Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 233

Archive 230

Archive 231

Archive 232

Archive 233

Archive 234

Archive 235

→

Archive 240

reliable sources

Hi, I'm trying to fill in some "citations needed" and am confused about what qualifies as a "reliable source."

In particular, I'm working on cleaning up the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation page. Citations are needed for board members and for a conference held in 2011.

Is the Institute's own website OK to use a citation for the board members?

Regarding the conference, I'm confused about what the citation is supposed to corroborate. That the conference did, in fact, take place? Who the hosts were? If so, can the hosts' websites be used as citations? The conference wasn't reported in great detail in newspapers, and the scholarly journal sources aren't accessible to people without registered accounts.

By way of background, I am new here, and have been asked by the Institute to help clean up its page. I have read the COI policy and want to abide by it. Savannah38 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Savannah38. from the COI policy. "6.add reliable sources, especially when another editor has requested them (but note the advice above about the importance of using independent sources)." From a quick look over the page, the section that has the citation needed tags. Are all about primary information. Indeed of when it was held, who was there, if the person indeed joined. And the last bit about the school. You should be able to use primary sources for that without to much hassle. If that is all what you want to fix then I do not see a problem. But do not take that as gospel that is just my interpretation of the COI rules. If you want to make bigger changes to the page, it would be best to suggest things on the talk page, and then contact the relevant wiki projects for input. So that others editors can add it in NathanWubs (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Savannah. There is an unfortunately common tendency on Wikipedia to conflate some of the problems that primary sources do suffer from for some sourcing purposes, with the idea that they are always unreliable, or always less reliable than secondary sources. Primary sources are the absolute best fount for certain information, e.g., a birth certificate is a fairly peerless source for a date of birth and a death certificate for a date of death. Problems arise, however, when primary sources are used for self-serving matters, opinion, and synthesis and interpretation. For simply listing something neutral like the identity of a company's members, or when a conference was held, its website is a suitable source (which is not to say that a company's own website may not becomes out of date or contain errors). But here, I would go ahead. (Of course, primary sources do not directly evidence notability, when notability is at issue.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NathanWubs and Fuhghettaboutit! Very helpful.

It sounds like primary sources are OK for the specific "citations needed" issues in the article. I'm tasked with going through the whole article and updating it (last substantial edit was 2011.) I will do that via the wiki projects/talk pages etc, as you suggest.

One more question. The article is also flagged because it appears to have a "close connection to the subject." Is that because one of the previous editors appeared to be from IHME? Or is it because a number of the footnoted citations refer to articles written by IHME researchers? Savannah38 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That had mostly to do with the last editor that was editing the page. I have removed it for now, as I do not think it will be a problem again as it stands. It seems you understand the jist of it. NathanWubs (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help and advice.

Savannah38 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to express a little disagreement with respected editor Fuhghettaboutit, about the statement : "Primary sources are the absolute best fount for certain information, e.g., a birth certificate is a fairly peerless source for a date of birth and a death certificate for a date of death." I will give an example. My real name is "James Heaphy" and back in the old days before the internet, I thought that it was a rare name. Thanks to Google, I now know that dozens of people share my name. So, a primary source like a death certificate in the name "James Heaphy" does not prove that I am dead. That could be another "James Heaphy". I hope this doesn't happen for a long time, but a secondary source like a newspaper article saying that "active Wikipedia editor James Heaphy died on his 106th birthday, according to his family" would be a vastly better source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hey Cullen! I'm not sure we actually disagree. You can't use any source blindly or divorced from context. Of course it has to be true that whether the death certificate is about the person who is the topic of an article can't be itself questionable (which btw, is also sometimes true of secondary sources). That doesn't make death certificates not an ideal source for a date of death; rather, it makes it questionable whether the death certificate at issue is a source for the topic at all. If that underlying question is at play it must inform our inquiry but it's usually not because numerous details from the death certificate show us it is about the right individual and the use we are putting it is for the death date.

Specifically, and of course it varies from country to country and often in a much more local way, but death certificates often list: name of mother and father, of spouse, usual residence, type of occupation, sometimes where a person worked, aliases, birth place and other details, which can tell us without doubt whether our person is the right person. So, we have an article on Jim Heaphy (I know, it's a bit morbid since we're talking about death certificates, but following your example of using you...) and that article has all kinds of cited information; it has secondarily sources parents names, date of birth, spouse's name, occupation and identify of employer, but there's a problem with the date of death – we have multiple seemingly reliable secondary news sources, but three conflicting dates of death during the same week. A death certificate is found – indisputably of you and not someone else because it has all the matching items, parents names, spouses name and so on that we already know. We aren't using that death certificate to source whether you died, nor to settle any conflict about those corroborating details or their exactitude (that show beyond a moral certainty that it is about the right Jim Heaphy), but only the date of death.

