Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, 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

I don't get templates. Please help me understand.

Newbie here. In my ignorance I imagine a template to be 1) a defined interface, to 2) a function. I'm trying to learn about this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Librivox/doc and I don't see any of the code that assembles these parms into commands that produces a URL. I've looked around and all I've been able to find so far is a description of the parameters; I've never found the code. Am I way off here? I'm just trying to understand if this above template needs revision. Thanks for any help you can give an 'ol Bonehead. TimoleonWash (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @TimoleonWash: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not familiar with that template in particular, but if you go to Template:Librivox and edit the page, you'll see the templates code (direct link). You can see how it assembles the URL, and takes in the name of the page the template is placed on as an argument. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

How to rephrase for accuracy?

I'm not sure how to rephrase this sentence without dismissing some of the information submitted by previous users. On the page for Metoclopramide, it says it is used for delayed stomach emptying (gastroparesis) due to either diabetes or following surgery. Gastroparesis has more than two causes, the most common being idiopathic (unknown). My desire is to just delete the 'due to' piece of this sentence entirely and let the linked article describe the causes more accurately. I don't want to step on any toes, though. Ataylor18 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ataylor18 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Go to Talk:Metoclopramide and click on "new section" and explain your problem. If there are people watching the article, they might be able to help you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Ataylor18 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Links of book sellers in "Published works"

Hi,

Is there an issue with using links to book sellers in "Published works" sections? I am assisting someone with a draft at User:Penslips/sandbox and am not sure if there's an issue linking to Amazon or Barnes and Nobles (i.e., potential SPAM, marketing issue).

Your help is greatly appreciated!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Such links are indeed often regarded as promotional WP:Linkspam, rather use the {{cite book}} template without <ref></ref> tags, it will simply display the bibliographic details in a standard format, like this:

Carroll, Lewis Carroll (1999). The annotated Alice : Alice's adventures in Wonderland & Through the looking glass. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0393048476.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary WP Links

In the article on Mike Pondsmith there is a bibliography of publications which lists ISBN (standard book numbers) for each title. I noticed that these were highlighted, clicked on one and was taken to the WP article on the ISBN. I tried a second, with the same result. I have tried without success to remove these links since they are completely unnecessary. There are no [[ ]] to remove. Any ideas? Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Twofingered Typist. I tried about half a dozen of those ISBNs and was taken each time to "Book sources", a specialized search engine that can find the specific book in libraries and booksellers, as well as providing bibliographic information about the book. Didn't you get "Book sources"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It depends on exactly where you click. If you click on the word "ISBN", it will take you to the Wikipedia article about ISBN. If you click on the number, it will take you to the "Book sources" search engine.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Should I remove "resubmit" from a rejected article?

Recently I submitted an article about the Xerox artist Louise Odes Neaderland. My article, which was quite thorough and upon which I had done considerable research, was quickly rejected. I was given the option of resubmitting the article, and I clicked that I would like to "resubmit." planning to improve it. Almost immediately a new, accepted, very spare article with several contributors about her appeared on Wikipedia.

My question is whether I should somehow remove the "resubmit" from my rejected article and contribute my references to the currently accepted article by the other group, or should I leave the "resubmit" note and continue working on my own article in case the current one does not last. I have already made a few changes to the currently accepted article, including removing the word "collageist" as a descriptive word for Neaderland, who does not consider herself a collageist.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mitzi.humphrey: Welcome to the Teahouse! Since the article has been created, I'd go ahead and improve the live article with your own content/references. The article would have to go through an articles for deletion discussion in order to be deleted, presumingly due to a lack of notability. If that ever happens, you may request that the deleted article be restored as a draft with which you can work on and improve (assuming more sources come up that help establish notability). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply in answering my question, SuperHamster! Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not entering the main discussion, Mitzi.humphrey, but a side issue I noticed, from what you said. What matters for Wikipedia is not what Neaderland describes herself as, but what reliable sources describe her as. If several reliable sources describe her as a collageist (I have no idea whether or not this is the case, I'm making a general point), then it might well be appropriate to use it in the article. If a reliable source reports that she does not consider herself as one, then the article could note that fact too, but that does not necessarily mean that the article shouldn't use it. (For the latter purpose, the source would not have to be independent: her own published statement can be used as a source for what she thinks!) --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have merged most of the content into the main article, and left templates on the talk pages for attribution. Now you can work on cleaning up and adding to the main article. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Keeps Getting Rejected

Can you please advise on any changes I can make to this article so that it is approved? Is it the content or is it the sources that are the problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samanage Danibeavs (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Danibeavs, welcome to the Teahouse. The sources are what you should focus on. Sources/references are not for giving general information about, say, what SaaS is; that's what wikilinks are for. The sources have to support the specific statements in the article: that Samanage specifically provides SaaS, etc. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

One last thing, Danibeavs: When looking for more sources, keep in mind that press releases and interviews are not considered independent. These should be kept to a minimum. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Danbeavs; to come at what Anon124 has said from another angle: you need to find places where somebody with no connection whatever to Samanage has written at length about the company and published it in a reliable place, such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher (not social media, blogs, or any site that allows user-generated content). If you cannot find at least two such places, then the company is not at present notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and there is nothing at all that you can do to the article to make it acceptable (except - perhaps - wait). --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

While I have completed some minor cleanup, by changing heading styles and adding wikilinks instead of "refs", I agree with the above posters that this article would need more refs to independent sources. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Creating a category for "Salmagundi Club" or "Members of the Salmagundi Club"

I would like to create a category to be used on the pages of members of the Salmagundi Club. Some members, e.g. William Richardson Belknap are listed in the main article for the Salmagundi Club, but there is no category currently available to use at the bottom of the William Richardson Belknap article. How can this best be accomplished?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mitzi.humphrey. You create a category simply by using it. If you put [[Category:Members of the Salmagundi Club]] or [[Category:Salmagundi Club]] at the bottom of the Belknap article, the category will spring into existence, containing that page. However, it will appear as a redlink until somebody edits the category page to add something apart from the entries, such as a brief explanation of what they are, or a Wikilink to the club article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Written - Is it Acceptable?

I have composed an biographical article. Would an editor read it and let me know how it sounds? Thank you. G.E. RussellGrace Elizabeth Russell (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Grace Elizabeth Russell: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your contributions, it doesn't look like you've created any drafts or articles from your account. Did you perhaps create an article from another account? Or have you not submitted the page to Wikipedia yet? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You may have created the article while not logged in. To let us find the article, what was it called? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

From where to submit an article for review; sub-pages; assistance with regaining sandbox

I am new to Wikipedia. I would be grateful for assistance with 4 questions.

I recently submitted an article for editorial review. I appreciate the fact that the article was accepted and published. I submitted it directly from my sandbox. I hear that's a "no-no", correct? It should be submitted from a sub-page the user creates in Userspace that is devoted to the article? I apologize for having done it incorrectly my first time.

