Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 981

Archive 975

←

Archive 979

Archive 980

Archive 981

Archive 982

Archive 983

→

Archive 985

Photos

Hello. I have a question regarding photos of a subject. If the subject has a website with photos on, is it adequate to e-mail them to ask permission for photos to be used for an article? Or will I need to ask them to ask whoever took the photo, even if they have rights themselves to use the photos on their site and give me the okay?

I have tried sending an e-mail to ask and they said they are okay with it, however they want to know if they need to get permission from the person who took the photo.

Also, what if I used a photo that nobody can verify who originally took it but it is on their website? Or does that just make it impossible to use?

If the photo is freely all over the internet, doesn't that make it okay to use? Based on what I read in the guidelines it seems that does NOT make it so. It seems I do need to get at least written permission via e-mail regardless.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarmstrong (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Camarmstrong. The author needs to declare publicly that the image can be used on Wikipedia and must publish it under a license that Wikipedia allows such as public domain and Creative Commons. Check out the image use policy on what images are and aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Interstellarity T 🌟 16:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Interstellarity. Sorry. I am quite new and green. I did read it but I wanted to make sure I did not misunderstand. So it seems like even if I receive an e-mail saying it is okay that will not suffice and even if they post online declaring it will not be okay without the CC0 license. Is that right?Camarmstrong T 🌟 17:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Camarmstrong, Correct. Interstellarity T 🌟 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Camarmstrong. I'm just going to slightly clarify something posted above. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only accepts free licenses or public domain licenses which place no restrictions on re-use; so, bascially, the copyright holder must agree to WP:CONSENT. Any license which states "for Wikipedia use only", "for non-commercial use only", "for educational use only", "for non-derivative use only", etc. is not going to be allowed. Such licenses might be fine for other websites, but they are too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. The main difference between a "free license" and "public domain" is that the former is typically used for content considered to be eligible for copyright protection, whereas the latter is typiclly used for content which is for some reason (e.g. too old, too simple) to not eligible for copyright protection.

So, if the creator of something agrees to release it under a free license, they retain copyright on their original work but are only making a version of it freely available for others to use. On the other hand, if the creator of something releases it under a public domain licenes, they are sort of relinquishing any claim of copyright over it or stating that what they created is ineligible for copyirght.

If you intend to contact a copyright holder, you might want to use Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission as a guide. If the copyright holder agrees that file can be uploaded, the best thing might be for that person to upload the file themselves to Commons as explained in c:Commons:Upload Wizard and c:Commons:Licensing. Commons is much better suited to host freely-licensed or public domain files and uploading the file to Commons will make it much easier for other Wikimedia Foundation project besides English Wikipedia to use the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the info. So the situation is, I talked to the guy, he said the photographers give permission and say OK to use the images freely for anything, but people will not be bothered to have to go and do work to apply for a license, etc., when they're not the ones wanting to use the image. They just give him the OK and say "use it for whatever you like" but to them to go and sign up for a license is another story. So if he can provide me a copy of the conversation he had with them with them giving written agreement to use freely for any purpose, is that going to be possible that it can be acceptable?

The problem is, it is one thing to ask them and they happily agree for the pictures to be used, but that's all they will do. To ask them to go and do the work of uploading themselves or applying for a license is probably unlikely to happen. So what can I do in this situation?

Thank you for all the help so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarmstrong (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Camarmstrong: I would recommend having a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, particularly the § When permission is confirmed section. Generally such permissions are sent to the OTRS so they can be stored there and confirmed later if needed.

To clarify, I believe the subject will have to directly email OTRS as described in the links above so that they can confirm the permission. Hopefully, that should be straightforward. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

However, Marchjuly, you appear to have more experience with this than I do, so I would welcome further replies to the latest question. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally, something more than verbal permission is required because verbal permission is pretty much impossible to verify. WP:CONSENT emails sent to Wikimedia OTRS can be kept on file and referred to if anyone challenges the licensing at a later date; you can't really do that with verbal permission. The types of free licensing that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons accept basically let anyone anywhere in the world down load the file at anytime for any purpose, and such licenses cannot be revoked if the copyright holder changes their mind after the fact. So, anyone who downloads the file would be able to continue to use it as long as they continue to abide by the terms of the original license. If the copyright holder doesn't want to send in a CONSENT email, then perhaps they can follow one of the other options listed in c:COM:OTRS. They can upload the file to an official website that they control or an official account that they control (like Flickr, Twitter, or Facebook) and then clearly state that the file is released under one of the acceptable free licenses. As long as they are truly the copyright holder of the work in question (i.e. there are no license laundering concerns), this should be OK because it creates a record that can be verified. If someone still feels that's not enough for some reason (e.g. license laundering concerns), then further verification by email is going to likely to still be required. If the uploader is unwilling to do any of the things suggested above for whatever reason, then probably best to try avoid using that image since uploading it without a way to properly verify the copyright holder's intent is going to eventually lead to the file's deletion. The best place to probably ask any more questions about this kind of thing would be either at WP:MCQ, WP:OTRSN or even c:COM:OTRSN. An OTRS volunteer would probably be better able to answer any more detailed questions about what types of permission OTRS tends to accept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation template problem