The use and context of a source's citation is always highly important. In your post you've switched the use of the death certificate to the use of proving that the particular person that is the topic of an article has died. That's an entirely different use, and assumes that we don't have all the other details to check against so we turned to a death certificate to prove that, without any clear way to tie that Jim Heaphy death certificate to the person named Jim Heaphy. Under that context, for that use, I totally agree with you, but it's a strawman because it's not the use I invoked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

How can I check to see if permission has been granted for photo use?

An emailed template from a photographer giving permission for me to use "Richard Earl Thompson" portrait for his article was submitted about a week ago. Will I be notified or do I check for status somewhere?

Thank you. Jet 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Jet, welcome back to the Teahouse. Has this e-mail been sent/forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? If so, then you should upload it to Wikimedia Commons (do not use the Upload Wizard). In the "Permission" box, copy the {{OTRS pending|...}} code you find below it. This indicates that permission is pending confirmation. After the permission has been confirmed, the description will be updated. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Citation within a footnote

I have some language that is important enough to include in the article, but not significant enough for the body. It calls for a footnote. However, it also needs to be sourced using two named refs.

Playing in my sandbox, I tried nesting the refs, as: ...body text.<ref group=note>note text...<ref name=refname1/>note text...<ref name=refname2/></ref>.

The entire code string was apparently discarded, with no citation number in the body, nothing added to the Notes section, and no error.

Is there a way to accomplish this? If not, the material will have to go in the body text. Mandruss (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way is to use the {{efn}} template for the note. Take a look at how this article does it for instance. Eric Corbett 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. ¡Muchas gracias! Mandruss (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I indent my edits?

I know I am missing something very obvious. My question is, how can I indent my edits on a talk page? I noticed that everyone else replies to a edit under it, but indented to the right. My edits just stick to the left. Anthonyliu (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Indenting is really simple. All you have to do is put the : (colon) symbol before your text and the entire paragraph is indented. The number of colons you have determines the number of indents you have. Dathus (Talk | Contribs)

21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You can also read this. Mandruss (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Information boxes of myself

I need to add information to see the public what my current situation is. So help me to add User-Boxes. I don't like to paste from another user though. Give me tips. Thanks.Wesige putha (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If you need help with userboxes, take a look at the Wikipedia Userbox Gallery and if you want to know how to create your own, look here, at the userbox guide. Dathus (Talk | Contribs)

21:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving my draft article into my sandbox

Hi, I've been working with an editor who is now on break. He suggested that my article be moved into my sandbox for safe keeping. Is that something another editor can do for me or can I do it myself? From what he said, it sounds like I need to have someone other than me move it. Also sounds like my article is ready to go, I just need to wait until the film can get some notability before it can be published. Since my film is recently released, I'm not sure how long it will take to get some independent reviews. In the meantime, I don't want my article to expire. I appreciate any help in this. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hearts_of_the_Dulcimer_(film)

Thanks!! pdelich (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome pdelich to Teahouse! You could use the move option located on the top right area of the page and move it into your userspace sandbox. ///EuroCarGT 03:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's necessary. Your draft article won't be deleted until at least six months after you last edit it. (This is assuming it doesn't contain urgent problems like copyright violations - which would get it deleted from your sandbox too.) Are you planning to do nothing with it for six months? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not urgent, and I hope to get some notability for our film in the next 6 months, but I have no control over that. There are no copyright issues, I'm just responding to what the last editor suggested: moving it to my sandbox. Sounds like I may be able to do that myself?

As soon as I can get some notability, I'll be on it again!!  :-)

pdelich (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

pdelich, since you said that this is your film, you should declare Conflict of interest (close connection) on your userpage and once your draft is finished. ///EuroCarGT 05:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, if it will really take more than six months from the film's release for any sources to take note of it, then it's fine to allow the page to be deleted. If somehow, some independent reliable sources discuss the topic in detail after more than six months, you can then request the page be undeleted. This is a much better idea than having random sandboxes and redirects and other nonsense sitting around for years without anyone understanding why. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted because no citations

I recently decided that I would start to help review new articles from first time editors to help reduce the backlog. My question is this - since I am working backwards, reviewing the oldest articles first, I noticed that there were already notes on the new article pages; a few articles had no citations at all and they were informed of this about a month ago. When does an article with sources get deleted?

bpage (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bfpage: Hello there! Articles without citations and/or sources gets deleted, if tagged with proper template, as soon as a reviewing admin waves the flag. (Rovinemessage) 22:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

created a second Wiki account (topic change) HOWTO transfer Contributions history to new account?

I created a username and used for a few years. I made small corrections in a lot of different places over the years which I presume are logged in Contributions

Now I realized that my username was too specific for one field and my making corrections outside that field are inconsistent with that username name.