Is there any way to list the subpages in my Userspace? Looking at my watchlist? (I assume they are automatically included there.) What if I delete one from my watchlist, is there an alternative way of listing them? Is changing subpage names and deleting subpages something only Wiki users with more rights can do, or can newbies like me do that?

I think in the process of preparing the article for publication, one of the editors "moved" my sandbox from Userspace to Namespace, and it seems like now I've lost access to my Sandbox for use as a user. In other words, when I go to the URL that should be my sandbox, it redirects me to the article that was created. I look back at the history of edits on the article, and revision #650622612 says that an editor "moved" my sandbox to a "Draft:NameofArticle" path within Wikipedia. Is there any way I can get my sandbox back, i.e. break the connection between my sandbox and the article?

I have a feeling that this teahouse isn't the best place to request the restoration of the sandbox. Is this question more appropriate for the Help Desk?

Thank you in advance for your help.Kekki1978 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kekki1978 and thanks for your question.
This is a common confusion. If you try to go to your sandbox User:Kekki1978/sandbox you are automatically diverted to Larry Russell (bassist). However, if you look at the second line down on that page (If, and only if, you have come via your sandbox) - you will see (Redirected from User:Kekki1978/sandbox) in blue. Click on that and it will take you back to your sandbox, which you can then edit, to get rid of the redirect. This happens whenever a non-admin moves a page - it leaves a redirect behind. If you are still stuck come back and someone will remove the redirect for you - but doing is often the best way of learning, and remembering. - Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Arjaya! Your direction was very helpful. Done.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And to answer your question about listing your subpages: if you go to your Contributions (there is a link to that at the top of each page), then scroll right down to the bottom of the Contributions page, you will see a link to "Subpages". That will give you the list you want. Finally, you can't directly delete a page, but if it is one of your own sub-pages you can request a speedy deletion (an admin does the actual deletion) - to request this, put the following code at the top of the page (with your own rationale in place of mine): {{db-userreq|rationale=Article has been moved to mainspace, so this user draft is no longer needed.}} --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gronk Oz. Found it. Very helpful.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Rejected

My article (Lon Safko) submission was recently rejected because 'references do not adequately show the subject's notability'. I would like someone to help me in this regard in order to improve the referencing. TIA Ayazf (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ayazf. Your article relies far too heavily on sources written by Safko himself. Instead, it should be based primarily on what independent, reliable sources have written about him. Emphasize those and use Safko's own writing only for basic uncontroversial biographical details. You may find Your first article useful in improving your draft. Please read Referencing for beginners and revise your references accordingly. One relatively minor point that jumps out at me is that you consistently refer to the subject as "Lon". According to our Manual of style, we refer to the subject only by their surname. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy regarding behaviour in arbitration fora

Recently I have noticed quite a bit of nastiness in places like Arbitration Requests/Enforcement, Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents etc. To be clear, is it allowed to show contempt for previous Arbcom decisions, in particular to make veiled Nazi references (e.g. "Superior orders") in characterizing their actions (er... unwillingness to WP:IAR I guess?), in the middle of those discussions? Is WP:CIVIL actually actionable in any way, or is there some other policy to cite here? 70.24.6.180 (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. You have chosen to spend time in the areas of Wikipedia where the most intractible and emotional disputes are discussed, often at mind-numbing length. Almost inevitably, these are places where tempers often run high, and people often vent their emotions in an ugly fashion. One great thing about volunteering with this encyclopedia is that you get to choose where to participate. So, if you prefer "sweetness and light", volunteer to help kindergarteners work on art projects, and do not hang out at the drunk tank at the county jail late on Saturday night. Figuratively, of course. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but should it then follow that I am blocked when I point out that behaviour, observe another IP get blocked (and the comment reverted) for making far more reasonable criticism, and get blocked again myself when I attempt to restore that which has been censored (by the person who was criticized, no less)? I am more than willing to roll up my sleeves, and don't particularly expect kind treatment, but to me contributing to Wikipedia means ensuring that rules are consistently and fairly applied and that hypocrites and the corrupt are dealt with appropriately. I have been repeatedly accused of signing out of my (nonexistent) account in order to point out these things. The simple truth of the matter is that it is because of the things I point out that I cannot in good conscience create an account. 70.24.6.180 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Creating an account gives you a higher degree of anonymity by far than editing from your IP address. The advice I give you now is the same advice I would give any editor: Take things slow and steady at places like AE and ANI. Be very, very careful to avoid disruptive editing such as calling people hypocrites and corrupt, and do not try to evade a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Lost and Don't know where to start re-writing on my draft.

So I've been trying to publish an article Draft: Hassan's Optician Co. I've been working on for at least a month and I'm stuck. I'm a novice at writing anything actually and I was hoping someone could help me out?

This article was the first optician and first official approved optician store in Kuwait just to give you an idea why I thought it should be written.

Thank you, Krystel Espiritu (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I have gone ahead and cleaned and accepted your article. I am not saying it will stick, and I continue to suggest you improve it, but it can now be found at Hassan's Optician Co. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Need help with tables/rowspan

I am trying to add a column for "OECD Secretary General" to the table on United States Ambassador to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Since the first Secretary General I want to add, Thorkil Kristensen, served through the first 3.5 ambassadors, I wanted to make the rowspan=2 for the first four ambassadors to I could add the second Secretary General in the middle of the fourth ambassador. However, when I change the rowspan to 2 for the first ambassador, the table pushes the second ambassador to the right of the new column, creating a new set of four columns (without a header row, of course). What am I doing wrong with rowspan? Please help/advise. Yomybrotha (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Rowspan can be a pain to work with. I will give it a go. The first three don't need rowspan=2 when only the fourth is split. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Yomybrotha welcome to the Teahouse. Can you please clarify what you meant by "I wanted to make the rowspan=2 for the first four ambassadors to I could add the second Secretary General in the middle of the fourth ambassador." It easier if you could tell me whether you want to add another row for all first 4 ambassadors or just 4th ambassador. Anyhow assuming that you only want to add another entry between 4th and 5th entries I'll add a blank row in between those two. Note that you can do the same for other entries by using the same code. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, PrimeHunter fixed it before me.--Chamith (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yomybrotha: Is [1] OK? David Laurence Aaron has "Unknown" as end and I don't know know whether he should go into Donald Johnston who started 06/1996 according to [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That's wonderful! Thank you very much! What was I doing wrong? Yomybrotha (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yomybrotha: You wrote rowspan=2 in rows which didn't need it. Help:Table has general help but can be hard to understand. rowspan and colspan are html and not specific to wikitext so maybe a Google search can find better tutorials on using them. I don't know exactly what you wrote but suppose it included:

{|class="wikitable" style="clear:right; text-align:center"
|-
| rowspan="2"|1
| rowspan="2"|[[File:JohnWillsTuthill 1945.jpg|75px]]
| rowspan="2"|[[John W. Tuthill]]
| rowspan="2"|October 4, 1961 – October 22, 1962
| rowspan="2"|Career FSO
|-
| rowspan="2"| 2
| rowspan="2"|[[File:John M. Leddy.jpg|75px]]
| rowspan="2"|[[John M. Leddy]]
| rowspan="2"|October 3, 1962 – June 15, 1965
| rowspan="2"|Political appointee
|}

