Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 276

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

Archive 270

←

Archive 274

→

photo documentation

Regarding the Article Draft: Harold A. Winston, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harold_A._Winston I uploaded three photos, two personal family photos. The other is a photo of Harold Winston, Frank Capra, Carey Grant, and Priscilla Lane on the set of "Arsenic and Old Lace". I am aware that I need some sort of copyright number, certificate, or something. I did call the Everett Collection that is listed as the source of the photo and a person there, Allison, told me that my use was proper, since it was non commercial and I should have no problem. I have seen the photo at various locations on the web. So, when I call them back, what do I ask them for specifically, Thanks Joe Weinstein (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @Joe Weinstein: Welcome to the Teahouse! I notice you uploaded your photos to the Wikimedia Commons. The Commons is a sister project of Wikipedia, and serves as a repository of free media - that is, media that is free for anyone to use, for any reason, including commercial use. All images on the Commons need to be licensed under a free license that allows for those things. One of the acceptable and most popular licensing options is The Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0.

For you to be able to upload your desired photos to the Commons, the copyright holder (the Everett Collection? the original photographer?) needs to agree to license the photo under an acceptable license. You can do so by following the instructions here, which also provide you with an e-mail template the copyright holder can fill out in order to properly indicate that they agree to freely license the photo (with CC-BY-SA 4.0 being the default and most popular choice).

Now, if that doesn't work out, Wikipedia can use non-free photos in limited circumstances under fair use. The idea is that, if there is no free equivalent of an image available, we can justify using copyrighted content limitedly, as outlined here. Common examples of us using copyrighted images include book covers, movie scenes, or video game characters. Another appropriate situation is using a copyrighted image of a deceased person, if and only if a free picture is not available. In the worst case situation, you could potentially upload one low-resolution image to Wikipedia (not the Commons), and follow the instructions during upload to claim fair use on the image.

I know this can be a lot of stuff to take in, so let us know if you have any more questions. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback?

So someone had left me a confusing message (which I've completely deleted the section on my talk page because I found what I needed on my own) but they suggested I use the Talkback feature and to leave something about it on my page as well. My question is if we have the notification system how does the talk back feature normally work? Needs2learnmore talk 05:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @Needs2learnmore: Template:Talkback is just another way to let an editor know you have a message for them, and used to be the primary way to do so until the notification system came along. See Template:Talkback#Usage for details; basically, you leave the template on the talk page of an editor for which you have a message for at another location. I'll actually go ahead and leave a talkback on your talk page right now to refer you back to this conversation, as an example.

It's true that the notification/ping system is an alternative to using talkback, but some editors simply prefer to receive talk page messages. In addition, some editors may not be aware of how the notification system works. By asking other editors to leave talkback notices, an editor can ensure that they are kept in the loop of conversations, in the event that other editors don't use the notification/ping system. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Have I placed this new page properly for submission?

I created a new page a couple days ago about a local club. Because I used some text from the club's history page on its web site (with permission of the club) it was rejected as possible copyright trouble.

I just rewrote the page using very little but newly (today) created text and using many more citations to tell the story instead.

I then "saved" it but am wondering if I put it in the proper place to be reviewed. I placed it in the same location as the previous (and now deleted) page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bainbridge_Island_Sportsmen%27s_Club

I wonder if someone could take a quick look at this to make sure I did things correctly.

Thanks, Gary

Garysmith10 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Garysmith10: Nice to see all the improvements! Your draft is not yet submitted, however. Simply add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article to mark is as in need of a review. Note that there is currently a backlog of pages needing review (2,500+ drafts), so it may take anywhere from a day to several weeks before an editor gets to it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SuperHamster for the fast and helpful answer. I've made the changes and fingers crossed here.Garysmith10 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Garysmith10: Hi Gary. The two images you uploaded to the Commons and which are on display in the article appear to me to be copyright violations (as content published in the U.S. after 1923). Please note that we do not require sources cited in an article to be online (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and both newspaper articles can be cited just noting information about the source and no link, or if online, but behind a paywall, you can provide the link and note something like "subscription required".

I see that you listed as the source of each of these newspaper articles: "own work", and then provided a free copyright license for them. Are you the owner of the Bainbridge Review newspaper (I think today called The Review)? Or someone with that company with authority to release its copyrighted work? It is a somewhat common good faith error to think that taking a screenshots or downloading a file of someone else's copyrighted work makes it your "own work", but it no more does so than taking a photograph of a painting makes you the owner of the painting or its artistic expression. (There are times when a photograph of a copyrighted work creates a secondary copyright in addition to the original owner's, but that's beyond the scope here and would not apply to these images).

