Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 80

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

→

Free beer and free speech

I have been seeing this saying being frequently used within Wikipedia. I tried Googling the meaning of "Free beer and free speech", but the experts outside seem to be talking Latin or some gooblegok. Can anyone try it summaries the meaning of this saying? Personally I think it's quite ambiguous. By the way does this question belong here or on the Reference Desk? Cheers. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bonkers. It's a way of distinguishing between the two English meanings of the word "free": gratis ("free beer") meaning without charge and libre ("free speech") meaning without restriction. So Wikipedia's content is free (as in "free of charge"), but it's also free (as in "uncensored"). See Gratis vs libre for more information. And yes, the Reference Desk might have been a better place to ask, but hey, the Teahouse is always here to help! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! You might find this helpful, but I think that the Reference Desk is the kind of place you want to go for these questions.^King Jakob _C2 13:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Where can I see declined submissions?

Dear editors: Until recently the declined submissions from the Afc process were available at Template:AFC statistics, but they are no longer there. Is there another place to view these pages? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anne,

It looks like one of the two templates is broken. I could not figure out how to solve it, but hopefully someone will get to it soon enough.

Template:AFC statistics/sandbox seems to have most, if not all of the pending and declined AfCs. You might check it to see if that helps.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The declined submissions only seem to show at 'AfC statistics' when the backlog is less than c.800 articles. Having looked at Template:AFC statistics/sandbox the latest declined submission is 4 February, which is probably around the time the backlog increased (it's now over 1400!). Mind you, all of the declined submissions (ever) can be found at Category:Declined AfC submissions. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. The submission I was looking for didn't appear on any of the lists, but I was able to figure out that the user had blanked it, and I found what I was looking for in the edit history. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Hi - I was wondering ... if an article is marked as an AfD, then it is eventually decided by consensus that it's "a keeper", as it were, then what is to stop someone else coming along and marking it as an AfD all over again? I was just curious as an article I have created is nearing the end of its seven days' discussion. I am hoping that it will stay as I have expanded the article considerably in the past week and added numerous external references (the main cause of contention). Can someone mark it again as an AfD if they disagree with the general consensus or is an article "protected" from being marked again as an AfD for the same reasons once consensus is reached? Thanks! Nunnsofunky (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If an article is kept, there is nothing to stop somebody nominating it for deletion a second, or even third time. However, they should read the merits of the discussion which kept it and decide if they still want it deleted after considering those. They could also take it up its the closing admin or go to deletion review. Rcsprinter (post) @ 11:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, AFDs that are started less than three months after a previous AFD are somewhat frowned upon. One needs a very convincing reason for restarting an AFD after it has been closed as Keep. A better approach in such circumstances (if an editor believes that the AFD was closed incorrectly, or that new evidence has come to light suggesting that deletion would be appropriate after all) is Deletion review. So, in answer to your question: being "kept" doesn't guarantee indemnity against further deletion attempts, but anyone making such attempts would need a very solid case indeed. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I could understand that an article could easily qualify for deletion again if something contentious was added, for example, but if nothing had actually changed on the article, I wondered if the same thing could be contested a second or third time. Anyway - thanks for your responses! :) Nunnsofunky (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Creating a Redirect Link from a Dead Link

I created a dead link (one of those red something missing ones) in the reference section of a page and want to make it no longer be a dead link but a link that redirects to a another live (for want of a better word) page. I managed to successfully get the top of the live page to say 'Such and such redirects here. For disambiguation...' but the actual link word (the one in the redirect) remained dead i.e. there was no connection between the link in the reference section in one page and the same link in the redirect on another page. Both just appeared as dead red links. Please help. Thanks Samcmlewis (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I am confused by the terminology you're using, and I think you got a bit lost in the jargon, but I think what you actually want to do is create a redirect from Fighters Only Magazine to World MMA Awards, so that when someone searches for Fighters Only Magazine, they are taken to the MMA article. If so, all you need to do is create the currently nonexistent page for Fighters Only Magazine, and add to that page the redirect code (that is, the redirect does not go into the MMA page as it appears you have been trying, and there is no disambiguation page needed here that I can see). If this is correct, click on the following red link: Fighters Only Magazine, copy and paste this code into that page: #REDIRECT [[World MMA Awards]] and then click the save page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thank you very much, so simple after all. Yeah sorry about the terminology, I'm new to this but trying to learn! I was trying to add the redirect on the World MMA Awards page itself, anyway your help is much appreciated, thanks again!95.175.135.80 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help Sam. Once you get deep in in it all starts to make sense, but it's like learning a new language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you boost an article up the google search results?