This renders as:

1		John W. Tuthill	October 4, 1961 – October 22, 1962	Career FSO
					2		John M. Leddy	October 3, 1962 – June 15, 1965	Political appointee

10 columns may seem odd but there is a reason. The 5 cells in row 1 are two rows high. Row 2 wants to start in the middle of those cells. But all 5 of those cells are already part of row 2. The following row 2 cells therefore go to the right of the existing cells, so row 2 gets 10 cells in total. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia for Lucy Moore

I'm wanting to expand this stub Lucy Beatrice Moore and noticed when I searched in Wikipedia for "Lucy Moore" I was immediately directed to this page Lucy Moore rather than getting a list of articles about the two different Lucy Moore's. How can I edit Wikipedia to ensure that both these pages are listed when you search that name. Thanks for your assistance in advance Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two possible solutions to this issue. If one Lucy Moore is considered more notable than the other, but both are notable enough to have articles, then Lucy Moore should direct to the more notable of the two, but it should have a hatnote to the other. If they are considered approximately equally notable, then a disambiguation page should be the primary entry, and should contain links to both articles. Does the historian have a middle name? If so, her middle name should be included in her article (although that isn't essential if she is considered more notable). If she doesn't have a middle name, then she may be identified as "Lucy Moore (historian)". Since I am not familiar with either of these subjects, but both articles are stubs, my inclination would be to create a disambiguation page. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this Robert. I'm not familiar with the "other" Lucy Moore but have seen the use of a disambiguation page in previous instances. I'm off now to research how to do this. Thanks again for your assistance as it's much appreciated. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Ok - just read Wikipedia:Disambiguation which just made my eyes cross and ended up feeling completely overwhelmed. Can't find a simple step by step "how to" for beginners, so will leave it until I feel up to wading through all the "Wikispeak" to learn how to do it. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Disambiguation page created. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this! I've just done a search and realised you'd created the disambiguation page for me. I really appreciate it. Is there any chance you could give me a quick step by step summary of how you did it? Is it just a matter of creating a page called "editing Lucy Moore" and adding these two pages as a link? I'm keen to learn so I don't have to bother other editors again. Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is one of these things that is somewhat easier to do than to explain. However, it is simply a matter of creating a page called Lucy Moore and adding links to those two pages. Actually, Lucy Moore already did exist, as a redirect, so that it was necessary to edit into the redirect and change it to a disambiguation list. I can try to explain more, but it was easier to do than it would be to explain in detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Permissions to use photographs

What is the language of the email that the artist of an artwork to be depicted should use. I've had a bunch of pictures taken down due to not being able to produce a formal email but have been unable to find suggested wording for this permission. Can someone help. This is quite arcane.

Thanks,

71.105.109.90 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The suggested wording is on this page. However, if I assume correctly that you want to show some artwork by Merion Estes, such permission may not be needed. You can upload one or two low-resolution photos of her artwork to Wikipedia under fair use, using Wikipedia's upload wizard. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking this question, and thank you @Anon126: for your response. I have been interested in the same information. Could someone please clarify which CC-BY-SA license is the standard choice for Wikimedia? The language in the e-mail template refers to the "Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 Share Alike" license, but I've seen other pages in Wikipedia and Wikimedia, including the Wikimedia splash page, refer to CC-BY-SA 3.0. I understand if the 3.0 pages haven't been updated yet. I'm just wondering which is more correct. Would I go wrong if I went with either one? Thank you for your thoughts. Kekki1978 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: Honestly it doesn't matter as long as it is CC-by-SA and Non-Commercial. Most people prefer 4.0 or some form of GNU. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What does being 'Patrolled' mean?

Hello,

So, I recently got 'patrolled' by a kind fellow,DangerousJXD but I do not know what it is supposed to mean. Can any other kind fellow explain me?

Thank You Komchi^{Let's talk}_{What I have done} 09:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Komchi most new pages are patrolled to check they meet the polices and guidelines of Wikipedia. So it just means that someone (DangerousJXD in this case) looked at your page and marked it as being all good. Its just a first line of defence against vandals, trolls, spammers, etc. See Wikipedia:Patrols for more details. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lotKomchi^{Let's talk}_{What I have done} 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Help Creating a new page

Thanks for your time,

I am new here so I don't know what is wrong with this page or how to fix it, Help please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HJMS

Kanoog (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Kanoog. The reviewer, Onel5969 rejected your draft because part of it was copied from a copyrighted source such as http://hjms.com/HJMS_en/federate/federate0.php?mode=1&sd=5&hj=2. The way to fix it is to rewrite it in your own words. —teb728 t c 08:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

MY page got deleted, that means I lost all that work and must redo everything again from scratch?

Kanoog (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Kanoog. You have suffered the sting of watching your work disappear. It might be helpful to keep a copy of all your draft it's off-line until you know that your work will be staying up on Wikipedia. I'm sorry this has had to happen to you.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kanoog. I'm sorry you had this happen. You could follow what Bfpage says, but actually it's very rare for anything you put into Wikipedia to get deleted entirely: most times it is still there in the history; or if the whole page is deleted as was the case here, you can ask the deleting Administrator to restore it for you to work on. However, when the issue is copyright infringement, material will not be restored, because Wikipedia cannot allow material that infringes copyright to remain, even in a draft page. RHaworth who deleted the page, might be willing to restore part of the material or send it to you, if they judge that there is something worth saving besides the copyright material. --ColinFine (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Obscure Reference

I've recently completed an article on the Valz Prize (Prix Valz) awarded by the French Academy of Sciences. However, I'm missing two very hard to find references.

The specific references I'm looking for are the "Prix et Subventions Attribués en 196n" articles (usually in the first or second December issue of the year) for 1966 and 1967 in Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences: Vie Académique for those two years.

Without those references, I can't confirm that the Valz Prize was not awarded in 1966 and 1967. Based on the history surrounding it, I very certain that the prize was not awarded, but I would like to nail this down.

I've tried the obvious: Searching at the French Academy of Sciences site (those volumes are missing from their digitized collection), exhaustive web searches on Google & Google Books & Bing, even looking for university libraries near me with those volumes in their collection via WorldCat.

Any suggestions? Anyone live near a library that does have those two volumes? Carl Henderson (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carl Henderson. I think that perhaps DGG might be able to offer some suggestions. He is a librarian with the New York Public Library, as well as a Wikipedia administrator and a member of our Arbitration Committee. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I know whom to ask, & I'll get back to you. Vie Académique was their internal news publication, & most libraries outside France more or less ignored it. The journal sections changed around a lot, & it is even possible that those issues were never published. But arb com -- and admin -- have nothing to do with knowing about content or referencing. And , for that matter, I'm just a volunteer now at NYPL--and at Performing Arts, not science. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I got the feeling from their website that even the French Academy of Sciences had forgotten about it! While searching, I found a PDF that showed the transformations that Comptes Rendus went through over the years since 1965. Carl Henderson (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I was simply trying to show that you know what you are talking about when it comes to improving this encyclopedia, DGG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you can find those references. I know it isn't vital, but I'm slightly OCD at times on stuff like this.Carl Henderson (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

please check my new template

I've created a template, {{AHDict}}, for references to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, modeling it on {{OED}}. This is a more complex template than I'm familiar with, so I'd really appreciate an experienced templatician (?) checking it over.

