From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TH/Q)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.


WP teahouse logo.png

Notability Check[edit]

Greetings. I just completed my first article and was curious if someone could perform a notability check. I am fully aware of what the standards entail, but some of them seem a bit on the arbitrary side.

Article is here:

There are some other aspects of the article I would like to hash out in more detail, but I just want a little piece of mind that I am on the right track first. Cheers. Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I checked it out, and he seems easily notable enough for an article, per WP:BASIC. He's received significant coverage in a number of different major news outlets. That makes him inherently notable.
The issue about only being notable for a single event gave me pause for a moment, but he has been in the news for at least two events: the loan scandal itself, and his escape from custody. I don't think this is even borderline. Nice article, thank you for making it! --Ashenai (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree on notability, hosever, per WP:BLP and especailly WP:BLPCRIME sourcing needs to be particularly careful here. I removed the See Also link to Frank Abagnale, as three was no real connection. DES (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Inline Citation[edit]

I am using sfn|last|year|p=# on Bharata Chakravarti for inline citation. On being clicked, it leads us to ref, but when we click any ref it does not lead us to bibliography. What is it I am doing wrong? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 15:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Capankajsmilyo. All fixed, with this edit. See Template:Sfn#How to use and Help:Shortened footnotes#References list. In short, unless you're using {{citation}}, you have to provide the parameter |ref=harv in the citation templates when using these types of shortened footnotes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 15:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

non zero code: 1[edit]

What's a "non zero code: 1", please? - my render keeps failingSueNightingale (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, SueNightingale: without more context, I can't even tell whether this is a question about Wikipedia or something else. It's like ringing up a garage and saying "The red light keeps coming on" and then hanging up.
Please specify what system you are using, what you were trying to do, what you did to get it, and and (precisely) what result you got. --ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

correction of entry for Sqdn Ldr the Rev Herbert Cecil Pugh, GC[edit]

There are several inaccuracies in this entry about my father - for instance, his mother's name, and how my mother received his posthumous George Cross. How can I correct these? (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. That is tricky one, I'm afraid. The problem is that Wikipedia requires everything to be cited to a reliable published source, and those details of Cecil Pugh are cited to a source - though it is evidently somebody's memory and may well be inaccurate.
The other problem is that, as his child, you have a conflict of interest, and so are discouraged from editing the article.
If you have a published source for the correct information, it is easy: add a section to the talk page Talk:Cecil Pugh, with a citation to your source, and somebody will make the change for you (there may not be many people looking at that page, so if you put {{request edit}} in - with the curly brackets - it will draw somebody's attention to it.
Alternatively, if you have not got evidence for the accurate information, you may be able to get the information in the article removed, on the basis that The Memory Project is not a reliable source.(I thought of removing it myself, but it needs careful editing, because that source is cited for a number of facts, many of which are probably correct). Again, I would suggest the changes on the article's talk page, remembering that we cannot insert information which does not have a published source. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft editing advice[edit]

Hi, I would like some advice on how I can edit my article, 'Draft: SMU School of Accountancy' to better address the reviewer's comments. Would appreciate help on identifying lines that have peacock terms or do not have a neutral tone and any advice you can give on how to change these. I have looked at other pages linked to SMU such as the page on 'Lee Kong Chian School of Business' and I feel like the tone and sources I've used are similar so I'm not sure why my draft has been rejected. I'm really new at this so any help would be appreciated.RachR310 (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@RachR310: Welcome to Wikipedia! The draft article was Draft:SMU School of Accountancy (edit this page to see how I made that a link). Your draft has been rejected as "Looks more like a brochure for the school than an encyclopedic article". I thunk that's harsh, and I am sorry that you have experienced such a response, but it's not untypical, sadly. Accordingly, I have now published it, at SMU School of Accountancy. You can continue to make improvements - it needs links both to other articles, and to it from other articles. Some of the paragraphs still lack a citation, and we don't really need a list of student events or societies. You should add an Infobox, in this case {{Infobox university}} is appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@RachR310: Wikipedia is not a directory of services/courses, and this school appears both non-notable, and your writing style is so promotional. I believe that this articles should be deleted as spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, RachR310, but in my view the article SMU School of Accountancy should be deleted for lack of notability. As far as I can see, it does not have one single reference that is both substantial, and independent of the school. Several are published by the school itself (Wikipedia has almost no interest in what an organisation chooses to say about itsef), and most of the rest are mere listings. The couple which are from newspapers are clearly written from press releases, and so not independent. What you need to find is places where people who have no connection with the school have written articles about it, and had them published in reliable places such as major newspapers. Then write the article entirely based on what these sources say.
If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid it is impossible to write an acceptable article on the school at present. If you can, then take your draft and cross out every single statement than is not cited to an independent reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Unfortunately @Pigsonthewing: has rather hastily moved this to article space, IMO it should be moved back to draftspace, as it has 0 chance of being kept, unless it can demonstrate some notability and encyclopedic value. I'm AfDing it, since Pigsonthewing declined the speedy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on Article[edit]

