Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benzband (talk | contribs) at 10:22, 28 April 2012 (→‎Can ?: collapse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Eman235, a Teahouse host

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

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

Ask a question

Can ?

Can i download and edit this file?

Can I download and edit this a file with this license? template:PD-USGov-NASA Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ 08:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As it is public domain, you are allowed to use it pretty much as you wish. - Bilby (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!thank you!Thaank you!Thank you BiblyMir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ 10:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And can we upload it again?Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ 10:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help Getting Article Approve - Reliable Sources

I have been working for awhile now to get the following page approved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Switchback. It keeps getting kicked back and I'm having a hard time understanding why. I have linked to the University website showing that the journal does exist. I've linked to Duotrope, one of the most trusted names in literary journals, showing the magazine is registered and engaged. I've linked to the author pages showing the journal has published significant writers. I've provided a link showing the magazine has published at least one award winning piece as well as participated in community events. Any advice would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awhitenoisemaker (talk • contribs) 17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review completed, I need direction on editor comment.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward

Comment: This article needs to be overhauled completely to undo its promotional tone. Subject may be notable, but this is PR. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

-- It feels like I finally reached 2 points 1)My subject is notable 2)My references are suitable -- But my writing is inappropriate? I think I just need a push in the right direction. I am not sure how to accomplish what the editor is asking. To me, it sounds like a very 'factual' article. Thanks as always Dee03z (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dee03z. Yes, the article isn't as bad as it seems, actually, but here are some of the words I think are causing Drmies to ask for a change to take place, and please don't take this as being critical of your writing, but a constructive criticism on how to become a better Wikipedia editor:
  1. In the lede: "has brought many talents into recognition via the YouTube market." Remove that sentence, and remove the external link to the studio. The only place where that external link should go is this infobox and at the bottom in external links.
  2. Again, remove the link to the studio that is placed in the article itself.
  3. You need full citations for all the claims of followers, popularity, etc. I can say I have 1,000+ followers on Twitter, but unless you prove that with a direct link, it's meaningless. I really do have 1,000+ followers on Twitter, and by going to my Twitter account you can see that. But, that doesn't make me popular or notable. Plenty of people have a ton of followers on Twitter, Myspace, YouTube, and that doesn't make them famous. Frankly, I'd remove all of those numbers. There really isn't anything "encyclopedic" about it. No one is going to read those numbers and go "oh, I see, that is very important and valuable to learning about what this person has done."
  4. Remove the external link to the Billboard chart and use it as a citation instead.
  5. "The attention via social media grabbed him a spot on two Billboard charts for dozens of weeks" I would rewrite this to simply state how he was on two Billboard charts and what spot he reached the highest, with citations, and for how many weeks he was at that top spot. Everyone can get attention through social media, it doesn't mean he's special because of that, and dozens of weeks could mean a LONG time.
  6. Remove the uncited content on who he has performed with and produced, unless you can cite that content.
  7. Remove the statement about him being an "industry leader." There is only one small press source that states that. I'd remove it, it reads to praise-like, and if only one reporter thinks it is true, that doesn't mean it is.
  8. Remove claims of sold-out shows. Unless you can cite that all of the shows were sold out, etc, then there is really no value to that. He could have sold out a show with 10 people for all we know, at a coffee shop in London.
  9. Remove the future tour plans. We have a policy on Wikipedia that doesn't allow us to discuss things that aren't happening yet. They are also linking back to his website, which can be viewed by the reviewer as promoting his tour.
  10. Remove the staff members and band members. Unless they are notable people, they aren't really that valuable to the article.
  11. I would also remove the extra external links - just link to his website. That's all we should need, because in theory, we should be able to access all of those other pages (the studio, facebook, youtube) through his main website.

I hope this helps, and I know it seems like a lot, but I think it could help it pass review. I'm sure other hosts might have further input, too! Sarah (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making more sandboxes?

I get the feeling from my reading that you can have more than one sandbox going at a time, which might be handy. But when I tried to find out how to do it I got lost in talk about subpages and other things that made my eyes glaze over... Can you have more than one, and if so, what's the plain English way of setting them up? Thanks.Tlqk56 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can have as many subpages of your user page as you like. The format is User:Tlqk56/new page name where "new page name" is what you want the page to be called - the easy way is to put User:Tlqk56/new page name into the search box and then click create when that page name comes up as a redlink. NtheP (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worked perfectly. Thank you.Tlqk56 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about photos

Hello! Thanks for the invitation. I had questions about inserting a photo into my new article, but I scrolled down and have read what looks like good instructions, so I'll try that first! Thanks again for being so helpful, and I'll be back soon! WilliamWmArbaugh (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, William! Good luck, and come back soon for some tea and cookies (: --A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Flee. 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help pages

Hi everyone, a quick question for both guests and hosts. I'm working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help documentation. Does anyone have any thoughts on specific help pages that they've found to be useful, or otherwise? the wub "?!" 13:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have to be honest, there really isn't a single help page that I can think of that I like reading let alone found value in. Myself and the hosts have fiddled around here: Teahouse how-to guides for our own benefit for wording and making things easy when explaining to editors how to do things. but, frankly, I've learned more from just flat out asking other Wikipedians than I ever have sitting down and reading most of the rules and regulations, so to say. OH, one place that I do find a lot of value in when lending a hand with new editors is HstryQT's starter guide: Wikipedia:GLAM/TCMI/MAP. While it was written for teenagers, I find it invaluable for anyone of any age level who is new to Wikipedia. For me: making it as easy as possible is the key. Less jargon! Sarah (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the jargon. One of the problems I run into is the use of terms that aren't explained in plain English. (Reading about how to make more sandboxes and suddenly it's talking about subpages. What's a subpage and how do they relate?) You can spend forever trying to chase down what everything means, but it's frustrating. Why not have Wikilinks to plain English definitions, perhaps? The most useful directions show what it looks like when you're doing it, I've found.
Also, don't assume I know where to find a certain box, or where to paste a template in. Try comparing the list I posted further down on how to add an image with the help page directions on the same topic, and you'll see a clear difference. One is do-able, the other overwhelming. FWIW Tlqk56 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a noob. Received a standard welcome. How did I feel? Frustrated and intimidated. There are 65 links in the welcome! Look at the Five Pillars page. OK until I clicked [show] next to Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines at the bottom of the page. Fifty-eight key guidelines and policies? And each leads to another long page with more links to more links... The intro for newcomers has to be simplified. I'll continue my rant in the project talk page later tonight. My best intro was on Pluma's page for adoptees. He wasn't avaiable to mentor but I felt like I belonged when I finished his 'homework assignments' on my own. Oh, and help didn't help until I found the Teahouse. DocTree (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. I guess if I could say one thing it would be Cut Out the Excess Verbiage. When I'm looking to find out how to do something, I don't need two pages of explanation about every possible permutation. It would be nice if the "How to do this" instructions were at the top of the page, and you could read on if you wanted more info. Instead, we're forced to wade through paragraph after paragraph that doesn't answer the question and just confuses us. Really, somebody needs to write Wikipedia for Dummies. I nominate the folks who work here. They're great. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How should I handle and where should I put Awards ??