Developing an article about my school and was just wondering how I can get my school onto the first page like some other schools in my area Knhswiki (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Knhswiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think there is anything on Wikipedia you can do to boost it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is. The higher the page view statistics, the higher the Google ranking. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Usually if there are links to a webpage from other websites, it boosts the rankings too. Mind you, there's not much you can do about that either! Wikipedia seems to be highly regarded by most search engines, so I'd think having a Wikipedia article should be quite enough on its own. It is already No.2 in the search results, so you probably just needs patience while Google found and indexed the page. Sionk (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

When I search in California, your article Kingsgrove North High School ranks #2 on Google after the school's official web page. I don't think you can do much better than that. The most obvious improvement would be to find articles about your school in independent, reliable sources. For example, articles published by local newspapers on the 50th anniversary of the school can be cited as references.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

But it should also be said that the aim of Wikipedia is not to get page view rankings on Google or any other search engine.--ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My teahouse talkback script not working

Hello,

For some reason I never see the TB beside talk when I open the teahouse. Can anyone help figure out what the problem is, and how to fix it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How come this could happen. You common.js is okay. I think you should re-check it.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen the TB button in all my months at the Teahouse. Is there anything wrong at my commons.js page itself or maybe some Preferences I might have disabled/enabled accidentally? Could someone with technical expertise look into it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay I beleive you should see my commons.js.--User:Pratyya Ghosh/common.js. Now compare with you. And never forget to tell me.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I've found your problem. You've written some extra words like // Adds a talkback link to signatures on the Teahouse etc. But I'm not sure.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that is a problem, it is working fine for me and mine contains something like that at my vector js. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 15:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, TheOriginalSoni, try purging your browser. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 15:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand. But TheOriginalSoni says that he/she can't see that TB for a month. I don't think his/her browser wasn't purged for a month. In fact I also have a question. The question is every teahouse page contains a image of the host's profile at the right of upper side. But I've never seen mine. Why?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you attempt to add an image to your profile? TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats not it. Only certian selected editors have their photo on the top right. I forgot what the word was. Wait. Let me search for it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't find it. But as far as I remember, you need to request yourself to be included in those editors whose photo comes there to be allowed there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Every time you go on this page, a new "host" is randomly chosen. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont know which one of my edits to my commons or the vector page worked, but now I can use the TB link. Nevermind what the problem was. :)

Thanks for the help everyone! Especially pratyya, because I could then figure out what portions were not needed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why donate to Wikipedia?

Wikipedia requests readers to donate money, to keep Wikipedia free. What is Google doing then?????????? Google is the number one donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. Google is already donating (has donated, and shall continue donating) lots of U.S. dollars to Wikipedia. IMHO there is no need for readers to donate. Sorry, Wikipedia: Be free, and don't beg from others unnecessarily. -59.95.21.214 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The Wikimedia Foundation is funded primarily through hundreds of thousands of individuals, but also through several grants and gifts of servers and hosting (see benefactors).

The Wikimedia Foundation receives donations from more than 50 countries around the world. The average donation is quite small, but their sheer numbers have ensured our success. People make contributions year-round, and once a year the Wikimedia Foundation makes a formal request for donations. For more info pls see Finance: Where do donations come from? Moxy (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Then don't donate. That's the beauty of it. No one is forcing you to part with your money. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Extended content
So tight, if he swallowed coal, he'd shit diamonds. Basket _Feudalist 19:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's his choice. It seems a bit of an odd place to complain about Wikipedias donations policy mind, but there you go. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I will certainly not donate to WP. But I have donated USD 1, in the past. -59.95.21.214 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. Too answer your question, people donate to Wikipedia because they think it's a worthwhile cause to donate to. As I said before, no one is forcing you to part with your cash, which is why it's called a donation. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There are good reasons that it's still important for Wikipedia to be funded by small donations from individuals even though it also receives large donations from companies. The main reason is that large companies would find it much harder to dictate what Wikipedia should include or what Wikipedia should say, when most of Wikipedia's revenue comes from small individual donations rather than large corporate donations or advertising. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the donation comment, i hear this a lot. wikimedia is a non-profit; google is a for-profit; their agendas are not the same, even if the overlap is greater than with the MPAA. (i am nobody's pawn.) wikipedia is free to the readers, and it costs pennies per view. public television has annual pledge drives too, even with corporate support. to the extent i can get wikimedia or google to chip in for my bar tab, that's great, but i understand if you don't want to. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 00:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I link to a stub article?

