Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

How can I create a page?

Very simple question! How do I create a page on wikipedia?

Najia 80.1.32.72 (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Susan Powell

Good evening kind and smiling teahouse host. I'm here not so much with a specific question but with a need for a place to put my bag down, sip a strong cup of Earl Grey, and, while I'm at it, is it ok to slip off my shoes? I made a random choice to copyedit this article that was on the need for copyedit list and set off with all the enthusiasm of a Burke or a Wills looking for the great inland sea. However, the article got the better of me: it seems all wrong in tone and, well, it's really creepy. Is there someone to provide sooth on such articles? Should I leave it well alone before PTSD sets in? With sincere thanks once again, Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

submit article for review

Hello,

How can I improve my article and have it reviewed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mimi_Smith_(artist)

Thanks!

Archiveassistant (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Archiveassistant and welcome to the Teahouse. It can be difficult to evaluate the notability of an artist with the surname "Smith" due to the incredibly large number of false positives. When I look at your references, I see several that are seemingly "print only" and not available online. Although such sources are permissible, they may prompt suspicions among reviewers. I recommend incorporating quotations of a sentence or two from offline sources, to demonstrate that the coverage is significant. One of the sources from MOMA is a press release, which mentions many artists in passing including Smith, but says nothing substantive about her and her work. That type of reference does not inspire confidence, although one hopes for confidence when an artist appears in a MOMA source. My best advice is to highlight the best sources that clearly show notability, and downplay or remove sources that are marginal. It is far better to have three or four rock solid sources than eight or ten mediocre sources. The article can always be expanded later after notability is demonstrated convincingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

I was about to nominate this article for FA, but it would be nice to have a third-party opinion on whether it's ready since all my FA nominations have a tendency to crash and burn. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Notices sent to qmmckenna@comcast.net

DragonflySixtyseven just sent me a notice that "Drip pulse irrigation" has been "reviewed." I don't understand this because it is already an accepted article appearing on Wikipedia. The only change that was recently done to this article was to remove it's "orphan" designation because other Wikipedia articles have since been linked to it. On another matter, I keep receiving notices that another article I wrote "Drip feed pulse irrigation" is ready for imminent deletion. However that article has already been deleted months ago.Qmmckenna (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Qmmckenna: Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe the message was sent automatically by the software. As for marking as reviewed, this could have been new pages patrol or page curation. --Jakob (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal regarding the reliability of a website

Hello. I was making a proposal concerning the reliability of a website which has been questionable in the past, and I was wondering where I should post the proposal. It's not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and the reliable sources noticeboard says that questions posted on the noticeboard are suppose to be about whether particular sources are notable in context. In this case, the website concerned is about a certain topic, so do I post in the talk page of the Wikipedia portal that is concerned with the source? Thanks! -KJ ^{click here} 11:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kkj11210. Please mention the specific website and we will give you a general opinion. The reason why the reliable sources noticeboard asks about the specific context is that no source is reliable 100% of the time, and pretty much any source is reliable for at least a few basic things. Consider the New York Times, commonly considered reliable the vast majority of the time. But part of their reliability comes from their reputation for correcting their errors. So, if the NYT published an article on January 2 making claim "X" and then published a correction on January 4 noting their error, saying that actually "Y" is true, then we can't cite the January 2 article to claim that "X" is true. That January 2 article is not a reliable source, even though it was published in a highly regarded newspaper. And no New York Times article with a byline of Jayson Blair should be considered reliable. At the other end of the continuum, there are kooks and conspiracy theorists who are notable. Let's say that notable conspiracy theorist John Johnson believes that a certain U.S. politician is actually a space alien. Johnson's website is NOT a reliable source for stating in the politician's Wikipedia article that the politician is a space alien, but the website is a reliable source for stating on Johnson's Wikipedia article that Johnson espouses this specific conspiracy theory. This is based on the assumption that Johnson is notable based on other significant coverage of him in reliable, independent sources. The bottom line is that generalizations can be made (New York Times good, conspiracy website bad), but every source needs to be evaluated in context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, @Cullen328:. In this case, I'm talking about [allkpop.com allkpop], a website that has information regarding kpop. It has been previously discussed on the noticeboard at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#allkpop.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_125#Allkpop_and_Soompi. In this case, either the website checks out as a mostly reliable source, or it doesn't. Since so many kpop articles are dependent on it, I wanted to draw a consensus about the validity of it as a source.Thanks! -KJ ^{click here} 08:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a pic. of myself