Also, the categories Dictionary source templates and External link templates show on {{OED}} but not on {{AHDict}}, even though I've included the identical wikicode:

<includeonly>
{{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|sandbox | |
<!-------------------------------------------------------------------
       Categories below here, interwikis to Wikidata.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------->

[[Category:Dictionary source templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:External link templates]]
}}</includeonly>

To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: The category issue was fixed in [3]. Users may have old print editions and I would make an optional edition parameter with code like edition={{{edition|5th}}}. Why is date=2014 when The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says the 5th edition is from 2011? The web version currently says "Fifth Edition copyright ©2014" but if you use {{cite book}} then I think the print date should be used. If an edition parameter is added then there should be a switch (mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##switch) to set the date. Why do you pipe [[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language|The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]] when [[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]] would go directly to the article and skip a redirect? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I made a formatting error on my Wikipedia template.JBLongUSA (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and believe I made an error on my reference section of a template of a page I am creating. In the reference section, the hyperlink for "1" in on the line above the reference. Here is the code.

References

References

Did I edit it wrong (not sure if that is how it's supposed to look). Any help would be appreciated. JBLongUSA (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, JBLongUSA, and welcome to the TeaHouse. I am going to guess that the article you are having the trouble with was Draft:Tyler Hadley, and I think that is now fixed up. There were two problems hitting it. The first one has bitten me more times than I care to admit: one of your inline references (the last one) was not closed properly; it was missing the "<" before the "/ref". The effect of this is that Wikipedia's processor treats everything after that as a continuation of the Reference, and it all goes wrong. The second thing is that you don't need to list all the references at the end. Having put them all at the appropriate places in the text, the Ref list gets built automatically when you put the {{Reflist}} template at the end. Take a look at what I did on the article and I hope it makes sense ... if not, feel free to ask back here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

References

First time contributor here, trying to add a article on a famous artists here in marin county, having issues with article being deleted.. help

the page is up here= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Giacona

can someone have a look and let me know whats wrong? I've tried everything to make sure the references were satisfied, but nothing seems to satisfy your bots/admins.. HELP!

Rawheaven (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rawheaven. Your references are presented in a sketchy fashion, and I highly recommend that you follow the procedures described in Referencing for beginners. Please be sure that every assertion in the article is backed up by a statement in a reliable source. You have included an excessive number of red links in the article, including links to obscure artistic genres. I recommend that you trim them back. Familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for artists, and include well-referenced information in the article showing that this artist complies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Several of your external links do not even mention Giacona, and accordingly should be removed from the article. The article in the Marin Independent Journal includes only a single sentence about Giacona. That is what we call a "passing mention" which is not useful for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned up a couple of the red links, but that does not address the major issue, which Cullen328 points out. The article needs to establish his notability by referring to what reliable, independent sources say about him. Instead of generic lists of "references" and "external links", use inline references to show specifically how each one supports the notability of the subject.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

File redirect problem

Hi, Shannon County was renamed Oglala Lakota County however this broke the Template:Infobox U.S. county map because it uses a built up file name "Map of {{{state}}} highlighting {{{county}}}.svg". I tried adding a redirect File:Map of South Dakota highlighting Oglala Lakota County.svg but it does not work? I've seen redirected images before, and I can't work out why this isn't working (just shows as a blue-linked image). Any ideas? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi KylieTastic. The file is at commons:File:Map of South Dakota highlighting Shannon County.svg so the file redirect also has to be at Commons to work. I got edit conflicted when I tried to create the Commons redirect. User:AxG uploaded a copy of the file instead. That also works. I have deleted the non-working redirect at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks PrimeHunter and AxG — KylieTastic (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a recent reference and copy edited the article, KylieTastic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Uploading an image from Flickr

I found an image of actor Allu Arjun in Flickr here with cc-by-sa 2.0 license. Will it amount to Flickr washing if i upload it? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Pavanjandhyala, doing a quick Google image search on that image turns up lots of hits and the image has no EXIF info so yes in this case it does look like the poster is unlikely to have taken it themselves. So yes I would expect commons to reject it as probable copyright violation by way of "Flickr washing". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: But in that case, we can found multiple copies of free files at Wikipedia in Google search, few being published much before the date of the file's publication in Flickr. What to do in such cases? Even the ones who reviewed them did not raise any objections as such. Please do clarify! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Pavanjandhyala, just because other copyrighted images may have got onto commons by successfully "Flickr washing" does not make it right. In this case the Flickr image was uploaded March 13, 2015 but copies can be found with others of the same set claiming to be published Nov 04 2011 here it was also published here in 2011, and the best find is this one which includes the EXIF camera information saying it was taking in 2011 with a Nikon D90 (not 2012 as your Flickr page says) so likely to be the original source. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: That means i cant upload that file. I understood that not just this, i cant upload any free image here. That means trying to expand an article is just an utter waste of time which implies i should give up my plans. Alright. Thanks for helping me. I give up! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: you can upload free images, its just that they actually have to be free and not stolen. Its usually better to do checks yourself than just upload and have the people at commons check and delete. Unfortunately more fans just repost copyrighted images than take themselves, also if fans take pictures they often unknowing post them copyrighted. Sometimes you can persuade somone on Flickr to change the license. Another option is sometimes you can just ask the person or their management to release some 'free' images. I know the frustration of trying to find 'free' images of some people, even when very famous it can be very hard to locate them. Don't let it get you down, and remember you can still improve the articles your interested with text. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: It repeatedly proves that getting free images are myths. Thus, i decided that it is better to focus on other articles than that one and leaving it in its present condition. Because no matter how much i develop it and when it passes the result i wanted it to do so, it would be an incomplete one. Instead of leaving my goal incomplete and unfulfilled, i would opt to leave it forever and i am leaving it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Pavanjandhyala. You say that if you can't upload pictures, "trying to expand an article is just an utter waste of time". I very strongly disagree with this. Pictures are a nice-to-have. They are no substitute for the fundamental criterion for quality of an article, which is well-referenced text. We are all volunteers, so we spend the time in the ways we want to (including me); but if collectively we spent half as much time on the hard work of improving the references in existing articles as we do on writing new articles and finding photos (and answering questions on the help desk!) Wikipedia would be immeasurably better. --ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I know that and thanks for bothering to respond on this issue. Still, a strong, beautiful and well constructed villa is lifeless without "nice-to-have" paints. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Any kind of image permission