I'm trying to link to the stub article below within another Wikipedia article but I don't know the wiki code to do so. When I enter in the regular ... code around the title of this book, I'm told that this article does not yet exist. However there is a stub page for it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Iraq:_What_Team_Bush_Doesn%27t_Want_You_to_Know

Rlanham0723 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rlanham0723! I looked at the article with the link and I see your problem: you accidentally capitalized everything in the title when the words "on" and "to" shouldn't be capitalized. If you fix that, you'll see the blue link that means the article exists. Always make sure that everything is spelled and capitalized correctly when you're linking to another page. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 00:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

[[War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know]] War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rlanham0723. One way to avoid this is to always use copy and paste. Not only will it avoid errors of this sort but it's blindingly faster. Just highlight the title of a page and click ctrl+c to copy and ctrl+v to paste (on an Apple, ⌘+c, ⌘+v) or you can use the edit menu in your browser which provides these functions, albeit it is much slower doing it that way. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

How to send email to another ed?

I have heard that some editors list an outside email address, in case someone wants to send them a private message. How can you find out if someone has listed this info in his/her profile? Thanks! EMP (talk 22:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EMP. To find out if an editor has email enabled on their account, go to their userpage and click "toolbox" on the left hand side. If it's enabled, there will be a link that says "email this user". Go Phightins! 23:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks Phightins! I went to a user page and see exactly what you mean. Much appreciated.EMP (talk 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I post a status on my talk page?

For example, how do I post that I'm online or in school or sleeping, with status in the upper right corner. Anyone know how? Thanks. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello JHUbal27. Welcome to the Teahouse. I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here.

To add a status update, first you must create your Common js. page like this: User:Amadscientist/common.js and then add some script which allows the status update to function. After you create your common js page follow instructions found here: Template:Useronline. There may be other templates and status tools available but this is probably the most common.Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What specific scripts should I add? I'm going to look at User:JHUbal27/common.js, which so far has my TB script (I think). I'll check...one moment please. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 23:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the script to add I believe: [1].--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with original research

Good day. I got a notice from Wikipedia that this article contains original research. There are over 30 citations listed on the page. All the information provided in the article can be confirmed. Is there something in particular that anyone can point out to me, I would greatly appreciate. I would love to fix and make the article perfect so please let me know what you feel is original research. I will attempt to fix and remove any original research that anyone can show me. Thanks for any all all help...RichardCacioppo (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I randomly checked a few things, and they seemed to be supported by the references. User:Daniel_J._Leivick added the tags, so you might ask him/her. Wikfr (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Points

Hello everyone, hope you are all well. I realized that every time I make an edit, on my Contributions page, I get a 'punctuation' for my edit. It can be either in green, or red if it's negative. What does that mean? How is it measured? Thank you very much! Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your contributions. I think you are referring to the numbers which can be seen on watchlists, user contributions, page histories and the recent changes page. The numbers appearing on watchlists, user contributions, page histories and the recent changes page show the increase or decrease in the number of bytes in the page. On the English Wikipedia, this is normally the same as how many characters have been added or removed from a page in that edit. A positive green number (+xx) indicates the number of bytes that have been added, and a negative red number (-xx) indicates the number of bytes that have been removed. Numbers above 500 are shown in bold, for example (+794) and (-2,412) instead of (+79) and (-241). Hope I have answered your question. Regards. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ushau97, Thank you so much for your answer! It completely makes sense now! Best regards, Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tea House Hosts

Every teahouse page contains a image of the host's profile at the right of upper side. But I've never seen mine. Why?----Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Prattya; I think it is randomly generated. It usually shows editors who have answered a fair amount of questions lately, I think. I'm sure it'll show up eventually :) Go Phightins! 03:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Has any host ever seen their own image on the page? I just assumed we don't see our own image when we come to the page to answer questions. But this is an interesting question I thought about once or twice.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Re (Amadscientist) Yes, I have, about two times. Mine's the panda.

JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 12:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured says: "Featured hosts in pages 1-10 are automatically updated by HostBot on a weekly basis. Currently, hostbot just selects recently-joined hosts". The coding of {{TH question page}} indicates that a random host from number 1 to 12 on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured is displayed. Number 11 and 12 are also changed by HostBot. I haven't examined further. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Page histories of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/1 to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/12 show that the weekly updates by HostBot stopped January 27. I don't know why. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've notified J-Mo about the bot and he is looking into it. We don't want to leave anyone out. :) heather walls (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have a profile, and are active, your image should show up eventually. But having said that, the script that runs it has been offline for about a month now because I went on a bug hunting expedition. I'll work on it this weekend. :) BTW, I would never have seen this if Heather had not pinged me offline, but I keep an eye on both Teahouse talk and the host lounge. Cheers! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I move a page now that consensus has been achieved?

