Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Most recent archives
1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227

Draft:VeryApt

User:Dodger67 and I both reviewed Draft:VeryApt and declined it as reading like an advertisement. I then received this message from User:Alishaj98:

Hi Robert, I created the article about the company VeryApt. I closely reviewed all the wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and only wrote facts about the company in timeline format. I'm wondering why it is still considered to be an advertisement and how to fix it.

First, I would appreciate comments from other experienced editors as to whether they think that it reads like an advertisement. I agree that it is less promotional than some drafts that I decline as reading like advertisements.

Second, and this isn’t directly related to the question, and so is a little off the original topic, is it an advertisement, in the sense of being originated by the company? Does the author, Alishaj98, have a connection with the company? (Maybe I have been reviewing at AFC too long, but when I see a new editor edit one article only, I wonder if they are being paid and haven’t made the conflict of interest disclosure and/or the paid editing disclosure.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

when the earth was found?

122.161.244.108 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the question can be answered, but you might get a better explanation of why it can't be answered at the Science Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article rejection

Hello my name is Kwaku and i had an article rejected due to lack of adequate sources. The article in question regards to a magazine called A2.O Magazine which has been working with celebrities from around Africa and young individuals within the continent to create some pretty cool stuff for the entertainment industry.

All the celebrities are popular and most of the same celebrates that featured on the cover or in the magazine feature in wikipedia articles. Was it because there weren't enough sources because I would assume that with the celebrates and new coverage that would have been enough. Ghanaeditor123 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghanaeditor123 - you seem to be misunderstanding our idea of Notability
We are not at all interested in the celebrities, or articles the magazine includes, what it says, or what its Press Releases, website, editor or anyone else connected to it, in any way, say about it.
Notability is solely based upon what reliable, independent sources, who have no connection whatsoever with the magazine, have said about it. Without references showing that the magazine has had substantial coverage, there should not be an article about it. - Arjayay (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@arjayay I didn't mean to say everyone cares about celebrities it was a used as a point of reinforcement to show credibility (I thought since they have been in wikipedia it would help) i wrote my first article on this company because i genially think what they are doing is cool I have no connection to it what so ever, neither do the media outlets that have reported on it.

Wikipedia is a great tool not just for individuals but for companies and I plan to write a few more on other companies. Unfortunately African media is still very pay us and we'll report on you so not everything can be trusted it's unlike more modern first world media where if an individual is doing something great they seek you out and report on you to help build your image. They are a lot of great companies who have local appeal but it's tough for them to get on sites like this.

but if you say the sources are no good they are no good.

Thank you Ghanaeditor123 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

new article submission

Hej there,

I have just created an article about a LED company, the first and the biggest LED distribitor in Denmark. My question is how do i submit it for revision and approval processes ? Thanks in advanced for the help! Ina Matronics (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ina Matronics , you simply add "{{subst:submit}}" including the double curly braces, to the top of the page. That will enter it into the queue for review. However as your username implies that you work for the company you are required to properly declare your conflict of interest by following the instructions at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Account

Hello Editor,,

I created account here (Wikipedia) three weeks ago. Up until date, my account is still incomplete. I uploaded my photo on the day the account was created, but my picture is not on my profile yet. My initial article was deleted. Is it the reason why my account is still incomplete? Please I want my profile to be complete. If there is anything lacking let me know so that I can do it.

Thank you. RobertNwad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertNwad (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RobertNwad, and welcome to the Teahouse. By account and "profile", are you referring to your user page? If so, I see no evidence that you ever created User:RobertNwad or uploaded an image. Edits and uploads are instant. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#New account four days ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you created a draft article that was speedy-deleted as advertising. Other than that, the only involvement that you have had with Wikipedia seems to be to ask this question in two places. What do you mean by wanting your profile to be complete, anyway? You may have a misunderstanding of what the purpose of Wikipedia is. I have posted a long welcome message to you with links to many policies and guidelines. However, Wikipedia is not a social network and is not a directory, and does not have "profiles" in the usual sense, and is not for advertising. If you have any questions, please ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finding clean-up pages?

Is there any easy way to find pages that are in need of copy editing? SteelPanMan (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup. I recommend starting from October 2007(!) In seriousness though, if you'd like a slightly more manageable task you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors - GOCE do a lot of fantastic work and have regular copyediting drives with a few articles you can focus on. Intelligentsium 00:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found good advice on finding articles you are interested in at GOCE here - you may be interested in the copyediting "blitzes" the project offers as well. Intelligentsium 00:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings SteelPanMan – Another place to look for articles is at the Community portal, Help out section. The grid there shows nine different types of updates on a variety of articles, and that page is frequently updated. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few template messages up.

Hi everyone,

I created a Wikipedia page for my boss, Zahra Noorbakhsh, with her full authority and permission. I got the template message for adding additional sources. I have 15 at the moment. Should I add more? What are some other changes you think I should make?

The page is here: Zahra Noorbakhsh

Hannah Alkadi (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest. Please provide the conflict of interest disclosure and, if necessary, the paid editing disclosure. The basic change that you should make is to stop editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, since you have already created the article, you must still make the conflict of interest disclosure and, if necessary, the paid editing disclosure, if you want the privilege of editing anywhere else in Wikipedia, because if you don't, you are likely to be blocked. Go ahead and make the disclosure. You are welcome to add sources and information on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning

What are good things to do to get your feet wet inside Wikipedia? Tuomoseppanen (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tuomoseppanen and welcome to Wikipedia, depends what interests you...