In Liberation and Freedom Day, note 5 is not displaying properly. I can't find the problem. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe I am glad you found that problem! I already fixed it, and check back with the article. It wasn't displaying properly because the parameters should be adjacent to each other. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 02:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, but I still don't understand what you did to correct it. Compare notes 1–4. deisenbe (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This diff shows how I corrected it. Click on it to understand it fully. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 02:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Table deleting the following section header

I have inserted a table into the "Parishes, precincts, and new towns" section of History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1635–1792. It has somehow obscured the section heading that immediately follows it. That section, "Other," appears in the table of contents, but not in the body. I'm not sure what I am doing wrong and would appreciate some help. Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Slugger O'Toole, and welcome to the Teahouse! The table looked great except for a "float: right;" style. Normally that should cause surrounding text to "float" around the table like the population table above; when I zoomed far enough out the missing text did appear, but if the screen was only wide enough for the tablet itself, some of the text had nowhere to float and was being lost behind the table. Removing the float style so the table renders inline with the text seemed to fix the problem. Take a look and see if that looks okay. CThomas³ (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I am having trouble as I participate in editing through a mobile,so,I don't have any software in it.So, could you please tell me if there is an editing software in Wikipedia. G-Force234 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, G-Force234. If you use an Android smartphone, I recommend that you scroll to the very bottom of a page, and click "Desktop site". That will take you away from the problematic mobile site to the fully functional desktop site. That is the best interface for serious encyclopedia editing, and works just fine on the 2019 generation of smartphones, despite that old school "desktop" name. Please check out my essay, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

How do I share a link to a page?

Refer to subject line please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetdeabq (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Share where? Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And what link, Jetdeabq? These issues matter a lot. We handle wikilinks differently than external links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jetdeabq, by sharing if you mean, sharing a link to a Wikipedia article to a friend, all you have to do is to copy and paste the "link" (also known as the URL) in the address bar of the browser you are using. The article Wikipedia:Linking to Wikipedia, could also be of some help. The address bar usually is towards the top of the broser you are using. ( more on address bar here). However if you are talking about lining to another Wikipedia page within Wikipedia, please see the comments above. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 07:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Tracking Updates

Hi, this is just a general question, I've looked on wikipedia but can't seem to find an answer to this. I'm wanting to know if there is a way I can stay up to date with any new articles/categories/subcategories that are added to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Professional_wrestling? I managed to find this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/ProWrestlingSearchResult but I don't know if this includes every update added to the overall Professional Wrestling category or not? Can you please help?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3144:1B00:4C5E:7FE5:F138:1253 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@2A02:C7D:3144:1B00:4C5E:7FE5:F138:1253: To be updated about changes to the things in Category:Professional wrestling, visit the things there frequently. It may seem inconvenient, but the quickest way to monitor changes is with a watchlist, which is only available to registered users. If you sign up for an account, you can get a watchlist, and put the things there. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 02:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay thank you for the response, I'll do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3144:1B00:4C5E:7FE5:F138:1253 (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, when mentioning a category without intending to add the page it is mentioned in, to that category, a colon can/should be added before the word Category to disable it. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

LPS and MLP Fan suggested registering an account to get a watchlist, but I don't think that's going to help track when articles are added to a given category. A watchlist will tell an editor when an article is added to a category, but they need to be watching that article first. One can also follow categories, but they aren't edited when articles are added to them, so that won't show up on a watchlist. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Radio Browser Radio-browser.info

Community Radio Browser

http://www.radio-browser.info/

This is a community with the aim of collecting as many internet radio and TV stations as possible. Any help is appreciated!