Can you advise? Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, the images came from Microfiche from the University of Washington and are available for anyone to view/have at several locations. I got the images off the U of W Microfiche at the Bainbridge Island library, in this case, and I wasn't sure what to say about ownership. As I was not aware of any copyright encumberence and it was so readily available in digital form and because I had Photoshopped the hard-to-read parts so that people could read the dates of the papers I just said it was mine. However, I see your point so to be sure I'll remove them right away. Thanks for helping me on this. Garysmith10 (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Garysmith10:: I took a look at your draft and one thing I've noticed is the number of citations. Currently you have 17 citations for only 6 lines of text. Providing reliable sources in support of what is written is a good thing to do, but sometimes more is not always better. You might find WP:OVERCITE helpful. It's only an essay, but there's lots of useful information in it. Instead of using very little text and lots of citations to tell this club's story, I think it would be much better to summarize what is written in those sources in your own words and then cite the sources as needed. A subject's notability is not automatically enhanced by adding more and more sources; In fact, it can sometimes have the opposite effect. What really matters is the quality of the sources you are using. Since this is about a club, it probably will have to pass the notability standards laid out in WP:ORG; therefore, it might be a good idea to take a look at them so that you know what the reviewers are going to be expecting. I'm not trying to discourage you. I can see you've put quite a bit of effort into this article, so I sincerely wish you only good luck.

- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. The first version of this submission had a great deal of content in it with only about 6 citiations. But since I wrote it and I also wrote the club's web site history page much of it was similar and so it got turned down for copyright concerns. I suggested that maybe I rewrite it in a shorter form and let the citations tell the story and that was said to be a workable plan. But I'll go in a stop the submission, then read what you've suggested and both thin out the citations and add some text to fill in what's a pretty interesting history. Also, this is only my second Wikipedia page and the final solution to get the first one approved was to provide a much longer list of citations, few of which were as good as the ones I provided this time. But it worked. Seems to take a bit of experimenting to get these pages right. Thanks for your help. Garysmith10 (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Garrymith10 glad to be of some help. Now, unfortunately, I may have to be the bearer of some bad news. In your reply above you wrote But since I wrote it and I also wrote the club's website history page much of it was similar and so it got turned down for copyright concerns. To me, this sort of implies that you have some kind of "more than casual" connection to the club itself, which in turn, could be viewed as a conflict of interest. COI editing is not something that is expressly prohibited on Wikipedia, but it is something that is not really encouraged. Editing with a COI can be tricky so I suggest that you check out both WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI. Furthermore, if by chance you are being "compensated" to create this club's article then you should also very carefully read both WP:PAY and WP:NOPAY so as to make sure you know what Wikipedia's position on the matter is. Right now, your article is still a draft and COI editors tend to be given lots of leeway when working on drafts. If, however, your article gets approved, you may not find the sailing all that smooth. Just a friendly heads up. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

photo uploading

How can I upload a picture that is not on wikipidea all ready to a page. (Runne (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Runne. Your question has no easy answer, because you provided no details, and copyright issues regarding "a picture" are very complex, and require very specific details to answer accurately. I will offer two extremes: If you took a photo yourself of something like a landscape or an image of an everyday household object, then you hold the copyright, and you can freely license the image, if you choose, on Wikimedia Commons. Let's say, on the other hand, you find a beautiful landscape image online, taken by a professional photographer. Even if this is a wonderful, distinctive image, it is very unlikely that you can use it on Wikipedia. The photographer holds the copyright, and this is non-negotiable. The only exception is if the image itself becomes so famous that it becomes the subject of critical commentary. Think the famous Iwo Jima flag raising photo. In that case, you could include a low resolution version of that famous image, but only in the context of critical commentary about the image itself, not what it portrays. Short of such limited exceptions, we can't use copyrighted images on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank for the help Cullen Runne (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

formatting

hi i just started a page for an ahl hockey player, can someone help me format it, the page is matt hatch i am trying to make it like all other ice hockey player pages!--Lukaneville2012 (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)(Lukaneville2012 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Luke. Table formatting can be a pain but fortunately you were only missing the start of the table template in your article! I've fixed that for you and you can see what I added at that link. :) Sam Walton (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Page protection history

How does an editor view the protection status history of an article (which admin protected the article, when, for what duration, what justification, how frequently, etc.).

Before requesting removal of protection, I'd like to see what the history was, and then maybe make the request directly to that admin, if the request seems justified. But, I don't know how to find out who the protecting admin is, or anything about the protection status history.

Thanks. LaTeeDa (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@LaTeeDa: Hey there, thanks for your question about protection status. It's not really easy to find the history of these actions to be fair. The history these actions for a particular page in the article space (or otherwise) can be found by using the Special:Logs page. You'll want to select "Protection logs" from the drop down menu, and specify the article title in the field titled "Target (title or user)". The Performer does not need to be filled in for your query. Let me know if that you gives you the context you need. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - very helpful.