So I just created a second username so now when I am going to make corrections to pages I will login to the account appropriate for the expected corrections

Now can I have all my old corrections on the 1st account transferred with the name change to the second?

Muonphysicist (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Muonphysicist. You are entitled to abandon one account and start another. And, on the user page of the second account, you can mention that it is a successor to the first account. But you can't transfer the edits from one account, active for several years, to another account. However, I have to admit that I don't understand your comment about "inconsistent with that username". An account with a name like "FlowerLover" can edit articles about pigs, mud or nuclear fusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

table insert

I have an article which iIwant to submit which is mainly one table.��Can I import the table without creating a table in the article template and populating it item by item��Jeremybryson (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy, welcome to the teahouse. There's no existing automated way to do this, but there's no reason there shouldn't be.

For example if you have a table in Microsoft Word or Excel, it should be possible to export those to CSV format. And perhaps someone has made a script or macro that changes CSV format into a simple wiki format table?

Leaving this open in the hope that someone else knows of such a thing or can search for one...

Unresolved

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a tool at this site. You can paste directly from Excel into the box, and it displays the source for a wiki formatted table. I've never used it here, but I have used it to create a couple of simple tables at the Japanese Wikipedia, and it worked fine there. -- Margin1522 (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is only a Google scholar page enough for an article to be "worthy of notice" and get around deletion ?

As in this case ,The only reliable source that i could get about the article(which is on a person from academic field) was his Google Scholar Page.Is this enough for the article to be "worthy of notice"? Should the article still be nominated as Article for deletion since no notable achievement can be found published by any trusted publishing websites ? The only links are the persons University websites and Blogs. Thanks in advance -- Sahil 08:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello,, Sahil. The short answer is No. "Notable" in the Wikipedia sense refers to whether other people have already thought it worth writing about the subject and published their writings in reliable places. It makes very little difference how much the subject himself has published. Part of the reason for this is that if there is little published about the subject, then there is almost no information which could be put into an article, since all information in an article is required to be backed up by reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SahilSahadevan. To a large extent, the notability of a professor or a scientist depends on how often other scholars cite their work in the academic literature. That is why we have a specific notability guideline for such people, which can be found at WP:ACADEMIC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Book Creation Category

Hello

I apologise for my ignorance.

I would like to create & download a Wikipedia “book.”

I've tried to create a book, by clicking on "Add this category to your book” in order to add all articles in that category to the book. The book I downloaded included the main article, but only the titles of the related articles.

Is it possible to create a book (which includes the other articles, and not only their titles) simply by adding the relevant Category?? Or do I have to add each individual Wikipedia Article to the book??

In advance, I thank you for your help.

151.46.223.183 (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Due to the way Wikipedia books works, it is copying the text from the article and effectively pasting it into your book, so you would have to add each page manually if you wanted an entire category. Dathus ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

are you sure about that, Dathus? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I just looked into it again and it seems that if I add a category it does create a book with all of the pages from that category. You can try it again with the category you want made into a book and see if it works this time. Dathus ^{Talk | Contribs}

09:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion cannot be contested

Hello there! I just finished a page a few days ago and it was rapidly marked for speedy deletion under the A7 (no mention of importance) and G11 (unambiguous promotion) criteria.

As far as I can see, it doesn't meet the A7 criteria for deletion, as there are references demonstrating the company's importance in the article itself, along with mention of that fact in the product section (more than 10 million participants in video conversations through its flagship product). There are also other possible alternative references, including one from the earlier days when it grew to 1 million participants.

Aside from the product's user base, I also had sufficient proof of notability in all of the references inserted in the Awards section of the article, in which the company has received recognition from several well-known institutions for its work. I'm not exactly sure how it is even possible for my article to have been deleted under the A7 criteria.

I'm also curious of what promotional language was used to merit a G11 criteria for unambiguous promotion.

What can I do if I don't have a button for contesting the article's speedy deletion, and how can I be guided towards making the article proper for Wikipedia's standards? Mleivagomez (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

HI Mleivagomez. Welcome to the Teahouse. The administrator reviewing the speedy will decline it if the terms of A7 or G11 are not met. Notability is normally determined at WP:Articles for deletion.Charles (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! I am currently still confused, though. As far as the SD guidelines show me, it's preferable to work with the author on trying to get the article edited than to proceed with a speedy deletion. Mleivagomez (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mleivagomez. The editor who tagged the article for speedy deletion is Solarra. Have you discussed the matter with that editor? Your use of a clearly promotional phrase such as "flagship product" indicates that you may so immersed in marketing speak that you can't distinguish between neutral language and promotional language. As for writing an article that won't be deleted, my basic advice is to rigorously avoid any promotional or advertising language. Remove it three times, and then once more. Disclose any conflict of interest that you may have, and comply with the neutral point of view rigorously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been working with the editor in my userspace to build a version not quite so promotional, so far it is looking extremely promising. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Added {{reflist talk}}, so that the references appear in this section, rather than at the bottom of the page. --ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

References

You all have been extremely helpful! Especially Solarra, who has worked with me on this painstaking edit. Thank you all so much! Mleivagomez (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I create a new listing?

