Wikipedia:Teahouse

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235

Status of the status quo's status

If a discussion, which required the assent of a neutral closer, especially a deletion discussion, were to only contain the nominator's voice; and no other's, would that discussion be closed in favor of the nominator's recommendation, or as if there was no consensus for implementing the nominator's recommendation? Thank ye!--PI 007 (do come correct) 10:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks there is a bug.

When adding references I usually use the Wiki Toolbar. But there is something funny going on with it when using the {{cite book}}. If I enter all the boxes of the "chart" including the Ref name and later use this ref with "Named references" I get all kinds of error markings. The automatic reference do not contain the "". This is what it should look like: <ref name="example" /> to work, but this is how it comes out <ref name=example/>. If I add the "" manually it all works. Sometimes this happens with {{cite web}} as well. What is going on?

Another point about the Wiki Toolbar {{cite book}}: Why is it set with "date" instead of "year"? I have to correct it all the time. How often does a book have a "date"? - W.carter (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W.carter. WP:REFNAME says:

Quotes are optional if the only characters used are letters A–Z, a–z, digits 0–9 and the symbols !$%&()*,-.:;<@[]^_`{|}~
Inclusion of any other characters, including spaces, requires that the name be enclosed in double straight quotes (")
Quote-enclosed names may not include a less-than sign (<) or a double straight quote symbol (")
Please consider keeping names simple and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals.

A long spaced ref name like "JP: Small-body Database Browser" in [1] is not recommended. A simple JPL is fine and makes it easier to reuse the reference without careful copy-pasting. It also reduces the risk that somebody who doesn't know the purpose of ref names will change it in one place but not others. I don't even know why there is a colon insted of L and somebody could easily change that. A citation can usually say date when it only gives a year. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PrimeHunter! Thanks for the answer, but I think you got sidetracked from the real question by a typo in Kräklingbo that occurred when I copied the ref from 8682 Kräklingbo. This very long and cumbersome ref was named by the editor who wrote 8682 Kräklingbo and not by me. I have corrected that ref now. A ref name is totally invalid at Kräklingbo since it is only cited once. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

But the problem remains that the automatic cite thing is malfunctioning. Last time it occurred was when I made the <ref name="Linné"> on Kräklingbo and the Toolbar Named references insisted on calling it <ref name=Linné/> (which resulted in red markings) when I added the "" manually to <ref name="Linné" /> it worked just fine. Could it be the ´ that was causing the problem? - W.carter (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref names are allowed but unnecessary when a ref is only used once. A ref name with 'é' requires quotes to be reused. It's best to avoid such characters but it would be good if the toolbar could handle them anyway. I have posted to MediaWiki talk:RefToolbar.js#ref names needing quotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It would be great if it worked. But in the meantime "...avoid the green ones" i.e. steer clear of complicated characters. And how about the date/year question in my initial query? Anyone else thinks that is a bit of? - W.carter (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding a bot

Hey! I'm finding a bot that can put all featured content in WikiProject Professional wrestling, because at the main page there is a section called "Article examples" but I'm in doubt of its completeness especially the DYKs. I know JL-Bot can do the work but there should be a date beside it when adding. Thanks! Fairy Tail Rocks 05:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask on the bot's talk page. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of cite errors

Hi, could a passing editor please take a look at the article Antibiotic acyldepsipeptides. A lot of red "Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page)." are showing up, and I can't seem to pinpoint the issue. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to resolve quite a few of them by using the "Named references" tool in refToolbar, but there are still a few cite errors that I'm confused about. What's going on? Thanks again, Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had curly quotes rather than straight quotes. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility. After removing all the quotes, everything resolved. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still had one ref shown as used but not defined, & I've cured that by changing the curly quotes to straight. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are certain categories deleted while similar ones persist?

Some examples of deleted categories: Category:Conservatives, Category:Liberals, Category:Progressives.

Some examples of similar categories that persist: Category:Anarchists, Category:Communists, Category:Fascists, Category:Libertarians, Category:Socialists.

--DigitalBluster (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added colons to your category links so they work instead of categorizing this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was puzzling. --DigitalBluster (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DigitalBluster. I don't know the answer to your question, but it seems to me that the categories you have said have been deleted are less clear (more relative) than the others. While we may disagree about whether a particular person (or party) is or isn't anarchistic, communist, fascist, or libertarian, most people more or less agree what those terms mean. But what we mean by conservative, liberal, progressive is more variable, particularly from country to country. (I would put 'socialist' in that latter group, rather than the former). --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ColinFine. These are for categorizing individuals (e.g., "Anarchists"), and are not for placing articles related to a topic (e.g., "Anarchism"). No matter how well-defined we may think some of these are, they are bound to create friction when placing individuals who have not self-identified with the label. I'm OK with friction because I find the usefulness of the categories overrides that concern, which is why I object to the deletions. My personal hypothesis is that the deleted categories fall within the range of the acceptable, according to Overton's window, and so are more likely to raise disruptive levels of friction because most people identify with one of them. Whereas the undeleted categories fall within the range of the radical, or even unthinkable, and so only a minority will identify with them and the majority are more comfortable applying those labels. But, it's just a hypothesis. Whatever the case, I'd like to see less structural bias. --DigitalBluster (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DigitalBluster. I take your point that these are about self-identification only. But the problem I was pointing up is that "liberal" for example, is a category that many American politicians might subscribe to, but British politicians are unlikely to do so unless they were supporters of the (now defunct) Liberal Party (UK), or possibly its successor the Liberal Democratic Party (UK): the word is rarely used in the American political sense. So if you are only interested in American politicians, that's fine, (but the category name should say so), and if you're not, the category will omit many politicians whose views probably match what you're looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on liberalism covers a very broad, international scope, suggesting that it would be reasonable to apply the category to anyone who fits the description under any reasonable interpretation of the various flavors of liberalism -- the same criteria that, presumably, is used when applying any of the existing categories. And the same goes for conservatives and progressives. Moreover, this applies equally to the existing categories. Anarchists come in more flavors than perhaps any other political ideology. Communists may rival anarchists, as the variants listed in the main article demonstrate. And socialists are so varied that the term has begun to rival liberalism in its scope, with everyone from Karl Marx to Bernie Sanders claiming the label. As for fascists, I can't imagine a more contentious label. Despite the vast scope of most of these categories, and despite the potential friction arising from their use, they are maintained. They're applied to individuals who've accepted them, and even to those who may not have accepted them, but whom editors have deemed to have fit the description based on reasonable criteria. I remain unconvinced that there is any good reason not to maintain those deleted categories. I believe that their deletion detracts from the value of the project. Is there a way that I can raise this issue formally? --DigitalBluster (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My editing were not Published.

Couple of week ago, i made some editing in a biographical article, The changes were authentic and suitable for publication. But after six weeks it is not published yet.

The article was Imran khan of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimoor.utmankhel (talk • contribs) 09:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Taimoor.utmankhel. As far as I can see, the only edit you made to Imran Khan was to change the photo to one which didn't actually exist (it was deleted from Wikipedia in 2011, and the deletion record points to a photo on Commons Commons:File:Imraan Khan, which is of a different Imran Khan), so somebody reverted your change soon after. What were you trying to achieve?--ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

Hey, The questions asked using ask a question button are disappearing ! After checking I found that they are being posted above the line. Is that another bug? Hg andVenus 08:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:HgandVenus! Something was messed up in the top of the page, I hope I've fixed it now. :) heather walls (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heatherawalls: I don't use the feature any more after the questions got posted to the bottom of the page. Thanks, Mat ty.007 10:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review over?