Hi, I have attempted to submit my first article and would like some feedback on my submission. The article is available here and refers to a not for profit organisation in Australia. Code the Future

Beater1989 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beater1989: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contribution. The article is properly structured and reads well. The first consideration for a new article is notability. Your article is borderline in that regard, and additional sources, independent of it, would help. Please note how I have added some categories, and tagged its talk page, to bring it to the attention of relevant WikiProjects. You might also add an Infobox to the article; in this case, {{Infobox organisation}} would be the one to use; take a look at Association for Computing Machinery to see how it's done. I've also created a corresponding item on Wikidata, but that's not something you need to worry about at this stage, and I only mention it as it may be of interest if your background is in computing. Finally, I've changed the link to the article in your comment, above, to be an internal link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Andy Mabbett, thank you for your feedback. I have included a page from the Victorian State Government's that references the organisations work. I have also added the infobox, but could only repeat key facts from the body of the article. I have also addressed the issues around inward out and outward links. Do you think these changes are adequate?

Beater1989 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Four tildes. I can't seem to get the hang of it.[edit]

Sorry this is such a minor issue, but even though I put in the four tildes, I keep getting the unsigned message. See my discussion with myself right under the next question.6thgeneration 04:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)

See what I mean? ARggggh!6thgeneration 04:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)
@EricJWoodward: See User:SineBot#What it looks for. SineBot only recognizes signatures that have links in them, like mine (and many other users). Assuming you had changed your signature in your preferences page in the "Signature" section, you may have checked the box that says Treat the above as wiki markup. but forgotten to format your signature using brackets, like this: [[User talk:EricJWoodward|6thgeneration]]. (This example would link to your talk page). CabbagePotato (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful answer CabbagePotato! I will try to take it from there.6thgeneration 04:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)

Newbie: How do I flag a dubious comment in an article?[edit]

Hello, In the article "Entheogen", in the second paragraph, this statement appears: "Entheogens have been used in a ritualized context for millions of years;" There is no reference cited for this, and in fact, I think it is probably not true. Humans have only existed for, at most, 2 or 3 million years. There is no evidence that I know of to put the use of entheogens back more that several thousand years. Indeed, the article itself refers to the archaeological record dating back several thousand years. I don't see anything that would justify the word "millions". So, as a newbie editor, and to make a long story short, what should I do about this? Thanks 6thgeneration 04:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EricJWoodward. In order to flag (or tag) a dubious assertion, you place a template into the wikicode right after the sentence in question. Templates are always surrounded by double curly brackets. The easiest way is to add {{Cn}} which produces a tag saying "citation needed".
Another approach is to boldly remove a dubious assertion, explaining why in your edit summary. In this particular case, you could also change "millions" to "thousands". That's what I would do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen!

Now here's a minor follow-up question: I did use the four tildes, and yet the question says my comment was "unsigned". I will now see if it does the same thing if I put in four tildes right here:6thgeneration 04:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)

All right - it worked that time. Thanks Cullen!6thgeneration 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it didn't work. Am I doing the tilde thing wrong?6thgeneration 04:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)
@EricJWoodward: Try leaving a space before the tildes ("here: ~~~~", not "here:~~~~"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice on finding published sources that list factual school information[edit]

I attempted to update a high school page (,_California)) with the information below and was told that it is non-factual, promotional and not useful information for anyone. I was also told that I cannot cite a school letter from the Principal because it is not published, but I haven't been able to locate other published resources to cite. The other two high schools in the school district ( &,_California)) have both un-referenced information and promotional language, but somehow their pages have not been challenged.

Any thoughts on whether or not the content below is o.k. to use? If not, how can I find pertinent published data for the school and update the content on the page without it being removed?