For the benefit of other inexperienced editors, I will share another way to get at this that I see now that I know what I'm looking for. From a particular article, go to the 'View History' tab. From there, follow the link is at the top called 'View logs for this page'. That gets you to Special:Logs, with the target article already populated. LaTeeDa (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Page

Greetings! Reading wiki article cache. I created wiki page in the month of October and I Don't see it coming on Google search when I search for Brand Name. Can you please help me to know why its not coming in Google when search for Brand. Thanks Mahennaaptol (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Mahennaaptol.
Our article SEO is a redirect to Search engine optimization and has had no edits for 7 years, so that was not the name of your article.
Looking at your Contribution history, it appears that, in October, you made 21 edits to Naaptol and one edit to Home shopping both of which were pre-existing articles, while your User statistics show you have no deleted edits.
It appears that either you did not create a page, or that you did it under another user-name, or as an IP whilst you were not logged in. Please tell us the exact name of your article, and we may be able to help. Arjayay (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Arjayay thanks for your reply the article page name is naaptol and my question was regarding naaptol wiki page seo as I can see that the last cache was 21st october 2014 and when I search for naaptol in Google I cant see wiki result on the right hand side as other brands. Thanks

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. - Arjayay (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Mahennaaptol Regarding searching and Google indexing: it usually takes some time; in my experience anywhere from a few hours to a few days; for a change to get noticed and updated in Google searches. It depends on all sorts of things that are mostly beyond the control of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. I just did a Google search for Naaptol and the Wikipedia page came up very close to the top. I'm not sure what you are referring to by "the right hand side". We all use so many different browsers on so many different devices and the specifics of the search may be a bit different on each platform. Keep in mind that there are paid links that show up in a special section of Google searches. To have the company show up there it has to have a business relation with Google. BTW, speaking of the company I notice you have the name of the company in your user ID. Keep in mind if you work or are in any way affiliated with the company you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and there are significant restrictions on what kind of edits you can make to that article and also on how you need to announce to other editors that you have a wp:COI in regard to that company. You can find more info in the articles I linked to. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cannot locate saved draft of edited page.

Hi there.

I just edited our page about a hour ago and clicked "Save Page" but nothing happened. Now that I'm back on the site I cannot locate that draft I saved, only the old version is visible. Does that mean all of my edits have lost?

Please help. Robin RmeltonLH (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robin. A look at your contributions (accessible via the 'contributions' button in the top right) shows that you haven't made any saved edits to that article. Unfortunately then, for some reason, your edit didn't go through. The most likely reason for that, I think, is that new editors sometimes have to fill out a CAPTCHA when making their first edits. Feel free to try to make your edit again, and then upon clicking save page check that there isn't a prompt to fill out a captcha and click save page again. Hope that helps, Sam Walton (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest, what do you mean by "our page"? You, your company, or whoever you are referring to as "our", (I assume from your post on Wikipedia:Help desk it is Lipman Hearne) do not have a page. Wikipedia may have a page about "you", but please read and follow our guidelines on conflict of interest, and do not edit that page again. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Unification Church" article looks like church's own propaganda

I remember reading the article "Unification Church" (Sun Myung Moon, Moonies) several years ago, and it was more balanced, with controversial facts cited (with footnotes to reliable sources) throughout the article. It looks as though these have been systematically removed, and any hint of criticism sequestered to the "Controversy" section. The lead/introduction (and every other section!) now sound exactly like what we might expect from the Unification Church's own literature. Is this similar to what happened to the article on the similar group Scientology, which was manipulated by Scientologists to be more favorable and to remove all criticism (for which they were banned)? I've been using Wikipedia for years, but I'm pretty new to editing, so I don't have any idea how this should be handled. DrSocPsych (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@DrSocPsych: Here is the version of the article as of three years ago. I haven't done a close comparison by any means, but it looks like the current version includes more criticism (?). (The antisemitism part has been somewhat condensed, but now it is probably more in line with the policy WP:UNDUE.) I'd bring up any concerns you have at Talk:Unification Church to start a discussion there, like you have already done. You're welcome to edit the article yourself to improve it, but I'd work in series of spaced-out, small edits -- a better strategy when working with a controversial article, so one big edit doesn't get reverted wholesale. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits not visible in Sandbox

I made edits to the Prior-Appropriation Water rights page in my sandbox, including some of the original work. When I save my changes, it does not appear in the preview. What do I do? DevOceans (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi DevOceans, welcome to the Teahouse. Your ref syntax in User:DevOceans/sandbox was missing several closing </ref> to show where the reference ends. I have added them in [1]. There are other problems such as using the same name for non-identical refs. See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a suitable topic for an article?