Is it the end of editor review ? And if it is, where will the current requests go? Hg andVenus 08:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:Editor review is more or less done. However, nothing should be done to that page or the individual review pages; it's already marked as historical. Ansh666 03:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alert for editathon today

Hello all. I used to edit a lot, but not so much in recent years. Today I am hosting my first editathon, in honour of prolific editor Dr Adrianne Wadewitz. It kicks off in an hour. I've just been reminded of the existence of the Teahouse, which I've not really used, because it wasn't around ten years ago! I may be pointing new editors this way. Your help would be much appreciated. Carbon Caryatid (talk)

Why doesn't my sig display properly above? It does here, in preview. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carbon Caryatid!. There was a bug which caused questions to be placed at the top of the allotted area, which so questions could not be previewed. I found the problem and moved your question below. Your sig was still like ~~~~, so when I looked at the preview of my changes, I saw that instead of yours, my signature appeared. So I copied Carbon Caryatid (talk) from the edit summary and pasted it here. I was in too busy to link it, sorry! Hg andVenus 11:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update at German Wikipedia?

Hi, I noticed that there is a translation of the Annie Haslam article on the German Wikipedia. However, this appears to be a very old version. Is it possible for me to request a more up to date translation, and how do I go about it? I don't speak German. Thanking you in anticipation.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CaesarsPalaceDude and welcome to the Teahouse. You could add Category:Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia to the article then leave a note on the associated talk page explaining what's required. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philg88, thanks for your post. I would like the English Wikipedia article of Annie Haslam translated into German, and then replace the German Wikipedia article of the same name (which appears to be a couple of years out of date). I think this is the opposite of your answer. Kind regards.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, it's the other way around, sorry CaesarsPalaceDude! In which case you are going to need to make the request at German Wikipedia's translation project. That will be tricky as you don't speak German. You could try posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany and see if anyone is interested in helping you. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Philg88, that's very helpful, and ... er, tricky.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not too tricky, as being translators, they should understand if you request in English!SovalValtos (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could always use Google translate but that may just confuse them more.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to set up a new page

Help!!! I finally figured out how to edit but I cannot understand how to set up a new page can I please have some help????

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythonessofdelphi (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few useful links to your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythonessofdelphi: Welcome to the Teahouse. To create a page, one generally sets up a subpage in userspace and works on it there until they think it's ready. If you click on this link - User:Pythonessofdelphi/sandbox, you can add your article content in the window below. You don't have to do it all in one sitting. An experienced user would generally just move it into article space, but since you're new, you should add {{subst:submit}} onto the draft so someone else can look at it and decide if it's ready. Hope this helps. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 23:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how do u create a new page?

Firemaster56 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firemaster56 and welcome to the Teahouse, you can create a new page using the Article Wizard, a tool to help beginners create pages. You can also create a new page by clicking the red link that comes up when you search for something that does not exist. Although that would be risky since it might get deletedTheQ Editor (Talk) 22:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but where is the article wizard on the homepage Firemaster56 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Firemaster56 and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Creating articles on Wikipedia is very easy, but making sure the article is notable, referenced correctly and within the standards of the project is more daunting. For this reason we encourage new editors use Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions. So that your draft can be reviewed by more experienced editors. This is not a requirement however and creating an article is as easy as searching for the subject, determining that it is red linked (meaning the article does not exist) and also making sure the subject is not covered in a different manner than the search term may have covered. Once a red link is found, click on it and the edit window will open and you can create the new article. Remember that you must have references from reliable sources or the article is likely to be deleted.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Firemaster56. I don't know whether it has ever been discussed to put a link to the Article Wizard on the main page, but I can think of two reasons why this would not be a good idea in my opinion. First, the vast majority of people who look at Wikipedia are readers, not editors, so I don't think we should take up space on the main page with editors' links. Secondly, creating a page that will stick is not easy, and I would advise anybody to spend some time working on existing articles before trying to create one. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new section about an album

Hello--

I was looking at a page for an album which I have researched. I would like to add information about the album, but the only sections are for the critical reception, tracklisting, and singles/video information. How do I add a section that deals with the concepts and meanings of the songs? Thank you. 12.148.211.210 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, person with an IP of 12.148.211.210. You don't say what slbum, which might be helpful. Every article has a talk page, so the best thing to do if the article has people watching it is to post on the talk page what you want to do, and make sure there are independent reliable sources with a neutral point of view. If the talk page is not active, you might be safe just adding the information with a separate heading such as "==Concepts and meanings of the songs==" (put that below the text you want it to follow). It might go last before "References". If you just go ahead and add it, someone might come along and tell you if you did the right thing. Good luck— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But please be aware that Wikipedia does not permit original research. If there are reliable published sources which discuss the concepts and meanings of the songs, then you may write a section based on those sources (which you must reference). But if you add discussion of that kind which is not from reliable sources, or go beyond what the sources say, it will almost certainly get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to jump in—I don't want to side-track your discussion. Just a point of clarification: my understanding is not that everything must be referenced with a citation, but rather than everything must be verifiable, meaning it could be referenced using a reliable source if needed (for instance, if it is likely to be challenged). Is that right?Keihatsu ^talk 03:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keihatsu. The relevant policy language about verifiability says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." There are some assertions that are so unlikely to be challenged that a citation isn't needed, such as mentioning in other articles that London is the largest city in the United Kingdom or that George Washington was the first president of the United States. But it is best practice to provide citations for all significant claims, especially for claims about the "concepts and meanings of songs", since this is definitely something that should be attributed to an expert music critic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And material about the concepts and meanings of songs is among the most likely to be challenged. --ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of page

I am not sure how to get a page back...it was marked for deletion??? ThanksDrReinoso (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrReinoso, and welcome to the Teahouse. You must be referring to Banmi Shofu Ryu, which was deleted as a copyright infringement of this page. I see you contested it, saying that you had permission from the author of the page. That is only one possible reason for deleting this page. Another is G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. And you had no sources. If you can find reliable, independent sources that establish the notability of the subject, you could simply re-create the page. If you try to restore the page as it was, though, it will be speedily deleted again. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article you are talking about is Banmi Shofu Ryu then your article is deleted under speedy deletion because of the copyright infringement. You have mentioned in its talk page that you have permission from the site to use its content but this claim needs verification. So, you can create the article again but try creating using Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Then your article will be reviewed and then published. If the reviewer finds some problems in your draft he will mention them on the draft and you can address them. There will be less chances of your article being deleted. Avoid copyright infringement. Abhinav0908 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you do have permission, it must be communicated to the Foundation via the process described on this page.--ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dealing with a deletion issue that needs to be escalated beyond wiki volunteers.

the admin who deleted my page is on leave see link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Courcelles so i need someone else PLEASE to assist. I was told by someone at wikimedia.org to email info-en. so I did. and they sent me here bc the situation is outside the scope of what they do. 74.101.231.61 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you haven't logged in, we don't know which article you are talking about. Please tell us the name of the article and someone can have a look to see if it is suitable to be userfied (guessing that this is what you want). Nthep (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even when we do know which article you referred to, there isn't any power higher than the Wikipedia community that decides deletion issues. There is no editor-in-chief and no editorial board. Wikipedia has inclusion criteria and policies and guidelines as to appropriate content. Questions about whether an article complies with those policies and guidelines are decided by community consensus.--ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware that Courcelles is not "on leave", but has posted a statement about health problems that might interfere with editing. As a matter of fact, Courcelles has edited in recent hours. A request on that editor's talk page remains the logical place to begin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you guys know the "this user is busy in real life" template?