This image was uploaded in the correct manner, i. e. with evidence of the owner's permission to use it on Wikipedia. This is a cropped version of that image, but is under threat of deletion because of the tag "missing evidence of permission", even though the link of permission is given in it. What do I do? PS: the owner allowed me to use his image but was too lazy to send legal permission. However, I photographed my conversation with him. Will that type of permission suffice? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kailash29792. The photographer must explicitly agree to the terms of an acceptable Creative Commons license allowing anyone to reuse the photo anywhere at any time for any pupose, including commercial uses. That Photobucket screen shot of a Facebook chat does not discuss the license terms at all, and accordingly is of no use for this purpose. The most straightforward solution is for the photographer to upload his own work to Wikimedia Commons himself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I hope I can convince him about this. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the Teahouse, Kailash29792. I got my hand on a sample letter that you can send off to obtain the copyright permissions that you need. I'd like to say that I came up with this myself but I did not I stole it from another editor: fix it up, put in all the right words and send it off.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So is this how it goes? I edit the information in the mail, then send it to the photographer, asking him to forward it to OTRS? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup and then please be patient, the OTRS queues are always backlogged.--ukexpat (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I finally got him to send the mail to OTRS. But in the mail is written, "I hereby affirm that I, Vithun Ravindran, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all the images in my Facebook page (I will not show the URL in this page)." That good, bad or ugly? Because the agreement to apply for all his photos. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding an Image to an Article

I recently wrote an article that is a Biography of a Living Person. It was accepted and published, for which I am grateful. I would like to add a photograph taken by a third party. The photographer has given permission for the photo to be used in the BLP article.

This article was my first and this photograph upload will be my first, so please forgive my ignorance. I want to make sure I handle the image right and abide by Wikipedia's policies as well as properly communicate to the photographer what her permission for use entails. I've been reading Wikipedia's policies (particularly the "Image use policy") and I'm not clear on some things. I could use some help from someone who can explain the policies in plain English.

The image must fall into one of the following 3 categories, right? (The 4th, being my own work, is ruled out by definition.) (1) freely licensed, (2) public domain, or (3) fair use. This is where my understanding falls apart. I don't understand the differences and I don't understand when it is more appropriate to upload a photograph to Wikimedia and then pull it from there to use in the article and when is it more appropriate to upload the photograph directly to the Wikipedia article.

I have received written permission from the photographer to use the photograph in the article. Is that permission broad enough? Do I need to ask the photographer for permission for the article to be reused by anyone for any purpose?

I'm very confused. I think I can figure out the mechanics of tagging and uploading the photograph, but I want to make sure I understand the policies and get my ducks in a row before I do so.

Thank you for your help on my question. I apologize if it has been asked before. I am new to this community.

Kekki1978 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Kekki1978: Thanks for stopping by and asking this question. It's OK to be confused about these things, the copyright of images and their use at Wikipedia is one of the more confusing things here. There are at least 3 different issues we need to cover. I hope I can make this as simple as possible:

1. First is the licensing aspect of using the image. In order for an image to be used at Wikipedia, the image must be unambiguously licensed to be compatible with Wikipedia's free-use licenses, which are CC-BY-SA and GFDL. To simplify this, the images have to be licensed such that they can be copied and used (with attribution) by anyone, with no restrictions against commercial or other use. The owner still retains their own copyright, but allows Wikipedia, and all of Wikipedia's downstream users, mirror sites, etc. to use the image again with proper attribution. Permission to use an image only in a specific Wikipedia article is insufficient. Make sure the owner of the copyright understands this, and have them (and yourself) review the information at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, which includes instructions on how to properly document permissions for Wikipedia to use these images. There's also a page called Wikipedia:Image use policy which exhaustively covers Wikipedia's image use policy.
2. Second is the uploading of the image. Once the licensing is taken care of, the image should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which is the media repository for all projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, including Wikipedia. While it is technically possible to upload the image locally to English Wikipedia, we recommend against it because 1) it can't be used by other projects, including (for example) other language Wikipedias who may want to translate the article and use the image in their language and 2) If you upload it locally and it is properly licensed, it will just be moved to Commons anyways, and uploading it directly to Commons saves everyone extra work. See This page for a tutorial on how to use Commons.
3. Third is the adding of the image to the article. To do so, you would add the following code to the article: [[File:IMAGENAMEHERE.jpg|thumb|right|captiontextgoeshere]] First is the file name. Second is the word "thumb" which indicates that the image is a thumbnail; which allows for appropriate resizing and bordering (without this code, the image gets placed full resolution, which is bad for most articles). Third is either the word "right" or "left" indicating where you want it to go. Fourth is the caption, which would be the text you want to place under the image. There are other options you can use for sizing and location, and all sorts of stuff, but that's extra stuff and not really necessary. You can read ALL about the full range of image options, and how to code for them, at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial if you wish.

I hope this is all helpful! Feel free to ask again if you have any questions. --Jayron32 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jayron32: Thank you very much for your explanation! You hit on exactly what I was confused about. Part 1 of your response will quite clearly guide me towards understanding the licensing aspect of using the image, which I feel is the most difficult part of this for me to understand. I'm impressed with the clarity of your explanation. Much appreciated. Kekki1978 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: I think Jayron's given you some excellent advice, but since he didn't cover the fair use aspect of your question: fair use is a legal doctrine which provides that for certain classes of use of (non-free) copyrighted material – such as for educational, criticism, news reporting and other purposes – there is an exception to the rule that the material cannot be used without infringing on the owner's copyright, even though you don't have their permission. Certain standards must be met to fall within the bounds of the doctrine's exception.

The most common way fair use comes into play here is in direct quotations. When you see a quote in an article from some source and that source is not in the public domain or freely-licensed, we're using that copyrighted text without the owner's permission, under a claim of fair use. I won't get into the details of the standard too deeply, but suffice it to say that you can't use too much of the work under fair use, so the rule of thumb is short quotations are generally okay, and large ones are probably not. For images (and other media files), we have a set of the standards that a work must meet in order for it to be properly claimed as fair use here, that are provided at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. It can be complicated but to summarize some salient points from them that come up a lot:

1. We only allow uploads of non-free images if no free equivalent is available, or could be created – which means in practice: 1) if a relatively poor but free image is available to us, a better but non-free image cannot be uploaded; and 2) with some exceptions, a non-free image of a living person cannot be used at all, because while the person is alive, there's always the potential of a free image being created by someone by simply snapping a photograph;
2. We require minimal usage – which means in practice: 1) we don't allow multiple fair use images to convey information, where one is sufficient; and 2) we use only enough needed, a part if sufficient from a larger whole, and a low resolution image that can still be functionally useful, even if the original is of high resolution; and
   