If you want to learn the basics Play The Wikipedia Adventure

You can join a wiki project in an area you know/love Wikipedia:WikiProject

You could start anti-vandalism work by checking the recent changes Special:RecentChanges (also see Wikipedia:Vandalism)

Once you gain some knowledge you can pass it on by answering questions here or other places such as Wikipedia:Help desk or Category:Wikipedians looking for help

You can find other maintenance categories in Category:Wikipedia backlog and get fixing (I found Category:Articles with missing files with 12,000 entries and 100+ a day new that kept me busy for a couple of years)

Hit the Random link on the left menu and see if you can improve

Create new articles via Wikipedia:Articles for creation - see Wikipedia:Your first article

Oh look at Wikipedia:Community portal

Probably lots more but hopefully that should give you a few pointers :) All the best KylieTastic (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question

I am looking for a portrait of a mid 1800's gentleman for an article. After much searching I understand there is a portrait of him while he was a judge in 1859. This portrait is handing on the wall in the Judge's chambers of a courthouse and I have been unsuccessful at getting permission to enter and photograph it. However, in 1960 a centennial book was written that has a picture of his portrait from 1859 in it. This book is out of print and the author has since died but they can be found in law libraries. What issues do I need to be concerned with if I take a digital picture of the picture in the 1960 book that is a picture of a portrait from 1859? Craig (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Craig.cgc. My answer is based on US standards. If the portrait was originally published before 1923, then the image in the 1960 book is free of copyright and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, it can be uploaded here on Wikipedia for use only in the biography of that person, under our policy on use of non-free images, criteria #10. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely the 1859 portrait was commissioned by the State to hang in the courthouse which he presided over. Although I can not be sure, it's unlikely this portrait was published before the inclusion in the 1960 book.

Craig (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, go with the second option I mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side question - what constitutes "publication" in the case of a work of art? Does the act of hanging the original work on a public wall amount to "publication", or is reproduction in a different format (such as a photograph printed in a book) a neccessary precondition for "publication" to have occurred? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Berne Convention talks of the work being "... "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, ...", rather than about publication. David Biddulph (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the US government copyright website "To publish a work is to distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. Publication also includes offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Nthep (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nthep, so it's the distribution of copies that is the critical act. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it would appear - this is quite a useful primer for US works. In this particular case the portrait itself is now probably public domain assuming the artist, if known, died prior to 1 January 1946. If the original artist is unknown then it is definitely public domain. So anyone who can access the courthouse, can take a photo and licence it accordingly. Appreciating Craig's original comment that he can't get access is why we need to know more about the image in the book, otherwise Cullen's suggestion of loading under NFCC is not a bad idea - although some NFCC purist might argue it fails NFCC#1 in that a free image could be obtained i.e. by getting access to the courthouse. Nthep (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all Craig (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia

I need the basic help of creating a page for this actress and model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brifans (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Brifans. I suggest that you consult Wikipedia:Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although if this is about Briana Roy, then please take into account the messages posted on your user talk page regarding your previous attempts to create this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox error

Dear all!

when I try to edit Kohat the following warning appears, in red.

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "1" (this message is shown only in preview).

can anybody please fix this issue?

Finnusertop i need again your help.

Best regards

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this looks like an error in the relevant module which produces the error message. I have raised the question at Module talk:Check for unknown parameters#False positive. I have taken the liberty of modifying your question to include a wikilink to the relevant article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a parameter that was missing the = sign between the parameter name and its value. I fixed it. Not a bug in the module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David Biddulph & Jonesey95

I am extremely grateful for your help
best wishes
Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 08:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you attach a Microsoft Word Document to a Wikipedia talk page?

How do you attach a Microsoft Word Document to a Wikipedia talk page? Gordon410 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gordon410, you don't. Why would you want to to that? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: I want to attach a document of a paper I wrote that is relevant to the discussion on the talk page. Gordon410 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to upload it elsewhere and provide a link to it in the discussion on the talk page, Gordon410. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you message another editor?

How do you personal message another editor? Gordon410 (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gordon410, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every editor has a talk page. Yours is at User talk:Gordon410, mine is at User talk:Cordless Larry, etc. That's the place to leave a message for another editor. Remember that new comments go at the bottom of talk pages, unlike here at the Teahouse where they get posted at the top. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gordon410 (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible to e-mail some editors, if they have enabled that feature, Gordon410. See Wikipedia:Emailing users. However, in the interests of transparency I would suggest using talk pages unless there is a good and legitimate reason not to do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I already have different sources pointing at an article I've just created but the warning hasn't disappeared yet. Can anyone help me? The article is here. Joaofgaguiar (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joaofgaguiar, and welcome to the Teahouse. Those warning templates are added and removed manually. If you look closely, you'll see a link called Learn how and when to remove these template messages. I suggest clicking on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you! I don't know if it'd good to delete the template because the page is considered for deletation. I already posted a comment on the proper deletation page to justify the reliability of the created page and nobody answered. how can I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaofgaguiar (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help

How can I insert images and visual effects on my user page ?100 lion (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100 lion, I recommend you start doing the thing we are here for, which is to create an encyclopaedia. When you have made a few hundred useful edits to articles, then you can start spending time tarting up your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm having trouble with the references in the page I am writing on Eugene Lion. I've nearly fixed the format. The feedback from the reviewer tells me the references are vague. Most are reviews of productions Lion directed or wrote and directed. Two are scholarly comments on one of his plays. I cannot figure out what is wrong with them.Wendy Burton 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyeb (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wendyeb. All that "author unnamed" stuff in your draft is strange and unneeded. We do not point out that some articles are unsigned. But your references lack far more important bibliographic details, such as the titles of the articles. You render names of publications in quotes, while our Manual of style calls for italics. Publications with generic names should include the city of publication. Page numbers should be included if the source is not available online. We do not cite authors just by surname, but include the full author name. You have previously been referred to Referencing for beginners. Please read and study it, and follow its excellent advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wendyeb This is the same advice I already gave you several days ago at User talk:Dodger67#Request on 22:27:14, 18 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wendyeb, more than this we cannot do as we don't have access to the sources, you do. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature appears to be broken, Wendyeb. I suspect this is because you have "Treat the above as wiki markup" ticked in your preferences. Try unticking this box. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyeb (talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Alexander American University" If i don't have many referral links to my website? then what should i do to create wiki page?