I was previously collaborating with some editors, but I've become very busy in real life. I know this template exists, I've seen it before, but now cannot find it. Would any of you know by chance? Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 13:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the guys don't know, the gals might. {{Busy}}--Anne F. Figy (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick, there is a wide array of various "busy" templates...

Is not an exhaustive list, but should cover any thing that you may want. There is also {{WikibreakSwitch}} which allows you to quickly change wikibreak templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to add references / citations that are neither online nor publications

Hi, this seems a basic question but I have spent some time browsing the help and not yet identified the answer. I want to add some information and associated references to an article on the history of a building. My sources include documents produced by the developers at the time (decades ago). These are not available online nor are they the sort of publication that would be in a library. The obvious thing would seem to be to scan them, upload them somewhere (Wikimedia?) and link to them. Can anyone point me to guidance on how to do this properly, or alternatively on guidance as to what to do about paper sources generally that are not recognised periodicals. Rhanbury (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rhanbury. For the sake of discussion, I will assume that you have reliable sources other than these developer documents that show that the building is notable. The documents are primary sources and must be used with great care. You have to avoid original research. Scanning and uploading is not an option if they were originally published more recently than 1923, since they are then subject to copyright, and we can't link to any such documents unless the copyright holder explicitly agrees to place them online. One possibility is for you to write an article for a historical journal (where original research is fine) and then cite that article in the Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen328. Let me be more specific. I am proposing to add more detail to the page on Hanbury Manor. I didn't write the page, but the original house (now much extended) was built by my great grandfather and I had some tangential involvement at the time of development into a hotel. The last section on the hotel seems light, especially given that its current role adds to its notability, and I was proposing to add for example the dates of development, by whom it was developed, and perhaps the changes of ownership and operator over the years. Although extracting such uncontroversial facts from primary sources seems to be within Wikipedia guidelines, the fact that there is no way of establishing the verifiability of these sources on wikipedia seems to rule them out. The original company is no longer trading, so it would not be realistic to get permission from the copyright owner. The events would undoubtedly have been covered by Hertfordshire newspapers at the time, but that would require going to a library and reviewing a mountain of microfiche which is disproportionate effort to the value of the result. My only alternative other than abandoning the idea seems to be to add the facts, un sourced, and wait to see if anyone else can find citations, which doesn't seem best practice. (Although it turns out I can source some of them - for example I have found a 1994 article from Hotelkeeper and caterer online which has some salient details). Do you have any further thoughts? Rhanbury (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair Use" of non-free media

Hi,

I have already asked this before here, but my question some how got mixed in with somebody else's by mistake, which might have made my question difficult to follow. I am not shopping around for a particular answer; I am just interested in getting a little more clarification. I've looked at WP:NFCCP, Template:Non-free television screenshot, etc., but I'm still not quite sure as to what I am allowed to do.

I've been primarily working on shogi-related articles. Some of the stuff I've created so far has to do with professional shogi tournaments held in Japan. Since there is very little source information on these tournaments in English, I have been primarily citing Japanese sources. I would like to add a few pictures to these articles such as [2], and [3], etc. that I can get online and possibly some screenshots I can take myself. I understand that I do not hold the copyrights on any of these images, but there is no free content available or that could be created of the images I want to use. FWIW, I do not plan to upload anything to Wikicommons because of their policies regarding "fair use" media; I just want to know if I can use it on English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally to be in line with 'fair-use' and to not have the image deleted, the image has to be low resolution, where no free substitute exists. If you look at this image you can see an image added that is very low resolution, (even lower than the 480i of the original broadcast) and has a very good fair-use rationale. In short, if you upload an image to Wikipedia and it isn't free, you have to provide a very good reason. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it must comply with all of the non-free content criteria. Note that those criteria are more strict than "fair use" under US copyright law.--ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Host

What does it take to be a teahouse host ? Hg andVenus 07:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HgandVenus. The expectation is that a host should have sufficient experience and familiarity with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and culture to offer helpful, constructive and friendly answers. I recall a few cases when aspiring hosts had to be told, "you are not yet ready". But anyone who recognizes their own limits is welcome to pitch in and help out here. Though I am among the most experienced hosts, I know that I am not the best to answer certain questions, and I simply remain silent then. That is a skill as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect everybody wont be happy with me asking too many questions but, I have one more: Is there anywhere in Wikipedia where you can identify an image ? Hg andVenus 07:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am off to bed so may not be able to answer, but your questions are fine. Can you please clarify what you mean by "identify an image", HgandVenus? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: For example, I have uploaded an image of a cactus. I want somebody to identify which species is it. Where should I go then ? Hg andVenus 09:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HgandVenus, I'm sure that Cullen328 won't mind me responding while he gets some well-deserved rest. I suggest that you post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants with a link to the image. Hopefully someone there can identify the species. I had the same question over a tropical spider once. I thought I'd discovered a new species until I asked a Wikipedian ... sigh .... Good luck, Philg88 ^♦talk 09:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science often receives, and answers, questions like this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, and no offence meant to Philg88, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, like all talk pages, is meant to be for discussing improvements to the encyclopedia. The Reference Desk is the correct place for this sort of question. Rojomoke (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point Rojomoke. My apologies. I thought maybe the editor wanted to add the pic to an existing article. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even have to be a host. I just come here and read and learn a lot, and if I find a question that is unanswered or realize I can add helpful information, I do what I can. Most people can do better than I can, but at least I'm doing something.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The projects are the best place to ask for an identification of a plant for the precise reason that such identification would be an improvement of the encyclopedia. Lets not over think things. What would be inappropriate, would be to have a general discussion of the plant. But asking for identification of an image is part of the reason why we have collaborations such as Project Plants.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol confusion

This sometimes comes up when I am new-page patrolling. I find a page is promotional, and then mark it for speedy deletion. Few minutes later the author of the article comes up with his defence that he has changed the text to make it look like it is not promotional. I now look at the article and find that all the text that makes the article promotional is gone. What should I do? Hg andVenus 05:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again HgandVenus. If the problem that led you to tag an article has been resolved, then simply remove that tag. I recommend adding the article to your watch list, to help ensure that promotional language isn't added back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bug probably out there

Twice in the past five minutes, I've been trying to reply to a question using the Join this Discussion button, and when I clicked add my response, my response has been appearing in the question situated above the question I was originally intending to answer. Could somebody please fix the problem ? Hg andVenus 05:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the same bug from time to time HgandVenus, but I am not a skilled code monkey so have no idea what causes it. I have tried editing the entire page rather than the specific thread, or I wait until "some genius" fixes it, which seems to happen promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More bugs out there now. I cannot ask a question using the ask the question button. Hg andVenus 07:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain the response I fixed yesterday.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My draft article needs a logo - how can I add it?

I'm editing a draft page about a nonprofit organisation. I have full permission to use the logo for this purpose - but as a logo I can't reasonably make it a wiki commons image. And because it's a draft article I cannot upload it as non-free - the file upload wizard tells me 'Please upload this file only if it is going to be used in an _actual_ article.'. Which, of course, is exactly the point of uploading it. And of course I don't really want to make the article public before I have the correct image in place. Seems to be a catch-22. What have I missed?

SLR Ellison (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slrellison, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article can survive a few minutes in article space without a logo - or a few months for that matter. Just create the page and then download the image. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably can ... it just seems an odd restriction if the image is legit.

Ay well. Wait it out, it is, then.

SLR Ellison (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mmm... should have said - the article (draft:Eurachem) is in the article review queue. That seemed a good idea at the time, as I'm new to page creation. But I wanted the draft to have the correct image so reviewers didn't castigate me for the wrong pic, and that's where I bumped into the catch-20-something.