3. We only allow fair use images in articles, and never in behind-the-scenes pages (like this one).

The place where most fair use images come into play is in (lo-res) album covers, movie posters, book covers – things of that nature that are unlikely to ever be free (until their copyright expires) and for which there are no useful free equivalents. By the way, as noted above, the Commons is only for free image, so fair use images must be uploaded here and not there. Hope this helps--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you for your clarification. Am I correctly understanding that for it to be permissible to add to a BLP a photograph of the subject of the BLP, the photograph in almost all instances is *required* to be "free"? If it's not "free", it can be used only if all 10 criteria in the "Non-free Content Criteria" policy are met (which would likely never happen because a substitute photo could likely be obtained)? Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: Yes, that's exactly right. That's why we have many articles on quite famous people with no picture, and many more with terrible photos (because they are necessarily some amateur's haphazard snap at a book signing or on the street by the uploader themselves, who is then willing to release their photo under a free license), rather than one of the numerous professional better photographs that exist for that same person that are a one second Google image search away but are not free. I'll give you an example of an exception to the general rule. I uploaded File:Farrah Fawcett iconic pinup 1976.jpg under a claim of fair use (before she died) because, even though it contained her image, the image itself was the subject of critical commentary in the article, as the best-selling pinup poster of all time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I think I understand. Thank you for your guidance. Kekki1978 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Bohehead seeks help

I'm back editing at Wikipedia after a long absence, and realize I just know enough to be dangerous. Seeking some mentoring for which I can pay for with any grunt work you have for me (after you train me how to do it :) I have a project in mind for Wikipedia that I think would be valuable but don't know how to go about it. If anyone who reads this would help me I would be grateful. If so, how do we communicate? I don't think the minuet of our conversations would be useful here. Thanks for your time. TimoleonWash (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello TimoleonWash and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have an idea for a new project you should probably make the idea known at one of the sections of the Wikipedia:Village pump. Post at the part of it that corresponds best with your idea. If you want a mentor, you can apply at the newly formed Wikipedia:Co-op. On another note: You say that you are back here, is this the same account as the one you used then or do you have another account as well? Best, w.carter-Talk 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks w.carter-Talk for your suggestions; I shall implement them as best as I can. I had a wikipedia account back in the 80s but I don't remember the account name. Does wikipedia have a list of inactive accounts from back then? TimoleonWash (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

TimoleonWash, if you can remember an article you worked on back then, you could look at its History and you should see your old name there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, If my memory was that good, I'd be, well, why I'd be young again ;) TimoleonWash (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

References

I was viewing an article and in the editing history, one editor has removed the Unreferenced tag from the article, I looked for references but I couldnt find a ref list or a references section, only some external links the majority of which look to point to the same URL, I was going to revert the edit, but I was not sure where I should or not, so I thought I would ask about it first before doing so, any help appreciated TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey TeaLover1996. Since the basis for whether that tag belongs is simply noting whether references are present or not, and you've confirmed in your post they are not (an external links section, marked as such, even if some of them might be able to function as references if someone explored them is not what we mean), you should go ahead and add it back, noting in your edit summary the reason; maybe something like "revert unexplained removal of unreferenced maintenance tag; there are none listed". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Which article is it about? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: The article in question is Dhanmondi Tutorial TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: That article had references when {{Unreferenced}} was removed in [4]. A section called "References" is not required to be referenced, but it was added 3 minutes later [5] (6 minutes before your post was saved). It would have been wrong to restore {{Unreferenced}} both before and after the references section was added. Content in <ref>...</ref> is references no matter where it is displayed. The https version of the referenced site doesn't work for me currently but http works. "External links" usually refers to links which are not used in a reference, often listed in an "External links" section at the end. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The articles about our company

Hi! I just started working in communications in a shipping company, and quickly found that articles regarding us were either missing, outdated or wrong. I would love to help getting these up to date, but I understand that I should not be the one to edit them. How should I go about to do this? How do I approach editors? Sveinung Tvedt 11:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveinungtvedt (talk • contribs)

Hello, Sveinungtvedt. as a person with a conflict of interest, you shouldn't create articles that you consider "missing", since Wikipedia has specific notability requirements for companies which are difficult to judge by a closely connected person. Outdated and incorrect material is another matter. First, try leaving a message on the talk page of the article describing the changes that you think should be made, and why. If you don't get any reply (as sometimes happens if not many editors are watching a specific page), try leaving a specific request on the talk page of a WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Companies or WT:WikiProject Business. Another approach would be to check the history of a specific article, see who has been editing it lately, and leave a message on that editor's talk page. All this will take time, and some patience may be required.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

3 things

Hello! OK so, 1. Is there any particular reason why I'll be in edit mode and I'll see a double space that seems to serve no purpose? I have left multiple double spaces in this post so if you edit it you'll see what I mean. 2. Again same situation and I'll see this {{-}}. Again any reason? 3. There is a bot that removes deleted pictures from articles. Instead of just backspacing everything it leaves it and puts a silent note or something thus making it invisible. Again any reason to this? They all seem pointless to me. DangerousJXD (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DangerousJXD hello and welcome to The Teahouse.

I see a large empty space in the middle of your post.

Hopefully, someone will come along soon who knows the answer, but my recommendation would be WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: 1. Multiple and single spaces render the same way. This is a feature of html and not just wikitext. The wiki editor saves what people actually wrote so if you see two spaces then it's because somebody wrote it at some time. Maybe they didn't notice it because it looks the same as one space if they preview. If it's after a period or similar then it may have been on purpose to give wikitext which is easier to read in their opinion. Don't worry about it. 2. Your post says {{-}} after "I'll see this". That calls the template called "-", i.e. Template:-. See the documentation there. It currently causes a big blank space for me here because it moves the following text below the table of contents, as it's supposed to do. 3. Leaving a deleted picture in a comment can alert later editors that a picture has disappeared from the page so they can for example look for a replacement, or try to get it uploaded again with an allowed license. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dangerous, with some people - me for one - double space after a period is habit as it's the way we were taught to type and it can be difficult to break long term behaviour. As PrimeHunter says, they render the same way anyway so there is no damage done if they are there and there is no damage done if you remove one of them (and, yes, I have automatically put double space in after the first sentence in typing this). Nthep (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with speedy deletion of a draft article

You are free to use this material in any constructive way. There should be no charge for the use of this material or any profit made from the use of it. For the most part it was freely given and should be passed along the same way. If you have material to add, or changes that should be made, please contact me at fireriter@aol.com .

That statement is posted on the website that wiki cited material in my draft was copied from, it is however, not the actual source of the material and is copied from a paper posted elsewhere on another non-profits site, and the material is historical in nature. How can I get statements, which are copied verbatim, to pass muster when writing my draft article to prevent the bot from removing it before all changes and corrections are done? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the referenced draft, the material removed is found in 'Talk" CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stentorians

This is the referenced draft, the material removed is found in 'Talk" CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello CaptJayRuffins, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think you can get permission to use that material as Wikipedia's licensing stands. Material usable by Wikipedia should be licensed for commercial use: the project aims to be as free as possible such that people can disseminate content commercially. This could be as simple as, for instance, selling a CD of material used on Wikipedia to people without stable internet access: it doesn't have to be huge multi-million dollar/pound enterprise. You may be able to use that work as a properly credited source (but see notes on reliable sources, notes on using primary sources and WP:Referencing for beginners). This is as much to avoid plagiarism as it is to avoid copyright violations or mixing incompatible licensing.