I'm overwhelmed. How do I simply add a new entry to Wikipedia?Voicetel23 (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Voicetel23. Unfortunately, it isn't really "simple" to write an encyclopedia article, at least one that won't be deleted. On the other hand, it isn't exactly rocket science. Start by reading the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. Then, our Primer for beginners may be useful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Voicetel23, another thing to keep in mind is that there are a LOT of things you can do to help make Wikipedia better without creating new articles. In fact the work that most editors do is about 95% editing existing articles and 5% creating new articles. Look under the "Help Out" heading on this page: Wikipedia:Community_portal and you will see many suggestions. Starting by editing existing pages will give you experience in how to use Wiki markup, Wikipedia policies, etc. and in more manageable digestible chunks rather than jumping in and creating a brand new article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Userbox organization

Hey Teahouse. This is my first time asking a question so...Here goes! How can I make my Userboxes be in order on the side like this user has here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:W.carter. Thanks! MirrorFreak (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know what I mean?☻MirrorFreak☺ 18:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello MirrorFreak and welcome to the Teahouse. I think I know what you mean. If you just click on the "Edit" tab on my page you can copy the code from there. Just be sure to leave everything the way you found it. The code starts with {| align="right" style="border: 1px solid #CCC;" then comes the userboxes and it ends with |} The code is a way of putting a frame around the userboxes, and it also tell where you want all of it to be. If you want it on the left side you just write "left" in the code instead. Best of luck! Best, w.carter-Talk 19:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Btw, if you see anything at any users page that you want to know about, you can always ask that user on their talk page. :) We have a rule to not bite the newbies, so there is no danger. You are always welcome to ask at my talk page. See you! w.carter-Talk 19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to ask,(As it seems rude) but could you do it for me? Also, do you adopt users?☻MirrorFreak☺ 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll see you at your talk page and we'll take it from there. And, no, sorry I do not adopt, I have not been here very long either. w.carter-Talk 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to my talk page?☻MirrorFreak☺ 19:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done w.carter-Talk 19:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Image sharing across languges

I edited an English page Nostromo Yarará and tried to move the image from the Russian language page but not sure how to reuse it. I have seen Commons images used in multiple Wiki pages but not sure if a wiki image can be shared without uploading it again.

Incidentally what is the difference between the TeaGarden and the VillagePump?

Idyllic press (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Idyllic press and welcome back to the Teahouse. I can't really answer your question on how to image share across languages. Some more experienced Wikipedians will probably able to help you, or you can ask at the help desk. The village pump is a place where you can share ideas about the future of Wikipedia, and you can create proposals in the idea lab,etc. The Teahouse, however, is more like a place where you can ask/answer questions on current policy. Sorry for the long reply. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 20:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Idyllic press: Unfortunately, images cannot be shared between Wikipedias. If an image is "free" (public domain or freely licensed), it could be uploaded to the Commons so all Wikipedias could use it. If an image is "non-free" (normal copyrighted image), it must be separately uploaded to each Wikipedia where it is to be used. The image to which you are referring is "non-free". To be honest, the uploading of non-free images is one of the most difficult things to do in Wikipedia. Non-free images must meet all of the criteria listed here (see the section with numbers) to be used in English Wikipedia. (All of the different Wikipedias have different policies, and some Wikipedias do a poor job of enforcing their own policies, so often images that are used in other Wikipedias are not appropriate to use here.) In my opinion, I don't think it would be appropriate to use that photo in Wikipedia, because of criterion #1 on that list. There are a number of (non-free) photos of that drone available online, as well as at least one video. A person could use those photos and video to create a free diagram or sketch of the drone from scratch. Additionally, a Wikipedian could contact the manufacturer to see if the manufacturer would be willing to release an example photo under a free license. Because there are these alternatives that would result in free images for use in the article, I don't think it would be appropriate to use the non-free photo in the English Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Idyllic press: As a follow-up, if you would like to contact the manufacturer about releasing a photo under a free license (I'd guess you have a decent chance of success given that the manufacturer is not profiting from the image and would likely enjoy the added publicity), you could use any of the request examples listed here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo: @Calliopejen1: Thank you, I had drafted a suitable letter on the manufaturers contact form but did not send it when I remembered the picture on the Russian site and thought to try use that first, I was all ready to just link throug to the other language image if it had worked but agree that a free image would be best. I have looked at picture details before on Commons but just get the image in a viewer when clicking through on Wikipeda these days so could not check the details of the other one. I will draft a new letter to the manufacturer after looking at the samples: had a look and they are much more elaborate than I had drafted. I will send a drief enquiry first and then if they show interest I will explain the hoops that have to be jumped through, perhaps they will upload to Commons on their own :-) Idyllic press (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Idyllic press: BTW if you'd like to bypass the image viewer to see the image details more easily, you can click the commons logo (the circle with arrows pointing into it) in the lower right of the viewer. There is also a way to change back to the old viewer by default in your preferences, but I don't remember where off the top of my head (if you can't find it and want to change it, ask back here). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Earth