There was a discussion about aphthous ulcer, and there is a consensus now to move it to aphthous stomatitis. Also, I have a new version of this page in a sandbox (User:Lesion/Recurrent aphthous stomatitis) to replace the old content. How do I do this? Lesion (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you use Twinkle? Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am Amadscientist a volunteer here at the Teahouse. Welcome. At the moment consensus may have been formed, however the discussion has not yet been closed. The article should not be moved until after the RFC has been closed and consensus formally decided. Next to the star located at the top left of the article beside the "history" section of the article is the move function. It is the small arrow down button. Normally you would click it and follow the instructions. However this situation shows that there is an existing "redirect" for the title being changed to so this complicates matters a bit. This will either require an Admin action or a little bit of work. See [2] for more details.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I knew it was more complicated than just copy and pasting the file contents to replace the redirect... My understanding is that because I was involved in the discussion, I am not allowed to close the discussion? It has already gone on longer than 7 days... How would I contact an Admin to do this?Lesion (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You just did; I've closed the requested move discussion, deleted the redirect and moved the page accordingly. No comment on the proposed rewrite discussed below; I haven't looked at it. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Lesion (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to address the sandbox question. First, let me say that, if you have created an entirely new article and wish to replace the old one, this may be a controversial move. Unless you have copied the entire "old article" into your sandbox and are not removing any relevant and proper information referenced with reliable sources you really should NOT replace an entire article as that removes a great deal of work by others and would simply be reverted by another involved editor. If you have copied the entire article and just used your sandbox to work without interruption then simply reverse the process that placed the content into your userpage. Otherwise I advise not replacing the article but adding to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not recommend that you replace the article with your version as it reduces references from about 49 to only 10 and I cannot see this as an improvement and many other editors may well feel the same. i suggest adding your information alongside the other content and not replacing it. As I mention above it is very likely (almost certainly) to be reverted which would lose all your work.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of references does not correlate with article quality. Most of the references in the old article did not meet WP:MEDRS and therefore had to be lost. The old article also did not reference available Cochrane review...less references, but an improved article which did not lose much content and supported it with better quality references...that which was not carried forward represented undue weight supported by primary sources. Lesion (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I will take your word for it, however please understand that removing 39 references at once without discussion could end badly. You must discuss such a large amount of deletion before it is done and give your reasoning to why each and every reference does not meet sourcing standards. You must allow a discussion to take place and for a consensus to form. You can certainly make the "bold" edit, but with such a huge amount of information being deleted at once, it could be reverted by any number of admin, involved editors etc. You should move slowly unless this has already been discussed and agreed upon by consensus. Try discussing one or two references that you have a concern with and then mention that you feel a majority of the references do not meet the standards and begin a discussion at length. If this is an obscure article and you are the only editor working on it, you may be able to replace the article all together without much concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Mail

A user is helping me on my page, but how do i talk to him? I dont know how to reply to the mail. User is Ajayupai95. Thanks First time creater, long time user (Jimmyt650 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jimmyt650, and welcome to Wikipedia! There are a number of ways that you can communicate with him. You can click on "edit" on your own talk page, where he left you the falafel greeting, and respond. Or, you can visit his own page at User:Ajayupai95, click the "Talk" tab at the top of his page, and the click on the "New section" tab on the top of his talk page to start a conversation there. These are the easiest ways to communicate with him. The second method ensures that he will see your message. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much (Jimmyt650 (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, i will respond when I'm not Wo tired!--Final4one (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! One of the days I'll finally get the hang of it.Final4one (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

When should technical terms be in quotation marks.

The article Reptation was full of apostrophes, which I replaced with quote marks. Now I am wondering if a technical term like "blob" should have quotes each time it is used, or only the first time. Wikfr (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good evening Wikfr, and welcome to the teahouse! Your (excellent!) question falls in the baliwick of the wikipedia Manual of Style. If you're going to be making the kinds of changes you're making you'll end up reading quite a bit of it. The trick is wandering through the several section until you find an analogous example sufficiently close to your problem. I think the relevant section is the one on Italics: "Use italics when introducing terms, or distinguishing among them....". So I'd get rid of the quotes, use italics when the terms are introduced and sparingly thereafter.

Hope that helped, and don't be shy about asking more questions here.

Garamond Lethet c 05:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the article is looking much better now. Wikfr (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Second largest religion changed continuously.

Hi Team,

Apprears as second largest religion listed is being changed continually, I thought of editing this however, I did not have accurate numbers, this appears as someone is playing around with incorrect information and misleading links to another Wikipedia page which do not speak about the numbers. Also number for Christianity and Islam DO NOT seems correct.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

World Religions Four largest religions Adherents Percentage of world population Further information World population 6.9 billion[1] Figure used by individual articles Christianity 1,431,509,000 20% Christianity by country Hinduism 1,521,989,641 [2] 22% Hinduism by country Islam 1,619,314,000' 23% Islam by country HalfLifeKiss 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfLifeKiss (talk • contribs)

The figures are ridiculous. Notice that 1.4 billion is 20% of the world's population. While 1 billion is 22%.