I would like to put a pic. of myself on my teahouse profile. I am not able to copy and paste and I am not finding an icon to upload from. Would you please give me instructions on this? Thank You, CharCnixon1 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you've decided to make profile here. If you took the photo yourself, you should actually go to Wikimedia Commons, which is a place for "free content" (things people can use for whatever purpose with few restrictions). Uploading to the Commons means it can be used here on Wikipedia or any affiliated site. When you create a guest profile, there should be a link offering you to upload your picture to the Commons. (Or use this direct link.) If you still need help, feel free to respond here. Welcome to the Teahouse! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Upload a .svg file

Hi, I want to upload a .svg file with Upload Wizard in Wikimedia Commons, but he said «This file might be corrupt, or have the wrong extension» Can you help me please? (Excuse me for the mistakes, I normally speak french) YoshiNoirMC (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• YoshiNoirMC It might be because of the way you're creating the vector version. Can you please state how you created the file?And what it is, i.e. Logo, Simple shapes, etc. Soham 08:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I put the .ai file in my personal website: http://www.yoshinoir.com/176587.html

YoshiNoirMC (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see you created it with adobe illustrator, you're the cover-artist of the OST, therefore copyright is not a problem here. I tried uploading it myself and encountered the same problem. Try uploading it at English Wikipedia using Special:Upload and select the cc-by-sa template from the drop down list and provide a summary, see if it works this way. Soham 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but he said now: «The XML in the uploaded file could not be parsed.»

YoshiNoirMC (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• So you tried uploading it in English Wikipedia this time? Or again at commons? Soham 05:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability....?

Hello,

I've been working on an article about a new spiritual teacher. I finally seem to have addressed most of the issues raised about this article, but the latest rejection says "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule."

What do you do if you disagree with this? Kosi has been teaching for just over a year and half---has been interviewed on radio in Hawaii, Spain, as well as Ireland Public Radio. She has also been interviewed by the widely respected Buddha and the Gas Pump, Advaita News and Matrea Magazine of Prague Chez Republic---not to mention that she is a producer of a video that has been viewed by over 500,000 people and translated into over forty different languages. All of this information is of very high quality, The Maitrea Magazine article for example is based on an in depth interview with Kosi http://magazin.maitrea.cz//svoboda-jako-chuze-na-ostri-noze/,/ is this not being recognized because it is in Czech language?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiprague/sandbox

The article has citations for everything. What is missing? I really do not understand this notability issue given the media coverage mentioned above. Is this really not enough coverage? Is this why so many articles asking for inclusion in wikipedia are so short with almost no information? I am finding this process extremely frustrating. Please help.Wikiprague (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability is closely tied to "reliable sources". Self-published literature or videos don't carry much weight (I could put out a video saying I was an important person but I'm not) but impartial secondary literature (newspapers, magazines, interviews from sources other than the organization she represents) are seen as indicating notability. Think of it this way, Wikipedia editors do not want self-promotional articles so a biographical article needs to indicate notability through use of reliable outside sources.

The process can be frustrating but it's meant to filter out people who are set on promoting some person or group. The only advice I can offer to be patient, persistence and do not take this personally...every article on a person without visible prominence (professional athlete, celebrity, political official, etc.) gets the same scrutiny. Even most CEOS of wealthy corporations do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC):

Adding to what Liz has said, most editors active in assessing notability do not believe that interviews of the subject alone establish notability. Interviews are usually considered primary sources - the "meat" of an interview is the words of the interview subject, which are not independent. We need significant coverage of the topic (a person in this case) in fully independent, secondary reliable sources to establish notability. I encourage you to add such sources to the article, or to accept the fact that it may be too soon for this person to be the subject of a Wikipedia biography. As for the fact that other mediocre articles exist on Wikipedia, that is inevitable with an encyclopedia with well over 4 million articles. We work every day to delete non-compliant articles, rather than using their existence as an excuse to create more non-compliant articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeking (Waiting for) Confirmation

I have two situations in mind which provide context for my questions:

1. An addition to a page is reverted due to perceived promotional aspects. When I sought clarification, it was quickly forthcoming. However, when I proposed an alternate draft (on a talk page), I got no response.
2. A bit of discussion exists around a particular addition to an article on its talk page. I have proposed a potential solution, but haven't heard anything back.

I'm wondering if perhaps I'm incorrectly assuming there is a culture of proactive discussion on Wikipedia when in reality the culture is more attuned to reactivity? Alternatively, perhaps it's just the users or pages I happen to be attempting to interact with and I should give them time to respond. If so, what do you suggest is an appropriate amount of time to wait before proceeding? I was thinking perhaps 3 days (the default watchlist presence). Any advice along these lines would be appreciated. Morphovariant (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll need to link us to the specific pages you're discussing for context here. As a rough reference, the a system for collaborating on articles that many editors aspire to is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This answers my question. Thanks!