Receiving awards and honors is an indication of notability. Some awards are well known enough to merit their own articles like the Cy Young Award, the Academy Awards and Nobel Prizes. Most professions have lesser know awards that are significant within their niche; mine is birds and ornithology. How are (in other parts of Wikiworld) they handled? Incorporatd into articles? Lumped together in an awards article? Within my bird(brained) niche, should I create a new article on Ornithology Awards? Associate them with the person after whom the award was named like I did at the bottom of the unfinished article on William Brewster? Add a paragraph or section to the organization presenting the award? All of the above? Or should I be asking this in a different place? DocTree (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Sure, go ahead and write the article. The article wizard can help you create the article and determine if it's notable. If you need any more help, feel free to ask. Thanks, Nathan2055talk 22:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Doctree! Yes, what Nathan said, go for it. We have a ton of redlinks in the wiki-world that need to be filled in based on awards. Another good list, though not restricted to science are Guggenheim Fellowship recipients. When I do write about the awards, unless they've had one or two, I generally write them in a paragraph in the article (instead of making a really long list). Sarah (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Hi, I have submitted my article twice now and it has been declined both times stating that I need to improve my references but to be honest I really don't know where to start! My article is about Volt Magazine/Volt Cafe, so if anyone has any suggestions then that would be very much appreciated!! FashionAsArt (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FashionAsArt! Sorry your article was declined. All articles on Wikipedia have to go through a guideline of notability, basically - is it famous/popular/well known enough to entitle an article about itself? It's painful to deal with, especially if you're involved with what you're writing about. First, if you feel like perusing suggestions on what a reliable source is, you can find it at length here. Basically articles without sources listed there won't make it on Wikipedia - so think about things like newspapers or magazines (not Volt itself) that have written about the magazine. So, for the magazine to be considered "notable" enough for inclusion it has to meet one of these guidelines:
  1. have produced award winning work
  2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
  3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area
  4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources
  5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets

"Publications that primarily carry advertising, and only have trivial content, may have relevant details merged to an article on their publisher (if notable)." Here are some examples of where you can pull material: [1][2][3][4][5][6] I'm not sure if these are going to help or not, but, perhaps its a start! Sarah (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions with Wikimania registration

Hi all! I posted my questions about the Wikimania registration on Aude's talk page, but it seems she got very busy and has not responded to my question. To avoid repeating my question here, you can see it at Wikimania question section on her page. Thanks for any response! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question TBW! I'll ping some folk on the Wikimania team and see what they say. Sarah (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cite orders

I loved the help earlier with citing references but now I am wondering is there a certain way they should be display? for example "lunashy was listed as the friendliest person on Wikipedia [1]." or "lunashy was listed as the friendliest person on Wikipedia.[2]"

References

  1. ^ Lunashy the kind. "Kindness".
  2. ^ Lunashy the kind. "Kindness".

(Lunashy (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Lunashy! According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style references go after the punction, so your second example is ideal. I've worked my way through the manual before, but it is terrifyingly long. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been putting them outside the quotation marks, since quotes are punctuation. Is that wrong, they should go inside the quotes? But what about when you have the quotes and then the period, since that is the preferred style? She called the situation "confusing".<reference> Thanks again.Tlqk56 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put the reference after the last punctuation whatever it is. The only reason I can think of for not putting the reference inside the quote marks is that the footnote isn't part of the quotation but a reference to the quotation. NtheP (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Kersevan

Hi everyone, Boy, do I need a cup of tea! (and maybe a little lie down). I copy-edited Alessandra Kersevan using only the content which was there. It was tricky because it seemed to have been translated from another language. I thought I had added neutral language and tidied it in a reasonable way. Then, a user who has had issues on the talk page about the content, reverted to an un-copy-edited form and removed some paragraphs. I am feeling a weeny bit miffed. Should I forget about it and move on? (I have no interest in the subject whatsoever). Should I request an arbitration somewhere? Any advice gratefully received, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Myrtle, and welcome to the Teahouse! Whether you want to pursue this or not is pretty much up to you. If you do want to pursue it, the next step would be to discuss it with the conflicting editor at the talk page. Since talk pages aren't always frequented often, you might want to drop the editor a line on their talk page if they don't seem to be responding. If, after you've discussed it, you still can't come to an agreement, then you can try dispute resolution; the first step there would probably be either the dispute reolution noticeboard or the third opinion noticeboard (which is a place I do some work at).
Don't take it personally, though! Edits and reversions happen all the time here; we call it the bold, revert, discuss cycle (usually abbreviated as BRD). Basically, the way it usually works is that someone will make a bold change; another editor, disagreeing with the change, will revert it, and the two editors will then go to the talk page to discuss things. So changes, edits, and reversion are all natural parts of the process; don't take it as a reflection on you or your edits personally! It's all just trying to make the encyclopedia better. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Writ Keeper for speedy sage advice. I will let some time go by to think about it. Feeling better now, Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template usage

Hi, how can I check if a certain template (Template:2TeamBracket-Tennis3) is used anywhere in the article namespace? Thx. --Wolbo (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the template page and click on "What links here" in the toolbox links on the left, it'll bring you up a list of the articles the template is used in. NtheP (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
Thx! That was surprisingly easy. Registered here about 5 years ago and never saw that link. ;) --Wolbo (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images, what's the difference?

To add the image of an author I pasted Elizabeth_Enright,_children's_author,_photo.jpg. but to add an image of one of her books I had to add [[File: ]] to get it to work. What's the difference, and how can I tell without all the trial and error which one I should use? Thanks.Tlqk56 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tlqk56! Welcome to the Teahouse! Alright, well I have some experience with photos so I'll try my best to explain. Sometimes inserting a picture is easy as just putting the name, and other times it requires something like [[File:Elizabeth_Enright,_children's_author,_photo.jpg]]. You can insert just the Elizabeth_Enright,_children's_author,_photo.jpg into userboxes that have the option to put a picture so I'm guessing it would look something like |image: Elizabeth_Enright,_children's_author,_photo.jpg. That's the best I got, if you need further help then please feel free to ask other Hosts! --Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just add a tiny bit to that; the Enright photo is inside of a template (like a userbox), which means that the template takes care of some of the issues of formatting. Templates are intended to be really simplified ways of entering data so that it visually matches what happens on other pages (as well as it can). When you just place an image on the page by itself, you need to add the wikimarkup of brackets [[ ]] and include "where it comes from" (what namespace) in this case, "File". heather walls (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That helps clear that up. Thanks again, both of you. Tlqk56 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making Sections that don't show up in TOC?