Still, your words remain true. If there's no simple fix, leaving it logo-free for now may have to do.

SLR Ellison (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slrellison, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assure you that no reviewer will "castigate" you about the lack of a non-free logo in a draft article. This is routine business for experienced editors. We work on draft articles until they are ready for main space. Once they are in main space, we immediately add the appropriate non-free images, and categorize the articles. This is the normal flow of work, well understood by editors who have a few article creations to their credit. Think of it this way: use of a non-free image is an acceptable infringement of copyright under the legal principle of Fair use to improve an encyclopedia article. But that is not justified in a draft that in many, many cases will never become an actual encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen: thanks- I'd kind of worked out the logic but the confirmation is very welcome.

SLR Ellison (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

publish content from a sandbox?

I recently joined Wikipedia and used my sandbox as a practice space for an article. Can I publish from there or am I to copy & paste the content once I am pleased with it to a new page for approval? Also may I ask someone else to please take a look at what I have written offer feedback that would make it better? Reetersivad (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that it would be great if someone were to look over what I have written to offer suggestions on how to make it better.

Reetersivad (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Reetersivad, and welcome to the Teahouse. You could submit the draft for review by clicking the button. But then you might wait a month for a review. Or you could create Bob Davis (businessman) (there are lots of Bob Davises) and copy your content into it. Your article is looking good, so I would recommend the latter. Make sure you delete the sandbox template; and you need more citations in the section Notable achievements. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "cutting and pasting", which destroys the history of the development of the article, I recommend "moving" the sandbox draft to the actual article title. That preserves the early history of the article. Please read WP:MOVE for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I don't agree that a move is the best answer for a sandbox. A sandbox is for experimentation, and might get used over and over for different purposes. And it is one person's work. I think histories are only needed when there are multiple contributors. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, RockMagnetist, that histories are only needed when several people have edited the article. But nothing prevents editor A from asking editor B to help out at a sandbox, and editor C noticing the discussion and participating as well. An editor can have as many sandbox pages as he or she wants, and it only takes a few key strokes to create a new one. When someone is curious about how I go about drafting articles, they can look at the edit history of an article and see my very first sketchy edits, and every single subsequent edit. I think that's useful. I will note that I didn't use this technique when writing my earliest articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're a better writer than me - no one has asked me how I do it! I create a separate draft in my userspace for each new article, then I get rid of it after I have moved the content to article space. I used to keep the drafts, but eventually I couldn't find the current drafts for the clutter. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I never use my sandbox for making articles, just for test editing, for the reason RockMagnetist has said. I make a user page for each one. However, I move, not copy the result. Later I delete the user pages which are now just redirects. This preserves the development of the article, so that if it is copied and posted on the Internet somewhere I can prove that I am the one who wrote it, rather than the one who copied it. Also, copy and delete would affect my editing profile - If I create ten articles, using 100 edits each, and they are all deleted except the last ten edits when I paste them into mainspace, it appears to others that I have done very little article creation work and mostly other unspecified edits that weren't worth keeping. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anne. RockMagnetist, you are reminding me that I ought to clean up my userspace, which is nearly as messy as my house. I am reminded of a comment by Phoebe, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board: "Housework is highly overrated". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But not overpaid. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ol' buddy, ol' pal

Is it an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia to use "casual mentions" of the article's subject by referencing them by their forename, which I feel implies familiarity (impinging neutrality)? I understand the guidance at Wikipedia:SAMESURNAME and don't question its appropriateness. I am specifically asking about singular connotations; for example: Noam Chomsky's article, where it says "... born William "Zev" Chomsky ... William researched Medieval Hebrew ... William placed a great emphasis on ...".--Anne F. Figy (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first-name use isn't meant to imply back-slapping intimacy, but purely to disambiguate William Chomsky from his son, who is the subject of the article. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not a question of casually mentioning the article's subject by their first name, as you seem to suggest; that would imply familiarity. "William" has an article of his own, William Chomsky, where he is (properly) referred to as "Chomsky", while his son Noam is mentioned by forename only (piped of course to the article Noam Chomsky). It all seems correct and proper to me. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I unintentionally provided an "out of context" example and apologize for confusing the question. I agree with you that it seems fine and I would use Wikipedia:SAMESURNAME in reasonable justification. I believe you answered my question however, if in fact you said it would not be correct to use the forename "outside of same surname disambiguation". Did I understand this correctly? Thank you?--Anne F. Figy (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that wouldn't be correct at all. Unless talking about a child, I suppose. Calling Noam Chomsky "Noam" in his own article would be ludicrous. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen may be correct that this usage is "ludicrous" but it is all too common in our articles. I change first names to surnames whenever I see this. In the Chomsky case and other articles where we discuss two people with the same surname, I would prefer "William Chomsky" to "William". An exception is people clearly best known by their first name or nickname. We say Cher rather than "Sarkisian". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what's wrong with my page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/California_Innocence_Project

I have no idea how to proceed. Can anyone help me? Thanks so much

My58chevy 58chevy (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The review waiting template was at the bottom of the page, so I moved it. Hope this answers your question. If it doesn't, feel free to ask again. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 23:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

I just made an addition to the entry called 'Ruger Vaquero' and haven't a clue what I'm doing. But, I wanted to get the info out there because it could involve safety. Do you see glaring errors in formatting or placement? I would have liked the author to review this addition before it went in but I didn't know how. Thank You, Gerry Boate Geraldboate (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geraldboate: There are several problems with your entry: For one thing, the reference which you have called #3 could be renumbered at any time. Secondly, Wikipedia editors must use their own words in writing the article, and each fact must be backed up by a reliable published source, not an email, forum posting, blog, etc. A more appropriate way to add this information would be something like this: "According to the manufacturer's specifications (and here add a citation to the appropriate document) the XXX model is intended to use only YYY type ammunition, and not ZZZ, which is similar." Note that I know nothing about weapons, so likely the terminology is wrong, but you get the idea. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help Take 2!

Thanks everyone for your feedback and help so far...

In my previous post Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 211 NathanWubs you mentioned having mentioned that the post in my profile about working for the firm was an issue... That statement was actually suggested to me by another wiki editor saying it was needed. I am new, so I just did that. I didn't want anyone to think I was trying to hide that I worked here because of my username. I have read and understand the conflict of interest policies and several people have mentioned it to me which is why I was seeking help writing the article or with help finding someone I can hand it over to. I am not trying to break any rules, just get the help. I do feel that the story of our firm is worth noting or I wouldn't spend the time working on it. I don't think people will hire our firm because of a wiki posting. I do think the history of our firm is interesting and worth noting.

Anne Delong that long list you are referring to was also suggested as an edit by another editor. They said I needed to support the statement that the firm was community and civic minded by pointing to the organizations we were volunteering and supporting financially. Those are not clients. Those are all our charities or organizations we support either with time or money. I thought it was overkill personally. Plus it took me forever to find a list of all of them. Those are all current, I am sure there are more historically that I do not have record of. That person suggested I link to all their pages or sites. I didn't just because I wasn't sure it even added value to the article. I was hoping to get clarification from someone else on that.

The person who helped me at first was an attorney who happened to be a user on wiki. I can't seem to get in touch with him now. He isn't answering any of my talk messages. He was the one who suggested I look at how other law firms wrote theirs and click on edit to see how they formatted the references and links etc. So basically that is what I have done so far. Anne Delong Where do I find WT:Wikiproject law you referenced in the deleted post I made?