Details about the service collapsed by Usedtobecool (not OP)

Statistics Station count at the moment: 24524 Station clicks last hour: 3339 Station clicks last day: 70478 Distinct tags: 6368 Distinct countries: 296 Distinct languages: 310 Free for ALL! Everyone can use the station board in their software freely. Just have a look at the API documentation. Everyone is free to use the collected data (station names, tags, links to stream, links to homepages, language, country, state) in their works. A daily backup of the MariaDB tables is at www.radio-browser.info/backups/ and latest. To play the stations, you need some media player software like: Winamp (Windows, OS X) VLC (Windows, Linux, Android, OS X) Clementine (Windows, Linux, OS X) many many more.... yes, maybe Windows Media Player works too :) It is used by the following projects: Rhythmbox-Radio-Browser - A plugin for rhythmbox Rhythmbox-Radio-Browser Fork for GTK 3.0 Odio - Graphical player for windows,mac,linux StreamTuner2 (Contrib-Plugin) RadioDroid (Android: Google Play / F-Droid) - Source on GitHub DreamBox Plugin Musicbox (Android) Gradio (Linux/GTK/Gnome) - HowTo Install Kodi/XBMC Plugin Official Kodi Addon Repository, source: Github NetRadio, source: codeplex (Windows) Gnome Shell Radio Plugin Official Gnome Addon Repository, source: Github AllRadio (Jolla SailfishOS phones/tablets), source: Github A plugin for the Python-based extendable tool Pext (Python) Radio-li-se is a beautiful web based client. (gitlab) Radio Bempa is a nice web based client. MusicCenter for DreamOS enigma2 OCSP Source (Maemo) Ziptuner (Zipit) Internet Radio (F-Droid, Android) DOKK 335 - Radio app for android for visually impaired people Source PlayStore RadioS2S - Radio app for android PlayStore Source code Shortwave (Successor of Gradio) - gitlab Radioplugin for NextCloud Castro (Chromecast Radio) - Playstore Radio FM Player - TuneFM - Playstore Instaradio iOS app - website - AppStore Web client for Mopidy and MPD - Website - github .. and of course this little angular webpage too :) which can be forked on github Libraries radiobrowser4j Java library - github NodeJS module - NPM - github Python module - pypi.org - github GraphQL radio-browser module - github

https://bitpage.de/gradio-radio-hoeren-unter-linux-leicht-gemacht/ https://www.androidpit.com/best-android-radio-apps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:6406:3C00:717A:BEAE:4FE4:F4EC (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies! Was there a question, or is it just spam, or something in between perhaps? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Old account, lost email

Hello,

I've got an old account PrimusUnus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PrimusUnus) which I evidently used an old, forgotten, email for.

I can no longer login and when I try sending "password reset" emails, I don't get them.

I understand that it's possible to migrate the history off my old user to this new one. I'd like to return to wikipedia editing, with my old history.

How can this be done?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingbarron (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Flyingbarron: If you no longer have access to your old email address and did not specify another method of recover, such as committed identity, there is no way to recover the old account. Just start editing with the new one and you can add a link to the old one on your user page. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Admins

I was wondering is it rare for Administrators to get banned?Jack90s15 (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack90s15. Administrators are human beings, and sometimes make terrible mistakes. Yes, I think that it is pretty rare. It is not common but it is also not unknown for administrators to be blocked or banned. If you have a lot of spare time, you can read all you want about the current controversy at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

As a modest contributor to it, may I recommend the summary at WP:FRAM/S for a bit of lighter reading? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the main page and its archives are around 3.5 MB, and there are related discussions in other places. The ban was not made by Wikipedia so it's an atypical case. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I will read up on this !!!Jack90s15 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Newcomer here

Hello I'm Eden and I would like to ask regarding the edit filter. I've been reverting edits which triggered the edit filter (I observed it through the filter logs). The question is, is it allowed for me to revert edits which triggered the edit filter? And what are my limitations on reverting this thing? Thank you. EdenNgiamba07 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello EdenNgiamba07, and welcome to the Teahouse! Edits that trigger the edit filter are usually disruptive (e.g. vandalism), so you can revert them. However, edits that trigger the filter, may be false positives, so before reverting, assess whether or not the edit was disruptive. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 17:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Writing links with possessive apostrophes

Kind of a pedantic question, but what would be the right format with links that have a possessive apostrophe: "Elton John's house" or "Elton John's house"? Alivardi (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I was about to give you 2-3 reasons why I think the latter has got to be the preferred choice. But then I checked India, arguably the most seriously maintained featured article in here, and the former wins out in that one 2-0. So, I'm guessing it's either the community consensus/ common sense that the former is the choice, or nobody cares, not enough to enforce it even in the best maintained articles anyway. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, out of sheer laziness, I'd probably prefer to do the first option too. Thanks bro Alivardi (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