We have created a page called Alexander American University. We wanted to provide some information regarding this university to students. To submit it doesn't have many referral links. It is new. What should i do to create wiki page? Give us valuable suggestions. Venkatg889 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Venkatg889. Your draft at User:Venkatg889/sandbox is written like an advert for the school, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Everything in the article should be based on what reliable sources say about the subject. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for some tips about writing an article for the first time. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox draft starts with overtly promotional language such as "being unique in itself emerges to serve the society by educating the determined, Intellectual and ambitious youth of today in the field of medicine who in turn will serve mankind". This type of advertising language belongs in a recruiting brochure, not in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles must be written from the neutral point of view. A properly written Wikipedia article summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about the topic. Your draft article lacks such sources. Please read and study Your first article and completely rewrite your draft based on what you learn there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also lacks context. It reports that "AAU wants to create a warm and a friendly atmosphere to the students in the capital Georgetown". Which Georgetown is that? There are several. What country is the institution based in? Moreover, that wording and other bits such as "We at Alexander American University...", as well as not being encyclopedic, suggest that you might have a relationship with the institution, Venkatg889. If so, please read and follow the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkatg889. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. "to provide some information ... to students" is promotional, but this is an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the university (or any other subject) says about itself, whether in it website, in press releases, in interviews - or writing articles. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the university have published about it in reliable places, and an article about it should be based almost 100% on such sources. --ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

upload

How can I upload my user page on internet to see by other people by searching related article to my page .100 lion (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 100 lion, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your user page is already online, at User:100 lion. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 100 lion
I think you are asking why your userpage is not coming up when looking for it using a search engine? As explained at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing "User:, User talk:, Draft: and Draft talk: namespaces are automatically noindexed via a software setting" - i.e. such pages are not intended to appear in such a search. Wikipedia is not a social media site, or place to promote yourself, or your ideas. - Arjayay (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MISS NAMED AMERICAN HERO

WHY IS THE ARTICLE ON MARINE SNIPPER CARLOS HATHCOCK MISS NAMED ADDELBERT WALDRON?2604:2000:B08D:FE00:49D7:C8CE:5FB2:397E (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Carlos Hathcock includes no mention of another American sniper, Adelbert Waldron. Both are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you still think there is a problem then please give a link to the page where you see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't SHOUT. I very much doubt that anyone who is editing Wikipedia today has a keyboard that isn't capable of typing mixed case. Use it. Yes, it is work, but no more than typing is. Upper case only is universally considered SHOUTING on the Internet, and, in fact, is often ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting size of image files added to Wikipedia

I frequently have trouble with the size of images when I add them to Wikipedia pages. I usually look for the File which is called a thumbnail file but often it will show up as gargantuan. How can I control the size of the images I am posting? For instance, I recently added a file from Wikipedia showing an illustration of iron works to one about Morris Burke Belknap, an early iron foundry entrepreneur. I often have the same problem with image files from Wikimedia Commons, even images which I have submitted myself. Is there a cure-all for this problem?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you upload an image, you should generally upload it with its full size and resolution. When you add an image to an article, you should add it as a thumbnail, or at some other specified size suitable for the page. Maproom (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the guidance at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnails, Mitzi.humphrey? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Maproom, I did not know that helpful information.

Thank you, User:Cordless Larry for the good advice. That is a very long picture tutorial, but I've printed it all for ease of reference. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

non free image ready to upload

I believe I have met the criteria established in the "Non-free use rationale biog" that was emailed to me. How do I upload the photograph to the article side bar? Also, I emailed the legal copyright assignment agreement per Wikipedia request. I do not know if it has been reviewed or "attached" to the article in question. Thank you for all the help! Rae 3328 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rae 3328. Adding images is done in two stages: first the image is uploaded (most conveniently using the Upload wizard); then it can be used in an article. If the file is freely licensed, it should be uploaded to Commons; if it is non-free, then it may only be uploaded to Wikipedia itself. I'm confused as to which you are talking about, because the assignment that you said you mailed is only relevant to a free image (it is the way by which the copyright holder tells the Wikimedia Foundation that it is freely licensed), so the non free content criteria don't apply. If it is freely licensed, then upload it to Commons, giving as the rationale that the email has been sent by the copyright holder.

Once the image has been uploaded to either Commons or Wikipedia, it can then be used in an article: the copyright release is not relevant to this part of the process. The "sidebar" is called an infobox (see Help:Infobox), and you specify the image by giving its name as the argument for an appropriate parameter, probably called "image". (Unfortunately, infoboxes are inconsistent as to whether they want the bare name of the file, or a Wikilink to it: you need to look at the documentation for the particular infobox to know which. For example, if the article is about an artist, you would want {{infobox artist}}, and that link takes you to Template:infobox artist, which tells you that for that particular infobox, "image" wants "just the pagename, without the File:/Image: prefix or [[brackets]]") --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk

I reviewed Draft: Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk and declined it initially. I stated that the subject was ipso facto notable under military notability guidelines by having received Poland’s highest military award, but that the article would need a reference to that effect. Since then, the reference has been added, and the article has been accepted into article space, Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk. However, an unregistered editor, probably its author, logged out, wrote to my talk page:

Thank you kindly for your assistance with regards to Wiki entry Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk. However there are still a number of points with which you could help me. Furthermore I still need to finalise the Infobox for Military Person - perhaps you could advise me?