Why did the earth form ??

See History of the Earth for our coverage of the earth's formation. In the future, if you have content questions, you can ask them at the reference desk (this board is for questions about how to use Wikipedia). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Article style advice

I need one or more experienced editors to look at an article and give some fairly specific advice as to style; i.e., precisely what kinds of things should be included and excluded. This is the kind of thing that should be addressed in article talk, but there are only two of us participating in that talk and we are having trouble reaching full agreement.

Is there a better place than Teahouse to solicit such help?

The article is here; the "Events of the incident" section is a good illustration of the question. If someone here wants to offer the advice it could be added to the existing talk section. Mandruss (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: WP:3O is a good place to find a third opinion where you have a stalemate between two contributors. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just what I was looking for, and good to know for the future. Thanks. Mandruss (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Drafts

Can users work on drafts that are being started by other users?

02:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean that the article has not yet been published and remains in another user's sandbox. If that's the case, your best bet is to ask the drafter if they would be interested in getting your help. Otherwise, I advise waiting until the article is published, at which point you're free to edit. Keihatsu ^talk 02:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Designing User Pages and Articles

Hi, I just set up my own userpage and was toying around with headings and text formats. I seemed to have messed up on the heading entitled 'References' and it doesn't appear right on the screen. If you have the time could you please head on over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Free_Editor_Anyone_Can_Cite and check out the code and tell me what I have done wrong. Thank you very much. The help is greatly appreciated. The Free Editor Anyone Can Cite (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like someone came along to help already. Don't hesitate to come back to the teahouse if you have further questions, though. Keihatsu ^talk 02:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible COI editing

There's a wiki article about my surname (Vohra), I'd like to add myself to the People section at the botton, but am worried that, outside of little cheeky, this would be a COI (conflict of interest) edit.

Any thoughts? KameelV (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kameel. Do we have an article about you? Do you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? If so, then yes, you can add yourself to the page. However, if you do not meet these criteria, then you should not do so - Wikipedia does not want or need to list everyone in the world with a particular surname. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Article live?

Hello teahouse,

how do I make my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marita_Dieling now go live? I think all the copyrights issues are sorted.

Many thanks in advance, Marita Marita Dieling (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the referencing issues remain, and there is a risk of it being proposed for one of the deletion mechanisms once it is moved to the main article namespace. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

sorry to interfere: I have found that article that looks like an independent and reliable source. The website seems OK and the article does include an external point of view on the institution. It is definitely not much (I haven't found any coverage of their action) but maybe a stub could still be made out of that ? Something like: "The Association of International Research and Development Centres for Agriculture (AIRCA) is an alliance of research institutions in the field of agriculture. Its goal is to act at a grass-root level to improve food security, within the context of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The alliance gathers 9 groups active in 60 countries." Or is this alliance really not notable enough ?KaptainIgloo (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot for replying so quickly, much appreciated. Let me see what else I can find in terms of, but might be difficult because we are still new. But thanks anyways.Marita Dieling (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see KaptainIgloo's comment only now. I so much appreciated the amount of work and time you all put into this. Will rework the article as per your advice. Have a wonderful day Marita Dieling (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey Teahouse, I'm wondering if anyone would care to adopt me. I'm extremely excited about being on Wikipedia, and would like to learn more about it. Thanks, ☻MirrorFreak☺ 13:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi ! Have you checked this list ? It might help you ;) Good luck ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Facebook of Wikipedia

Hey, I found this page [1] is quite interesting. Does it belong to Wikipedia also? Who are the admins of this page? Thank you! Alphama (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But as it's a "verified" page, it must have the approval of the Wikimedia Foundation. From the look of the content, it looks like it is run by Foundation staff. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's linked in foundation:Template:Blogbox which is displayed at https://wikimediafoundation.org and elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice Comment