First article submitted for review

Hello I've just submitted my first article for review. It looks like getting a decision may take a while and I would like to write other articles while the first one is being considered. How can I free up my sandbox so I can write a draft for another entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EctopicOnSchedule (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

EctopicOnSchedule Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You could create another sandbox, say User:EctopicOnSchedule/sandbox2. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@EctopicOnSchedule: Just so you know, there's no obligation to have your artivle reviewed. If you believe the article is suitable for the Wikipedia, you can move it directly to mainspace. Review is optional Gumlau (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gumlau: I had no idea that's possible, thank you! I have tried to move the page from 'Draft' to 'Wikipedia' through moving a page and I get a message saying 'You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: "Draft:Dumitru Bâșcu" cannot be moved to "Wikipedia:Dumitru Bâșcu", because the title "Wikipedia:Dumitru Bâșcu" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.' Any ideas why this title would be on the blacklist and how to move it to the mainspace? --EctopicOnSchedule (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that worked! EctopicOnSchedule — Preceding unsigned comment added by EctopicOnSchedule (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello one of the pictures I posted has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it isn't my work. This is a photo I took myself of a self-portrait of a painter who died in 1983. I have permission from the owner of the painting (the painter's heir) to take the picture and upload the file to Wikipedia but going through the OTRS process seems to take very long. Is there a way that I can upload pictures I took myself without licensing? I understand that licensing isn't needed if the pictures have been previously published on a personal web page such as Flickr. Please help! EctopicOnSchedule —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

let the authors be the authors User talk:Citation bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! I have found a major problem with the citation bot. The citation bot doesn't respect the apostrophes as they appear in the title of original works and changes them to " ' " without any hint of remorse. In the novel novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, all words had to be simplified so that they can be easier to understand. The citation bot's policy is basically the same thing: ripping the original apostrophes out of the hands of the readers and handing them things that the authors didn't write. When the people of Taiwan type in English, they sometimes use curly apostrophes. I call on the community to assist me in making sure that we can let the authors be the authors- no need for help from a citation bot. "Fueled by texting, the anti-apostrophe movement seems to be gaining momentum, "[1] Yeah, but when it is being used, we don't need to jump on it and make sure it is in conformity with newspeak. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: the citation bot is correctly implementing MOS:APOSTROPHE. It's the agreed style not to use 'curly' apostrophes anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I believe that the consensus must be reversed so that what the authors write can appear in the title/quote of citations and not something different that Wikipedia made up. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Try suggesting it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The font used by authors is not reproduced by Wikipedia, and I see no reason why it should be. Wikipedia does not change what authors write, just the font in which it is reproduced. Dbfirs 06:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geographyinitiative. Are you fully conversant with the concept of a Style guide, also known as a Manual of Style? Please read this: "Because practices vary, a style guide may set out standards to be used in areas such as punctuation, capitalization, citing sources, formatting of numbers and dates, table appearance and other areas." We are discussing apostrophes, which are a form of punctuation, and because "practices vary", Wikipedia's Manual of Style has very specific conclusions about using straight apostrophes instead of curly apostrophes. This is not something "made up" but is instead a perfect reasonable standardization of a typographic variation. If you believe that this consensus "must be reversed", then you must build consensus among a group of editors who have been working on Wikipedia's Manual of Style for 18 years. Good luck to you in that venture. Do not be disruptive in your quest.