I am not an expert in infoboxes, and maybe someone else can help. Also what are the additional points? I do see that there are several external URLs in the article linking to Wikipedia that should be changed to internal wikilinks. If the author needs help with them, maybe someone here can help. I would tag the article for cleanup due to the URLs, except that maybe someone will help with them. User: Bronka2016 – Please log in before editing. What are your questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the military infoboxes, but I think I turned all the external links into wikilinks. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh

Thank you. I corrected typos in the wikilinks. The references can still use improvement. What are the questions, about the infobox or about anything else? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant infobox template, plus its documentation, can be found at Template:Infobox military person. I recommend copying the template and pasting it into a blank sandbox page. Then, begin filling in the relevant fields, saving and checking as you go. Non-applicable fields should be left blank and will not display. It is useful to study how the infoboxes are coded in similar articles. Once you have the infobox the way you want it, copy and paste it to the top of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to edit a logo.

Hello, I've noticed that The Ramones logo is incorrect. As an avid fan I want to change this mistake. How can I change the logo without infringing on copyright laws? The logo is wrong! Watermelonfree (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watermelonfree
Can you please cite a reference to explain why the existing logo is "wrong" and give an example of the "correct" logo, and a reference to show why tha is the correct one - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's incorrect because the ending members were Johnny, Joey, Deedee, and Tommy. The logo on the wiki page does not include Tommy who joined the band in the original four years and rejoined the band until they disbanded in 1996. He was also the last band member alive until 2014. Marky was disbanded after the release of "Subterranean Jungle" due to alcoholism. Richie left in 1987 because he was made he wasn't getting his fair share of t-shirt sales. It's says in the first paragraph of the page that Tommy was the original member and that is how the band is represented today. It's just more accurate. Watermelonfree (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Watermelonfree. The article Ramones says "Over the years the names in the border would change as the band's line-up fluctuated". Given that, I can't see how any particular version is more right or wrong than any other; perhaps the caption should say when that version of the logo was current (the further information available by clicking on the image does so). Given that, I don't think you should change it without getting consensus: please start a discussion on Talk:Ramones, and see if anybody agrees (or disagrees).

If consensus is that it should be changed, then normally the way to include a logo is to upload it from somewhere. Editing an image is not something that can be done inside Wikipedia: you would need to edit outside Wikipedia, and then upload it. Most logos are copyright, but can be used in Wikipedia as long as that use satisfies all the criteria in the Non free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples Privacy

Hello.

I am a former pupil of Queen Anne Grammar School in York and a new member of Wikipedia. I am editing information on the Queen Anne Grammar School page from my own inside knowledge of the school.

Would I be able to write a list of the names of the last members of staff along with the subject they taught or would this be infringement of their privacy?

I've seen other websites writing about this school, mentioning staff members names - though these are mostly newspapers that probably got their permission first!

I don't want to do anything I'm not supposed to.

Thank you.

BlueRouge (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlueRouge. Thank you for wanting to help, and for coming here and asking. The first answer is that you should put absolutely nothing in the article which is not backed up by a reliable published source: I'm afraid your own knowledge is not acceptable as a source. As far as possible these should be sources with no connection to the school, but non-independent sources (such as the school's own website) may be used for uncontroversial factual data.

In my view, a list of staff and their subjects, while it can probably be validly sourced from the school's website (I'm guessing), is simply not encyclopaedic, and should not be listed. The head teacher certainly should be named, and possibly previous head teachers (though I don't think a full historical list would be justified); but I don't believe other teachers belong in the article, unless they are notable in their own right, or they figure significantly in independently published material about the school.

Privacy is an issue, but it is just part of a more general policy on biographies of living people: if information about an individual is to be found in a reliable published source, it may be used (if appropriate) in a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines - specifically, the guidance on what should/should not be included is at WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, which, in What not to include includes:-
"lists or detailed information about current or former pupils, parents of current or former pupils, administrative staff, school secretaries, teachers etc. is usually inappropriate"
The guidance does allow "current and former teachers if they are notable in their own right (for example, they are published authors or they have won a teaching award)" - Arjayay (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caught between differing reasons for decline

Hi there, I have spent hours reading the help/FAQs/style/sources/neutrality pages, and at this point would be enormously, immensely grateful for specific advice on exactly which parts of the article integrated landscape management need to change for this to be accepted. Happily, I do not need help with notability :-)

Both reviews mention the sources in the decline, but these are overwhelmingly peer-reviewed articles, many of which are secondary analyses of primary work (the others mainly support notability, showing take-up by intergovernmental bodies and international organisations). The second decline also says there must be no original thought (I can assure you, there is none, all I am attempting to do is summarise the published sources). In good faith I am doing all I can to be encyclopedic, and at this point do not know which bits are left that are still not in the correct tone.

I feel a bit trapped between the two sets of reviews: the first decline said I had to avoid using bullet points, outline form or being a how-to guide, and use paragraphs instead; having made changes, these issues no longer cause a problem for the second review, but it now says it reads too much like an essay. Similarly, the first review said I had to explain better why the topic is important (while being more neutral), but despite taking out anything remotely like puffery or peacock terms, the second decline still says it needs to be more neutral - I do not know what more I can do to be more neutral, without losing the changes I made in order to explain the topic’s importance.

I know you are very busy, but at this point I am truly stuck without a much clearer idea of just which bits of this need to change. Pathetically huge thanks for any help!! Hazel Gough (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Draft:Integrated landscape management. My own comment is that, after reading the draft, I have little idea what it is about. The opening sentence tells me what integrated landscape management involves, but not what it is. For example: if an 18th-century European nobleman, living in his private park and owning and drawing rents from all the nearby farms, arranges things so as to improve the views and the hunting, is he doing "integrated landscape management"? I really have no idea, and the article does nothing to tell me. Maproom (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazel Gough: Greetings and Welcome to the Teahouse! While I am no expert on this topic, I did update this article draft with copy-edits, particularly, remove "Introduction" section as that title is not needed there. The start of the article is the WP:Lead section and generally follows a standard format, with a max of 4 summary paragraphs. Also, I did try to simplify some of the section first sentences. It is important for our general Wikipedia reader to see at-a-glance a short explanation of each section's content that follows.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks ::@Maproom: and ::@JoeHebda:. I will have a little think and address your very sensible points. (Oh dear Maproom, I'm sorry it's still so dense!) While I don't doubt this will improve the article, the points you raise aren't the same as the reasons for decline i.e. sources, neutrality, encyclopedic/essay tone. So I could still really do with some help on how to address those specific reasons for decline, as I would dearly love for this to be accepted next time around.