A comment in the VxWorks article (which I recently updated) was recently inserted in the 'Notable uses' section. It asked asked contributors to modify the section to prose. However, this section was meant to be just a list organized by market segment. Being new to Wikipedia, I am not sure how/who I should contact on this to discuss, or what the etiquette is. ThanksRobpater (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You could add an entry to the article's Talk Page, or check through the page history to find out which user added that tag, and leave a note on his/her talk page. In this case, it was User:Thumperward. Rojomoke (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the tag further up, as the entire article is too heavily built on interminable lists (customers, features, platforms). Our articles should not simply be large lists of data points; these are sometimes appropriate, but not for general-purpose articles on subjects. It may be that the users section in this particular article is best formatted as a list, but it may also be that when the rest of the article is rewritten a better form can be found. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

2 Questions

1. Are the images on http://www.etv.co.za/shows/reality/sas-got-talent are free to use as on the website nowhere does it say you cannot use them ( and I looked very hard ) So can I upload them? 2. Are my recent image uploads good - were their permission accepted? Must I worry about them? Dovikap (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dovikap: 1. No, those images are not free to use and you cannot upload them. (By default, everything on the internet is not free to use.) As a general rule, the exceptions are extremely old images (date depends by country and a number of other factors but generally ~100 years old) or freely licensed images, i.e. images where there is an explicit statement that commercial reuse and remixing is permitted. If it's a new image, and you don't see some sort of explicit permission/licensing statement like that, the image can't be used on Wikipedia. If you have any more questions like this, the media copyright board has volunteers that can help you sort out copyright issues. 2. I'm not sure what you mean by your "recent" images, so I'll just do everything.... All of the files you have ever uploaded to the English Wikipedia have been deleted (uploads 5/27/14-6/20/14), all because of copyright problems.(See your upload log here -- red links are deleted images.) For images that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, some have been deleted and some have not. (See your upload log here -- again, red links are deleted images.) Four images were deleted for copyright problems (all uploaded 7/6/14). There are three images, uploaded 6/24/14 and 7/13/14, where permission has been confirmed. These you do not need to worry about. There is also one graph that you said you created yourself (uploaded 6/27/14), which is fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help. Dovikap 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Request an Article

I want to request and article but when I get to the choose a topic area I can't seem to find the appropriate Topic Area for the article I want written. Ggghhj123 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Ggghhj123: Welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you're talking about listing an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles? If so, could you state the article or topic-area that you would like to request? We might be able to help you out better if we know what your topic-area is. We do also have an "other" category for requesting articles, though it's best if we can pin the article request down to a specific category. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I upload an album cover with the correct licence?

Please help! I want to create a page for an album by a musician already in Wikipedia. I uploaded an image to Wiki Commons but got stuck over the type of licence and had to abandon it. The image was called Insight Album Cover. But now I can't upload a new file ( different name but same image) and have no idea how to licence it so I can use it. Any ideas? Thank you. MarycjamesMarycjames (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Marycjames: The Wikimedia Commons is an image repository for freely licensed images - that is, images that are licensed in a way that allows them to be used by anyone, for any purpose, with no requirements other than attribution. To use copyrighted content here on the English Wikipedia (such as a copyrighted album cover), you'll need to upload it locally here, assuming it meets our criteria for non-free content (which it presumingly does, as most album covers do). I recommend going through the File Upload Wizard to upload any pictures, which should guide you to choosing the proper fair use licensing for albums. One point to note is that fair use images should be relatively small in size; 300 x 300 px is sufficient for album covers. Another point to note is that fair use images should only be used in live articles. Since you say you plan on creating a page on the album in the future, you should first create the article, then upload the cover art once the album is live. Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Superhamster! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marycjames (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Translating Wikipedia Artiticles

A well as recently starting a English Wikipedia Account, I also became a member of Vicipeid, the Irish language Wikipedia. Due to the low level of Irish speakers, there are a good few articles on Vicipeid which lack detail and quite a few subjects which don't have articles at all. Is there any problem with me taking an English Wikipedia article and directly translating it to Irish to make an Irish version for Vicipeid? Go raibh maith agat! (Thank you!) An Eagarthóir (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, An Eagarthóir. Translating articles from one language to another is a great service that you can perform, if you have that expertise. Please attribute the original source. Refer to WP:Translate_us for more details. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking translating articles is completely fine so long as you follow the attribution requirements outlined on the page that Cullen linked to. Basically you just have to leave a note on the talk page of the article saying you translated it from English Wikipedia on such and such a date. Thank you so much for offering to translate articles! Zell Faze (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Baba Shah Jamal

What should I do about the IP's repeated edits? He won't stop... Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

He did it again! What should I do? Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Jwoodward48wiki: Another user and I have reverted and warned the IP a couple times. Since the editor hasn't stopped spamming, I've reported them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

For future reference, seeing that you are into vandal patrol, the process for dealing with spam is similar to dealing with vandals: sufficiently warn, then report. You can find all user warning templates at WP:WARN. For cases of spam, you'll probably want to use {{uw-advert1}} and {{uw-spam1}}, depending. If an editor has been sufficiently warned yet continues to spam, you can report them at WP:AIV, as you would do to typical vandals.