If you go to this page Aileen Fisher you will see that in the TOC the Selected works section has 7 more divisions listed under it. I want to keep the sections in the article as they are now, but don't want all those sub-sections to be listed in the TOC. I'm pretty sure I read someplace how to do that, but now I can't find the instructions again. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tlqk! Welcome back :) Perhaps you're referring to this:
Making a section that doesn't show up in the TOC
To do what I just did there, all you do is place a semicolon before the words like this: ;New section
Do let me now if that helps! Sarah (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sarah, that's what I was looking for. Thanks for the info and the page, for some reason I couldn't find it anywhere. I'll save it in my growing file of pages to refer back to. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia Lose Something Valuable in Disallowing Discoveries or First Hand Sources?

Under No Original Research it is stated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery."

The only thing that I am wondering about here is whether Wikipedia loses something valuable by having such strict criteria for sources. If someone comes up with a new way to do something, a discovery that no one else has seen before, then they themselves are the only source. Seeing as a lot of people first check Wikipedia when trying to understand some subject, by not allowing articles on discoveries or first hand experiences readers would not be able to find anything on such topics. A discoverer would not even consider posting anything onto Wikipedia because he/she would know it would not get past the criteria.

A reader might find information on a discovery subject using a search engine, if that search engine happened to have a website listed with the topic discussed, or they may never find it at all.

Would it not be better to have a flag at the top of an article stating that the information in the article is the first hand experience of the author and thus has no supporting sources. That way people will still be able to find information on a lot of subjects that, at the moment, would not get past the Wikipedia criteria? Would allowing such material introduce serious problems? Or would it enhance Wikipedia usefulness? Thanks. WikipedianJones (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legitimacy to anything unless it is vetted by others. There are criteria that those other people, which we refer to as "sources", must meet. They must for instance have a robust system for fact-checking in place. The reason for this is because we would not want to be a vector for misinformation. We are written by volunteers, and vandalism is hardly unheard of. Bus stop (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Wikipedia is not a research journal or scholarly publication. It's not peer-reviewed. It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't publish original research; they're strictly tertiary sources. The problem with original research is that, on Wikipedia, we have no way of knowing if what someone posts is true, or even who really posted it. We can't do peer-reviews to ensure accuracy, and we can't look at people's credentials to see if we can trust them. And if we, the editors, can't trust someone, then a reader certainly can't trust someone. At the end of the day, our information can *only* be as good as the reliable sources that back it up, because that's the *only* way we can ensure some standard of reliability (and even then, it doesn't work as well as we like). As you correctly say, with original research, there will be no coverage in other sources, and that's precisely why we cannot include it in Wikipedia.
I understand and completely sympathize with the reasons that people want to publish OR on Wikipedia. Some of what people try to publish should be known; it should be distributed to people. But it's just not something Wikipedia can do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I am a lot clearer now on what Wikipedia is about. It is sticking to a very firm standard of research thoroughly checked research only. I wonder if there might arise in the future some kind of Wikipedia-like website that was for OR. If some people are passionate enough about making that kind of material available. I certainly could not do it, but someone else perhaps. WikipedianJones (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews and w:Wikiversity both allow original research. Wikinews has a clear review policy to supervise that original research before allowing it to be published, but the style guide is clear and concise. This original reporting can then be linked to on the Wikipedia article. Australia men's national softball team and Kaia Parnaby are examples I've worked on showing this linking. --LauraHale (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image licenses for a particular type of images

I wonder what licensing information should be added or used for the images which are taken from sources like GettyImages, or any press like Times of India,NY times, Press Trust of India and all ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek Rai (talk • contribs) 07:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of images from the news organisations are free images so using them would only be permitted in very limited circumstances - the Non-free content criteria. I would steer very clear of gettyimages as they do allow commercial and non-commercial reuse but only for fees and therefore they aren't available to us at all. NtheP (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the clarification. As for the Indian Publishers, I'll personally try to contact them over this issue. If they give the permission, then it would be fine to use them over here, wouldn't it be? Vivek Rai (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vivek! Absolutely, however, you'd have to get written permission from them stating that they release the images Creative Commons Share Alike and then you have to email that permission to our volunteer team. Take a look here for further details: how to ask for permission. There you can find an example letter you can send to them, and the email where you need to send it once they give you permission. I hope this helps :) Sarah (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it helps. Thanks! Vivek Rai (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this is for my brother(User:mathewJPH)

Click [show] to unhide content >>>

If you upload images from blogs or any other website which has nothing about how what you'll license, what will we do in the evidence box?RDF Energia (talk:Nordak Island Communication Station) 09:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are at all unsure about the copyright status of an image you don't upload it. I'd suggest that you and/or your brother read Wikipedia:Image use policy for a fuller discussion of this topic. NtheP (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but.............RDF Energia (talk:Nordak Island Communication Station) 11:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there is no "Yeah, but" about it. Uploading of images and claiming they are copyright free\released under an appropriate creative commons licence when the uploader cannot determine this status is very likely to lead to a) the images being deleted and b) the uploader being banned from Wikipedia. If in doubt, don't. There are very few topics that Wikipedia takes an very dim view of but copyright status of images is one of them. That's one of the reasons uploading images isn't the most straightforward process and why wikimedia software doesn't allow external links to image files. NtheP (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other idea I think would be to release it as it's own work. Since the photos don't have any information as such. While, If any claim appears later (which is very unlikely) the image shall freely be deleted. :P Vivek Rai (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Passing images off as your own work is not a way to go and will get you banned very quickly. It's not just yourself you put at risk of copyright theft but Wikipedia. Just because you think there is little chance of your deception being spotted is not a reason to try it. NtheP (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I was just presenting an idea and did not classify it as legal or illegal one. However, Suppose a person release those pics uder his work. But for banning him or taking any action regarding removal of images, shouldn't he be proved of his guilt for the same? But how would that be done? Since no one knows correct thing about it. Vivek Rai (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finding out that copyright has been breached and whose copyright has been breached are not the same thing. Wikipedia is going to work on the first of these not the second. With Google image search and other tools finding out if an image has been used elsewhere on the internet isn't as hard as it used to be. You might be (I hope you are) asking hypothetical questions but the line of "it's ok because it's very unlikely to be detected" is not the one to take. Wikipedia works a hell of a lot of trust and assuming good faith but in return it asks editors to work with honesty and integrity. People who aren't prepared to abide by those simple guidelines find themselves sidelined very quickly. NtheP (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking these hypothetical questions simply because this might appear to have something important to add to Terms of Uses of Wikipedia, if ever such situation appears in future. Now as you said, the Wikipedia would see whether the Copyright has been breached on not, and not seek whose copyright it has been. Now since the hypothetical user have released it under his own work license, you can't deny the fact that he might have shared it all over the internet too. And the things or the links upon whom the copyright violation evidences are based, are hosting his content only (may be willingly or unwillingly). In that case, how the editor can establish the fact that it is a copyright breach? You can't just remove all the images on commons simply because they are found on internet. Can we? Vivek Rai (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All this information is already in the terms of use, have a read of Wikimedia:Terms of Use and Wikipedia:Copyrights. For every single edit you make you are agreeing to release your work under a creative commons licence and that you are complying with the terms of use and any relevant licencing requirements. Therefore if you upload an image it is your responsibility to ensure that it is appropriately licenced - if you cannot or do not then the image may be deleted and action taken against you as the uploader.