Morphovariant (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I get my article published?

 Done I have a completed article that I wrote several months ago and it has been sitting in my "sandbox" ever since. I don't know how to officially publish it so that it is live on Wikipedia. Please help!Sally Ann Olson (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sally Ann Olson! I have moved your article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Reed. When you are ready to have it reviewed, hit the "Submit" button, but be advised most articles take several reviews, improvements, and new review, so don't get discouraged. I left a note at the top for two main things you need to address: you absolutely must provide citations to coverage of him in newspapers, music journals, etc. (see WP:Notability (music)) and you must format those citations as footnotes. Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sally Ann Olson: Hi Sally Ann. Please see the message I've left on your talk page regarding my deletion of the page. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am rather frustrated that my article was just deleted. I was told it was removed because the content was the same as or copied from an external source. Well, that external source is the bio page of the website of my employer Bill Reed (singing teacher) about whom I wrote the article. I would be happy to add the required citations to indicate that I have permission to duplicate the content. Can my article please be reinstated so that I may have the change to make the necessary changes for it to be an acceptable article?Sally Ann Olson (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A few things:

1. For text to be used on Wikipedia it needs not to be just "given permission", but released formally under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, which essentially gives anyone in the world permission to reuse it, for any purpose, including commercially. This copyright status would need to be displayed at the original source.
2. Even if this could be done, text from a person's website is unlikely to be suitable for an encylopedia article. A person's website is designed for promotional reasons as well as an informational one, whereas an encylopedia needs to have a neutral point of view.
3. As an employee of Bill Reed you have what we call a conflict-of-interest. We strongly discourage people writing and editing articles about subjects they have a close relationship to (for instance, a financial one) as they are unlikely to write with a neutral point of view.
4. Lastly, any encylopedia will only ever have articles on a tiny fraction of the population. We use the term "notability" to describe what distinguishes a subject that we would have an article for. For people, the guidelines for what constitutes notability can be found at WP:BIO. Doing a quick internet search it seems highly unlikely that Bill Reed would meet any of these criteria.

All considered, I would strongly encourage not trying to get this article published, as it is very unlikely to be successful. There are many tasks for which Wikipedia could use your help. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sally Ann Olson: Hi Sally. Luke provides a very good overview of issues involved. I'd like to expand a bit about the copyright matter in particular. For Wikipedia to use previously written, copyrighted text, that text must either be in the public domain, or bear a free copyright license compatible with the copyright licenses of (most of) Wikipedia's content (which allows anyone to reuse the content even for commercial purposes, with the only requirement to comply with the copyright, to provide attribution to the source. So, a copyright owner's permission for our use here is useless. We need the copyright released to the world for us to use that content.

A related issue is that we must be provided with some verifiable proof that the person who releases copyrighted content, actually has authority to do so. For material that is online, one way to show that authority is for the external website to post the compatible license. Release can also be done in some cases via an email from a domain name associated with the content. (See WP:DCM).

It may not seem like it from the vantage point of the article just being deleted, but this is also for your protection. A person may not realize the legal copyright issues involved when they post copyrighted content here, but by doing so, they are in effect implying to the world that their content—which they may very well not wish to give up rights to and especially commercial rights—is fair game for anyone to take and use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is all very discouraging.....I never thought it would be so difficult to publish an article on Wikipedia! Interestingly enough, Bill Reed is referenced in another person's Wiki article (Bjørn Johnson, a former student of his). In this article Bill Reed is referred to as V.William Reed. So I just don't understand how if Bill Reed is mentioned in someone else's article that he wouldn't meet the criteria to have his own Wiki article. And also, I didn't think that just because I work for Bill Reed that it would be considered a conflict of interests. I thought that as long as Bill Reed didn't write his own article that it would be okay. I give up!Sally Ann Olson (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sally Ann Olson. In our 4.4 million articles, probably tens of millions of other topics, including people, are mentioned. Mentioning something or someone briefly may serve a useful encyclopedic purpose, but that doesn't mean that everything mentioned is worthy of its own encyclopedia article. Think of it this way: An article about someone famous often mentions their parents. Does that mean that their parents are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, since they are mentioned? If so, then those articles should mention the parent's parents, and they should have articles too. Then the great-grandparents, and the great-great grandparents, and so on. Following this logic, we will soon have biographies of every 13th century peasant. But individual ordinary 13th century peasants are clearly not appropriate subjects for encyclopedia articles. The bottom line is that we welcome biographies of people who are truly notable, and we have standards for determining that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand the logic that just because somebody is mentioned in an article that it does not necessarily mean that they are worthy of having their own article. However, Bill Reed is a highly notable individual in his own right. He is both an accomplished singer and voice teacher, founder of the musical theatre program at the Circle in the Square Theatre School in NYC, and has trained countless successful Broadway actor/singers. I just don't understand how someone of his caliber doesn't qualify to have his own article on Wikipedia.Sally Ann Olson (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If the person you mention is "highly notable" as you claim, Sally Ann Olson, then you should be able to easily produce citations to significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources that demonstrate that notability convincingly. If you did so, then no attempt to delete such an article would possibly be successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Filmography help