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hello- I must try to make my point as stridently and poignantly as I can so that I can hope to change your hearts, please don't be offended. All I am trying to say is that the content that an author types up should not be countermanded and overruled by you (or me, or anybody!). In truth, I don't see any need to negotiate or find consensus between myself and the editors of Wikipedia- there is a consensus between the author of the work I am citing and my eyeballs. Whatever the author used in the title of their work, I shall use in "title=" of the citation I add on Wikipedia. Whatever the author actually typed and is relevant to the article I am editing, I shall copy-paste and put in the "quote=" of the citation. The only problem is that there is some kind of ridiculous policy that has been extended to changing what authors have written just because some apostrophes are inconvenient. If you need consensus to copy-paste, there is something wrong. Let the authors be the authors. What they have written stands for itself. How dare you interfere between the authors and the readers of Wikipedia. We are the greatest generation of humanity- let this encyclopaedia be the greatest, and let us quote authors without any adding any interference. Thanks for your time and work on this website. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the problem is here, Geographyinitiative. A straight and a curly apostrophe don't differ in meaning, so why would we want to use a mix of both rather than be consistent across articles? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:Thanks for your time. I know that in normal experience, a curly apostrophe and a straight apostrophe are almost the same. But in point of fact, use of the curly apostrophe is a stylistic difference and must be respected. It tells you something about the author- for instance, it may tell you that the author may not be a native English speaker (potentially). The only consistency we need is consistency between the literal text of the authors and what is quoted on the website. Yeah, I'm okay with banning the curly apostrophes in the main text of Wikipedia. But in quotations in which the curly apostrophe is used, you're playing with fire to change what authors have written into something else. If I can't win you over, I understand. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This is so not what these good people meant by building consensus. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You only need to find consensus between yourself and the editors of Wikipedia when you're writing on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I may only need to have consensus between myself and the editors, but I want consensus between the literal text that the author gave us and the quotations I make of those works on Wikipedia. Where's the harm in letting the author be the author? Why change a text like that? Crass.Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I see no harm in it, the "don't mess with a quote"-argument is valid. But it's not the only argument, and I see no good enough reason to change WP-practise here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is. The text is what we need- not lies. When I lived in Wuhan, I would edit English language texts produced by people who were not native speakers. To my ire, they would often use the curly quotation marks in their word documents. The curly apostrophe is a sign that the person is not using the normal keyboard when writing English. Yes, it shouldn't be that way- yes, no one should use curly apostrophes- but it is and they do. Let reality in. You have admitted the strength of my argument. I don't see the value of the search argument vis-a-vis preserving the literal text of quotations. I have a consensus between my eyes and the works I quote. When you are ready to accept reality, let's stop the nonsense- allow people to quote the works literally. No more playing with people's texts. Including changing how I wrote my post. I hereby add the accursed ‘’ to my post- scary huh? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you not aware that curly quotes has been an option in Word for the past 20 years at least? Some people set that option and some people do not. It's a matter of taste. I've had the option set for 20 years, but when editing Wikipedia I just follow the manual of style and use straight quotes. I recommend that you do the same and don't try to impose your personal preferences. For most authors, it will be the editor who decides what style to use in the published version, so we do not know what the author chose. Dbfirs 11:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this isn't a request for help or advice but a discussion, onein which the OP already knows what to believe/do, this thread should be moved to the talk page of the page where that particular MOS guideline is. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria

(PDF) BUILDING CODES IN THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATISE ´DE ... https://www.academia.edu/.../BUILDING_CODES_IN_THE_ARC...

Magda Saura. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Construction History, Cottbus, May 2009 BUILDING CODES IN THE ARCHITECTURAL ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.83.116.172 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Finding wiki terminology

Early last month, after seeing an obituary for Dr. John, I added to the article about his first record, Gris-Gris, that its title was printed as "GRIS-gris". But I couldn't remember whether the term we use for such modifications is "fashioned", "styled" or "stylized". I tried to find it in the "Help" namespace, without success. I finally thought to look in Nine Inch Nails, where I read

Nine Inch Nails, commonly abbreviated as NIN (stylized as NIИ)

so that's how I noted the form of the album name:

Gris-Gris (stylized as GRIS-gris)

But how is such a term to be found, if anywhere?

--Thnidu (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned at MOS:TMSTYLE. Such rules regarding style can most easily be found using the search box at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --MrClog (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel your pain - once you know the right key word, it's so much easier to look up. These aren't great references, but it is mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take to become an admin

Hi, I have been editing for years as an IP and I’m ready to take the next step so I recently registered an account. But I was wondering, how much work and time does it take to be promoted to administrator? What kind of activities should I focus on to boost my chances? I’ve heard a lot about participating at AfD but I don’t know what that is. Also, which user rights would be the best to work on obtaining in the meantime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, a user is required to have a few thousand edits to be an admin. I plan to become an administrator, so my goal is to have at least 2000 edits before application. I recommend reverting vandalism and warning vandalizing users using WP:RCP. If you have at least 200 mainspace (article) edits, apply for rollback before becoming an administrator. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 20:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 2,000 edits doesn’t sound too difficult - I could probably knock that out in a week or two. Is there an area or a type of edit you would suggest that takes minimum effort and can be done rapidly? Also something else I’m curious about: Do you think that being an adult and broadcasting your fondness for My Little Pony is going to help you achieve adminship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Zach of the cosmos, but I disagree with LPS and MLP Fan. You should probably be aiming for closer to 10,000 edits before considering running to be an administrator. More importantly, though, the quality and variety of the edits matters just as much as the number. Rapidly "knocking out" easy edits to hit a target is exactly the wrong way to go about becoming an admin. See Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship for further guidance. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Zach of the cosmos I wouldn't worry so much about "becoming an admin" and just worry about areas of the project where you want to help out the best that you can. You can do 95% of things on Wikipedia without being an administrator. If you just concentrate on doing good work in areas that interest you, you will develop an edit history of good contributions, be noticed, and should you show a need for admin powers, be nominated. They aren't given as a "promotion", they are given to people who the community believes would benefit it by having the powers. As noted above, it takes several thousand edits over months, if not years. Any nomination without that is likely to fail. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Zach of the cosmos, the notion that you can quickly "knock out" a few thousand edits and thereby become an administrator shows a deep misunderstanding of the process and what is required. You need to make edits that are thoughtful, careful, and productive. Your participation must show a deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you must have a strong record of collaboration and building consensus. You do not just "knock out" that type of work. It takes serious, sustained effort for a long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Zach of the cosmos, Yeah, I'm over 10,000 edits, and I still doubt that I'd pass an RfA. RfA is by its nature a subjective process. If you encounter behavioural problems, it takes longer (people need to trust that the issue is resolved).

it used to be that 500 edits as a "good vandal fighter" would get you the "mop", but those days are long gone (partly because rollback got "unbundled" - anyone with an can apply for it).

Adminship follows most naturally from an interest in maintenance areas of the encyclopedia. For that, Twinkle is a very useful anti-vandalism tool (it actually gives you a form of rollback). You need to wait for... all of 4 days and 10 edits to use Twinkle. Reporting vandals to WP:AIV is a good indicator of how you'd use the block tool if given adminship. Engagement in deletion debates - WP:AFD for articles, is another good indicator (as deletion is a big admin responsibility). Particularly, you could try WP:NPP, the new page patrol. Here, you can try using Twinkle to tag pages with "Speedy Deletion Criteria", see WP:CSD (or mark them as good, nominate them for deletion...). This is particularly an area of focus in RfA, as it signals where you might unilaterally delete an article. Twinkle helpfully keeps a log if you enable it - e.g. my CSD log.

Furthermore, if you're technically minded, I'm a Template Editor. This means that I can edit heavily transcluded pages (sometimes, like Template:Infobox, the number of articles that use it is in the millions).

Basically, there are loads of areas where you can help out, with a bit of experience. Adminship is no big deal, but it does have very high entry criteria (and it's very much a responsibility, it doesn't grant any special privileges beyond technical abilities). Some very prolific contributors (writing Featured Articles, for example) never become admins, by choice. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, I get what you’re saying, that “it’s not a promotion” and I understand that you have to say that in order to maintain the illusion of solidarity with lesser editors. Cullen: does Wikipedia not need admins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything to maintain any "illusion"; it's the truth. Administrators are no better than other editors, they just have some extra buttons that would be irresponsible to the project for all users to have. If you see it as a promotion over 'lesser editors', I'm not sure that works in your favor. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, Cullen328 is not saying Wikipedia doesn't need admins. Admins can do things normal editors cannot do like block problematic editors and protect pages. Admins are important to Wikipedia, basically. PS: About your reply to me earlier, I need to tell you a secret: I am only in middle school. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 22:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan and Zach of the cosmos:, which isn't a definite barrier to adminship (there have been teenage bureaucrats before), but there's some level of opposition in any RfA due to that fact. 2000 edits almost certainly wouldn't cut it. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That is disappointing to hear. I was recently diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme and I was hoping that I might be able to achieve some status with the limited time I have left. Can an exception be made in my case? Zach of the cosmos (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to the age-related question: the question is not if someone is an adult (e.g. 18+, though age differs per region), but if someone behaves in a mature way. Their behaviour must show at least a level of maturity expected from adults.

Now, here are my 2¢ on the "How long does it take to become an admin" question: generally, people tend to oppose candidates for adminship for users who are too new. "Too new" is deliberately vague, because different users may have different standards. In addition, not just how many edits count, but also the quality of the edits.