An image appears on the internet, unless it is explicitly stated that the image is either public domain or released under an appropriate licence then the presumption is that it is not public domain and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia as a free image.

If the image is mine and I have already used it elsewhere on the web then I should add a licence to the other locations the image is used making it clear that I have released the image. If I can't do that, then is where suspicions might start to form that the image isn't mine to release. (There are options at this stage including the OTRS system which you have been referred to in response to another question) Once I've added a licence elsewhere then I've cleared myself to add the image to Wikipedia as my own. In the event of dispute then the bottom line is that I should be able to produce the original image to show I created it. NtheP (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it . Or you'll block me.RDF Energia | ☏ 05:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is allRDF Energia | ☏ 06:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tank EX picsRDF Energia | ☏ 06:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article declined

My article was recently declined as need to have footnotes. Actually I have been using footnotes throughout the article for reference/citation. Would really need help to find out how to improve it. Thank you so much! Clientwiki (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clientwiki, welcome to the Teahouse. I've looked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernest So and you have started to use the <ref> </ref> syntax you;re not quite using it in the same way. What you appear to have done is insert a reference marker (the <ref> </ref>) at th correct point but then have not gone on to fully define the reference at that point. As an example if the section on charitable work
Ernest So is involved with the Au Kim Hung Love & Care Association<ref name= Charity>Charity Event</ref>
== References ==

{{reflist}}
<ref name= Charity>http://www2.akhlovecare.org.hk/?p=182</ref>[http://www2.akhlovecare.org.hk/?p=182'Charity Event']
this can be rewritten as
Ernest So is involved with the Au Kim Hung Love & Care Association<ref name= Charity>[http://www2.akhlovecare.org.hk/?p=182 Charity Event]</ref>
== References ==

{{reflist}}
which produces

Ernest So is involved with the Au Kim Hung Love & Care Association[1]
References

  1. ^ Charity Event
In essence, put all the information about the reference in between the <ref> </ref> tags and the software will take care of converting it for you. You only need to use {{reflist}} once and all the references will be listed at that point. You can find more guidance at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
Looking at the article you have reproduced the entire text at least 5 times. I think you might have doen this in response to each article review. You don't have to produce a new version for comparison every time you submit the article, just keep one set and revise that e.g by inserting all your references into it, what each revision contains can be picked up from the article history. I would agree with the last review and not include the repertoire section and there are quite a lot of statements that need to be verified, for example - most of his educational details and statements like "So is a keen student and practitioner of the sartorial arts, wearing only bespoke clothes and choosing all of the fabrics, and even buttons, himself from the source producers".
Hope this helps and feel free to ask here or at my talk page if you need a bit more explanation. NtheP (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nthep, thank you so much for your response. I doubt if you were looking at the previous version of my article. In the latest version, I have already shorten the content & taken out repertoire section, also using the correct format <ref> <ref/> & references {{reflist}}. Do you mind checking again the latest version which I have slightly updated today? Thank you so much! Clintwiki

Hi again, the version in your sandbox is looking a lot improved, I've done a little bit of tidying to insert section headings. I see for one reference you have used {{cite news}} which is great though you might need to spell out what HKEJ is for those of us not familiar with Hong Kong newspapers. There is a similar template called {{cite web}} which does the same for web pages - if you used this template the refernces would not only look better but be less susceptable to Link rot. I'll have a fuller look later on and leave you any more feedback at your talk page. NtheP (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding older discussion

Hi folks, I'm back and wanting to refer back to answers I got about "my own words ...," but it's no longer on this page and using the archives index didn't seem to help. (What I need is where to send an appeal on an article declined because I'd already published it on AskART.) HarZim (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HarZim! It is in the most recent archive list here. You can check for titles in the table of contents of each archive. You can look at those after you press show over on the archives box. heather walls (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Heather. I'm still confused, because I couldn't find any clear instructions on WP:OTRS or elsewhere about where to send documentation to get my "blanked" article released. Should I write to the guy who did it? I received the following today from AskART:

Dear Ms. Harlow,

Thank you for submitting a wonderful article on Anne Bremer to AskART. We very much appreciate it. I am not sure why "Wikipedia" editors are giving you a hard time, as our site terms (under heading of "Use of Information" http://www.askart.com/AskART/help/AskART_terms2.aspx) clearly state that you are giving us ", nonexclusive right" to use your article. This means that you can post the same article on Wikipedia. Here's the full paragraph from our site terms: " By uploading material to any forum or by submitting any comments, recommendations or data ("information") to us, you automatically grant (or represent and warrant to us that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) to us a perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, sublicense, translate, create derivative works of and distribute such information worldwide and/or incorporate such information into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed. In addition, you represent and warrant to us that all so-called moral rights in the information have been waived."

I hope this addresses Wikipidia's editors' concern. Best regards, Tea Gebbie COO

AskART.com

(Cool, I just figured out how to put that in a Quotation box!) Now . . . will this turn up as a new question at the Teahouse? Anyone else who reads this want to suggest what I should do next? Thanks all, Ann Harlow, aka HarZim (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think theoretically the next step would be to have askart email OTRS, but that just seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Your explanation of why the material you submitted on AfC appears on askART also is good enough for me. I'll un-reject your AfC in a minute, and move the article live. Thanks for being so persistent with this - and thanks for contributing a solid article about a notable painter to Wikipedia :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Is there anyone that reviews articles for us or can... before we wait in line to get approved? I would hate to wait all that time just to get kicked out again? :) Jenray1980 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jenray, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! A few things: first, to answer your question: there's not really a place like that; Articles for Creation (which is what you've submitted your article to) is the first port of call. You can always ask us, though, or try the AfC help desk.
Next: I took a look at your AfC submission. It looks like you copied and pasted the article from a different wikipage, since it has lost all its formatting. May I ask where you copied it from? For future reference, if you want to copy something from one place in Wikipedia to another, you should click on the edit tab (or view source tab, depending on the page) and copy the text in the editing box; this will preserve the wikilinks and formatting.
The other thing is it looks like you have multiple accounts: User:Jenray1980 and User:Jennyray1980. You should know that the rule on Wikipedia is generally "one person, one account"; editing using multiple accounts as if they were run by different people is known as sockpuppetry, and is generally frowned on. Don't worry about it, though! You haven't done anything wrong with your multiple accounts, and I'm sure you just didn't know about the rule. Just, keep it in mind for the future, and try to stick with just one account going forward. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't copy it from somewhere, I typed it in that way... I did a search and there is nothing in retlation to the article I sumbitted... this whole process is pretty frusteating to say the lest:( i didnt know about the two accounts and honestly i didnt remember is i had done one before... how do I add the write formating? Jenray1980 (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The extra account is not a problem if you do not use it in a manipulative manner. It is permitted to use alternate accounts for differing purposes anyway. A good way to learn formatting is to look at similar articles and open the edit window to see the formatting. Cancel the edit when you are done.--Charles (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how references work to Jenray1980? That would go a long way to making this article Wikipedia-style, I think. Thank you! heather walls (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you in advance! Jenray1980 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the article (how did Writ Keeper find it?), but Jenray might go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners (WP:REFB). HarZim (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with that HarZim. Writ Keeper probably clicked the "user contributions" link on Jenray's talkpage to see all the edits Jenray has made.--Charles (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EVERYONE for the help!!! I will check out the referances page ASAPJenray1980 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding location maps to articles

I need help adding location maps to some of the articles that I have created. How can I obtain those maps,and add them.