In addition, you need to look up how to properly format a Wikipedia article. It looks like you're trying to write a dense textbook on your subject; articles should take a different approach and aim for providing concise information. Read WP:Your first article and other links that Largoplazo put on your page last June - those will help you fit the work you want to do into our house style.

Thank you, however, for contributing. It's hard work to create a new article that meets our standards for inclusion, but quite rewarding. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your answer applies. Why would a historical timeline need to be licensed commercially? Lets be clear, when it was written like an article someone edited it to be like notes in a classroom, now you say it should be written like and article. I placed it in draft for but did not submit it for review, yet someone deleted not just the Talk where the portion that was being contested was posted but the balance of the article/story. It did not appear that either of you read it, but you both claim to be editors. give me a minute to work on figuring just what you people do, and make sure you're not bots. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahoy, CaptJayRuffins, you have run into on of the least favorite issues related to writing up drafts of articles on Wikipedia. Everyone, I mean anyone and everyone, can see everything that you type onto the wikimedia foundation servers. Not only can they see it, they want to see it and they are looking for it before you think it is ready to be seen. I write offline. Nothing goes onto any pages until I am ready for anyone to see it. All my drafting and writing takes place off Wikipedia and then appears when I am ready to submit it. Also, it is best that you save a copy of your drafts offline if they disappear because you had something wrong in your draft/sandbox. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

industry slant in Wikiedia articles

I was told I should go here for advice. The best question I would ask is this:

What should I do when I come across an article that is badly slanted to favor industry, such as was the case with the BP article of which 44% was written by BP. What is the right way to address this when there is a WP:GANG that control the article and insists on that Pro-industry slant and refuses to add any material critical of the industry, claiming that any reliable source that would criticize the industry is by definition unreliable and WP:FRINGE or created by "activists", because apparently, only insane or "conspiracy theorists" would be crazy enough to question the intelligence of the PR of a multi-million or billion dollar industry. Also, what should be done if the WP:OWN owner of the article(s) bullies new users who attempt to correct industry slant and make an article more NPOV? In other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries? David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page. Have you found reliable sources for your critical content? If talk page discussion fails (and your description seems to indicate that you think it has failed), read dispute resolution and follow one of the dispute resolution procedures described there. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You were told to come here for advice. That was good advice, but another, sometimes even better, place to get advice is the Wikipedia Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, David Tornheim and thank you for bringing your question to the Teahouse. One thing I have to do while I remember editing is to keep in mind the subject of the article. With the demographic make-up of editors on Wikipedia there is a built in drive to bring a neutral point of view into editing on all articles. Yet the BP article is only meant to be an article about an oil company. There must be other articles in which the information that you want to share could find a place. Each well-documented, well-referenced BP-related event is certainly able to have its own article if you can pull it together. I did a quick search on Wikipedia and found plenty of well-referenced material bringing to 'light' the actions of the company. There are separate articles that exist for separate incidents. Be bold! Get your references together and the information out there.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

reply to george caliburn

hi george

im a little out of my depth ivee submitted 6 times and it even though it complies and uses similar pages as a template to ensure compliance it just remains a draft unpublished page

ive read all the wiki help pages but need to speak to someone rather than be led by generalisations from a generic help page

regards RachaelRachael reiko murakami (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rachael. The draft at Draft:Shotokan Karate Union seems to have been declined only once, so I don't know where your 6 submissions were. The reason for the draft being declined was given on the draft page, but you removed that feedback. I have added it back in, as previous feedback doesn't get removed until the draft is accepted and published. The feedback is useful not only to you but also to future reviewers. I notice that your draft has no inline citations, so please read about giving references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

yes david i have read the links you supplied and read everything everyone has mentioned to me and i have indeed resubmitted it again after watching the video i think i have solved the problem by using the cite which are all from outside sources

i dont wish to upset anyone as i feel i am following instructions to the best of my ability

regards rachael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachael reiko murakami (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rachael reiko murakami, don't worry about upsetting anyone here at the Teahouse by asking a lot of questions. The editors here all thrive on that sort of thing, and it's great to see a new editor persisting and a new draft being improved. I have a couple of suggestions for improvements: (1) There are a lot of external links in the body of the article, and this is not allowed in Wikipedia articles; it is considered a form of advertising. You can make a section at the bottom called "External links" and add just a few of the most relevant ones there in a list. (2) You have a lot of references to magazines; this is fine, but each reference should be to a particular article in the magazine that verifies the information in the article. Instead you have a long list of issues and pages all in one reference. Surely all of these wouldn't have the same facts, unless they were copies of an advertisement, which isn't appropriate. Here's an article, Isao Obata, that has some magazine references that you can look at.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply for Anne Delong

At last another female ! Wow there was a popup notice when i logged in saying that there are so few women editors on wiki. well after my current experience thus far i can believe it. so im really glad to get help from another woman.

anyhow, ive taken your advice and addressed the issue of external links and ive removed them ive just left the wiki links in there.

I really didnt have a clue how to do anything on here and apparently still dont. so it has all been something of a shock and a massive learning curve for me. Ive also addressed your second point and ive reduced them and ive specified the articles too, i must say it has cleaned it up and made it much more readable. many thanks for that and you managed do it without overloading an already overloaded individual with "go to here and read this" type of instruction. i know the articles are designed to be helpful but im suffering with overload right now and its getting all too much for me so i do appreciate your input very much as it was exactly what i needed right now. I feel if someone else helpfully comments and has a different approach point of view or advice from the last person that will set me off in a new direction again and i will explode like that character at the airport in total recall. If the page gets rejected again can i ask you to help me redo it, as im not coping very well with it right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachael reiko murakami (talk • contribs) 10:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Rachael reiko murakami, I will help. Just leave a message on my talk page. I can't do it all for you, though, because I know nothing at all about Karate. By the way, there are more women here than you think; some of them just aren't saying.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with other editors

Is there a way of getting an impartial editor to monitor an article? I have been editing the Foie gras article but running into some curious behaviour such as one editor deleting their (inflammatory) remarks on the Talk page, and another editor attacking my editing methods on the Foie gras Talk page and on my own personal Talk page. I am aware of RfC, but this might be very time consuming. Thanks in advance for advice. __DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DrChrissy. Perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion is what you are looking for. It's simpler than an RfC. I see a fair amount of good discussion on that talk page, and I applaud your decision to replace the controversial reference with another one. The problem in discussions often comes when one or both parties (1) become more interested in being right than in improving the encyclopedia, and (2) take the discussion in a personal direction instead of concentrating on developing a consensus. A third voice can be helpful in either situation.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - that's very helpful. Thanks also for your input on my Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Create a page