Also, administrators aren't "better" than other users, they simply have some buttons the community trusted them with. In the end, they're equal. --MrClog (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zach of the cosmos: Adminship is not based on personal circumstances, so sickness does not allow for fast-tracking. I think you are giving too much value to adminship, the real fun of Wikipedia is writing articles. --MrClog (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your condition, but just as the Boston Red Sox, Manchester United, or New York Giants aren't going to let you play for them because you have a illness, you aren't going to be given admin powers because you have an illness.(you aren't the first to ask that) Illness leading to adminship would just lead to others lying about being sick to get admin powers, as we have no way to confirm any illness by a user. I would agree with MrClog above. Just concentrate on doing good work here. That's a great legacy. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Squash

Why Don't. Squash page is build a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.225.243.254 (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Squash redirects to a list of pages that have "squash" in their names/titles because there is no way to tell exactly what a person could be looking for when they say squash. I think this has been done mainly because there is no way to decide which is the most looked for topic among squash, the sport, the plant and the drink. You'll need to clarify your query before any more can be said. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 05:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Italicizing an article title

I created an article for a film, but in the article title I did not italicize the film title and cannot figure out how to make that edit now. Please advise, thank you! MBAWilbins (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To make the film title italicized on the page, put ten "straight" apostrophes (five on each side of the film you are writing about). --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 22:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

When the editing tool comes up, I’m only seeing the body of the article and not the article title. Does that make sense? MBAWilbins (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I made an article about a book, Fuzzy Mud, which has an italicized article title, because books and films need to be italicized. Visit the aritcle, and look at this diff to see how I made the book's title in italics. Do the same for your article. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 23:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! I’ll check that out! MBAWilbins (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC) If I’m only trying to make a change to the article title (italicizing the article name), do I have to “move” the page? MBAWilbins (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No, simply add {{Italic title}} to the page (at the top). --MrClog (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, MrClog is correct. The full documentation is at Template:Italic title. I made the edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought {{Infobox book}} and {{Infobox film}} were supposed to italicise the title anyway, Cullen328? --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, and many thanks for your input and help! MBAWilbins (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, ColinFine. Use of certain infoboxes will automatically italicize the article title. But infoboxes are optional, not mandatory, and often contentious. Best to offer a broad answer that works uncontroversially in all cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification tag

What should I do if important part of article has failed verification tag next to reference? This is article in question Capitalism and Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aocdnw (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You can either add a different source that does verify the content or check the source and explain on the talk page why the verification doesn't fail (so why the content is supported by the reference). --MrClog (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I would add to that that you can also remove the content, Aocdnw, particularly if it has been tagged for some time. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: What's the most common value of 'some time' – a week? a month? half a year? --CiaPan (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say a few months, CiaPan, but it depends on the context. If the material seems likely to be false then it should be removed immediately. Ultimately, per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility for providing verifying citations is on the editor who adds or re-adds the material, so we shouldn't be shy about removing non-verified content. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification, Cordless Larry. --CiaPan (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

reasons

Hi to the editors who have deleted my first submission. I note that the reasons deletion are all general. I would greatly appreciate some specific details. For example, every source I used came from established newspapers or broadcasters. How can I improve on this? I gather headlines are required for those sources and perhaps the urls should be shortened. If this would help it iseasiuly done. Anything else you can tell me in detail would be amazing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful Smokey (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beautiful Smokey: welcome back to the tea house. The link to your deleted sandbox is User:Beautiful Smokey/sandbox, and it looks like that is the only page you have created (twice). Since only administrators can see deleted pages, most of us here at the tea house won't be able to comment on the contents, but the deletion reasons had nothing to do with the sources or the formatting, that much I can see from the deletion log. If you click on the link to the deleted page you will see the user names of the administrators who deleted the page, and you can contact them on their respective user talk pages. Please make sure to include information about which page it is you are asking about. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing protected (locked) articles.

Hi. I am a new member and hopefully editor of Wikipedia. Sometimes I come across articles that need to be updated with new information but they are locked and therefore I am unable to correct them.

Is there any solution to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oveis67 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oveis67 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may use the article talk page to make an edit request.(read that link for instructions) 331dot (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Am I able to create an article now?

Hi - I just went through the Wikipedia Adventure, where I made 10 edits. Does this mean I am allowed to create and upload articles now? Thank you! A newbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb21 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You only created the account today, so you will need to wait four days until you can create a page directly; I'd recommend that you use the WP:AfC process, which you can do immediately, to create a draft and submit it for review. Ping me if you'd like me to look at your draft when you're done. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! User:Girth Summit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb21 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

One more tip, Peterb21 - if you want another editor to receive a notification when you mention them in an edit (as you did in your last edit here, and as I am doing in this edit), you need to sign your post. You can do that by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your message, or by clicking on the 'Sign your posts on talk pages' button beneath the editing window. If you don't add the signature like this, the notification doesn't get sent. Good luck with the article, and do let me know if you want any help. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:William_J._Johnston_Community_Day_School

here is my draft, thanks! [[user:Girth Summit] Peterb21 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peterb21, I'm going to leave some comments on your talk page. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A query about the meaning of some phrases in the entry about Emperor Nintoku.