Thanks,Regards! Vivek Rai (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most maps are in Commons. Depending on what you need, you can pull a map from the Commons:Atlas, request that a volunteer cartographer create a new map for you or learn basic cartography at Commons:Map resources. You can stat with a Commons' stock map and add location information with the GIMP. The wait for a custom map may be months long because of a shortage of volunteer cartographers and many Wikipedians requesting maps. DocTree (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Vivek! You can also use the {{Location map}} template to specify a location on a map in an article. You can read the template documentation (the green box) for more information. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 01:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for taking care to reply. I shall try to grasp! Vivek Rai (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a request for a map to be made at the Map workshop, it seems too inactive, so just tell me what type of map, map of what and other details. I know a user who is an expert at making maps, i'll tell himMir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ 08:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information. I shall soon. Vivek Rai (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting an article that's in Wikipedia to a print publication

If I have the opportunity to submit an adaptation (expanded version) of an article I wrote for Wikipedia for publication in a print journal, are there any restrictions about that? Mrs Skylark (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mrs. Skylark, welcome to the Teahouse! I have a bad habit of answering questions about copyright issues that I don't always fully understand, but what the heck, I'll go for it anyway. You don't have to ask anyone's permission; the text of Wikipedia is available for reuse under the CC-BY-SA license. In a nutshell, this license allows you to do whatever you want as long as you provide attribution for where you got the text from, license any modifications under CC-BY-SA or a compatible license, and include a notice that the text is licensed under such, along with a URL or copy of the text of CC-BY-SA. You can read more about the particulars in the "Information for reusers" section of the Wikipedia terms of use and the Reuser's rights and obligations section of the WP:Copyright article.
Now, the question I guess becomes: are you reusing the text of Wikipedia? If you basically wrote the article in Word or something, copied and pasted it into Wikipedia (non seq.: a bad idea for weird formatting things that Word does), and then continued to work on the article in Word, and the version you want to submit is the new Word version, then I think you can do whatever you want with it, since it's still yours. But if the base version of the article you want to submit is from Wikipedia (particularly if there had been edits by other people between the time you submitted it and the time you used it as the base of your article), then I believe it'd be classified as a derivative work and you'd be bound by CC-BY-SA.
Again, I am not a lawyer, so this is far from authoritative, but I think that's basically how it goes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Integration of information into an already existing page

Hi,

I wish to contribute a section of a page, but there is already some information there regarding the topic. How do I best integrate the new information I want to add? Should I just re-write the section using some of the information already presented, or cherry-pick my way through, adding a sentence here or there?

Thanks =)

Saeadame (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saeadame, I have seen your Contribution page but can not understand which article you are talking about, can you give the URL. and in my opinion, it'll be better to expand/re-write the section adding a sentence here a there! If you give the article URL and also the text you are trying to add, we can provide better suggestion! --Tito Dutta Message 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, sorry I haven't started writing it on the Wikipedia page, it's all in a notepad file on my harddrive right now, I should have linked it. It's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Penglai, specifically the section "In Japanese Mythology." I have a book (Waka Anthology Pt. 1, and a couple other books) which explicitly says a Japanese version of this mountain/paradise is Tokoyo. Now, I don't want to say that the person who put up all that information about Horai is wrong, because they may be right, but the entire section is uncited except for the mention of the book at the beginning. Anyway, I'm not sure if I should just replace the information with my info, since Tokoyo seems closer to the Chinese version than Horai, or if I should add my part at the beginning and keep the older info as well.

Thanks again =). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeadame (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can start working in that article! I have added the article in my watchlist, yet, if you have any question related to formatting etc you can send a message in my talk page! --Tito Dutta Message 01:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some help with an article

Hi!

Would anyone be interested in helping me out with this article? regarding:Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/University_of_Essex_Fencing_Club

Thank you! :)

Rmlundin (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had a quick look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/University of Essex Fencing Club and agree with the notability concerns. If you can include some more secondary sources, and the club's notability can be demonstrated then all well and good. It's worth noting that the list of students' unions in the United Kingdom doesn't include many unions themselves which meet the notability requirements, let alone individual societies. I hope this makes sense and doesn't dissuade you from further contributions. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

There's a typo in my username. How do I fix it? Downwoody (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Downwoody, you can have a look here: WP:UNC Since you have a relatively new account with 87 edits, you can simply create a new account and add a notice in your older account, that you have stopped using that account and using a new account.. --Tito Dutta Message 00:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can change your username outright at WP:Changing username. If the username you want is not already taken, then it's a fairly simple process to get renamed. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

limiting vandals

please help me in limiting vandals.iam new to wiki and here i found out that some pages that are about a particular religion or god are continuosly visited by vandals who delete,modify even abuse thus sabotaging the article and wiki.please tell me how to complaint or limit them.wiki is a great place for sharing knowledge and vandals intentionally work against it and also when they vandalize pages about religions then they automatically create a stir making the place a disappointmentANSHU.SHARMA999 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anshu. Please tell us which pages you are concerned about so we can check.--Charles (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anshu! I see you're into the business of reverting vandalism. I suggest starting with undoing vandalism edits manually. Along the way, you learn what is and isn't vandalism. After you spent time with that, you can enable an automatic program to help you reverting vandalism more quickly, like Twinkle or Igloo. After that, you can request the rollback feature for even faster vandalism reversing. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a picture on a page

How to post a picture on a Wikipedia article NJIT HUM LouieC93 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LouieC93! This is one of the trickier parts of Wikipedia. There is guidance for inserting pictures into articles at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, which has details on how to insert and format pictures into an article. If you are having trouble uploading a picture, Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard is probably the easiest way to do so. Be aware that you need to be autoconfirmed in order to upload at Wikipedia, autoconfirmation happens automatically when you have 10 edits, and when your account is over 4 days old. That should cover the technical aspects of using images. However, Wikipedia has some rather strict policies covering when it is appropriate to upload and use images. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more details on that. I hope this helped answer your questions! --Jayron32 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an easy description Doc Tree sent me, I hope he doesn't mind my reusing it:

"Adding photos is pretty easy.