(BTW, I have struggled to come up with a clearer way of introducing the thing, as there are so many competing definitions out there, and no doubt their proliferation is due in part to the inadequacy of preceeding defintions, but I will most certainly see what better description there is, to set that 18th century nobleman straight.)Hazel Gough (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @Maproom: and @JoeHebda: for your suggestions. I have edited the article to try to make it clearer (i.e. the nobleman question) and especially to improve the lead section (very helpful link, thank you). I'll resubmit the article later today - but if you have time to take yet another look, and if you see anything that still leaves a reason for decline, it would be really wonderfil if you could please let me know. I'm a bit nervous about it still, as I'm not 100% sure that the changes to address your comments necessarily address the reviewer's reason for decline, but hopefully it will scrape through!!

Also, thanks for making some edits - I confess I only just realised these had happened, so am not sure whether any might have suffered in my general re-editing and review of the thing. And @Maproom: thanks for the 'See also' list: I deleted one that was less relevant and added some that are more relevant. Hopefully the improvements to the article will better explain why... Hazel Gough (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Gough: I've made some minor copyedits to the draft, but I don't think I've touched the 'See also' list. The draft is hard to understand because it uses familiar words, e.g. "silo", in unfamiliar senses, without explanation. "Landscape" may be another such word, I really don't know what it means in the draft. "Watershed" I figured out, as being used in what is, for me, not its most familiar sense; I tried to clarify this with a wikilink. Maproom (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @Maproom:. I've tried to explain 'silo' a bit better, replaced that reference to 'watershed' entirely, and added an explanantion of 'landscape' (though in this case, landscape is being used in more or less the normal way - it's just intrinsically hard to define and adding 'heterogenous geographic area' might only be of marginal assistance!!). Anyway, I've attempted to address your comments, JoeHebda's, and tried to do something to respond to the previous reviewer, though as per my original tearoom post, I'm a bit unsure what exactly to do there. I've resubmitted it so we'll just see what happens. Any more tips while it awaits rereview would of course be warmly welcomed, either from you, other tearoom helpers, or @LaMona:, who did the last review...Hazel Gough (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the "landscape" of the article and its references is what many people would call "land", as in land use. Maproom (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved it out of draft space to article space. Sorry if I stepped on reviewers' toes - if they feel I was being too bold, they could undo it. It's not perfect - a little jargon-y and too much bolding - but then many or most articles on WP are imperfect. Plenty of references. Novickas (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could use some improvement, but most articles here do. Specifically, there's too much bolding and some jargon - politically active people are used to seeing the word stakeholders, but it could be rewritten along the lines of "landowners and land users." To my mind, the United Nations Environment Programme article [1] and the 40-some book refs for this term [2] make it notable. Novickas (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

How can a user create his own new userbox? Rainbow Archer (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbow Archer: Greetings. Some advice and guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Creating a new userbox. When I made the one on my user page, I just copied the code for an existing one (I don't remember which), replacing the text and image. Deor (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox page has a generic template you can copy. Also, I keep a blank copy in my main sandbox, here. Feel free to copy-paste it and use; you can find a picture, change the text to whatever you want, and change the colors. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using image with custom size

I want to use an image file, File:PD-icon.svg, on my talk page, but in a smaller size than the smallest version available. I tried to use HTML <img src=... width=...> but the code just appeared literally. How can I do this? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: I think you should be able to adjust the size of the image in the same way you would adjust a regular thumbnail (just without the thumb part); Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Plain pictures explains this in greater detail. Assuming that you wanted the file to display at a width of 64px (according to the commented-out code on your talk page), you could just put [[File:PD-icon.svg|64px]] on your page (note that the width= is unnecessary). CabbagePotato (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CabbagePotato: Thanks, that did the trick! --Thnidu (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Lessknownhistory

Hi!

It's reassuring to be in the friendly Teahouse! But, I am still not sure whether this would reach its intended destination!!.... I am also not sure whether I am still technically informed enough to ask communicative questions. Sad though!!!

1. I have an article nearly done in the Sandbox of my user account : Lessknownhistory. I wish that it becomes more visible to all users with its article title rather than my user name (as it seems to happen now)!! What should I do with the article in my Sandbox? It was moved into its current place once. How do I retain the specific title of the article rather than my username when I do it?(My reading through the instructional material was engaging but confusing! My problem though). Pl do help even if I am asking for the obvious!

2. I have been expecting more uninvited responses from experienced editors. Some visitor traffic seems to have happened. May be the article was somewhat acceptable, no specific suggestion was conveyed. However,

a) it seems that I failed to accept an "Administrator right" that was auto-offered to me several days ago. My naivety!! Could I have higher admin rights if I am worthy of it?

b) I felt the article was protected from unconsidered editing by third parties. It seems I removed that support offered as well..... While I read through and understood basics of creating an article, specifically from where to access certain information and help remains a barrier still.

3. If i do not do anything about the article (if it remains i the sandbox as it is), what will happen to it?

At the risk of being too childlike, let me be, hoping to have a paternal hand offered.

Thanks in advance and regards,

--Lessknownhistory (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I hope I will have no difficulty seeing any response that this note meets with!!