Hi all - I'm trying to properly cite a filmography - Is IMDB enough? Here's the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Johnson_(actress) Any help would be great - Thanks! Row42 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Short answer, no. IMDB data is user-submitted and edited, so it cannot be considered a reliable source. Alternative reliable sources will need to be found. If these do not exist the article will have to be removed - principally for legal reasons we are very cautious about making sure the information we hold about living people is verifiable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not an "official" answer but from a reader who has read over 100+ biographies of actors, actresses and directors, filmographies do not normally have citations. In fact, there is not even a standard of what to include or exclude. Some editors include every single movie or TV series an actor has been (and sometimes plays, too) while other filmographies just include "highlights", substantial creations that an actor has appeared in (for example, no guest appearances). While LukeSurl is technically correct, I'd follow the practice seen on other filmographies and ask folks at Wikiproject:Film for specific advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

His Last Vow

Hi, an IP keeps adding the line "As of 15 January 2014 "His Last Vow" has acquired a 9.7 rating on IMDB with more than 5,500 votes,[24] and a 9.7 user rating on TV.com with a little more than 80 votes.[25]", despite the fact that I have raised the issue on the talk and on their talk page, whenever I remove it, they simply re-add it, ignoring any comments of mine. What can I do? Thanks, Matty.007 20:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of edit-warring to me. I'd take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Matty.007 08:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

writing articles.

Can i write a full article?Aberimah Divine (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yes you can - but have a read of Wikipedia:Your first article before you start. Nthep (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Marking a page for deletion and creating a link of different page in deletion discussion review.

Hello, I have a question. While going through APT Institute page, I found out that the page is being considered for deletion. When I tried to go to the deletion discussion page from the concerned page, it took me to another discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunal Sood page of the same author User:BiH. When I searched back in the history of the page APT Institute, only one editor User:Johny 547 marked it for deletion and after that there was no edit. How can this glitch come? Is this some sort of vandal activity? Rafaelgriffin (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Rafael, thanks for stopping by. Without talking to the editor concerned it's hard to say it is a mistake or an incomplete nomination. Either way as it's now three days since they added the notice to the page and haven't actually listed the article at AFD, I've removed the notice. Nthep (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Any editor whose very first edit is an AFD nomination attracts "interest". Looking at the editor's other edits, I think this needs a CU check, but I have to go offline now. Arjayay (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I nominated that page for deletion because it was made by single contributor which reflects advertisement.

Johny 547 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you need to conduct all three steps of the AFD process as detailed at WP:AFDHOWTO before a nomination is complete. Nthep (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing the colors of states on a map of the United States

I am seeking to update some maps of the United States on various pages that color the states according to certain policies or practices that the states use. This makes it easy to see which states have a specific law or policy and which states do not. I have found some maps whose information is either inaccurate or out-of-date. How do I change the colors of states on these maps in order to update or correct them?TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. These maps are updated by uploading a new version of the image. Unfortunately, only accounts which have been autoconfirmed (that is, at least four days old and having made at least ten edits) can do so. You've already made way more than ten edits, so if you don't want to wait a few days, you can ask someone to upload it for you. One way to do that is to make a request on the file's talk page. Click on an image in an article, then click the "Talk" link near the upper-left corner. Or maybe you could respond here with the specific file names and someone could help. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TobiisNOTmadara1291. I don't know exactly about which maps you are talking, but most of these maps are actually located at Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is Wikipedia's sister project, it's purpose is to host free images and other files. Those images are then transcluded and used in Wikipedia articles. Since you are registered user at English Wikipedia, you are also automatically a registered user at Wikimedia Commons. The only way to change the coloring yourself is to download the image, edit it in some image editing software, and then upload the new version back to Wikimedia Commons (see here how to do it). Those images are in varying file formats, so I can't tell you which software to use. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

How can a profile picture be added to this wiki page?

