probably get away without a citation. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

However, it does seem that the sky's colour is cited. ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 (Nonsensical Babble) ☯ 09:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and one more thing: Your take on Dan Brown's "best known" lead as it now stands? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Working in the book trade, I saw nothing but The Da Vinci code and its respective knock-offs for most of 2003/2004, so I'd state from personal opinion that he probably is most widely known for that work. However, my personal opinion doesn't count for much on Wikipedia - perhaps changing it from "best known" to simply "known" would be appropriate. I'd suggest having a chat with other editors on the article's talkpage; see what they have to say. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On that matter, I did somewhat have a "chat" with User:Nightscream on that -- He said that Brown being "best known" for The Da Vinci Code was a "fact" (a statement which I oppose) and I was being "pedantic". Personally, I know Brown better for Digital Fortress. ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 (Nonsensical Babble) ☯ 09:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on Bonkers, I have to agree with Nightscream, you are being pedantic, and Brown is "best known" for Da Vinci Code, I'm sure if you stopped 100 people in the street who knew who Dan Brown was, 99 would reply that he was famous for writing the Da Vinci Code. Never heard of Digital Fortress and, oh it was written in 1998, so you'd heard of him then, millions hadn't. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is why (as Yunshui has so eloquently stated above) WP has a policy that content is based on reliable sources not our personal opinions or subjective observations. If Brown's notability is widely accepted to be in terms of the DV Code, then there will be solid sources for that and there is nothing to discuss. If sources are lacking then an editor has a right to object to it and have it removed per WP:BLP. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui also eloquently states Apply common sense; if someone of (sic) something is self-evidently only known for one reason, you can probably get away without a citation. What I was trying to point out is that The Da Vinci Code is what propelled DB to international fame, like saying J.K. Rowling "best known" for the Harry Potter books. Good grief, do you really want a cite for that? Enjoy the tea. I'm out. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessing articles

Hi,

Is it considered bad form to assess/reassess articles that one has created/significantly expanded? Thanks

^King Jakob _C2 00:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey KingJakob and welcome back to the Teahouse! In general, I would let someone else reassess, but I am not aware of any policy or guideline that expressly forbids doing it yourself. I would, however, certainly consult someone else before making any jumps of more than one class (e.g., start to B) as otherwise it will seem rather biased. But in general, I don't think it's a problem to update an article rating when it needs updating. Go Phightins! 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Two ratings, GA and FA require others to do the rating. But other than those anyone including those who have primarily edited the article can assess the rating. Apteva (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding a new article to a Portal page?

How do you add a new Article to a Portal? Natbrock (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the problem you're having is that you're clicking edit this page at the top of Portal:Computer graphics, and then confusingly not seeing anything that resembles the content you've just read on that page. If that's the issue, it's happening because the page is made up of other pages pieced together and called there by reference, but which actually exist discretely on their own pages--a process called transclusion. If you want to edit a particular section, go to any one of the blue headers and click on the little white [edit] link inside of the blue header on the right side. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, Can you add a new article instead of editing a article? Natbrock (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I copy/pasted this discussion to Portal_talk:Computer_graphics#Adding_a_new_article_to_this_Portal_page.3F and answered. -- Mdd (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

interesting or not?

As part of my university project I am to create a new page or edit an existing one. The subject I was given was Henry Lowood, who hasn't really done a lot of notable things. I discovered a project that he led that apparently influenced machinima, would it be better for me to create a page on the project rather than the leader himself? SarahMckinley (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, welcome to the TeaHouse. As far as Wikipedia's concerned, you can write an article on any subject that you can find sufficient sources for; if you've got decent sources for Lowood's movement but not for the man himself, then go ahead, by all means. However, since you're doing this as part of a university project, I'd suggest contacting your instructor (Dr. Sant, I presume?) to clear it with them first. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, all advice taken into account and much appreciated :) SarahMckinley (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Article is "Too Soon"

I wanted to submit and have this article added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wargame:_AirLand_Battle

At first I noticed it was not submited the first two times because it has improper references, so I fixed that and submited it, but then I got the Too Soon message, which means it is too soon to have an article about an upcoming sequel of Wargame: European Escalation. I wanted to have an article about an upcoming video game sequel, especially one with a confirmed release date. Is there anything I have to do to get this article approved for submission? - Privatejfx141 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Privatejfx141, welcome to the teahouse! At present the article draft does not pass WP:42 - only the Christina Gonzalez piece is independent of the publisher of the game, none of the others you have listed as sources are independent. Even then, the Gonzalez piece does not give the game significant coverage. So you would need a lot more independent (and reliable) sources that give the game significant coverage, to get this draft article accepted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Privatejfx141. Generally, Wikipedia does not like to have articles about upcoming anything. There are exceptions, when the item is significant to enough people that there have been substantial articles in newspapers or magazines; but in most cases a film, book, series, game, album, or event that has not yet happened or been released will not meet the requirement of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)