Hello I would like to know if u guys would be willing to create a page for an author actor and rapper ladell parks Someone been pretending to be him and try'd over and over to create a page about him and failed but if you guys google him or whatever you'll notice he's quite famous he has a new album coming out some time next month but it's also available for pre order now on itunes & google play — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatlake19 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thegreatlake19, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find somebody here willing to take that up, but if not, asking at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Musicians might find more people with an interest that way. Either way, you can improve the chances of finding somebody willing to work on it if you do some of the legwork yourself. Wikipedia has criteria about whether there can be an article about somebody: "quite famous" doesn't hack it: what we need is that somebody has already written substantial articles about him in reliable sources such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. Can you find a couple of articles about him, in major newspapers or magazines? These need not to be blogs or social media, not anything coming from him or his agents or publishers, not iMDB, not just listings or reprints of press releases, but articles that somebody unconnected with him has written about him and published. If you can find a couple of these, there is a good chance somebody might be willing to pick up your request; if you can't, then there is probably no point in anybody spending any time on in it at the moment (maybe next year!). --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

New Article, Sandbox

Hi, I want to create some new articles, but a sandbox already exists of those articles. For example, for one article that I had planned to do---Casey Cavert, I came across a sandbox of that article. Do I need to ask permission from the sandbox user if I can create the article (my own version, not straight from their sandbox) or can I simply upload my article without asking? Also, once I've created my article, can I ask the sandbox user for help or if they are willing to upload some of their information into my article (if I feel the article needs help in certain areas)? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

Hello, Kinfoll1993. I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to: there was a very short article on Casey Calvert, which was converted in 2006 into a redirect to a section of Hawthorne Heights. If you want to write a new article on the subject you are welcome to try, and do not need to ask anybody's permission. (Before you do so, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert, to understand why it was converted last time, and consider in that light whether there are enough sources to justify a separate article; you may need to look at your first article as well, if you're not clear what I mean by 'sources').

If you do decide to go ahead, eventually your new article will have to replace the redirect; but I suggest you don't worry about that at present. Develop your new article in draft space (I suggest using the article wizard and when your draft is accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out putting it in the right place.

Thanks, but what about for other articles? I mean in general, if there is already a sandbox about an article that I want to create, can I still write the page for that article or do I need to ask the user of the sandbox before I create the page? And when mentioning a sandbox for Casey Calvert, I meant someone made a sandbox for Casey Calvert (adult actress), not the band leader. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kinfoll1993. You never need permission from anybody to create an article, (though of course if your attempt violates one of Wikipedia's principles, eg if it were a copyright violation or a personal attack, it would get deleted). If you want to work on a draft that somebody else has created, whether in a user sandbox of theirs or in Draft: space, it would be usual to ask them first, though there's no formal rule that you need their agreement. If the issue concerns a draft article for a different subject with the same name, the name clash will only become an issue when the second one is accepted and moved into article space; in which case normally the accepting reviewer will sort out how to handle the name clash. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Help!

I have been trying to edit the rock balancing page, be cause I would likely to add the dates of the ongoing competition in Llano, and people keep taking it off, it's the correct information, so why'd do people keep messing with it? I also would like to know how to create a new page if the thing you are searching is currently nothing in existence, and how to upload an image, what sort of permission do I have to ha ave to do that? (The name BluJay is taken (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reasons that your edits were reverted were given in the messages that you deleted from your user talk page, and particularly the second one, about requiring references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that someone posted saying that it was un-cited, but if the information is correct, why does it need cited, a lot of things on Wikipedia aren't cited, and no one has been deleting them. I don't understand why certain things need to be cited while others do not. I'm afraid if I ha ave to cite everything that I will not be able to edit wikipedia pages, because I cannot reach any other sites from where I am. I do appreciate yourself help though, and the fact that you took time out of your day to help me out!😁 I would also like to know about uploading images, and page creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The name BluJay is taken (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, The name BluJay is taken. Verifiability is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. To see why, consider first that on the Internet nobody knows who you are, so we certainly have no way of knowing if what you say is correct. (Please don't take this personally: it's just as true of me). Secondly, even if what you put in the article is correct, we have no way of telling that it will stay so: somebody may come in tomorrow or next week or next year, and change it - either maliciously, or in error, or by a misunderstanding. If the information is referenced, then somebody who needs to know the information knows how to check it; if it isn't, they have no way of telling. In my personal view, unreferenced information in Wikipedia articles is generally of zero value.

You are right that there is a lot of substandard crud in Wikipedia's four million articles; but that is not a reason to let people add more unreferenced information.

As to your other questions: there are various ways of creating a new page. I would strongly recommend using the article wizard. This is not the most direct way of creating an article, but particularly for inexperienced editors it is hugely more likely to result in a page which is kept. Finally, about images: you have had an account long enough, and made enough edits, that you are allowed to upload images. However, it is important to understand Wikipedia's rules on copyright: most images you find on the internet are not free of copyright, and may not be uploaded to Wikipedia. However pictures you took yourself you usually own the copyright to, and you are able to release them under a suitable free licence (but you must do so explicitly). See User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Colin Fine so much for your help, I guess two wrongs don't make a right, and I'll try to cite my edits next time. I was so caught up in trying to make a difference, that I went about it in the wrong way. Thank you for including links to other helpful pages! If you manage to find the time to reply, I still dont quite understand what a sandbox is or how to use it. Feel free to reply on my talk page!(talk) Wow I really should've picked a shorter user name, "The name BluJay is taken" takes forever to type! Well, Thank you again for your help!

Hello again, The name BluJay is taken. To take your points in order:

• Don't worry about making mistakes, especially if you are enthusiastic about improving Wikipedia. We've all been there, and as long as you are working in good faith, nobody is likely to slap you down.
• "Sandbox" means a few (related but not quite the same) things on Wikipedia. "The sandbox" is a single specific page, WP:sandbox, that anybody can edit in order to experiment with editing and wiki markup. Nothing you put there will remain for long, as it gets cleared automatically (I don't know how often). A "user sandbox" is a subpage of your user page, so for you it would be User:The name BluJay is taken/some title. You can have as many of these as you like, and as long as you don't do something really unacceptable on them, like copying copyright material from somewhere, or writing a personal attack, nobody is likely to interfere in them (everybody can see them, though). They are one of the traditional places to develop a new article. If you have a user sandbox called 'sandbox' (i.e. User:The name BluJay is taken/sandbox) then that is referred to as "your sandbox"; but the only thing special about it is that there is a link "Sandbox" at the top of the page that will take you to it. A more recent place to develop an article is in Draft space (eg Draft:my new article), but practically there is not much difference from a user sandbox. In either case, when the article is ready to go into the main encyclopaedia, somebody will move it from the sandbox or draft to its final name.
• I was going to say that to find out about a Wikipedia concept that you don't understand, it is very often useful to put "WP:" before it and search - this searches in Wikipedia space rather than article space, and so gives you pages about working with Wikipedia. However, in this case that wouldn't have worked too well, because [[WP:sandbox]] gives you WP:sandbox, which is in fact the sandbox, and not an explanatory page.
• Yes, your user name is quite long. That should worry you too much, because you can sign your posts with four tildes; but can be annoying for somebody corresponding with you. You can ask to change it (though there are other possibilies): see WP:CHU. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)