Gloria Richardson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Richardson

74.94.6.241 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gloria and welcome. If you want to make a guest profile click the link at the top of this page and then click where it says "Introduce yourself". We do not have images on this particular page.--Charles (image editing software) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles, I'm afraid you did not understand the question. User wants to add a photo to the "Gloria Richardson" article. The user is probably not Richardson herself. I'll try to give an answer. Wikipedia only accepts so-called free photos of living persons to be added. Free images are those images that are either in the public domain (free of copyrights) or their authors explicitly gave permission to use them under a free license. So, if you have a photo of Gloria Richardson made by yourself, you can upload it freely. But, if you do not a have a photo made by yourself, then you'll have to find some photo made by somebody else who gave permission, or to ask him to give permission. You may look this page to find photos that are free to use. If you know some author of a photo and want to ask him to release a permission to use the photo, read this: Wikipedia:Requesting free content. Free photos of living persons (and all other free photos) should not be uploaded directly to Wikipedia, but to Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's sister project (see here how to do it). But, remember, only free photos may be used. You may not upload some random photo you find on Google, as it would constitute a copyright violation. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

First article declined. How do I adjust the copy?

Good morning,

I need some help in rewriting some company text to make sure it won't be declined.

Thanks in advance

Abkuijerfrance (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Abkuijerfrance, and welcome to Wikipedia. I assume the draft article that was declined is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trailermatics. To successfully create an article about a new word such as "trailermatics" you would need to include references to several reliable sources which use the term you are writing about. Unfortunately, your draft article does not contain any external references (the links in the "References" section are to other Wikipedia articles). Also, there are parts of your article that read like an advertisement for the companies that you mention - phrases like "a major player in the European space industry" and "one of Europe’s leading equipment services providers" will ring warning bells for a Wikipedia reviewer. To improve tha article I suggest you do the following:

1. Add external references that show how the word "trailermatics" is used.
2. Shorten the article by taking out the details of the companies - make the article more about the word and the concept itself and less about specific suppliers.
3. Read our Manual of Style, and try to follow the standard article layout, section names etc.

Good luck with your editing. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandalf, this helps a lot. I will work on it and make sure it stays on track this time! Best regards, 83.153.112.94 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You will have seen that the draft has now been deleted as a copyright violation, so you need to read the links in the message on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Is creating a new template a "policy" decision?

Hi,

I enjoy reading about mathematics on Wikipedia, (I have no real math background myself) but find that some articles are very good in teaching me how to "speak aloud" the math notation Well-founded_set is a decent example of one of these, IMHO, and conversely Fundamental_theorem_of_arithmetic fails to do this. I find it MUCH easier to understand the pages when this kind of beginners help is provided. Although some pages are tagged as "too technical", that doesn't really give enough of a hint for the authors to improve.

I was thinking of starting to create both a template and an advice page, and start tagging pages as "Needs more explanation of how to speak this notation". Is this something that would need to be taken to the "Policy" section of Wikipedia, or can I just forge ahead without stepping on toes?

Thanks in advance.

Lcuff (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lcuff. If this is something that's specific to mathematics articles, you may wish to bring it up on the Wikiproject Mathematics talk page, first to make sure that something like this doesn't already exist, and secondly to get a consensus of interested editors before beginning. Remember, you can always add a request for improvement on the talk page of an article, and then a template is not needed, and you can explain your ideas from improvement in as much detail as you want. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is "Pulse Drip Irrigation" listed as an "orphan"

I noticed that the article "Pulse Drip Irrigation" is listed as an "orphan" because "no" articles are linked with it. However "Low-flow irrigation systems" is linked with it.Qmmckenna (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Qmmckenna. When the tag was put on the page, no other articles had links to it. However, since then, it seems that you have found a page that has a link pointing to it. The tag has to be removed manually, so why not go ahead and remove it yourself? Thanks for noticing. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Global renaming

Is it possible to be renamed on all Wikimedia projects without having to be renamed at each one? --Jakob (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Jakob! Nope, not yet; right now, renaming is handled strictly at a local level, so each of your accounts will have to be renamed by the 'crats at their respective wikis, and then merged for SUL. Globalizing renames has been a Foundation project for some time now (which would effectively eliminate local renaming by 'crats, moving it to the stewards at a global level); it was supposed to be released earlier last year, but has since been postponed (indefinitely, I think) while things are ironed out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with my signature code?

The first part works ok, but the second part doesn't link to my talk page. What's the problem? ADREY talk

ADREY talk 23:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It works here, but not on my talk page. ADREY talk 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Adrey! That's just because you can't make a wikilink to the same page that you're on. For example, if I try writing [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions]] anywhere else, I'll get a link to this page, but here, it just looks like: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Wikipedia automatically senses that you're trying to link to the page you're on and gets rid of the link, so you don't have people clicking on links that don't take them anywhere. It is simply the same thing for the links in our sigs. So, your sig is fine; there's nothing wrong with it! Does that make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrey (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I create links from a wiki page to one I created?