@Lessknownhistory: welcome to the Teahouse.

You can use the move function to move your sandbox to the main article space. Just use the correct title for the person concerned - I was a bit confused reading it as to what his name was.
Pages in the User namespace aren't normally patrolled by regular users, so your sandbox isn't likely to get looked at by anyone unless the specifically go looking for it. It you want it reviewed then add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page and this will add it to the WP:Articles for creation queue for review. If you want to do this, do it before you move it! Your user access rights will have automatically been upgraded to Autoconfirmed when you reached the number of edits and account age threshold. Any further rights will have to be asked for, but at the moment I suggest you get more experience of editing before you ask for any. Although user pages can be edited by anyone, by convention they aren't unless there is a pressing reason that requires then to be edited - for example a copyright issue or a breach of the biographies of living persons policy.
Nothing. As it is in your userspace, it will more than likely be ignored by everyone. Nthep (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lessknownhistory, you posted two copies of your question(s) and one of them was deleted by mistake along with Nthep's reply. I have restored this in case you missed the answer. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does a reference mean?

I still don't get what a reference is Chaunceyli (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chaunceyli:, welcome to the Teahouse. This link may be helpful: Help:Referencing for beginners.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Billingham Bags

I reviewed Draft:Billingham Bags and declined it for both notability issues, with the only reference being its own web site, and tone issues. I then received the following note on my talk page from User:Nathenoo:

Hi Robert. I've added more reference links to other sites (Pedlars and DPReview). I hope this improves things. May I also get some direction on what the tone/notability issues are so I may correct? Thanks. Nathan

I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors. One of the additional references is an interview with the founder, which isn’t independent. Do other editors think that the tone is neutral or promotional? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathenoo, language like "a keen amateur photographer himself, discovered that his fishing bags were being used by New York photographers and within a year production had switched almost entirely to specialist camera bags. Today they’re sold all over the world" is promotional, advertising-style language suited to its company brochure or web page, but utterly inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. You are obligated to provide references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this company. Otherwise, the company is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One way of looking at this, Nathenoo, is to realise that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a subject (whether a company or anything else) says about itself. It is not interested in what appears on the company's website, what the company has said in a press release, or what the founder has said in an interview. It is especially not interested in the company's view of what is important about it. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have chosed to say about it, and published in reliable places: a high quality article needs to be written nearly 100% based on such sources. --ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I have a question about my signature. I have recently designed a signature which looks like this:

Peterye2005 —— Let's Talk!

I tried to change my signature to that in my preferences, but it was too long to fit in that rectangular box where you put in your new signature.

Is there any other way to change my signature to this?

Peterye2005 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Peterye2005. You only have 30 edits to encyclopedia articles and in contrast, 232 edits to your user page. Wikipedia is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia, and is not a social network. Your edit count hints that you do not fully understand our purpose here. I suggest that you focus on improving encyclopedia articles for a while, before worrying about fancy signatures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the response. I will start to improve wikipedia articles instead of editing my Userpage. I have a question: Is there a very easy and quick method of counting the number of edits made to encyclopedia articles?

Thank you. Peterye2005 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peterye2005; to check your edit summary you could always use this userbox {{User contrib|N|User_name}} (see Template:User contrib) which will send you here Overview 1 or you could use the more simple overview here Overview 2. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You can click "Contributions" at the top right and then "Edit count" at the bottom. It varies how responsive the edit counter is. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Positioning of media

Is there a way to position a media thing so that it is on the left side of the page. For example, I want the media player on the right to be found on the left side instead of on the right area below. The position of the thing is really weird and I can't fix it.

Sound of a regal

Performed by Ulrich Metzner

Sound of a regal stop

Excerpt from "Variations on Est-ce Mars" by Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck, performed by Ashtar Moïra

Problems playing these files? See media help.

NikolaiHo 20:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Nikolaiho. Code of form {{listen|...}} calls a template, in this case Template:listen. The template page often has documentation, here to add the parameter |pos = left. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nikolaiho. PrimeHunter has given you the correct techical answer. My response is to ask you to think about why you want to position this to the left instead of the right. Our Manual of style values consistency while allowing for variation. The vast majority of our articles that include a media player position the device on the right. Is there an objective reason to position it to the left in this case, other than your personal opinion that it is "weird "? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 It's just that in the article Regal (instrument) under Regal (instrument)#Media, the only content under that heading is the media playing thing but because it is on the right, it appears that the heading is empty and the media, out of place. I thought that if it were on the left, it would be under the heading and appear more normal. What do you think? NikolaiHo 17:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could try putting <br clear=all> under the media files, and see how you like the result. Maproom (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-numbering list

When I insert or delete an item in a list (such as List of the oldest living state leaders), is there an easier way to automatically renumber the entries? Thanks. EternalNomad (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EternalNomad, to create an automatically numbered list simply replace the numbers with the # character, like this:

# First thing

# Secondly

# Third place

is automatically parsed into

First thing
Secondly
Third place

by the wiki software.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't work in tables like List of the oldest living state leaders. Help:Sorting#Auto-ranking or adding a row numbering column (1,2,3) next to a table mentions a method that only works if all rows are the same height. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yale-NUS: Old tags and unbalance criticism

Hi, I do not see any obvious adverts. Most of the alleged COI happened about 3-4 years ago. There is also an editor that claims to be 'looking into it' - who knows when that will be - and also reverted recent edits without considering each point.

There are some strong words, like 'condemn' that's not in the sources for HRW criticism. There is a large criticism section and 'further reading' - can you advise if these are due, and help remove those unjustified? Thanks Baxter.melb (talk)

Is this about Yale-NUS College?