In cases that are a bit more complex and might not be appropriate to report to WP:AIV, you can ask for admin intervention at the administrator's noticeboards for incidents (ANI). Be sure to follow the instructions at the top of the page, which include notifying editors of discussions you start about them. Hope this helps! Thanks for bringing this issue up. ~SuperHamster [[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]Contribs 19:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So, I have a newbie question related to Baba Shah Jamal. Is the total absence of inline citations and the listing of only a single offline reference not a problem for this article, even one classified as a stub? or do the external links replace citations? I mean no disrespect to the subject, obviously a venerated Sufi saint, but is Wikipedia the appropriate venue for genealogical listings? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: Yes, the article's sourcing definitely needs improvement - and coincidentally, a minute after you made this comment, Ukexpat tagged the article as needing several improvements, including better sourcing. In the case of external links vs. references, all references should be listed in the references section while the external links section should be a separate section that lists official links or further readings. The two sections may have overlapping links, but should still be distinguished. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, ~SuperHamster. I also found some information on the genealogy question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy. Learn something new every day! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

why is my record label deemed an 'Unremarkable music label'?

why is my record label deemed an 'Unremarkable music label'? On what grounds?Fantastic cat more than human (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fantastic cat more than human: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unremarkable in this context doesn't mean that the label is mediocre; it means that it isn't notable. Essentially, this means that there is no evidence that it's been documented by independent sources (by documented, I mean described extensively, not simply mentioned). If you can find such sources, add in the information (but not the words and sentences themselves--that is copyright infringement, an even more serious problem) and cite the sources. This essay for beginners should give you some tips. --Jakob (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you Jakob Fantastic cat more than human (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fantastic cat more than human. Adding to what Jakob said, Wikipedia has a guideline about notability. In order to be eligible for an article, the topic needs to have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Our core policy on verifiability says that the reader has to be able to verify the claims made in an article.

Your article about a record label contains no references demonstrating notability and no means for a reader to verify the claims about the label. It is your obligation to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines if your article is to stay on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

New article

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I have created an article that is a work in progress here. Can anyone help out? I have a hunch that it is not notable, and if I were to create the article, it would be AFD'ed and it would probably have a consensus to merge into Newsfix's stations' article, which is located here. Also, if I were to take a picture of the logo, would it be under fair use? Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey @MrWooHoo: I made a few small copyedits to the article, but I haven't looked at its validity in terms of notability or anything like that. To answer your question about the logo, I recommend using the cleanest version of the logo from the official website, which is located here. Now typically, logos for company articles are copyrighted, and Wikipedia claims fair use to use them (and note that fair use images can only be used in live articles, not drafts). However, in the United States at least, there is the concept of threshold of originality, in which logos consisting of simple typeface and shapes aren't copyrightable and qualify as being in the public domain. These "simple" logos can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, and the licensing can be marked with both {{PD-logo}} and {{Trademarked}} (since the logo is assumingly trademarked). As I see it, NewsFix's logo appears to be a plain font with a bit of simple styling, so I'd imagine it would qualify as a public domain logo (if anyone wants to back me up on that or disagrees with my analysis, feel free to). Hope this helps a bit, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it fair for a Person to be allowed to be Creator/Major Contributor to his/her own article page ?

As with the case here , the page seems to be a notable person , having appeared in a couple of trusted publisher news (as passing mention?) . But the user who created this page seems to be the same person (Lokeswara Rao) and is adding down his own achievement details all by himself without supportig references. So ,my question is , If an Article is a biography of an individual , is it fair in wikipedia that the same person is writing down his own achievement in that article ? Doesnt this self-description seem to be an effort to achieve self-boosted publicity and could compromise the authenticity of an article ? Shouldn't such articles be discouraged by, in this case , being notified for discussed deletions ? Sahil 12:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia has a policy about not making an article about yourself so it could just be someone they say their not.Mirror Freak 13:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've struggled with this on a couple of occasions, where the person either creating the article or doing a vast amount of the editing is either the article's subject, or closely related to the subject (the subject's wife). In one instance, the editors simply ignored me, and I really don't know what to do in that situation, in the other, they were very responsive and became quite cautious in ensuring everything they put on the page was verified with an independent source. WP:COI (the policy MirrorFreak just mentioned) has some good information.Onel5969 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As a generalisation, the folk who create autobiographies are the "Do you know who I AM?" crowd, and no-one does. They think WIkipedia will promote their business, career, and so much else. Sadly, a good number discover that they are not notable. The thing to do is to flag the COI, and then consider the article as an article. Are they notable? If not, use one of the deletion mechanisms and let the community decide. Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to take down a "blocked user" banner?