  1. Search http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page to see if someone already uploaded a suitable image or images
  2. Find the picture you want/need on the web
  3. Right-click and choose 'Save as...' and give it a logical name, then save to your Pictures folder
  4. Go to the Wikipedia article you're working on and look in the 'Toolbox' on the left, then click on 'Upload file'
  5. Right in the middle, click on "Click here to Start the Upload Form"
  6. Fill in Steps 1 and 2 (The first blank under Step 2 will become the name of your picture)
  7. In Step 3, click on the button "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and a new form will grow from it
  8. Choose the most appropriate option
  9. Write about how the reduced quality thumbnail won't hurt the copyright holder and may enhance sales of a book and so on, (he added this for me, you will need to use your own rationale)
  10. When you've written enough and filled in all the blanks, the "Upload file" button will appear clearly (rather than fuzzy and faded). Click it.

The file will upload and WP will give you the file name to use. Copy it down. In an Infobox, don't use the [[File:xxx|thumb|name]], just the name. You should be able to see it when you Preview. Then save the page and you're done."

Good Luck.Tlqk56 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with inline citations

Are you able to help out and take a look at an article to see whether I am on the right track regarding the inline citations that are needed in my article? I defiantly had it wrong in the beginning but have now gone in and made some changes. I can post the link to the article for creation if this is possible. Thanks Cjven (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your article and you seem to have a lot of parenthesis at the end of sentences followed by a reference. These are unnecessary because the reference is clearly linked under the "References" section. --I am a Ninja, and this is my master. 16:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cjven. I've edited your article a bit but most of your references were fine, and I've moved the links to the text of the books to the external links section. What needs improving now is the lead paragraph as another editor saw it as a copright violation of the Salts Healthcare website and deleted it. So now there is no general introduction to the firm. NtheP (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the help and comments. Cjven (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How To Manual versus Encyclopedic Criteria Question.

I found out that one cannot write a "How To Manual" type entry into a Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, is not a little "How To Do Something" necessary sometimes in order to be able to inform the reader about a subject? I read that an encyclopedia should "inform, but not instruct."

When wanting to understand some complicated topics like certain types of photography. I would have thought that a brief explanation on how a technique is accomplished would clarify in a pretty efficient manner? How is an author of a topic supposed to explain it without going into some measure of instructions? It seems quite a difficult thing to author something without. Are there any good examples anyone knows of that achieve this in line with Wikipedia's encyclopedic criteria? Thanks.

WJ WikipedianJones (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WJ, and welcome to the Teahouse :) First of all, you are right that it is a little subjective; each person will see "informing" a little bit different. However, most how-to's have one thing in common, and it is why they are disallowed: they are generally originial research. To take a goofy example, think of the article on Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Now, everyone can agree that "informing" would, at the very least, means telling what is in the sandwich. However, Jim from California has decided that the article needs a step-by-step instructional on how to make one. So, he thinks about how he made his last PB&J and writes that in. Of course, he realizes that other people might so things a little differently, so he writes little notes in. Now, who has done all the research? Jim. He isn't basing his work off of other, reliable sources but instead is taking his own experience and publishing it. That is the essence of original research. While your article is undoubtably on a slightly higher level then PB&J, the idea is still there. You are taking your experience (or maybe also that of others like you) and publishing it. There is no source, so the material is not verifiable. That's why it isn't allowed broadly. Now, more specific steps might be accepted, if you have a source. Everything on Wikipedia should hypothetically have a reference, and a good way of quickly checking if something could go into an article is if it can be sourced or not. I don't know if the material you added to VR photography can be sourced, but it wasn't. Hence, Luke was right to remove it. If you were able to find sources for the stuff you added, I would suggest adding a note to the talk page inviting others to look at the prose and citations and maybe format them before adding it. I can't garuantee it will be added - in fact, if you kept the exact same content just with sources, it probably wouldn't - but that's your best shot. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WJ, welcome to the Teahouse. An interesting question, I can only suggest that you look at articles like Shutter speed and Motion blur and see how they are written. They tell what the topics are and how they are used but only briefly touch on how you achieve the technique. NtheP (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the replies. I suddenly realize that a lot more forethought needs to go into writing an article before posting it up. Getting others to look at the article before posting is a really good idea. It has made me think though of another question which I will post up above about things for which there are no source. WikipedianJones (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on article creation

Hello, I'm working on creating: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bath Fitter and am running into a few difficulties in getting it created and approved by Wikipedia editors.

First, the article was lacking independent, neutral sources. So I added a references from NYT.com and TN.gov.

Then the article was lacking a neutral point of view, which I have since changed the article to look more like an encyclopedia article.

I would love some more ideas from other editors that could give me some additional advice that I could use to improve my article and help get it submitted. Thanks for your help! Upwordsem (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Upwordsem, and welcome to the Teahouse! Well, I think that if you want acceptance to be a lock you should go for one or two more good independent sources. A lot of your current sources (the charities, the Hammers, and of course the Bath Fitter sites) are all affiliated with the company in some way so are considered primary sources. A couple others, like the NYT article, don't really discuss the company in any detail. Instead, they used as examples or employees are interviewed. Those really don't help you (from a Wikipedia perspective) as much as you might think. Remember, all articles need wp be supported by multiple reliable, independent sources discussing the subject in some detail. You aren't quite there yet, but you're very close. :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Can you verify if this is an independent reference (http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=5bee8b0c-142a-4db1-a6a4-d640019863da) that I could use? I also have another resource that is only a press clipping (photo copy) that is stored on Bath Fitter's site: (http://www.bathfitter.com/pdf/gazette.pdf). This is originally from the Montreal Gazette (http://www.montrealgazette.com/index.html) but a digital version doesn't exist on their site. Is it possible to cite this as a reference? Upwordsem (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the canada.com source is that it doesn't really discuss the company in as much detail as you want. Also, your already using the Gazette article as a source (reference 2: http://www.bathfitter.com/mydocuments/topsintubs.pdf). Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two more references that talk more about the company. The first is a video from a news channel talking about the company and products (http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/insight/Transformations-with-Bath-Fitter-128338163.html). The second is from a remodeler magazine that ranks this company the highest in its respective category (based off revenue)(http://o.qualifiedremodeler.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=2742). Can I cite videos the same way that I cite an article? Would these be considered indepedent, reliable sources that discuss the company in detail? Upwordsem (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can cite video articles, there is a template specially for that purpose {{cite video}}. Having had a look at the video, is it a news item/story or an advert - I'm not quite sure. The qualifiedmodeler site looks to be reliable enough to me. NtheP (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Teahouse i was wondering if you guys could look at the Foss Maritime wikipedia page, i have been working on it but i may need some help with the reference errors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foss_Maritime Thanks Evan96779 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joined there as an editor, you can see my edits in edit history, BTW, are you working anonymously there? I can't find your name in contributors' list there! --Tito Dutta Message 06:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It must be this edit. I've tidied the ref URL errors. -- Trevj (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When not to link

Are there guidelines somewhere about what words in an article should be linked to other articles by that name? For example, in today's Featured Article about Iguanodon, there were links to articles on Asia, Europe, and North America. That seems kind of silly to me. The more words formatted as links, the more likely the reader will wander off into some other subject, right? HarZim (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:OVERLINK. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common words aren't usually linked to, but if in the context of the article it's likely readers will want to know more about a related subject that's when we link. Individual articles often have their own related consensus approach, although some WikiProjects may have their own guidelines which could inform decisions related to specific articles. You could always be bold and remove some the extraneous links in Iguanodon, citing WP:OVERLINK in your edit summary. -- Trevj (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I now have the MOS bookmarked. HarZim (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is drop-down box called?