The link I created to the target page does not work, whereas the links I created from my own wiki article work finePaulcapri22 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please mention your intended target-page here? That way, I might be able to see what is wrong. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe this relates to a circular redirect (Raphael's Ephemeris), where there are two different characters used as an apostrophe; this should redirect to the article (which has the "slanty-apostrophe" in its name) → Raphael’s Ephemeris. Note: I believe it should be visa-versa (the article should be renamed). ~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This one is not circular: Raphael’s Ephemeris. Checkingfax (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. This one is: Raphael's Ephemeris ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Should work OK now. Checkingfax (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Will this page be published?

I am creating a new page to talk about Universal Cards, a term that has come up in the past year to describe a new type of payment technology. I would appreciate some advice from those more experienced than I am on whether this new term can be published, and how to make it better before sending it in. The first draft is below. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBrandon/Universal_card UBrandon (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To prevent reader confusion, you should rename the page: universal credit card. Just some suggestion. if you check on wikipedia you'll find that the companies, Coin, Protean and Geode do not have any pages created for them yet. you can redlink them, although I'm not an expert on that for now since there are more than one pages with reference to Coin, Protean and Geode. My suggestions. i think the article is original and should be a wikipedia page. thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, UBrandon. It looks like a good start to an article. You've got enough reliable sources to establish that it is notable, I think, which is the first hurdle to overcome. One thing you do need to do is to format the references better: please see Referencing for beginners. You could simply move the page from User:UBrandon/Universal card to "Universal credit card", and I don't think it would get deleted; but a better approach might be to request a review: when you've tidied the references, edit it to place {{subst:submit}} at the top, and that will add a template to the article and put it in a queue for a review. --ColinFine (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Logos

How do I upload a logo so I can include it on a webpage? (Mande40 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This page, logos, gives an in-depth explanation of Wikipedia's policies towards logos. three considerations that are notable are: 1. logos are non-free images; 2. logos come with copyright concerns; 3. how appropriate is the logo for the article or page in question? if the logo is for advertisement or promo - a no-no etc. the page explains it all. Emekadavid (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks this is helpful. Mande40 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating Maps using KML

Hello. I am trying to confirm whether or not one can post non-copyrighted KML to Wikipedia (or other wikis) in order to create a map. If so, how is this this done? All instructions I have found so far regarding maps concern SVG, GIF, or PDF files. Assuming the KML is not under copyright, under the public domain, or has a CCBY or similar license, is there a way to create maps in wikipedia using KML?

Many thanks. Thousec (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, there is no way to create maps on Wikipedia using KML files. You could try looking for a website that will create it for you and then upload that to Wikipedia. But keep in mind that KML files only have locations, not actual visual maps. Those may be copyrighted. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling in headline

I misspelled a name in the headline. How do I change that? Thx (Evie.breck (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The process to move a page is via the "Move" option on the drop-down arrow towards the top right of each page. But to do it your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which needs the account to be more than 4 days old as well as having made at least 10 edits; I have therefore moved it for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

An Idea

I had a cool idea to start putting images on Disambiguation pages. I think it would be cool. What do you think. ZSpeed (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) is a good place to get feedback on your suggestion. You might also be bold and implement your idea on one disambig page to give others an idea of its pros and cons.--agr (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Years ago, I made a proposal to add maps (images) to dab pages such as 1080 AM. It was shot down. The rationale is that dab pages are not intended to be content pages, but merely an intermediate step to help readers find the right content page. I largely agree with that, but think maps on radio frequency dab pages would be useful. I'm mentioning this so you will understand why your idea might not get traction, but please let me know if it does get support.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Password

Hello, I am User:Nahnah4, but I'm signing as a IP address as I forgot my password. I went to Special:PasswordReset, I wrote the e-mail, and then I don't receive a single mail from Wikipedia! I think I signed it up with another email, but then it's been 1 day and they say, "A password reminder has been set for the first 24 hours..." blah blah blah. So what should I do? XP --182.55.180.34 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nahnah, have you checked your email's spam folder? Samwalton9 (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

i encountered a similar problem myself recently; it was an email conflict problem. i have more than one email and kept checking the wrong mailbox. when i opened a second mailbox, i discovered the password reset email. try it. and also, the username is case sensitive. Emekadavid (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

wiki translate question

as part of the global wiki translate project, i am working on translating en wiki math pages onto the macedonian wiki. assuming the en wiki page is perfect, this still entails a great deal of techo problems individual to EACH page that once i solve (or not :)), i would like to be able to share with others so they dont waste this time.