I am definitely not married to this article and am so grateful for all your help guidance and assistance. If there is anyone interested in helping me with specific edits to the article, I would be so appreciative. I realize there are no deadlines and this is a working draft, so I am good with however long it takes and how ever many revisions. I have learned so much already and have so much more to learn. Thanks again all! EpiphanyVP (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, EpiphanyVP, I'm afraid that you have received bad advice from the user who told you to add links to the web pages of various charities, etc. If you had, they would just have been removed. Wikipedia reviewers don't care at all if a firm is civic-minded; it's usually the firms themselves that want to look good by touting their good works on their web site. A firm that has been in the news for being grasping, nasty, and just plain mean may be just as notable! Wikipedia reviewers look for news reports, magazine article, books, etc., written about a firm (and not just the positive reports). Sometimes reports of community involvement get in the news, and that can contribute to notability. One more thing: Have you noticed that your article-to-be has its own talk page? If you want to get into a detailed discussion of what should and shouldn't be in the article, etc., you can always post it there, and then invite other editors to comment. That way the discussion is all in one place instead of a little here and there, and it won't be unexpectedly "archived", as may happen on a help page which is designed for quick Q&A. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WT:Wikiproject law is a WP:redlink because Wikipedia page titles are case-sensitive. I think you intended to go to WT:WikiProject Law. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anne Delong This is good to know. I will go ahead and get rid of those. Where is my article-to-be talk page? I am not sure if I am aware of that or not? Also I went to wikiproject law and they said that page doesn't exist. EpiphanyVP (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EpiphanyVP. Your draft article's talk page is at Draft talk:Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C. - however, nobody has yet created it, so the link appears red. (You can also get to it by picking 'Talk' at the top of the draft article). I have changed the link in your previous post to Anne Delong's user page, rather than the non-existent article called Anne Delong. --ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit part of an article

When I select the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#Commentary I find that the first part of the section is not listed in the edit window, as if it has been partly locked. Surely this should not be the case in an article under dispute.

Why is this happening?

There is a section in the referenced article. When I click on "edit" for that section I get an edit window containing only the second half of the text from the section. So I am unable to edit any of the first part of the section (Commentary). How did some other editors prevent that particular content from being edited or even displayed in the window? and how can I edit it?

I asked this question 5 days ago but I cam to a dead end with no replies.PussBroad (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PussBroad and welcome back to The Teahouse. If you asked the question here, you would have surely gotten some kind of response because if I can answer a question, I won't let it go unanswered. I'll investigate this and see what I can find.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back at the archives you'll see your question, & answer, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 212#Unable to edit part of an article. It was explained that the text in question was transcluded from the other article referred to. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You got the correct reply in 16 minutes when you asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 212#Unable to edit part of an article: The content is at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary. That means you must edit there in order to change the displayed text in both places. The method is described at Help:Labeled section transclusion, but you don't have to understand that page. All you have to do is edit the text at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary, and possibly purge Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation if you want your edit to be reflected right away. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I see what is happening. if you click here you can see the text that can be edited. It's probably better not to edit that text without discussing it because what is happening is called transclusion. The text in that edit window is intended to go on more than one page. For that reason, editing it would be much more controversial than editing it in one article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, It solves the mystery. I didn't understand the first answer.PussBroad (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with conflicting sources on how to categorize a topic

I'd like advice about a situation where there's disagreement about WP:Categorization. When there is disagreement (from sourced material, and among the editors) on how to categorize a topic, how shall this be handled? It certainly doesn't need a Controversy section discussing the disagreement, nor is it clear how to mention it in the text or how to deal with it in relation to related topics. The case I have in mind is an alternative health modality, Rolfing. The debate is whether it should be described as bodywork, manual therapy or manipulative therapy, or massage. Presently the article uses the term massage, however practitioners of Rolfing say that it is not massage. This disagreement comes about because a number of secondary sources call it a type of massage, while a number of other secondary sources avoid using the word massage and some even bother to clarify that it's often mistaken for massage. The word massage is sometimes used by the general population as a synonym for bodywork, yet bodywork practitioners often understand that the term "bodywork" is more inclusive; see bodywork (alternative medicine) for a brief review of this. (The word "massage" comes from the word for dough (masa for instance) and it has a connotation of kneading the muscles. Hands-on approaches that are more sophisticated than kneading will sometimes avoid the term massage.) Another factor: there is a massage tradition that has developed over time, and Rolfing does not have a place within that tradition but rather has its own history, teachers, schools, etc. One cannot attend massage school to learn Rolfing. Is there a WP policy on how to handle this sort of problem? I welcome suggestions, and also if an experienced editor would be interested in collaborating with me to put together a draft of changes to propose to the page's editors, I would appreciate it!Karinpower (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Karinpower and welcome to The Teahouse. I was going to say that you go with what most reliable sources say, because Wikipedia is concerned with with reliable sources say about a subject. You don't make clear whether more sources say the term "massage" should be used, or whether more sources say that it shouldn't. I would say that the article should mention that some people do not consider rolfing to be massage, but I doubt that this will be the prevailing point of view, meaning the article probably will continue to call rolfing "massage" even if the opposing view is presented as just that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't help further. Your talk page already has what I said, but stated in a much better way.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I would say that the more authoritative sources (the ones that seem familiar with the topic of Rolfing rather than sloppily researched as some are) tend to say not massage. This is because the field itself considers it to be not massage, and always has. It seems important to weigh sources on their merit instead of just how many say yes vs. no. Also, some sources use the word "massage," some carefully don't, and others mention the confusion and say definitely "not massage." The sources that explain the confusion offer a convincing argument and I've come to believe that the sources that say "massage" are doing so carelessly rather than as a conscious choice. Thanks again for weighing in. Please consider adding the topic to your watchlist - this is an article than can really use a few additional unbiased parties. --Karinpower (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a question and become confused

Hello,

Can someone please assist? I have an editor who mentioned that a square should not be on the left side of my article? I am confused as I see other pages with this square, specifically ones that are referenced within the article. The editor Vchimpanzee has tagged the article. I have made edits but would like assistance from someone else. What specifically is wrong with the article? Please help edit as I would like the tags removed if the article is okAdBCWi14 (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee seems to be referring to the bullet that was in front of the paragraph. I agree that there shouldn't be bullet points in the lead, but the fix was trivial. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet. That's the word I was looking for. You use that for lists, and one item is not a list. I don't know that there are guidelines that would prevent it, but it just looked strange to me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if by "Tagged" you mean put notices on the page, I did not add those, but other editors have given you advice abut how to fix them.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a question become confused - part 2

Hello again,

The article to be reviewed is Canadian Registered Safety Professional. An editor Vchimpanzee stated that he has never seen a left square on the page? The other associations referenced within the article have this same square - so I don't have a clue what he is talking about. He has asked me to adjust areas within the article which I have done, so I don't know why the square is now a problem. Can someone please assist as I would like the tags removed? I am following the same format as other associations in wiki & they do not have tags, so what am I doing incorrectly? If there is a better way, tell me so I can change exactly. If portions are to be removed tell me so I can change exactly. Thanks in advance70.50.230.65 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AdBCWi14: Hey AdBCWi14. It appears Vchimpanzee is referring in his edit summary to the display of the infobox ({{Infobox organization}}) in the article. I have moved it to the top of the page (but below the maintenance tags) as that is where it normally appears. I too am confused about what Vchimpanzee is referring to as displaying on the left side of the page. AFAICT it is and was at all times since added to the page on the right side of the page (where it appears by default). However, I have seen very odd formatting displays/errors, sometimes specific to the browser being used, when there is an interaction between images, tables of content, infoboxes, templates and so on in proximity to one another. So, it's possible there was something like that going on here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:, if you look at the topic below, the square I was referring to is a "bullet".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All articles require significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I don't see this information - most of the references are to items produced by, or directly relating to, the organization, the others do not give significant coverage.
The article states it is about a certification, but the infobox is about the organization issuing the certificate (which we don't have an article on), and later paragraphs are also about the organization, not the certification.
The article is mainly several sets of bullet-points, whereas we want articles written in prose, and reads partially like "a how" to guide, which contravenes WP:NOTHOWTO. I suspect more significant coverage, and additional information, can be found for the organization, rather than a certificate it issues, and wonder if you should make the main article about the organization, and make the certification a sub-section of that. - Arjayay (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This person has started about half a dozen topics so it's hard to know what advice has already been given. In addition to the one immediately below this one, there are this, this, and this, and the first question I answered. If we look at all those, then we can see all the advice given on this one topic.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

test messageAdBCWi14 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot get to the Canadian Registered Safety Professional question thread? there is no Join discussion indicator on it as this one has - what am I doing wrong?AdBCWi14 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New article linking to other new articles at the same time