I found this article not to long ago and am wondering if it is a suitable topic for an article. In case the link doesn't work you can find it by googling "vertical accelerator launch tower". valtrockets.wordpress.com Witch of the East (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Witch of the East": Hi Witch of the East. The key to finding out whether any given topic is "suitable ... for an article" is to determine whether there are (sufficient) reliable sources in existence, entirely independent from the topic, that discuss the topic in detail. The existence of such sources provides evidence of notability and allows you to write the article with verified content by citing those sources. (The best path to writing an article is to gather such good sources first, digest them, and then let what they say guide your writing hand, rather than writing what you know and then trying to find sources for it.) Putting this into practice, I've searched <"vertical accelerator launch tower">, and found nothing but the WordPress article. Assuming there's no alternate and more common name to search, or that sources cannot be found through another method, this topic appears quite unsuitable for an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What is purpose of 'noinclude' category lines for Template - Navbox?

Greetings!

Using an existing template (forgot which one), for example: Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Anchorage

I started 'cloning' to add Navbox on existing articles, and am about 1/2 way through the list of Provinces at List of the Catholic dioceses of the United States.

Today I noticed some Navbox are different on the 'noinclude' part.

Is the list of 'Category' lines just of documentation or is it actively functional?

Before asking here, I searched through Help:A quick guide to templates and related articles. Could not find the answer. Would appreciate your input & help.

Here are 2 examples

Example from Template for Baltimore province, (has non-standard name--to be moved)

}}<noinclude>
{{collapsible option}}
[[Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical provinces in the United States]]
[[Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States]]
[[Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical province navigational boxes|Baltimore]]
</noinclude>

Example from Template:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Boston

}}<noinclude>
{{collapsible option}}
[[Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical province navigational boxes|Boston]]
[[Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Boston]]
[[Category:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston]]
[[Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington]]
[[Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River]]
</noinclude>

Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe, <noinclude> is more of a MediaWiki thing (the platform WP runs on) rather than a WP thing, so you'll find more information over on their wiki.

Templates are a "boilerplate" mechanism. A slab of wikicode is stored in the template, then gets re-used wherever that template is used. Sometimes that's enough. Usually though, it's useful for a template to also have some metadata with it - as simple as a description of what it does. Obviously you don't want this appearing when the template is used. There's also a need (maybe less often) that "what the template does" doesn't happen unless the template is actually being used - or "transcluded", as it's termed. A template that categorizes pages into Category:Stuff to delete immediately might be useful, but it wouldn't last long.

So

<noinclude> ... Stuff that only appears when looking directly at the template, such as docs ... </noinclude>

and

<includeonly> ... Stuff that's only used when the templated is used by transclusion ... </includeonly>

fix this.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Dingley for fixing the two source examples above. I saw it did not look right but did not know how to fix. :-)

For your answer, I did follow your suggestion, and with some more digging did find a clarification at [2]. It looks as though the 'Category' lines are used to put each template into an appropriate Category, i.e., Categorising templates is how it's described.

Thanks for your help. JoeHebda (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Yes, category code works the same on article pages, template pages, user pages and so on. Some categories like Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical province navigational boxes are intended for templates but other pages could also be placed in them. <noinclude>...</noinclude> is used around categories on template pages to prevent articles using the template from also being added to the category. It's used for all sorts of templates and not just navboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What are some Restricted Pages?

And how do you get in them?SonictheHedgehog99 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi SonictheHedgehog99, welcome to the Teahouse. "Restricted Pages" is not a standard term in Wikipedia and might refer to many things. Please clarify what you have in mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @SonictheHedgehog99: Hi SH99. There are many different types of restricted pages/actions, such as seeing the content of deleted pages, moving a page that is move-protected, accessing Special:Undelete and others listed at Help:Special page#Restricted special pages. The way to get in them is to achieve the permissions level that grants access. For many, becoming an administrator or user with higher permissions is required. For some, such as Special:MakeSysop, you would have to become a steward or bureaucrat. Some are a step below these. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

using "cite book" template

Having been a Wikipedia editor for awhile, I've developed a preference for using the reflist style that collects ALL the nitty-gritty info at the bottom of the page, thus decluttering the main text and making it much easier to edit for substance. I've been trying to figure out if the "cite book" and related "cite" templates can be used in a similar way. All the examples I've seen insert the full "cite" entry at least once in text, creating just massive visual logjams of pipes and whatnot. But the nice thing about the "cite" method is that you don't have to do the style formatting yourself. So, is there a way to use these templates that doesn't clog up the main part of the entry? If so, a pointer to an example entry would be helpful.Alafarge (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alafarge: Hey Alafarge. I must admit I'm a bit confused by your question because you can use cite book and similar templates for nice, consistent style formatting using the list-defined citation method you already use. For that reason, unless I misunderstand your question, I suspect that you just didn't realize you could use the cite templates to define the citations, and have been formatting by hand instead. For example:

{{reflist|refs=
<ref name=name1>{{cite book|last=Heller|first=Joseph|title=Catch-22|year=1961|
publisher=Simon and Schuster|location=New York}}</ref>
<ref name=name2>{{cite journal|etc.|etc.|etc.|etc.}}</ref>
}}

will work just fine. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alafarge: You may also be interested in User:PleaseStand/References_segregator as it takes all the refs and puts them in a separate window while you work on the main text. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Alfarge, you might also be interested in the short author-date citation method enabled by reference templates like {{sfnp}}. This uses the same basic format of a short reference in the text and the sources spelt out in full at the bottom of the article but has the advantage over the reflist system outlined by Fuhgettaboutit in that different page references using the same source can be defined without having to repeat the source as may be neccesaary when using <ref name=name1page1>, <ref name=name1page2> although there are ways round this. Either however is perfectly acceptable as long as consistency is applied to an article. Nthep (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these very helpful suggestions.Alafarge (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Correcting errors in a tables calculations

How do I suggest a correction to an article? I found an error in a table in the article on Same Sex Marriage in the United States...the population for South Carolina is incorrect and the total population is also in error. This makes the percentage also incorrect. How do I contact the person who has been updating this information?76.217.192.253 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In general when you see an error you're encouraged to be bold and correct it yourself (just make sure that any information you add is verifiable). If you prefer to discuss it first, go to [[Talk:Same Sex Marriage in the United States[[, create a new discussion topic, and propose a change. Good luck!Keihatsu ^talk 04:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States. The South Carolina population is listed as 4,826,821. That is the same estimate as in South Carolina which has the source http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/south-carolina-population/, currently saying 4,826,821. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP!

Hello! I am a new editor. I want to include the case summaries of an anime. I even posted them but they got deleted in no time. Famous animes like detective Conan too has summaries of each case. So what is the problem; I do not understand at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterymaniac (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 November 2014‎

Hello Mysterymaniac, welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the discussion about this at Talk:Kindaichi Case Files#Page cleaned up and join the discussion there if appropriate. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone's really uncivil to me

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia (only started editing yesterday), and there's someone who's been really uncivil, to me personally and to others, on several talkpages, on the sole ground that we're Israelis (I'm not even sure whether the others who bore the brunt of his ire are Israelis, or merely called such by him). How do I deal with this? The person I'm talking about is User:The kyle 3. Two places I've been offended by his comments are Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre and Talk:Silent Intifada Galastel (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Galastel. Emotions run high in that topic area, in fact I think many of us would think carefully about whether it's somewhere we would want to edit at all. However, precisely because of the combative nature that discussions can have in the topic area, Wikipedia has "discretionary sanctions" which cover both of the articles you mention. One aspect of these sanctions is additional limitations on edit warring, which is something else that The kyle 3 has been doing. Following a report about this, administrator User:Bbb23 has kindly provided The kyle 3 with a warning about their behaviour on their talk page.

Bbb23 has also commented "A quick glance at the user's contributions since creating the account this month demonstrates to me someone who is biased, sarcastic, and unduly aggressive - with a clear agenda. In my view, if not now, sooner or later if they continue in the same vein, they should be topic-banned at a minimum". So you can be reassured that the problem is being dealt with, or at least will be dealt with in due course if necessary. But don't be too surprised if you see this sort of problem from other editors in that topic area in the future too. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yea, I suppose if I go into a lions' den, I can't complain about getting bitten. I was wondering whether there's a way to report such behaviour, a way to contact an Admin, or anything like that. I mean, like you say, The kyle 3 won't be the last one to voice racist opinions. Galastel (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There usually seem to be plenty of people willing and able to report misbehaviour in this topic area, so you might be wiser to steer clear. Once someone begins to get involved in reporting editors with whom they disagree, it seems very often that person will themselves become the target of reports from the other "side". And thus it all gets very messy.

Edit warring can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Note that administrators acting on reports there may also take action against the reporting party as well as the reported party, if both have been edit warring. Under almost all circumstances this is regardless of who is "right".

Breaches of the discretionary sanctions can be reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but again the behaviour of the reporting party will be examined as well as just the reported party.

In both cases you will need diffs, see Wikipedia:DIFF.