question: where can one put this type of talk? i very, very much hesitate to put a section on the talk page on the individual page to write up the problems, concerns, possible solutions, ... i am concerned that this will not be considered proper talk and removed.

specific example to illustrate: on sine page there is used a lovely template template:function. the code in the template itself is a bit hard to read as it is a single paragraph (not source formatting) and also templates are notoriously difficult to translate since they contain code and links to pages which must be generated on the local wikipedia site and ... so the problem is dual. there is the techno difficulties of translating the template itself and there are the problems of using the template on the pages, which e.g. here might be the naming and linking to the page on the "period of a function" (as opposed to say "periodic functions", "periodicity" - currently the link in the template links to a redirected page....)

these difficulties in different forms come up on every page. any suggestions? it would be lovely (but i know totally impractical) to have a "trans-talk" page on each article so as not to bother the "talk" pages.

i hope this is a good place to ask this question; I was told this is the place to ask awkward questions. I do not want to engage the en wikipedia math communitity with this question. Thank-you.

Lfahlberg (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Lfahlberg (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you go ahead and use the article talk page for this purpose. I see nothing inappropriate in doing so. --agr (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. I decided to be brave and try :) Lfahlberg (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lfahlberg. I suggest that you enter "Category:Wikipedians living in the Republic of Macedonia" into the search box. You will find 15 editors there, some of whom may be interested in your project. A similar search on Macedonian Wikipedia may yield editors there who also speak English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello cullen. Thank-you for your reply. I work within the mk wikipedian community. My focus and question here is different. When i go to translate a page, after reading the en page, i also look at the translations of these pages into other languages. Many times I see that the translators are having the same apparent dillemas that i am having. I would like to give and get input here and yet not be directly involved in the content of the actual en wikipedia pages as this is extremely tedious. (For example, the problem with the template i mentioned above took me about 4 hours to sort out. For sure, en wikipedians do not need to solve these problems. So i left a tiny note on the talk page on the template that if anyone wants help to contact me on my talk page. But this talk has not yet been patrolled. It can be a concern on the page with consistency in images and notation. It can be a problem that there are no citations and if we just translate the page without citations, the bots reprimand us. It is my 60 year experience that all math people -including myself- are extreme nitpickers and reasonably good (as opposed to none) resources for our users are lost in this process. I see that in the past 6 months the translate wikipedia action is gathering momentum. So e.g. I would like to leave or ask for a list of possible citations or other references somewhere, but absolutely not be involved in whether or not anybody likes them, wants to use them, wherever. Rather like a metadata page for the wiki page. That is my question. Where to ask for or put information in a totally neutral environment? As always, i am verbose :) Lfahlberg (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

just a note to say thank-you for this teahouse and your responses. just putting my thoughts down here help me see how a decidedly neutral metadata approach in the talk pages should help with the problem of not having a dedicated forum for translation-talk. i appreciate your time. Lfahlberg (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont unterstand why my article will be deleted

My article of TrumpSC will be deleted. Can somebody tell me what is wrong with my article?Lyrla86 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You need at least one reference to a reliable source, such as a newspaper or magazine article. On line blogs and the like are not good enough sources.--agr (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We need coverage in independent reliable sources, Lyrla86, not sources controlled by the subject of the article or by affiliated people and organizations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

if you google for Jeffrey Shih (nickname: TrumpSC) you will find that the links given are somewhat "contentious". You can see that it is far opposite to the word "reliable" which we all wish/want wikipedia to be. thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking to an article in the french wikipedia

I have an article and the only resource to link to for the biographical account of a living writer is the french wikipedia. I believe placing a link from english wikipedia to a french article which my readers might not be able to read would be contrary to the purpose of a link and the english articles. Am I right? Then, I should just place the name and forget the link since the biography doesn't appear in the english wikipedia? Thanks Emekadavid (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean to link to the writer's article? If there is no such article on the English wikipedia, it's best to either leave it as a redlink in cases where you believe the subject of such an article would be notable enough to get its own article, or to not link it at all if you do not believe the subject is notable enough for its own article. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Emekadavid. The suggested practice here is to use a redlink and a piped link to the French encyclopaedia, so that readers can see that there is no article in English, but if they read French they can follow the link. The template {{ Ill }} will do that for you, and has the advantage that if somebody does write the English article, it will no longer display the French link. For example, {{ Ill | fr | Herman Prigann }} appears as fr because there is no English article, but {{ Ill | fr | Emmanuel Grenier }} appears as fr. --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys have the answer to every question on earth? Pas possible? Wikipedia is a product that is beyond this age. Thanks. answered. Emekadavid (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Saving two copies of the same article