"The achievements of Nintoku's reign which are noted in the Nihon Shoki include: constructed a thorn field bank called Naniwa no Horie to prevent a flood in Kawachi plains and for development. It is assumed that this was Japan's first large-scale engineering works undertaking established a thorn field estate under the direct control of the Imperial Court (mamuta no miyake) constructed a Yokono bank (horizontal parcel, Ikuno-ku, Osaka-shi)"

What is a 'thorn field bank'? Obviously the sentence refers to some kind of earthen bank or wall to divert flood waters, but what does 'thorn field' mean in this context? Similarly, what does 'thorn field' mean in the phrase "thorn field estate"? And what is a 'Yokono bank'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sclamaneen (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Those are very good questions, Sclamaneen! I suspect the Emperor Nintoku article was primarily translated from Japanese (not very well). I tried a little digging, and most queries pointed to the Wikipedia article (or banking establishments in Thornfield, Missouri). The last question, surely relates to the Yokono River; although not listed in the List of rivers of Japan, I found a reference here: [2]. But the usage of the word 'bank' is not very clear in this context. I suggest posting a query on the article's talk page (Talk:Nihon Shoki[oops] Talk:Emperor Nintoku ). Although waiting for a response on an obscure article's talk page can literally take years, your query might someday prompt somebody to improve the article. I recommend also bringing your query to Wikipedia: Reference desk {probably the language desk, or perhaps miscellaneous desk); they are usually excellent at finding referenced answers to obscure content-related questions. I hope this helps! Otherwise, another helpful and courteous editor will reply soon. —2606:A000:1126:28D:E5B5:B088:3A46:1619 (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Add a {{what?|date=July 2019}} next to that word/phrase to bring attention of other users to that issue. To find out the answer for yourself, ask at the reference desk. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 05:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems there was some civil engineering done to control seasonal flooding of the Okono. A type of thorny plant may have been grown on the dikes to stabilize them, such as barberry or plum. My insight comes from this source ("Construction of Dykes") which does not mention thorns, but does mention human sacrifice as an alternative to dike construction.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You might also post the article at pages needing translation, in the cleanup section. But progress there is very slow. Lectonar (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tool for viewing WP page hits to all the pages on a disambig page?

Is there a tool, administrator use or general use doesn't matter, for looking at all articles that disambiguate to a certain name, say Kumquat, so that admins or other might tell which of the many WP articles with Kumquat in the title or about Kumquats should perhaps be the main article (if any should)? Thanks. N2e (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The best I know of, is a list of "External tools" at the history page of every article. Specially "pageviews" tool might serve your purpose. I haven't tried it myself but, IIRC, it says you can compare upto 10 pages. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to the response above, you might have already saw this but there is a list of tools that could help in finding the primary article at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. However it cautions "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)..." OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 06:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Went ahead and tried the tool anyway. Looks to me like someone's got some tough competition on the road to fame. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Meghan Markle is a redirect to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. She gets more hits than the fruits.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Guess that means more people come to Wikipedia from google search than use Wikipedia search. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, last one. Gonna bookmark this one, LOL! And the fruits too, why not? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Google's Wikipedia hit on Meghan Markle is the article and not the redirect. And Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is already the third search suggestion when I type meg in our search box. For some reason Meghan Markle doesn't appear until meghan markl. The misspelled redirect Meghan Markel already appears at meghan m. Readers may also follow internal wikilinks which vary between titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation

Hello.

I wrote a article about Simona Cerutti. It was critized because not all of it has citations. The reason is that the information without citation was sent to by Email directly by the person I'm writing about (as it wasn't possible to find it online. Can I use the Email as a citation or how should I handle this problem?

Kind regards Mikro is MikroMikro is Mikro (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I'm afraid that you can't use that information, anything you write must be sourced to a reliable, secondary publication. It doesn't have to be online - books, newspapers and magazines that appear only in print are also viable sources, but an e-mail from the subject of an article is not a published source, and it's not independent, so it is not usable for our purposes.

If you are in e-mail communication with the subject, it's possible that you may have a COI with regard to them - you should review the guidelines and take the necessary steps if so. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)