Be careful of describing any edits or opinions as "racist"; it is better not to characterise the opinions of other editors as such characterisations can in themselves potentially lead to you being sanctioned. If one must report things, best to let the diffs speak for themselves. As has happened in the case you mention above, administrators are generally well able to perceive problems with tone or agenda. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I see what you mean. Still, good to know what the options are for edge cases. It's like a meat cleaver is a useful tool, but you don't use it every time you enter the kitchen. Thanks! Galastel (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External link

I tried to add an external link (http://shanebarker.com/on-page-seo/) on SEO page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization but got removed. The external link was as per Wikipedia guidelines. May I know what is the reason behind it?Gaurav Sharma11 (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gaurav, welcome to the Teahouse. Which Wikipedia guidelines did you refer to when considering the suitability of that link? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to be here. I have gone through external link guidelines, what to add and what not to add. I believe the external link follow with all guidelines and thus very much relevant to the users because SEO page does not contain any detailed information about website on-page factors for the user. Please let me know if I am wrong somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav Sharma11 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC)

I can think of a number of reasons why people would object to that link. 1) It's an infographic. A lot of people don't like infographics. There are too many bad ones. They tend to be biased, poorly sourced, take-it-or-leave-it bullet points. 2) It's on the site of a consultant. True, he may be providing this advice as a public service. But linking to his site is going to drive a lot of traffic there. In theory this is not supposed to matter, but in practice many editors on Wikipedia are extremely allergic to that. They think it's spam. 3) Clicking on the graphic brings up a window offering a 1-on-1 consultation with the consultant, which reinforces the objections of people who object to 2). 4) The sources listed at the bottom are Wikipedia articles and other consultant blogs. They aren't reliable sources. 5) It simply recapitulates information already given in the article.

Personally I think the advice was good advice, presented pretty well. It would be a good think to show to your boss. But it doesn't add very much to the article. It would be better to go to one of the sources listed in the inforgraphic and see if they have any information that could be used to improve the article itself. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wanting to change article title

Hi there. I'm a novice who has just uploaded my second attempt at an article. I moved it from my sandbox and in the process made a title for the article that I now want to change. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulz_Quillin,_Ellen_Dorothy) I'd like to change the title to Ellen Dorothy Schulz Quillin but can't figure out how. Also when I posted the article it mentioned about cleaning up links - could you point me in the direction of an easy to understand summary of how and why we do this? Thanks for any help you can offerAmbrosia10 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been moved to Ellen Schulz Quillin.--ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

UMMM

Is there a template for page creation?!SonictheHedgehog99 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi SonictheHedgehog99. There's not like a set template which you can just fill out, mainly because different types of articles could be formatted quite differently. If you're looking to write a new article, this page is a good one to read, and the article wizard is my recommendation for when you want to start the page. I'd suggest making your first page as a draft, not a live article, so you can take your time on it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings SonictheHedgehog99 We probably will never have one template for all new articles because there are so many different kinds of articles. When creating a new article though; I think it's an excellent idea to find a similar article and use it as a model. The various Wikipedia:projects usually have examples of featured articles on various topics. So, just to pick a topic at Random, if you were writing an article on science fiction novels you could look at these articles as guides: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Science_fiction_task_force#Featured_articles BTW, IMO it's far better for new editors to get experience editing existing articles before they try to create new ones. It's a lot easier to make a productive small change to an existing article than it is to create a new article from scratch. You can look here: Wikipedia:Community_portal where it says "Help Out" for examples of articles needing edits. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review Referencing question

I'm currently reviewing Global financial system, and I have a referencing question. Is [2]:75–76 okay for referencing, or would you include the page numbers like reference 5 in this article? Thanks! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 03:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo: Hey Brandon. Some people don't like the use of {{rp}} unless its use conforms to its original intended purpose of providing page numbers where there is a truly vast number of pages from a single source that need to be cited, and recommend the use of shortened footnotes instead so that specific page numbers are provided.

The tradeoff intended is that using shortened footnotes where there's 150 citations to one source results in a massive references section that {{rp}} avoids. But use of {{rp}}, where there's a relatively limited number of citation to any one source, adds the clutter of page numbers in the text, that could appear in a references section using shortened footnotes without making it massive. Both methods are superior to citing the source once with the only target for pages being a large range (e.g. "pp. 54-108") because that makes verification more difficult (a person seeking to verify some tidbit then needs to scan 54 pages for the appearance, or not, of the item), and a burden on verification is an overriding concern.

So, in sum, while I do think that shortened footnotes would be superior here, use of them or {{rp}} is far better than giving a page range, and I would never fail a GA simply because shortened footnotes are better. (I might be a bit more exacting upon a FAC.) Either way provides good, targeted sourcing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree and would argue that my use of {{rp}} comports with the template's intent precisely because so many of the sources I referenced during the article's revamp are cited many times on many different pages. Many of them are full-length texts which extensively cover varying subtopics within global finance, and glancing quickly I count roughly 29 references out of 69 total which are cited between 2 and 17 times. Although shortened footnotes accomplish this, I personally find {{rp}} to be easier to manage and quicker for reader verification (especially in the hover pop-up feature since it provides the full citation). In any case, I'm not opposed to alternative methods, but I would be disheartened if this past decision made on preference disqualified the article. I think the more important factor is that the article uses one method consistently, rather than a confusing mix of both. John Shandy` • talk 22:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Report WP:COI?