I had a rough start on Wikipedia, and was blocked for a few different reasons. I was able to prove that I had good intentions, and had my username changed, and have contributed lots of useful information since. Am I allowed to delete the now old, inaccurate "blocked user" banner on my talk page? I don't like that it takes up so much space, and potentially hurts my reputation.Washoe42 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Washoe42, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you certainly can remove them. Looks like you've gotten some good praise lately. Congratulations - keep up your good efforts! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll try to contribute again soon :) Washoe42 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Text removed from my article and used by another to create his/her own.

I have an article in Wikipedia named Florence Mildred White, the first documented attested policewoman. During this last week I have had someone doing edits, some of them quite large. I have found now that a large amount of text from my article was deleted and then copied and transferred to another Wiki article. I have not had anything to do with this article and was not aware that the text had been transferred until I followed a link. Also, it is impossible to Undo this text, it has to be done manually. This has upset the whole rhythm of my article and replacing the text generally is very difficult. Is someone allowed to remove paragraphs of text from an article and place it in their own? Does this not break any Wiki rules? Is it in order for me to go to the new article and delete what is, in fact, my text? Thank you. TimothyWF (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi TimothyWF, welcome to the Teahouse! On Wikipedia, no one "owns" an article or text. Anyone can change/add/move/delete text if they think it will improve articles. If you disagree with what has been done, the first step is to contact the other editor and express why you disagree with their edit. Do you want help with doing that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, any text on Wikipedia may be copied to other articles or even other websites (including for commercial purposes) provided attribution is given. --Jakob (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@TimothyWF: There is a common misunderstanding that we have some sort of 'rights' because we have created an article. Emotionally, we do. Intellectually, we do not. The best advice is to work with the other editor, not against each other. Talk to them on their talk page, find out what they intend and ask not that they stop, but how you can help. You may find you get two excellent articles out of the process, something not to be sneezed at!

One thing we all have to do when we create an article is to realise that we are its father, not its mother. Go on to father another, and let the community do what it will with your child. WIkipedia is a weird place, but a fun hobby as long as one gets the trick to caring, but not too much. Fiddle Faddle 19:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TimothyWF, Wikipedia is a place where editors collaborate and improve wherever they can. You are donating your work to Wikipedia, and we thank you for doing that. As the message at the top of the edit window says: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Other editors will read what you do, add their own information, and improve the article where they can. I know you would like your article to read like a coherent essay, but an encyclopedia article is not an essay. Background information not about the subject should be in other articles. A guide to writing for Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@TimothyWF: The advice above @Timtrent: is the way that the wiki works. The article that you wrote (and donated) has now added to two articles and I hope that I have credited that this is not my work but it is text copied from the article you created (and others have helped with). (It was me) I was working hard to try and remove the templates from "your" article. I do hope we can work together and maybe others are willing to help. At the moment the article still mentions letters that are used as references. Oddly these are "primary sources" and the wiki doesn't like primary sources (I know its odd). However I don't intend to bully you so I am going to absent myself from the article. I'd be happy to help if you invite me. Else, good editing Victuallers (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

See [2]. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jwoodward48wiki, welcome to the Teahouse. We define vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Your example is a close call but it's easier just to use another reason to remove it. In this case, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Long-time page deleted

After about a decade on Wiki, my page was deleted. How can I get it reinstated? I've been in contact with the "voluntary response team," and they've kicked me to you.

There was nothing on the page that was incorrect, though many of my accomplishments weren't on the page.

Thank you.

Pgh2la (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? We cannot help until we know that. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pgh2la:, you have created no articles at Wikipedia, at least with this account. If you created an article with another account, please let us know which article (or which account) so we can help you. --Jayron32 16:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A little detective work on the user's contributions has tracked down Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Schmidt (TV writer). I can;t see the deleted article, but it appears to be a normal deletion discussion, albeit with few participants.

What might well be appropriate would be a request from the editor for userfication Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP has better filters in place now for new articles especially BLP's. Years ago anyone could put anything up and many substandard articles went years without being discovered. That seems to be the case here. Before you go further I would suggest that Pgh2la, take some time to review WP:Notability (people) and make sure there are good quality sources that would substantiate a revised submission before wasting their time on a dead end. Good luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually as Pgh2la is the subject of the deleted article, they shouldn't be attempting to rewrite the article themselves.--ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the WP:AFC process tends to assist with matters like this, even with autobiographies. I find it peculiar, but am going with the flow there. The basis seems to be that sufficient reviews will kick the COI material out of the articles. Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the deleted article was sourced solely to the IMDb. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)