The proper place for discussion of issues about the article, including its tags, is the article talk page. Ask the other editor what language she thinks is non-neutral. There has been very little use of the talk page recently. Use it. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous excuse was "I am trying to fix this. Will take a while though". One whole month later, it's still "I was working on it. Please do not remove tags until all problems are fixed". Not a single edit was done. As you say, the talk page is rarely used as people are no longer interested. If it's the same reply, where to formally complain and which WP principle should I use?. Thanks.Baxter.melb (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a conflict of interest yourself, Baxter.melb, you should fix any problems that you see with the article yourself. You have the interest and the motivation, so just do it, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. We have over five million articles. Who else is better qualified to improve this article other than you? Hint: the most likely answer is no one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick!thanks. I have no COI at all - as staff, student, nor previous edits. This is a long article and sources to check and I do not have a lot of time - more important, there is little point improving or correcting things to be reverted with a single click by a full-time editor, which is the easiest thing to do for a deletionist (I read). My main aim is to remove the tags for now if the casual reader or editor sees no overt claimed adverts, because articles are forever being improved anyway. So just scanning through, there is no obvious ads or promos to me (not sure if there are subliminal ones:) ). Do you see any difference with other college articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter.melb (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Baxter.melb. There is no such thing as a full-time editor. If you think that a tag is no longer appropriate (after checking any comments in the edit summary or the article's talk page when the tag was applied), then you can simply remove it - make sure you give a meaningful edit summary, so that this doesn't look like vandalism. The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees and reinstates the tag: then you can discuss the matter on the talk page. Differences from other college articles are not of themselves of any consequence, though they might sugges ways in which one or other article could be improved. --ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading image to Lemar (supermarket)

Hello again, I am trying to upload an image to Lemar (supermarket) and the following is all I retrieved:

‎(2,448 × 3,264 pixels, file size: 2.14 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg);

Thanks for your time, East Anglian Regional (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi East Anglian Regional. You inserted that text directly in the article.[3] It's data about an image but where is the image? Please post a link if possible. If it's only on your own computer then what is on the image, where did you get it from and do you know its license? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can i put organizations information in wikipedia

i'm Rajendra from creative system. I've just created a office user and want to write something about my office. I'm fully new here. Please guide me.Creativesystemglobals (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If the page appears to be notable, then all is fine. You suggested creating a page about your office. I can see a few possible problems there. First, draft out the page in your sandbox, then send the draft to administrators, using the device in the sandbox. Admins may decline the draft if they believe the page is not notable enough. Remember to always add citations for verification! Happy editing, and if you have anything to ask, do so on my talk page. :) East Anglian Regional (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Creativesystemglobals: Basically, you can't. Wikipedia is not a blog or advertising site. What you trying to violates several Wikipedia policies. Read

----

(ADDED) I've been reading the Teahouse page bottom-to-top, so I didn't see till after writing this that the issues I mentioned have already been addressed in answers to your question just above this one.

--Thnidu (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the button "contest speedy deletion"?

The new page we created "Multilingualism in Israel" is candidate for speedy deletion and I do not understand why. I would like to contest this. It is now in the sandbox, and I actually went in to publish it but saw this message about speedy deletion. Thanks! MLclass (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MLclass and welcome to the Teahouse! When faced with a speedy deletion, you may contest the speedy deletion by pressing the blue button marked on the template that says "Contest this speedy deletion" which will bring you to text stating "This page should not be speedy deleted as (speedy deletion criteria), because... (your reason here) --~~~~"-where you can state your reason in the 'your reason here'. I would also consider checking out WP:NOTE to see if the article meets nobility guidelines. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that your draft on "Multilingualism in Israel" was ever tagged for speedy deletion. Did you also edit using an IP address (or another user account) and create a draft in its sandbox? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MLclass. I am unable to find any article titled "Multilingualism in Israel", but I did find User:MLclass/sandbox and User:MLclass which seem to be about the that particular topic. Those two particular pages are are not articles; they are user pages. More specifically, "User:MLclass" is your user page while "User:MLclass/sandbox" is a user subpage. Wikipedia allows editors to customize their user pages a bit as long as they comply with WP:UPYES. My guess is that somebody tagged "User:MLclass" for speedy deletion per WP:U5 because they felt it was a fake article, so it was deleted back on April 4 by administrator RHaworth with this edit. I see that you have re-created the page which is OK, but there's a good chance that the page will tagged for speedy deletion again for the same reason. So, my suggestion to you is to create another user subpage using Help:Userspace draft and then move all of the content from "User:MLclass" to the new page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MLclass. The article is User:MLclass/sandbox. It appears to be written as a student research paper, perhaps by multiple students. At this point it needs a bit of work to be turned into an encyclopedia article. Is this a student assignment? If so, get it graded while still in the sandbox. A student paper is expected to do some analysis and draw conclusions. An encyclopedia article just reports, so remove the conclusion section any other interpretation of your own. Everything needs a source. Many of the sections don't have sources. And in those that do, make sure you are rewriting the material in your own words. Don't paraphrase too closely. You use the parenthesis style of referencing (often copied from your sources). Cite the source you are using, not the source they are citing since you probably have not read that. For any source we need to be able to find the full reference at the bottom of the page. I can't find many of them. Get them in alphabetical order, with translations for the title, author, source of the ones in Hebrew. Put each one on a new line with an * in front so they form a bulleted list. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the remarks. I deleted the conclusions as advised and will start working on the citations. All citations are primary citations, and yes, we have read all of them. Still, I can't find the "contest this deletion" button nor can I find the "userspace draft" where I am supposed to be working. I will appreciate help locating them. Thanks.