There's a handy drop-down box on this page, Beezus and Ramona, under See Also. What's it called and where can I find the info to make one? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tlqk56, welcome back! I think what you are referring to is a template. This one is Beverly Cleary books which is a specialized version of a Navbox. To include that Cleary box on a page you type {{Beverly Cleary books}}. To make changes to that box, you have to go to the template's own page to edit there. To make a new box you can follow the directions on the Navbox page. They are pretty confusing sometimes so feel free to ask more questions. heather walls (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have been clear that I'd like to make a different one to use on another page. So I'll go to the pages you recommended and take a look. thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking at it I guess that's not what I need. Ideally I'd like a drop down table with four columns across. (That's because one of the subjects I'm working on has a number of important publishing credits that I think should be included, 25 rows long. But they really are all important to her career.) I could use an annotated list, but it would be awkward in a few cases where a little more info is needed, and not as neat looking. Is there something like that kind of box available? (The chart would have date, title, author, comments.) Thanks again. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tlqk, can you give a sample of what information you're trying to encapsulate. If not on here on a sandbox page of yours and linked here. I think that if we can see what you're trying to do we might hacve a better idea of how to help you do it. NtheP (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't think of that. I've put a few of the entries in my sandbox. As you can see, some require more space than other, so it doesn't work as a list. (The Caldecott Medal is for illustrations, so illus., and writers names need to appear, etc.) Maybe I should just make separate lists, Caldecotts, Newbery, Hugo etc, and then work the other stuff into the article.I'd originally thought a drop down box would be simpler, :) and would keep the page from being overwhelmed by lists. (BTW, I'm only putting in the major awards the books she published won, I really have tried to trim it down.) Thanks again. Don't know how to link to my sandbox, does this work? [7]Tlqk56 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An aside: that does work to link to your sandbox, but an easier way is to just make a wikilink like this: User:Tlqk56/sandbox (which in the edit box looks like: [[User:Tlqk56/sandbox]]). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI Tlqk56, I've made the list in your sandbox into a simple "wikitable" you can learn about formatting them here. There are lots of ways to change the formatting, make the table sortable, change the colors, etc. Let us know if this is going in the right direction for what you want. heather walls (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heather -- That's perfect. I'm just concerned that it will be so long, so I'd wanted to make it a drop down. But if that isn't feasible, I'll play with this. Thanks for the work and the links. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I have collapsed the box in two different ways in your sandbox, still not *entirely* sure this is what you want :) The link to the help page has lots of other things you can do with the tables. heather walls (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it exactly! Now I have one more question and I'll go away for a while. :) Will it only hold 20 rows max? (I think I read that someplace about the Navbox.) If so, can I get around that by, in my example, losing the separate date for George Washington and filing it under 1949? How would I do that? I did read the pages you listed and didn't see it. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I copy and pasted a bunch of extra lines in, I am pretty sure there is no kind of limit. Thanks for adding all this awesome info! heather walls (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I'm having a blast but couldn't do it without you guys here! Tlqk56 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interwicki cite Q?

An article I'm working on Matthew Landy Steen cites the Wikipage of Scott Steen, a brother, who has released 17 music albums. It seemed a quick ref but after reading Teahouse comment on this practice, should I cite his website or cite his latest album release or what? The article only identifies him as a brother and his "notability", the moves on to the body of the article with diff subject matter. The article is a BLP. How to handle? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weathervane13! I just have two requests if you don't mind. Can you tell me if the "Ask a question>>" link/box works for you? If you use that for your question, hosts and guests will more easily find your new question at the top. The box also prompts you to sign your posts with 4 tildes like this ~~~~ and that is my second request, please sign your posts so we know who you are. Thank you! And thanks for hanging out at the Teahouse, I learn a lot from the questions that people ask here. heather walls (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an answer for Weathervane13? heather walls (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Weathervane. Sorry, sometimes questions get lost in the shuffle. Anyway, what I would do is go to Scott's wikipage, see what refs are used there, choose a good one, and copy it over to Matthew's page. As you know, Wikipedia can't cite itself as a reliable source (think of the recursive nightmares!), but the beauty of verifiability is that, for nay information in Wikipedia, a reliable source is (or at least should be) just at hand. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, sweet recursive dreams. I'll think of something appropriate then. Thanks.Weathervane13 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

discussion?

Do we have any discussion page for wikipedia?--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Remember:Checkuser is not fishing, nor I'm kidding.)

I don't understand your question. heather walls (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia Have a discussion page of itself which is an active place?--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You may be looking for the Village Pump, which is for various focused discussions about aspects of Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the?!--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Or let me see--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the village pump?Proposals?Techinical?I want to discuss an inactivity of a workshop on wikipediaAl Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'd try the WikiProject Council, as that's probably the best place to look for advice on how to proceed with a WikiProject. There is also some general advice about how to handle an inactive WikiProject at dealing with inactive WikiProjects. If it is inactive there isn't a great rush, of course - the main thing to do is to confirm that it is inactive as opposed to just quiet. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an Inactive wikiproject. You may know the Map Workshop in wikipedia. ([[Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop ]]). That has no graphists to do the work there. The requesters and the bots which are at duty there are the only editors.--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the workshop doesn't appear to be inactive - there were posts from volunteer graphists in the last few days. It doesn't seem very active, but does appear to be badgering away. Given the recent posts, the best place to raise concerns would be the talk page. My guess is that it is a fairly difficult area to work in so there may not be a lot of skilled volunteers with the time required, leading to a backlog. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a request which is more than a month old. They have still not finished it.Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Bilby suggested above, post on the Talk page, which is very active. Softlavender (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally , a graphist from Sharemap.org came there and he is currently working on it.--RDF Energia (talk:Nordak Island Communication Station) 11:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

importing images from wherever/how to?/inter-Wiki cites/and -- Proposed NOTA article split.