If that's not strange enough for you, Hinduism and Buddhism both have 1,083,800,358 adherents.

Obviously this needs some work. Martinw1200 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, someone should go delete it. Martinw1200 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out the article on an administrators' talk page. Someone told me to go and "be bold". I did, and in the future I will take care of something so obvious myself. I like how this works! Martinw1200 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you TheOriginalSoni, glad to be here, still learning my way around. There are a number of sources which give 1982 as the birth year, but it seems possible they are mistaken/confusing him with a singer of the same name born 1982. 201.17.152.143 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Quotation

Why has the “” (combined quotation left-right of a word) been removed from the Wiki markup, part: Insert. Now there is only ″ which is quite pointless at the beginning of a word and which doesn't give the needed result. Compare: ″quotation″ and what was all right “quotation”. --Dartelaar [write me!] 15:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The removed quotation marks are against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation characters. See MediaWiki talk:Edittools/Archive 8#Curly quotation marks for the discussion. The remaining symbol is a double prime and not intended for quotations. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear answer with appropriate links. It is amazing that the wish to remove them dates back from June-August 2011 and that they are only recently removed, but then again I don't come here often. I am usually visiting and editing on nl.wikipedia.org, the Dutch Wikipedia. By the way, this new system of editing (with the pop up-rectangle) which is not yet applied in the Dutch version seems debilitating to me: you have no edit toolbar. I had to edit afterwards, so I am losing time having to erase the indent (:). Dartelaar [write me!] 22:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

George Kennan's Memoirs

I want to quote some passages from Kennan's memoirs for one or two articles. Does this violate any rules concerning primary sources? Thank you in advance. LesLein (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello LesLein, and thanks for the excellent question! If you would like to quote some passages, remember that you should cite where you got it from - you may want to read WP:CITE. Thanks again, Kevin 12xd (contribs) 01:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OR based on memoirs is seldom a good idea, especially if anything controversial is involved. Kennan was getting revenge against old enemies of his in the State Dept. It is much better to rely on the recent Pulitzer-prize biography of Kennan by John Gaddis.Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Am i an Editor now?

Hi, I am wondering why i recieved an invite to a place for editors. does that mean i am an editor now? NMFCFan113 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! You absolutely are an editor! Go out and change the world! Go Phightins! 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Once any person starts contributing to this project in any useful way, they deserve to be called an "editor" or a "Wikipedian" or a "user". Personally, I prefer the term "editor", and you are one. Sorry, but no paycheck is involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

PR Firm editing a client's page

Hi Wikipedia! I'm looking into catching up an old company with it's internet presence, and the PR firm I'm working with is looking to help them build/edit their Wikipedia page. Is this kosher? The PR firm can build the page, right? Thanks for your help! 160.79.149.226 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You really have to be careful with this. We recommend that you not directly edit the page, as you would have a clear conflict of interest. In addition, all wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. What I would encourage you to do is make suggestions on the articles talk page. A volunteer editor will move them into the article if they are well-written and in compliance with all relevant policies. There is a template for doing so, but its name eludes me.... I would also point you to the conflict of interest noticeboard. They can probably help much better than I can. Cheers-Tazerdadog (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I would endorse what Tazerdadog says, but I would add that promotion of any kind is a no-no on Wikipedia. If the company satisfies the criterion of notability, there may be an article about them, but using Wikipedia to improve anybody's internet presence is misusing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The suggestions above are good ones. I also recommend that you establish an acoount, as an individual, not as a company. Choose a username that is neutral and non-promotional. Then, declare your conflict of interest on your userpage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Another user has undone changes s/he disagrees with, but that accurately reflect the field

Hi

This is a newbie question.

I made a minor change on an article, a change which signalled that there was a major scholarly controversy in the field in question (there is no consensus position on some basic methodological, definitional and analytical issues). I made the change because the page is currently constructed in a way that ignores this debate, instead presenting the view of one side as the accepted view - effectively, one position is naturalised on, and promoted through, wikipedia. I am NOT suggesting that this is deliberate, or malicious, action - absolutely not. I am merely suggesting that the page would more accurate if this major controversey was acknowledged, and that its absence does significantly compromise the accuracy of the article.