I've discovered some evidence that an editor on an article maybe have an undisclosed COI. Where do I report this? Luthien22 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You can do so at the COI Noticeboard: WP:COIN. Make sure to read the instructions at the top first, particularly the second bullet point. Stickee (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing fix - Please help!!

Hi everyone! I'm working on a wikipedia article for class and keep on being told that there is a cite error. I have consulted the help page and recited multiple times, but the error keeps on coming up. I don't know what to do!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaye_peasant_movement

Thank you in advance!

(Sblaisewilliams1 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a very minor problem, just an extra backslash in a </ref> tag. I fixed it. And thanks for that article. It's very good. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Papaye Peasant Movement as it appears to be a proper noun, and created a redirect at Mouvman Peyizan Papay. I also tweaked the headings to sentence case to comply with MOS:HEAD.--ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Who do I report edit-warring to? Trying to edit an issue from an unbiased perspective, having trouble doing so without interference from both sides of issue.

Iron-Strumer (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You can report edit warring here. However, an admin has protected the page for a week so the situation is under control. You can join the discussion on the associated talk page but it looks like it's a fairly emotive subject so it might be a good idea to read up on Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons Policy before doing so. Good luck. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iron-Strumer, welcome to the Teahouse. Just to add, if you are in middle of a dispute then you can get help from dispute resolution notice board. File a report there to get help from other experienced editors. Before reporting to dispute resolution notice board you should have at least discussed the matter on talk page with other editors who are involved in the dispute.--Chamith (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I upload a jpg of a certificate to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Goloubev

I have 2 jpgs of awards I have cited on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Goloubev

How do I upload these? I was sent the jpgs by the subject of the article as I could not find them online. He has given me permission to use them. But what licence/copyright do I use so they are not illegal? Thank you Marycjames (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marycjames. These certificates would definitely not be licensed under Creative Commons which is required for uploading freely licensed images to Wikipedia. Because of that the only way they could be uploaded is by satisfying the non-free content criteria, through which we could claim 'fair use'. Unfortunately I dont think these images would qualify since they aren't really necessary. Citations for awards need to show that those awards are important, not just that they exist; thus the certificate itself isn't a good source - anyone could give anyone an award, it wouldn't show that that's an award worthwhile winning. Thus, if you want to add a citation for these awards, find third party coverage (such as in a newspaper) which documents the award being won by Yuri! Hope that helps, Sam Walton (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Marycjames (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Samwalton9 The awards were for 1992 and 1993 before the internet so it is possible there is a Russian newspaper in print with mention of them. Thanks for your help. Marycjames (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Marycjames

Just to mention, Mary, the internet was developed between the 1960s and 1980s, and the world wide web was fully operational by August 1991. There is no sense in which 1992 or 1993 could be before either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case then see if you can find one! Offline sources are absolutely fine to use as references. Sam Walton (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes a paragraph hidden?

I have a problem in my sandbox: User:Sufidisciple/sandbox/Syed Ziaul Huq. I am creating this article, though there are paragraph title (==Sufi Perspective==) and descriptions inside but it is remaining hidden in read mode. at the same time, there showing reference number 8 but detail note is hidden. May I have the answer please? --- Sufidisciple (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Sufidisciple: Welcome to the Teahouse! I went ahead and fixed the problem with this edit. The closing tag for the reference was inside the double quotes, instead of outside. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Super Thanks for quick reply with perfect remark. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Some comments on your draft........... I don't think it will be approved in its current state. Firstly, the English phrasing and grammar is not proper. Second, you are using, almost exclusively, sources in a non-English language. This can be problematic. Third, most or all of the External Links and See Also listings do not give any direct information about the subject and are therefore inappropriate per WP:EL and WP:MOS. Lastly, the subject's notability is questionable. I can't evaluate this accurately because most of the sources do not use the English language but they appear on first glance to be weak sources and they may not qualify this person for a WP article. Good luck with your project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that you can use non-English sources, just it takes a lot longer to find someone to review an article, and a total lack of English sources also casts some (though by no means total) skepticism on how globally famous a figure is. Do use good other-language sources if you have them, but maintain high standards for them, and try to include some English sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Keithbob and MatthewVanitas Thanks remarking. Actually at the beginning of my work on English Wikipedia, these issues was also remarked and I had a vast discussion with some other experts. With due respect, I, once again would like to explore the desire and disabilities of my end.