Hi, I just asked q's. Here's another. How to import images to Wiki article? Second, I think I solved, through someone's Wiki q here, how to ref websites/wiki with cite web. But how do I get the 'pipe' symbol out of my keyboard, use ASCII? Y'all know it's needed for this and other things like templates, and even other things I don't yet know about yet. Thanks! I have some upcoming (short 1/2 page) AFC's and some Wiki articles I am or will be editing. Te following is one of them with a perplexing problem --

W/here do I propose splitting an article None of the Above; it is overly long, sloppy and wanders around the globe. My proposal is to split off the American portion of the article to be included under category : government and ballots and voting. Anything else, like in the article, is superfluous. By this I mean, the article should not be discussing, outlining non-government topics, like private corps or non-profits, or commercial products or what might have been in Russia. The non-american bits of information should be moved to a new page category : Europe, politics, government. I'll volunteer to help edit or move or whatever Wiki may decide. There was a prior request by someone to do this action back in 2009 (?) but someone somewhere missed the point. Article needs to calved. Weathervane13 23:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

In terms of the NOTA article, I see that Nolelover has just now cleaned up the article a bit. If that doesn't satisfy you, the place to propose a split is the article's Talk page (please remember to sign your posts using four tildes. DO NOT put tildes on your edits to articles -- be sure to put an actual WP:EDITSUMMARY there.). However, since the article is only 27,000 bytes long, it's probably too short to split and doing so would probably result in an undue WP:CONTENTFORK. In terms of citations, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference on itself -- references must be outside, independent, reliable sources. In terms of the pipe symbol (|), it's on the same key as the backslash (use the shift key). To import images, you'd need to download the image onto your own computer and then use the "Upload file" link on the left of any page. However, since only copyright-free images can be used on Wikipedia (with only a few exceptions e.g. infoboxes for films, books, albums), and since 99% of images on the internet are copyrighted, it's best to use only images that you have created yourself. There is various information on the subject on pages like WP:IUP and WP:IMAGES and the pages in the See Also sections of those articles. Lastly, if you need help on any matter, type {{help}} on your own Talk page and describe what the question is. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not returning sooner folks. Still need to learn formatting everywhere I work in Wiki. Learning. Last first re NOTA. Thanks for the advice. Just not happy at all with the focus of the article and the way it meanders into non-government subject areas. Perhaps NOTA needs to become a subcategory?? Though it would be easier to split I'd imagine, make more sense. I'll keep thinkin' on it. How to make the last word in NOTA title start with capital letter?? When we passed the resolution back in the 70's in Isla Vista, that is how we worded it, the first and last words beginning with capital letter.

Oh and thanks tons for the | | | | | sure works. Don't know when I'll have need to use it, but ya never know. Cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not returning sooner folks. Still need to learn formatting everywhere I work in Wiki. Learning. Last first re NOTA. Thanks for the advice. Just not happy at all with the focus of the article and the way it meanders into non-government subject areas. Perhaps NOTA needs to become a subcategory?? Though it would be easier to split I'd imagine, make more sense. I'll keep thinkin' on it. How to make the last word in NOTA title start with capital letter?? When we passed the resolution back in the 70's in Isla Vista, that is how we worded it, the first and last words beginning with capital letter.

Oh and thanks tons for the | | | | | sure works. Don't know when I'll have need to use it, but ya never know. Cool.Weathervane13 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving BLP stub AFC article up the assessment scale to Start or C Class or Other Matthew Landy Steen

Hi WikiEditors --

Like many others, I am very new to this process. And have questions. One was already answered browsing Teahouse q and a's, the cite tool in the edit bar. I'll try it for I've been trying to understand the difference in cite styles for different sources -- books, articles in magazines, newspaper articles, archived materials, wiki refs, etc.

Second, clutter in an article. I've decided to include cites in the lede; I was afraid their inclusion would "clutter" the lede, and so kept the cites in the body of the article. Should I remove these cites from the body after I've placed them in the lede. Or -- can I shorten the duplicate cites in the body by footnoting as "ibid"??

Third, I've removed massive overlinks problem entirely I think. I've also eliminated many, if not most, redlinks. According to the new template you folks inserted at the top of the article, there are references that are not germane or are somehow indirect. I can understand this. So, back to the article to edit things not germane. How do I work with this last template. Apparently others in WikiWorld are looking. I ended up in the "top 30" buzzlist a couple of days back. I have chosen to do this BLP the hard way due to the subject matter, thus the AFC. Anyways, I'm hoping (many) others will assist in this.

Fourth, I'm learning Wiki MOS, fast as I can. Navigating all the nooks and crannies of WikiWorld can be challenging. Please bear with me. I've entered q's and comments in my usertalk page and Teahouse guest page and have received some help, mainly with templates, format and cites, which is much appreciated. However, I think this is the place lto go for action, so to say. R/W? You folks are just great! Weathervane13 23:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Glad to see that some of your questions have already been answered Weathervane13, and I'll try to answer the others here in order:
  1. As a general rule, if you have a statement in the lead and the body, it's better to use the citation once, in the body. You can decide to use citations in the lead as well, but as you say it generally results in a cluttered section so general practice is to keep all references out of there as much as possible. If you do put citations in the lead, I would put references at both locations. How do you do this cleanly? Well...
  2. Nope, not ibid. Because of Wikipedia's style, it's very easy to break that system of references. What happens if you have reference one filled out and reference two says ibid, but then someone inserts another reference between the two? Everything goes kaput. Instead, what you want are "named references". You know how a normal reference goes <ref>SOURCE CONTENT</ref>? For a named reference you do <ref name=SOURCENAME>SOURCE CONTENT</ref>, and then just put <ref name=SOURCENAME /> where ever else you want to use that exact source. Did that make sense? This is how you use duplicate references.
  3. One of the main problems with your references is that no one can really see them! For example, reference 7 right now is "New YorkTimes.com/archives/1969/"People's Park Rebellion". Instead of that, could you use the actual URL and just link to it?
  4. Just remember that there is no deadline! Take your time; the article won't disappear in a day.
Now, I think those were our main questions. Is there anything in particular in the article itself that you are looking for help with? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. OK. A couple of three cites in lede. No ibid, huh. Ok. How 'bout cf.? I thinK I can use et seq. for successive pages. I know I can use et al. for a list of persons. I see the problem. Oh, well. I had trouble with your suggestion, but I'll try it again until it works, the good old work ethic. Thanks.Weathervane13 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ibid is possible by the above solution using the |name=. Simply give the reference you want to use multiple times a name by placing that into the ref tag (so e.g.: <ref name="nytimes">http://www.nytim....</ref>) and when you want to reuse it you simply use <ref name="nytimes" /> and the references are listed under the same number. Regards, mabdul 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article created - but missing editing history (cont'd)

Note: This section is intended to be a continuation of the section that is now archived in Archive #10. I'm directed to leave a message on the current page.
Hi DocTree! Well, my userspace article (User:TheBlueWizard/Florence Meier Chase) has some "history" stuff that someone might care to look at (Library of Congress links, for example). I will put a note about that on the Florence Meier Chase talk page so one would be aware of that. Then I can edit my "Article started" section to point to the mainspace article, and let the "historians" dig it up if needed. Thanks for your opinion! I feel my approach would leave enough breadcrumbs for anyone to track down, and I shall be done with that. (smile) --TheBlueWizard (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=489603227"