A more senior user undid the change, commenting "reverting to previous version since the new proposed version was quite different and nothing was argued for the specific changes". 1) What did I do incorrectly? 2) If the change is consistently blocked by that user, what recourse do I have? RedblackwritingsRedblackwritings (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! You have a good question and your are relating an experience that many newbies have on WP ie they make an edit that is reverted by someone more experienced. First I would say its always helpful if you can specify what article you are referring to as then we can visit and assess the situation more efficiently for you. But my simple suggestion is to take your issue to the talk page and discuss it with this and other editors. The "senior" editor has alluded to this in his edit summary when he/she says: "nothing was argued for the specific changes". He/she is saying to you: please bring your concern to the talk page so we can discuss and a consensus can be achieved before making this controversial change. Also, keep in mind that text on WP is based on reliable secondary sources per WP:RS such as books, newspaper and magazine articles by reputable publishers. So if you are aware of any solid sources and you cite them on the talk page then your proposal will have a much greater chance of being accepted. Good luck and please come back if you have more questions or message me on my talk page if you would like to be mentored through this process. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

how do i add comments or suggestions in the talk section when discussing an article?144.132.98.74 (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I add comments or suggestions in the talk section.144.132.98.74 (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings 144, and welcome to the Teahouse. To leave a message on an article talk page, simply click on the talk button (the one next to the article button) at the top, type in a new level 2 heading (two = signs on either side of the heading title) if needed, type your message in and then sign it using four ~ signs. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Automatically Archive own User Talk

I have tried to use MiszaBot to automatically archive my own user talk page. However, I have not had success in enabling this. Could someone please take a look at my user talk page and tell me what I'm doing wrong (the code that I'm using is at the very top when editing)?

While I'm asking a question at the teahouse, I'm also curious as to whether someone can point me to a good, basic tutorial on references and citations?

Thanks! Jackson Peebles (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I added my working code to your talk page inside comment delimiters.... take them away and change the archieve to yours and it should work. Hope this helps, Ariconte (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to post that I have altered the Mizabot configuration on his page. Although I am unclear if these changes are enough. What happenes with both codes on the same page?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think he has edited it to suit.

On citations - See WP:REFB and/or WP:Cite, Thanks for asking, Ariconte (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I edited the code, but it still isn't archiving! I don't get what's wrong! I still need help with this, but thank you for all of your help, so far! The guides are excellent, too! Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The best I can do is point out Help:Archiving a talk page. Hope it all works out for you.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be very much best if you talk to User:Misza13. He is the operator of the bot.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The bot does not check the pages constantly..... so wait a day or so. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jackson, I have added some settings that are simlar too mine and created an archive page which may help. However, your settings state that, after 10 days, it will archive discussion that are that old. So, I concur with Ariconte (talk · contribs), you'll probably need to wait for a little bit. Feel free to adjust the settings I have added in. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for your help! It appears to have worked with only one minor, overlookable (yet odd) glitch. I really appreciate the friendliness and support!

Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Protecting a page?

I've been trying to improve a page called Alternative Literature/Alt Lit, but every other day it is sabotaged or messed around with in some silly way - people adding their own names, authors unconnected to it, people linking to brand new blogs, etc. The page has "issues" and needs to be edited so it can be improved further with better sources etc but I don't know how to stop the unnecessary edits. What's the best way to keep things on track and who is the right person to contact to "watch over" a page? Fantini (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 00:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Welcome to the TeaHouse!! My first request to you would be to create an account on Wikipedia, so that we don't have to call you by your IP number... And to make it easy for you to request for the protection of the page..Coming to your query- This is the page you should be visiting: WP:PADLOCK and I share your view on the article that you created, it appears to be disrupted regularly so your best bet would be to put your page for protection on the above link, that's my opinion... Hope I was helpful and feel free to ask any of your queries at the teahouse!!!!Ajayupai95 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello 201.17.152.143. When I look at your contributions I see only three posts. All made here to the teahouse. Are you posting now without signing in?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Apologies, I thought I had signed, but apparently I was logged out. Fantini (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