Hello, i'm just wondering if it is possible to create an article through article wizard that links to other articles on different pages that I still need to create. How would I go about making one page link to others at the same time? Or do I need to create each article separately and then get each reviewed before I link them all together? Thanks Nmcke (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a link to a page that doesn't yet exist using the normal wikilink procedure. It will appear red, indicating that the page does not yet exist. This is OK. You should not link directly to a draft article from either a draft or an existing article, however you can create a red link to the name it will have when it is a full article. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nmcke. When you add a link to another article, it doesn't connect them to be reviewed together. Each page remains a separate article. The links are just to make it easy for readers for move from one to the next. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you're saying there is no way to have them reviewed together so i'll have to just make them separately and they will be reviewed separately? But it is ok to link to a non-esisting page from a newly created article that still needs to be reviewed? Thanks Nmcke (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are reviewed separately and yes it is OK to make such links. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the references to reliable sources can other editors now take a look at the page Canadian Registered Safety Professional please? Thanks in advance70.50.230.65 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be reviewed by editor

Hello

Can an editor please review my article? I have edited it and it still has a tag on it. The editor that placed the tag is not available. I've adjusted the tone, added more sources and would like assistance to remove the tag. Thanks in advance AdBCWi14 (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse. It does help us, if you tell us which article you are talking about, do I assume it is Canadian Registered Safety Professional? - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is. I suggested Articles For Creation or changing it back to a draft, but I guess this editor doesn't know what to do. I've been helping some, but I think another editor's help would be useful. A move to User:AdBCWi1/Canadian Registered Safety Professional might be the best thing at this point.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdBCWi14. The tags are on the article as the sources you have used as references are too closely associated with the subject. This causes a problem with verifiability and more importantly notability, which are key to the inclusion of an article within Wikipedia. Some of the other references do not mention CRSP at all. You might like to try and find sources that are independent of the organization and which show why it is notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contribs in Preferences, Contribs at edit counter

Why is there a big difference between a user's edit count at Special: Preferences and at X! edit counter? It is not even the number of live edits! Hg andVenus 12:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HgandVenus: Hey HgandVenus. AFAIK the edit count in your preference does not include page moves, any uploads made over existing files or deleted edits, whereas the tool server edit counter includes these. My edit count currently has over a 13,000 edit difference between the two, mostly because of page moves and deleted edits. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces in headers

Hi, is there a policy regarding having headers with spaces (such as == Header ==) or without spaces (such as ==Header==)? I have seen both, and use spaces myself but have seen scripts that leave no spaces. Thanks, Mat ty.007 11:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both markups (with or without spaces) return the same result, so basically, it is exactly the same thing. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated scripts do it with no spaces and I was wondering if there was a policy which stated either way? Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a policy. Help:Section uses both styles. It would be really a pointless policy to have, since both styles return exactly the same result. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply. I was just stumped as to why scripts changed it when there was no rule either way. Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Colour vs. Black and White

I'd like to suggest that Wikipedia favour colour photographs over black and white photos as information-wise colour photographs serve the purpose better. For example: Noam Chomsky 117.199.10.200 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Tea[reply]

Hi, 117.199.10.200, and welcome. Teahouse is a place for asking questions and assistance. If you want to propose a new Wikipedia policy, you should go to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you want to propose a photo in the Noam Chomsky article be changed, you should go to Talk:Noam Chomsky and make a proposal. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

117.199.10.200 also posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Suggestion Colour vs. Black and White. Please only start a discussion in one place. A link to that place can sometimes be posted elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing an image

Hi! I have uploaded an image to accompany an article that I recently created. The trouble is that I need to provide a license statement. The image I've used was provided by the owner of the image and has not been registered for any copyright. It is meant to be available in the public domain. I have marked the option that states that I will send the statement shortly, and I don't want my image to be deleted. How should I proceed here? I haven't been able to find a web source that will just let me register an image as in the public domain.Semanti007 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Semanti007 and welcome to the Teahouse. You've followed the right path with the OTRS email and the image should be safe until one of the OTRS volunteers has processed it. I don't know what the current request queue is like over there, but you should receive a response soon. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semanti007, did you actually sand an e-mail statement to the OTRS team? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije Umm, no I didn't. I just said I would later. I am not sure what I need to send since the image isn't copyrighted at all. Semanti007(talk) 19:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semanti, it is copyrighted. In virtually all countries, including India, copyright is established at the moment the image is created - registration isn't necessary. So the image is copyrighted and the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo (Indian Copyright Act 1957 section 2(d)(iv)), not the subject. So here we need permission from the person who took he photo before it can be used. Nthep (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a personal image. It was taken by someone from the subject's family-- probably her children or husband. What happens in this case? Whom do I ask permission from? And if copyright is automatically established, where do I obtain a license statement from?Semanti007 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer is the copyright owner and is thus the person who needs to give the permission, I believe there is an example format for such a permission/licensing statement somewhere at Commons, unfortunately I don't have the ability to search for it right now - hope someone else can step in and do so soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal" images are copyrighted, Semanti007. When you say the photo was "probably" taken by her husband or children, you are telling us that you are uncertain who the copyright holder is. Unless you can verify this with certainty, and unless that person releases that photo under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then the conclusion is clear: this photo cannot be used on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I CAN verify who the copyright holder is by getting in touch with the subject. Or even source another image, the copyright holder of which I am already certain about. My question is, HOW does one do that-- release the image under an acceptable Creative Commons license? The Creative Commons site clearly says that it does not track or register any details. While copyright may automatically be established the moment the image was taken, HOW does one release the image and provide permission for the same?Semanti007 (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy and I do it all the time for photos that I have taken. I simply go to Wikimedia Commons and upload the photo using their helpful wizard, verifying that I am the photographer and that I release my photo under a Creative Commons license. I don't know what you are saying about "track or register". Of course, they keep very careful track the license status of every one of the images they host. So the photographers of the images in question can do exactly as I have done many times before - upload the images they wish to donate to Wikimedia Commons, where they can then be used by anybody, for any purpose, anywhere, as long as attribution is provided. That's how it works most commonly, although.email permission through OTRS is a slower alternative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Cullen's last point, the process he describes is fine if it is your own photo you are uploading. If you are uploading a photo where the copyright belongs to someone else then the copyright holder needs to follow the procedure laid out at WP:CONSENT and send Wikipedia an email stating which image they are talking about and tellng Wikipedia which licence they are granting permission under. There is a specimen email at WP:CONSENT which you or the copyright holder can cut and paste into an email (this is the process Dodger67 referred to a few posts above). Nthep (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 117.196.102.117 (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People for planet: let us make it a strong reference.