Can I save two copies of the same article and link to them from different pages so that one is a reference only I could possibly know about and another a reference or link the public will always see? For example, after translating an article from a foreign wikipedian article, I'd like to keep the original translation for "peers outside wikipedia" to proofread but then keep a public article which I wish to expand upon through further research so that the article can pass wikipedia verification in the english wikipedia and get promoted. I believe my question is not confusing? Is that possible? I can see that articles have revision numbers but that was no help to me. thanks Emekadavid (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Emekadavid and welcome to The Teahouse. Let's say you created the article Dr. Emilio Bombay, a real article I intend to create when I can find the sources. That could be the one you want to expand, and you would leave it as is, expanding it later or letting others do it. Someone may disagree, but it is possible you could keep the "peers" version as User:Emekadavid/Dr. Emilio Bombay. That could be edited by others but it is unlikely. There may be policy reasons why that won't work, but no one else has answered, so I thought I would try.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Emekadavid: interesting question. You could do as Vchimpanzee suggests, but if you do you should probably put a note at the top of your workspace copy explaining why you are keeping it. It will be visible to the public - all articles in Wikipedia are - but if you add the template Template:noindex, then it won't get indexed by services such as Google. (I'm not sure whether it is necessary to use the template to achieve this on a user-space page, but it won't do any harm). Alternatively, you could only have one copy, but as soon as you have made it, use the "Permanent link" tool from the page to save a link to that revision, and keep it somewhere (for example on your user page). Then that version will always be findable, and hence readable (but not editable) to you and anybody who finds the link. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Emekadavid, if you want to keep a saved page that you and others can use as a resource that is fine. That is IMO actually a good example of why Wikipedia has wp:user pages above and beyond each user's sandbox. Because, sometimes it can be beneficial to save a page indefinitely as a resource for future work. I actually did that a while ago myself, I recovered some text from an article that another editor had deleted (wrongly IMO). I wasn't ready to merge that text into the current article though but I kept it as a resource for myself and also put a link to it on the talk page of the article so if someone else wanted to merge it back in they could. However, there is a caveat: user pages are NOT part of Wikpedia, not part of the actual encyclopedia. So you should not have a link to pages like that from actual articles. From talk pages OK but from articles No. And I'm not sure I understood exactly what you have in mind but when you say "link to them from different pages" if you mean user pagers or talk pages then fine if you mean actual articles I would say no. IMO having two versions of a page that are both linked to the actual encyclopedia is a terrible idea. It creates potential confusion for revising and editing going forward. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I meant user pages and talk pages. I want the original translation as a reference and then the revised and edited one to be indexed by the wikipedia for public editing and reading. thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is my article clear and well organized?

I summarized a court trial in an article I wrote. I am very familiar with the case so it's tough to be objective regarding how . Would anyone like to read over it and tell me if it makes sense and is organized well? Point out any information that is unclear or confusing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bali88/sandbox Bali88 (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that your draft was moved 10 days ago from User:Bali88/sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Third trial of David Camm, and is awaiting review there. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to read the whole article, but I've noticed two things. First, some sections are too short, many of the just one sentence. The sections should be re-organized so that very short sections are merged together. Second, the lead section is not quite good. The lead section's role is to define the subject of the article, and also to summarize the content of the article. Your lead section does not. In the first sentence you should explain what is the subject of the article, ie. what is the "Third trial of David Camm". You does not explain that. Your lead section also does not summarize the article, but it does not.

I also do not understand why is the article titled "Third trial of David Camm" when it also writes about first and second trial, not just about the third one. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The reason I summarized the first two is because I thought it was relevant and necessary to understand how the case got to where it is, why they're trying him with so little evidence, etc. Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the header? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How to tag objectionable image files

There are two image files on the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) page that need to be renamed. I have brought it up on his talk page, but gotten nowhere. How does on go about tagging something like that? If they can't be renamed, they ought to be deleted. Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to tag the images for renaming, you can go to the pages for the image files, namely File:Robert Spitzer Political Activist.jpg and File:Politics of gun control book cover - written by activist Robert Spitzer.jpg, and add the code {{rename media|new name (without "File:")|reason}} to the descriptions. Someone will review the images to see if they meet the criteria for renaming and do so if needed. Hope this helps. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked, but could only find tags to do with text. Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

They have shown up again with the disputed labels (activist and advocate) in the filenames and/or descriptions again. They are being used on a BLP, and the subject objects to use of these terms, which could harm his reputation as a scholar. They should be deleted. How can I escalate the problem? The editor who insists on using these images (I don't know where she got them) and modifying their names and descriptions is Sue Rangell. There are several discussions disputing this at the subject's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)