block quote formatting question

In this sectiion I have a blockquote. It is the paragraph starting with the words "Nanotubes and nanotube circuitry..." Visually it is not indented at all, at least in my browser. Am I doing something wrong? Is it because the picture is there to the left? What should I do about it. Thanks. Silas Ropac (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes its because the photo is already causing the entire section to be indented and the block quote template doesn't recognize the inserted photo as a reference point. To see that this is true, I tried inserting your blockquote in another section of the article that did not have a photo and the blockquote format worked fine. There may be a work around, but I am not aware of one. On a side note WP:MOSQUOTE specifies that the block quote format is only for long quotes of at least 40 words, so it would seem the quote you are working on does not qualify so this is something to consider. I hope that is helpful. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm thanks for looking at it. I count 31 words so yeah not officially long enough, but it's such a dense and jargon filled list, it just looks a lot better separated out, to me. But without the block quoting, it looks totally wrong. Seems surprising with millions of articles, many with pictures and quotes, this just flat doesn't work. Maybe if I hunt around I can find something similar. Silas Ropac (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that on the top of the Manual of Style it says, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." If you think a blockquote is needed here, feel free to wp:ignore all rules. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Silas. If you move the image to the right side, blockquote will indent. Switch the other images around to balance the look of the page. Use the preview button to see your experiments until it looks good to you. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks I did swap the images around. It does look much better. It's still not correct, blockquote should indent from both sides, now it indents only from the left not the right. But the left side is the important one, that sets it off. Anyway "crisis" adverted, and yes I think I'll keep it as a block quote, just looks nicer to me, but I could argue the "visual and semantic weight" merits it, if I need to defend it! Thanks for help again, teahouse rules. Silas Ropac (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to put that text in actual quotes. Also, it might look better of you used a different mark up. I generally prefer boxed block quotes in these particular situations. {{quotation|"Boxed block quote".}} becomes:

"Boxed block quote".

--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the needed quotation marks, but i think it might look a great deal better (if you leave it with that blockquote) to have the quote in italics.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed your quotes because the MOS says "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks". I don't know about the box or italics, I could try and see. I will look for quotes in some other articles to compare. Thanks. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do what you feel is best for the article, but that is a Pull quote and should be used with quotations of some form as you are not using this for an excerpt of a poem or other part of literature or prose. This is a lifted quote from the figure and should be used in quotes as you are quoting that person directly from their publication. This is per MOS.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. I believe what makes it a block quotation is that it's inline with the text of the article. That is, the part before the indentation and the indented part form one continuous sentence. A pull quote is tangential, it could be removed entirely without damaging the flow of the article, whereas a block quote is part of the article's text. The quote in this case is from the text of book, not a figure. The MOS says for block quotes "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks". Here is a FA with both a block quote and a pull quote: Samuel Adams. I do appreciate you bringing up pull quotes, because it's something I've never put in a article, so I think I should keep an eye out for the opportunity. Silas Ropac (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What makes it a pull quote is the way you introduce it. You make no credit to the book, but to the author. As this is the authors opinion or statement being pulled or lifted and attributed directly to them...it should be in quotes. But, as I said feel free to do what you feel is best.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A mistake I see now... the first word of the quote was capitalized. Since it's continued from the sentence in the main paragraph, it should be lowercase. So I've fixed that. Maybe that was confusing, because with a capital there it looked more like a pull quote?

This quote is in Content section of the article. Everything in the Content section is from the book. I write stuff like Kurzweil says, Kurzweil describes, Kurzweil predicts, but in this section all of them mean Kurzweil wrote in the book. And the quote itself is cited to the book, to pp. 112-113. So to me it seems clear the quote is from the book. But if you don't feel that way, I'm curious how you think I could make it clearer?

So between WP:MOSQUOTE in general and specifically this section on block quotations it says use block quotes and "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks". So that's what I did. And this matches the blockquote usage in the FA I cited above. I realize I can leave this article in whatever shape, but I'm here to learn, so that is my motivation. Do you have a pointer to a MOS section or other writeup that explains where you are coming from? Thanks for being patient. Maybe the quote is just confusing, because it's just a list of jargon, and that is the root problem, that long quotes should be more prose-like. Silas Ropac (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Are sources expected on Lists?

Dear editors: I've been moving a long list of bluegrass fiddlers from Bluegrass fiddle to List of fiddlers, which has a section for bluegrass. I figured out how to make an anchor and link directly to that section. There is a banner on the top of the Edit page which says that a reliable source must be added for each new entry. In fact, there are no references of any kind on the page. Am I right in assuming that what is expected is references in the individual fiddlers' articles? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, welcome to the Teahouse! Lists and articles are always required to have reliable references that establish it. Regardless of whether previous entries do or the list is disputed, it is still necessary. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, Anne. To add a bit more to TBrandley's answer, you don't need to do double work. You notice that few of the existing entries in the List of fiddlers has a citation to a reliable source. That's because the entries are to existing Wikipedia articles that already contain verifiable reliable sources to establish the fiddler's notability. You don't need to repeat citations in the list. To add a fiddler who does not have a Wikipedia article, appropriate citations to verifiable reliable sources are needed and if those sources exist, why not write an article?

Ready for a challenge? The list would be improved by making it a sortable table with multiple ways to sort rather than repeating the names from the first list, alphabetical, in a second list sorted "alphabetical by last name by style". You might want to put up a sample of the table on the talk page before making such a radical change to a list that has existed for over five years. With fewer than 30 watchers, maybe it's best to just be bold and improve the list. You could add columns such as home location to correct some inaccuracies. An example is Chris Daring listed under Colorado style when he actually practices and teaches Texas style according to his article. He lives in Colorado. Creating that sortable table will be a lot of gnomish work.