Can anyone agree and help me with drafting this, please?

People for planet (P4P)

Successive reports are warning us that our current methods are pushing life on earth out of balance, in particular through the use of polluting energy sources.

Meaning "people for planet", P4P is a term which people can refer to their willingness as a world community to take care of life on earth.

Ardoc.team (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of your article? Is People for Planet a environmental group or other cause? What sort of coverage do they have in the media? In order for an article to exist, it has to cover a topic that is notable. Articles are created on topics that are well known, not made to make them well known. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 07:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a group and it should not because then it would be restricted to 'members' of a group. I rather would like this to become an open source philosophy, referred to by the abbreviation P4P. E.g. P2P stands for peer-to-peer, P4P stands for 'people for planet'. Ardoc.team (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent idea! Unfortunately, as the idea is not notable nor widespread it doesn't really warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you want to create the page in your userspace and continue to work on it there, feel free and there are lots of editors here to help you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. But I still have a question, because no visitors come to my userspace and if one occasionaly does, they don't give feedback. And I have submitted it for review, then it is declined. Help! Ardoc.team (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ardoc.team, it sounds as though you are trying to promote a new idea. New ideas are great, but encyclopedia articles are only about already well-known subjects that have been reported in the news, written about in magazines or books, etc. For something new, you'd reach more people with a Facebook page, a web site or maybe a blog. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have attracted enough attention for coverage in respected newspapers and magazines, if this does happen, the organization may be notable enough for an article here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC

Hi Ardoc.team! Sorry, but at an encyclopedia, you are generally not allowed to promote anything. So if you are going make such an article, It might be deleted soon afterwards. Hg andVenus 05:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Speaking truthfully

I've learned that editing Wikipedia practically guarantees that you will be challenged; to either speak truthfully, or mouth innuendo that both you and those addressed, know to be bullshit. Should you pretend that everything is copasetic, and force yourself to maintain a collegial tongue? Or should you make damn sure they knew you were there, and that you meant to be heard? Sometimes, to fix stuff, you got to call it what it is, find agreement, and fix it. It is idiocy to know something is "fucked up"; to the point of agreement, and yet: decide to proceed without fixing it. I'm in the midst of a Category:Wikipedia category fiasco and to maintain myself as an editor in good standing, I certainly am unable to speak truthfully; and I think that sucks.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne F. Figy: civility is required by policy here. However, in my opinion this is also the pragmatic approach. Wikipedia is a (massively) collaborative project, it requires discussion in order to achieve progress through consensus. This cannot be accomplished if we drop to the base of this pyramid, even if we are still being truthful. VQuakr (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatic is not my strong suit. Especially when "practical considerations" are impractical; theoretically.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use citations to back you up - articles, books, etc(correct wikipedia citations only). If both sides have evidence to back them up then both are included in the article, usually with a controversy subtitle (with relevant citations to prove the controversy). 117.199.10.200 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Tea[reply]

Talk page archive

Do I need to archive my talk page? If so, how? UserJ Dalek 01:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UserJDalek. Yes, eventually you will have to start archiving your talk page, because people on mobile devices or with slow connections will have difficulty conversing with you because your talk page takes so long to load and so difficult to scroll through. Here are the instructions: Help:Archiving a talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like to archive manually - that's what I do. You can look at the Wikicode on my talk page {User talk:Anne Delong) and archive pages to see how that works. There are also automatic archive processes. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Anne Delong said above is correct. However, this is not an immediate issue for you, UserJDalek, since your talk page now is short and manageable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up all those who cleaned up their own talk pages after reading this! RockMagnetist (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there is no requirement that you archive your talkpage (which is, I think, the gist of the original question), and you are allowed to delete (most) content on your own talkpage without archiving it if you so wish. That said, archival is much preferred to deletion; it makes life far easier for everybody. If manual archiving seems too onerous, you can get a bot to do if for you - see Wikipedia:Archive#Automated_archival for details, or just copy the code at the top of my own talkpage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yunshui. As a dedicated pack rat, I failed to consider and explain the deletion option. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Article please review and a question on draft

Hello,

I've just edited info on my article. Can the article be reviewed by someone? I've adjusted the tone, removed some redundant references and added third party sources. I can still remove some more references but I need help. Someone mentioned that the article was in the article space and should be moved to a draft space if I'm still editing. How do I adjust it to a draft space? and once I send it to draft and edit it, would I have to re-submit it? Or is it best just to continuing to edit in the article space? Please advise. Thanks in advance.AdBCWi14 (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AdBCWi14. Your article can stay in article space. The point about draft space is that it is for a candidate article that will be reviewed by someone before it is created. That is totally optional for a registered user like you (I have never used it); and, intentionally or not, you have bypassed the process and put it in article space. Which is fine. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese characters in an article?

Can a Wikipedia article include Chinese script? When I use Chinese characters in a footnote to an article, they do not appear in the mock-up draft. James A.ubSteele 99.240.248.179 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP address, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question. Yes, an article can have chinese characters. For example, Go (game). Please see Wikipedia:Chinese for more specific details about it. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 23:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is preferable that articles about topics related to cultures that use writing systems other than Latin script also include an alternate rendering of the name of the topic in the relevant script (or scripts). Modern browsers should support the display of these scripts. However, articles in English Wikipedia should not include lengthy passages in languages other than English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. The reason you don't see the Chinese characters may be because you don't have Asian fonts installed. I don't know which operating system you're using, but if it's Windows you can install the requisite fonts from Regional & Language settings in the Control Panel. On a general basis, it's perfectly OK to use Chinese characters in a footnote but you should if possible include a translation and the pinyin equivalent. All Chinese text should be wrapped in a template called {{Zh}}, which has a number of options that affect the display, click on the link for more info. You might also like to read the Chinese style guide and the Chinese naming conventions guide for further details on how Chinese is handled within Wikipedia. There are a handful of Chinese speaking editors around who will be happy to help you. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 05:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't change a file name

I tried to move [[File:Kyah Simon playing agains Japan WNT in 2012.jpg]] but couldn't because I don't have permission. Can anyone help. In the file name, "agains" should be "against". Jodosma (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks Jodosma. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, Jodosma, you can request a file move by placing Template:Rename media on the file page. The reason you couldn't move the file was that only admins and file movers are able to.

Also, a tip: you can link to files by placing a colon before the file name. For example: [[:File:Kyah Simon playing against Japan WNT in 2012.jpg]] will show File:Kyah Simon playing against Japan WNT in 2012.jpg ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, for File:Don't Tap the White Tiles promo art.png, it should be "Tile" not "Tiles". Thanks! --NN4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nahnah4. Thanks guys. I never stop learning on this site (even in my dotage!). Jodosma (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia for years and am still learning. It is a learning process, no one expects overnight experts and the bonus is that there are hundreds of volunteers happy to help you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all your comments on this...I've re-edited to take out the personal references, and also simplified it a bit...would be great to get your thoughts on this one more time...apologies for all the hassle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamal_Fakhro Kalkpmg (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Reviews, but same result - Article Rejected!

Hi, I've been regularly editing & re-editing an article, but I seem to be getting mixed reviews from different users, and it gets rejected by other users for the corrections I make based on one of the user...so one says that 'there in not enough inline citation' and rejects it, and when I make all the inline citations, another user rejects it on the grounds of 'too much inline citation'...any help on getting this approved would be most appreciated!