English is my second language in fact I confess, there may, have weakness in stander level of English but as far I know, some other expert Wikipedians are aimed to edit any previously done works
I am aimed to create new articles in Bengali and English Wikipedia as well as to contribute in Commons, WikiBooks, Wikitionary and mostly in Wikinews (I m on process) and my main interest is in multilingual Sufism it can be said, Universal Sufism. I am studying this subject since 1995. I would like to say, I believe, it may be even a not-bad contribution for the global community, especially for Eastern, Western and Middle Eastern Sufi Community in the aspect of information.
Earlier experts suggested me, if I want to create English article having available Bengali (my native) source but a little English, then I have to present even some parts of the important notes by translating in English and I am honestly trying to work through this method. I am adding key notes in English at reference section
Hence, I started to work creating with my Native Sufi Order (very near to our house, that I am in touch of their facts from my student life having millions of follower across the globe. There a huge research works on it already has published in different countries regarding their Sufi Path) and with the western Sufi Orders (that I firstly encountered in early 2004). Actually I am intended to create a cross lingual platform for the next generation.
I write because I like to write. I write Blogs in English and Books- articles in my native language. It is my hobby to contribute with different language.

I do believe, Wikipedians are communicative, helpful and a huge number of contributors used to develop weak articles and repair mistakes. That is why; I am not afraid about my writings and not ashamed for my mistakes. I confidently believe, I am not doing for me but for the next generation and I am delighted with this thought. Now please, let me a wise suggestion, how to work will be more perfect. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be aware of the challenges ahead of you. I wish you well with our project(s). -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What's going on?

ApparatumLover:

I decided to help improve the article about Webdriver Torso because it was a stub. I put in lots of information and reliable sources. Then, I received a notability warning. I put in more information and reliable sources , and a deletion discussion opened. What's going on?

Hi there ApparatumLover! Welcome to the teahouse! The warning you received was from an automated bot, so if you don't understand why you received it, it's probably just an error. Don't worry about it! You simply forgot to put url= before the URL! As for the deletion discussion, that is very much unrelated. Editors don't seem to think that it is notable enough to constitute it's own article. Feel free to vote in the discussion! Ask me if you have any more questions :-) George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 16:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that AFD discussions are not decided by a "vote", this is a common misconception.

As stated in WP:AFDEQ :- Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself

And at WP:AFDFORMAT :- The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments

So, make your case, providing clear succinct evidence, and citing relevant WP policies - particularly about notability.
Do not message other editors that support your view (See Wikipedia:Canvassing) and do not draw parallels with other articles - see WP:Other stuff exists - Arjayay (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing my mistake out, I did mean discuss. I keep on forgetting that RFX/AFDs are based off consensus, not votes. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

taking long time for publish

Wikipedia is taking long time to review my draft.It has been 3 weeks,Wikipedia haven't published my article.I want it to get publish as quick as possible as this is my class assignment too. Anki112279 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

High, the AFC queue is severely backlog. Link it here and I'll clean it up got you. You could also message a reviewer, to see if they could review it for you! Hope this helps :-) George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 17:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

thnaks for your reply here is that link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:4-2-1_engine_exhaust_systems

Anki112279 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:George.Edward.C, please be aware that the "reviewer" link that you provided has absolutely nothing to do with the Articles for Creation process where Anki112279's draft will be either approved or declined. You can learn more about the Articles for Creation process at WP:WPAFC. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of that now. But thanks anyways! George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 18:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Identifying line numbers

Is there any means available of showing the line numbers on a page both in read and edit mode? Either by showing line numbers by the side - say every five or ten, or revealed by the pointer? It can be quite difficult to find a line number in a long article. I could not find anything in preferences. Thank you.SovalValtos (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: Hey SovalValtos. I believe there is no such facility. But if you are looking for content in edit mode that you saw in read mode, you can just copy a small portion of unformatted text, say three or four words, then find it in when in edit mode using (Ctrl+f on a PC; ⌘ Cmd+f on a Mac). Once you get used to that it becomes incredibly quick and automatic, like breathing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I should probably mention that copying and pasting the text into find as well using commands is much faster once you're used to it than using menus. So the full procedure would be (I'll just give if for a PC; substitute CmD for Cntrl if on a Mac): have the page open in two tabs, one in read and one in edit mode. Highlight some text → Ctrl+c to copy then switch to the edit tab → Ctrl+f to start find → Ctrl+v to paste the content into it. You can also hit return or Ctrl+g to find again if you're, say, looking for a word or phrase's subsequent appearance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. I have actually been using the method you suggested, but would prefer to scroll down using the sidebar as it gives a better feel for the article as a whole. Not complaining, but perhaps a thought for the future when the techies have nothing better to do! The occasions when this have arisen have been going through a series of edits in 'View History' mode, looking at differences between revisions. You mentioned having two tabs open at once. When I discovered that that was possible, it was one of the biggest aids to my editing I have found. In fact I often use three tabs at once, one with the article as was, one to look at references and one to edit. It was only by chance that I found it was possible, but then I had probably not read the instructions; worth passing on as a hint. I have learnt a lot by following Teahouse and also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎. All the best.SovalValtos (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)