Since you know about fiddlers, does Joe Venuti belong on the list? Saw him live at the Newport Jazz Festival in the '60s. What he did with a fiddle was amazing. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 18:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If a list has statements in it - regardless if the article that is linked to a page with references - the list (its statements) still must be references - Our policy on that "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability". But a list of just names with no facts attached to them is find with no refs.Moxy (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to thank you guys for thinking up all of this work for me. There are a kazillion names on this list and it will take a long time to check each article carefully for a nationality and confirm that there are sources for each genre mentioned. I made a little start (List of fiddlers) but this is really a job for a crew. As to Joe Venuti, he isn't called a fiddler anywhere in his article; I guess until someone finds a reference to that and adds it to the page he shouldn't be listed. This business of fiddle vs violin is a pretty sloppy distinction at times. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the Groove Junkies article is no more than self-promotion; any opinions?

I came across the Groove Junkies article. While it has a number of formatting issues, the biggest problem seems to be that it may be just a verbatim copy of the duo's promotional literature. Googling finds many large sections that appear elsewhere, none of it crediting Wikipedia, and all of it in places where the duo's press release material might be posted.

I've added the (perhaps inappropriate) newsrelease template, but I'm not sure what other steps to take. It might be appropriate to scrap the whole thing, but I'm not sure enough/experienced enough to take such a drastic step.

Any suggestions? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome! I've removed a blatant copyvio from it per this report which won't show much anymore. However, comparing it to the history will show the whole biography was a copyvio. I'll keep looking, but as far as I can see, nothing else is a copyvio of anything on the internet. Thanks for catching that! gwickwire^talk_edits 02:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. Some more details: much of the work on the article has been done by four users. None of these accounts have talk pages, and all of them have names very similar to the subjects of the article. The users are: User:Evan_Landes, which is the name of one of the two members of the group; User:Groovejunkies, obvious; User:Chrismaimoho, or Chris Mai, "label manager" at Morehouse Records; and User:Mohorec, pretty obviously Morehouse Records. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I warned Evan Landes about COI, reported Groovejunkies and Mohorec as group username policy violations, and did nothing on the other for now (unless they resume editing). Once again, thanks for looking into this! gwickwire^talk_edits 02:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. Would you suggest I do any further work on the article? The formatting is pretty broken, and there's still a lot of fluff there. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the references and citations OK

I have written an article on Wikipedia. It is a complicated subject in applied mathematics that I am very familiar with. It was declined due to problems with references and citations. So I have limited the reference to one book, and made references in form of footnotes pointing to pages in that book. I have also an external link to one of my papers that I work with but have not any references to this. Can anyone see if the article is good now and could be published? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Seismic_inverse_Q_filtering Knutsor (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reformatted your book reference. I left the link to the Norwegian google books because a preview of the (English) book is available there. To reference the book, the usual style is to write "Wang 2008, p. 18, sec. 2.1", rather than "Wang's book p.18. section 2.1". I think you've met the reference requirement. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

my article/ contribution was deleted, why??

my article/ contribution was deleted, why?? Also, I don't seem to have a user page. My article, "Overunity", currently does not exist in any form. There was an article, less than a week ago. And now there is no trace of it, or it is linked incorrectly to other information. There is also no reason given to me, and I have not received any notification, regarding the changes. Should I resubmit the article? Has a decision been made, or a determination been made regarding the validity of the information?? If so, can I refute that decision?? Firstmm5 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Firstmm5, and welcome! I'm a Junior Wrangler here at the teahouse, and I'll try to answer your question. Overunity is now a redirect to Perpetual motion, and was made so in this edit, which had the edit summary "redirecting to the more neutral, less fringey article". You could change that here, or you could discuss it on the talk page of the redirect here, or you could ask the person who made the change about the change at his talk page, User talk:Bobrayner.

Wikipedia has a content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories which might be relevant in Bob's action here.

The old versions of the Overunity page are all still available here.

Hope this helps! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You can create a user page for yourself by clicking on the red link with your username in this discussion, and add something about yourself there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you have restored the content of the page and done some more editing. As it stands, the article is likely to be formally deleted (as opposed to the informal way that User:Bobrayner did it) because it does not contain any inline references to independent reliable sources that discuss the concept, and without them it will not meet the basic requirement of notability. A quick search suggests that such independent references do not at present exist: if that is so, then a Wikipedia article on the subject should not exist. If you wish the article to be retained you need to find such references (and note that they must be substantial, in reliable sources, not blogs or personal webpages, and must be independent of the subject) and add them to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)