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

Warm regards Kal Kalkpmg (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually a lousy reason to reject the article. Citekill is not a policy or a guideline nor is it per MOS. It is just an essay.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this person is actually a leading member of the legislature of Bahrain as claimed, then I believe that he meets our WP:POLITICIAN notability guideline, and that the draft article should be approved forthwith. If there is something that I am not seeing, I invite Hasteur to comment here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Kalkpmg and sorry about the frustrating time you seem to be having. I've made a couple of minor edits to the lede of your draft but overall the article looks fine. Jamal is certainly notable and warrants coverage. As a first step I suggest that you move all the references in the lede to the article body (if they are not already there). Per this guideline they are not required so long as the facts stated are backed up with references in the article body. Good luck! Philg88 ^♦talk 07:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WTH? What does that user mean by "too much references"? In this case, our 4 million+ pages will be reduced to 2.9mil. It's ridiculous. That is counted as normal, compared to Taylor Swift, which has 503 references, and YouTube, which has 290 references. Hasteur is just underestimating you and rejecting your article on purpose (at least I think). If the reviewer was me, I will already accept it, as it meet our criteria for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. I agree that it is a lousy reason to reject your article. Cheers! --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 07:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey (Nahnah4—Mark Miller—Philg88—Kalkpmg—Anne Delong), before you go out to crucify me you might want to take a step back and read what I linked (WP:CITEKILL). What I was specifically declining on is the way that the article in question looks now. 3 citations for "Managing partner of KPMG", 5 citations for "Founding Board Member for Pearl Initative", and the cluster of 4 references to the Footer title. In addition I observe that several of the references are the organizations that several of the "references" are links directly to KPMG or to Pearl Initative which he is a board member for which disqualifies them from being valid independent reliable sources. Also, I just realized it, but Kalkpmg has a Conflict of interest that they they need to declare based on their username. As such going over this submission with a very fine toothed comb to ensure Neutral Point of View (the remedy against WP:COI) is in order here. Hasteur (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hasteur, didn't mean to crucify you at all...actually the aim was quite the opposite...I was looking for a bit more guidance in terms of why it was constantly being rejected. It even got rejected by a guy in the past because it said Jamal was the 'First Vice President' and he rejected it on the grounds that how could I say he was the 'First' without even realizing that that was a part of the official title, as they have 'First VP', 'Second VP' as official titles...also my COI issue is also quite the opposite...my aim to ensure that the info mentioned is appropriate, and accurate, as we've had issues in the past with people randomly editing articles to add personal/ emotional issues around key people rather than fact based...so I try and preserve data to only reflect facts. I hope that makes sense...Kalkpmg (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved response to section for which it was intended— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, what you gave as the primary reason in the decline is indeed one of the problems with the article, but it is not the main problem. Among the reasons you give above, all of which are correct, I think the main problem is the over-promotional tone from the COI. Kalkpmg. the first step is to remove the section "Art connoisseur" and condense the other sections into 2 sections: Business career, and Political career. Shorten the lede, moving necessary refs to the main sections. Then remove adjectives of praise, all statements of how important something is--if its important enough to have a WP article, a link is sufficient, and eliminate the use of bold face, except for the first mention of his name. As a matter of style, refer to him either by his last name alone after the first use, not the first name. Promotional writing tells the reader what the subject wants to tell about himself; encyclopedic writing tell the reader what a general reader might want to know. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to cite if I know the company I'm writing on

I'm going to submit an article on a PR company with whom I'm familiar. I've done non-paying interviews with their clients. Do I need to cite this, and if so, where? Deesm (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based off published sources, not merely personal interviews. If the interviews are published by a WP:Reliable source, they could be used. And as always, remain cognizant of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Hope this helps. Chris857 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Deesm: Welcome to the Teahouse. What you are talking about is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The only information that is allowed is something that you can read somewhere and you do need to say where you got it. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners for referencing help and this policy page for more on why original research is not allowed. Whispering 20:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whispering, yes thanks for the feedback. All of my citations are third party and can be found online including some newspaper, .pdf citations, and association sources. I just didn't need to know if I should make known that I'm familiar with the company. I'm not using any original info. 162.200.153.229 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Deesm: You might want to read the policy on conflicts of interest as well, but if you keep your article's wording neutral I don't think there will be a issue. Whispering 15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I'll re-read it. The article is definitely neutral in tone. 162.200.153.229 (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper sources are generally acceptable, but only if they are not based upon the firms own PR for itself. pdf citations depend where they are from--they need to be published by a reliable source, which is a source using proper editorial review and completely independent of the firm. The sources also need to be actual substantial discussions, not mere inclusion on a list, Tributes and the like in "association sources" are sometimes OK, but sometimes not. I think I also need to warn you that articles on PR firms and others in the business of advertising and promotion are checked very carefully to make sure they are not themselves written in a promotional tone. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? PR companies might write in a promotional tone? Yes, if any company could be guilty of that then it would be a PR firm. Btw, I've gone in and edited a few other PR companies. One was just a stub and I added info to that. I'm surprised a stub could get published. Do stubs get published often? Deesm (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policies regarding descriptions of court cases

I got involved in a discussion between a couple of editors after they asked for additional feedback (the Black bike week article if anyone was curious). The dispute was over whether the allegations in a NAACP lawsuit should be presented as objective truth vs. presented as allegations. So like "The restaurant was allegedly closed" as opposed to "The restaurant was closed".

My own viewpoint is that when it comes to either civil or criminal cases, it should always be phrased in terms of what is being alleged instead of "this is the literal truth" regardless of how solid the evidence is. The only exception is if the person has admitted that the allegations against them are true. The editor who feels that it should be presented as truth feels that phrasing such as "alleged" "adds loaded terms to cast doubt on the statements of the NAACP".

For the record, even when a person has been convicted of a crime, I still phrase it that they have been convicted of a crime vs. their guilt as literal truth, if for no other reason than people get wrongfully convicted and sometimes the wrong person loses a lawsuit and I'd rather err on the side of having correct information on Wikipedia.

I know how I personally feel about the topic of factual vs. alleged and I have my own personal guidelines for how I edit articles regarding court cases, but I'm trying to find any established policies that are relevant. Has anyone spotted any guidelines that might help the discussion? Nothing on the NPOV page seems to give any solid answers on this. Thanks. Bali88 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the discussion at Talk:Black Bike Week and I personally agree with a lot of what you say. However, you are asking about guidelines and we seem to be curiously lacking although WP:BLPCRIME, and the pages it links to, may help a bit. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal only seems to deal with technicalities of style. Perhaps it could be extended to deal with the issues you raise. What WP aims to do in such areas of doubt is to refer to highly reliable independent sources and follow their treatment. Maybe such secondary sources can be directly quoted sometimes. WP:Verifiability is crucial, particularly when many statements may be open to being challenged. My general feeling is that after someone has been convicted it is OK to drop "allegedly". Anyway, it's often possible to refer to the statements witnesses made and to the judgement of the court rather than say what someone did or didn't do. WP:NPOV can cut both ways of course – in situations where there has been a possible miscarriage of justice WP needs to be careful not to prejudge that issue either. Hope this helps to some extent, and best wishes for your editing. Thincat (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source

When I was doing some editing one of the editors told me to add the source but since I was new, I had sone trouble.--Funnycoolman (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Funnycoolman. It would be helpful if you told us where you were editing, and what happened, but I guess it was at List of Pokémon: XY episodes. As Ryūlóng said on your talk page, you need to add references to say where the information has been published that you are adding. The reason for this is that if you don't, then nobody reading the article tomorrow or next month or next year can tell whether it is right or not: You might be mistaken, or some vandal might come along later and change the data for a joke. If there is no reference, then there is no way that somebody can be sure; but if you include a published reference for the material, then somebody to whom the information is important can see where to go to check that what the Wikipedia article says is right. For how to make references, please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]