MLclass (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again MLclass. The template you seem to be referring to on your user talk page at User talk:MLclass#Speedy deletion nomination of User:MLclass was added over two months ago. That speedy deletion template no longer exists because the page in question has already been deleted. For reference, the template can be seen at Template:Db-u5. If you look, you'll see a big blue button in the middle that says "Contest this speedy deletion". That's the button referred to in the notification posted on your user talk page. As for the userspace draft, you can create that yourself by going to Help:Userspace draft and following the instructions on the page. Basically, you just type in the name you want to call your draft into the "Hello! Please type the name of the article here to start a userspace draft" and then click on button to the left. The software will create a userspace draft for you and then all you need to do is copy and past the content from your user page to the new draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the appropriate place for alternative place names?

Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I was trying my best to see if there is any precedent for indigenous place names on Wikipedia, and I noticed that there was on the Missouri River page. Following that example, I am starting to add indigenous place names to other pages - Mississippi River, Seattle, and others. Should I include this information in the page heading (as it is with the Missouri River page) or is there a more appropriate place for it? Thanks! Jordanengel1 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jordanengel1. This is an excellent question, and I am unaware of a specific policy since there is a large range of possibilities. This is really a matter of editorial judgment, and the most important primciple is that the indigenous name needs to be referenced to a reliable source. Is the indigenous name still commonly used or is it a footnote in the academic literature? Is there one known indigenous name, or several? Is the current name controversial? These are the sort of factors that will influence the decision of how much prominence to give to an alternate name. Consider Denali, North America's highest mountain. Its official renaming last year was highly controversial. The various names for Denali are discussed in the infobox, the lead of the article, a dedicated section of the article, and in a separate article devoted to the controversy, Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute. The bottom line is that well-referenced alternative names for any topic are worthy of due weight in any encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordanengel1: There is a guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Wikipedia's own terminology is also good to know in discussions. In the article Missouri River, the largest bold "Missouri River" at top left of the page is called the page name or title. We rarely say "page heading" but if we do then it often refers to this and not to the box at the top right. This box is called an infobox. Its heading is called something with infobox like infobox heading, infobox title or infobox name. The part of the article before the table of contents is called the lead. Alternative names may be mentioned in the infobox heading and the lead but not in the page name. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @PrimeHunter: and @Cullen328: ! @Onel5969: , I'd love to talk more about why you felt the revisions were unneeded. On the Anchorage, Alaska page, for example, I added the indigenous Dena'ina name for the city in the infobox. I feel like that adheres to Wikipedia's naming convention for "relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place.)" Jordanengel1 (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordanengel1: A ping must be added in the same edit as a signature so your attempted pings in [4] didn't work. You can make a new ping or post to User talk:Onel5969. The ping rules are complicated. The idea behind the rules is to avoid pinging users when old posts are archived, transcluded, copied, refactored and so on. The safest metod is to add a single new signed paragraph and change nothing else when you make a ping. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Ok, thanks Template:PrimeHunter for bearing with me while I figure out Wikipedia. @Onel5969: - I'd love to include you in the discussion. All the best. Jordanengel1 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordanengel1. PrimeHunter is spot on in pointing to the relevant guideline, which doesn't include "or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place"). What it does say is "especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information." But when you look at that, it simply says mentioned in the article, not included in the infobox, or in the lead paragraph. For example, Tucson is not called anything other than Tucson by even O'odham and Yavapai speakers. Regarding including it in the infobox, the settlement infobox template says: "Name in the local language, if different from name, and if not English." The local language in all these cases is English. In the case of the lead paragraph, if there is a significant local culture which has a specific name for the feature, and still uses it, than it should be included there (the Grand Canyon is a good example of that). While I didn't change your edit on the Mississippi River, those names you inserted into the infobox should probably be removed and inserted into the history section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: that documentation applies to the native_name parameter. You'll note that there is also other_name, which displays in smaller text in the infobox, and is for "places with a former or more common name like Bombay or Saigon". For natural features and settlements that predate their English names, including a local indigenous name under other_name is appropriate. That said, for large features that have names in a number of languages, such as rivers, including all these in the infobox would be cumbersome. Ibadibam (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how to cite newspaper cuttings

I am writing an article about an artist who has sent me newspaper cuttings about his important exhibitions. I could upload scans of these cuttings or put them on a separate website. What is best? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Landschaftsmaler/sandbox --Landschaftsmaler (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To put copies of the newspaper cuttings either onto Wikipedia or onto another website would almost certainly be a copyright violation, and in any case would not satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for verifiabilty. What you need to do is to provide the information to allow other editors to look up the information, such as the name of the newspaper, the date, and the title of the article. The template {{cite news}} is a good way of formatting the information. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I´ll do that. One question though: Would it be alright to link to newspaper cuttings of photographs where permission was granted by the people in those photographs? Details required for a proper citation would be added. --Landschaftsmaler (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general the copyright in a photograph does not belong to the subject of the photograph. Copyright usually belongs to the photographer, but for a newspaper photograph I would expect the copyright to belong to the newspaper. David Biddulph (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I have now edited the article extensively introducing references to newspaper articles rather than links to photocopies of the article. Naturally this will make life a bit more difficult for anyone wanting to verify the story as they would have to contact the paper to ask for a copy. Fortunately some of the references have been published on the website of the corresponding newspaper. However older ones naturally would not be on the web.--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Landschaftsmaler That's why they invented libraries and archives. WP:Verifiability just has to be possible, it does not have to be easy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landschaftsmaler, this doesn't help you with photos, but you can add quotes to citations using the quote= parameter, which can help readers understand how the source supports the material being referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everybody for your advice. I have reworked the article accordingly. Perhaps you could take a look and tell me if I am on the right track.--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look, Landschaftsmaler. If I was reviewing your draft, I would decline it on the basis that it is poorly referenced. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, paying particular attention to the following paragraph: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately".

The wording of the draft also remains too promotional, and wording such as "it is also worth recalling the words of the late Peter Greenham RA" is more suited to an essay than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia:Writing better articles offers some advice on appropriate tone. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]