JLRFLAZEDA (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As something to keep in mind, Wikipedia has over 4 million articles and a great many of them fail spectacularly to meet the content sourcing and presentation expectations. However, no matter how frequently the "Look! That article is terrible, too. I want to make / keep the one I am working on terrible - just like that one!" argument is made, it is never convincing. Nor is the corollary "You must clean up all 4 million of the other articles first before the one I am working on should be fixed." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, JLRFLAZEDA. Some things to keep in mind about school articles. We never use anyone's name, other than people who are notable and the head of the school (in the US, that's usually the principal), current and historic. As I mentioned to you on your talk page, it has to be of importance (and understandable) to all readers, not just people from the school you are writing about. In the particular case we have here, your edit was loaded with acronyms that are meaningless to the vast majority of the readers. If it is something that is in just about every school (prom, student council), leave it out. As far as accomplishments go, the school article guidelines tell us that we should only discuss "ultimate" achievements. In athletics, that would be state championship. In other areas, it would be a similar achievement. Note that a band or chorus getting "First division" does not equate to a state championship, as in theory, every school could make First division. In all cases, achievements need to be referenced to independent sources. The school itself is not a reliable source for anything other than mundane things like address and principal's name. It is better to have 2 year old attendance figures from the state DOE or NCES than current figures from the school. Hope this helps. John from Idegon (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Done" writing new article. How do I take the next step?[edit]

I "finished" writing a new article. What is the next step?

Sorry to take up someone's time here. I spent over an hour searching for what the next step is, but I cannot quite seem to lay my fingers on it, though I think I remember seeing something about 5 days ago about "submitting it to editors". Do I try to move it out of my User space?

Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! It's our pleasure to help. To submit your article for review, just write {{subst:submit}} at the top. An Articles for Creation reviewer will review it and accept it or give some suggestions for improvement. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Registered editor, but not logged in[edit]

I recently created an account at Wikipedia and just made my first edit to an existing article. However, I forgot to log in before making the edit. Is there any way I can get my IP address taken off the article's "view history" page (and replaced with my user name)? Thank you for any help you can provide.NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewYorkActuary, welcome to the Teahouse. You can ask Wikipedia Oversight team to suppress the edits you made from your IP address. Just send a detailed E-mail including diffs (hyperlinks to specific "difference between revisions") that you want them to suppress. I don't think they can replace IP edits with your username though. Cheers! -- Chamith (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting a comments subpage of a talk page[edit]

Where can i ask to delete the page

A lot of links! This is an important topic, and the article should be expanded, so that these links can be incorporated into the text. Geometry guy 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I only want o delete the page above, (the comments sub page of the talk page ) not the article or the talk page. But I don't know where where I can propose it. WillemienH (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I just tagged it for deletion so you dont hve to do anything now. Read WP:How to delete a page for the future. If you need anymore help, please comment on my talk page. Nice meeting you. Tortle (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks , but I am not the creator of that page so the reason is incorrect WillemienH (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the erroneous tag. If you read the link that Tortle gave you I think you'll find that WP:MFD is the process in this case. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
user:TheRedPenOfDoom added another speedy deletion template, (with better reason, although again not completely correct) . The WP:MFD procedure seems to complicated for this I think not contested request, it is no more than just a bit of cleanup . WillemienH (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
And I have asked the deleting admin to undelete this. Failing that, I will either undelete it myself, or take the matter to deletion review. This was not "patent nonsense" and indeed did not fit any speedy deletion criterion. In fact, I see no valid reason to delete it at all. If it is to beb delted, it is my view that an MFD is required. @TheRedPenOfDoom, WillemienH, Biddulph, and Tortle: DES (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
If it is not patent nonsense, please explain what it non-nonsensically means? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDoom, It means that the person making the comment thought that the article should be expanded using information from the links, presumably external links, and that fewer links should be included. "patent nonsense" needs to be really incomprehensible, not just poorly worded, to be deletable. This seems like a reasonable comment to me, although it should have been made on the regular article talk page. DES (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
it has now been undeleted (thank you). I copied the content into the regular talk page, using the template {{copied}} to indicate the source, and converted the "comments" page into a redir to preserve the history for attribution. DES (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


How do I create an article? I cannot figure out where to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijesse27 (talkcontribs) 19:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nicholas, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse: I have put some useful links on your User Talk page (and removed what was there - see below). Creating an article that will stick is difficult, and I would advise anybody to get some experience editing existing articles before they try to create one. But if you want to go ahead and create one, start by reading Your first article carefully, and then use the article wizard to create it. Note especially the points about notability: the subject of the article must have been written about, several times, by people unconnected with the subject and published in reliable places such as major newspapers. (If you are thinking about writing an article about Nicholas Jessen or Piper Boysen, please don't waste your time and ours).
One other point: the material you put on your User page is probably just acceptable, but the material you put on your user talk page is quite inappropriate. Your user page is a page for you to share some information about you as a Wikipedia editor. A little more information about your life outside is acceptable, but any more than you have written would not be. And your user talk page is a page for other Wikipedia editors to have discussions with you about what you or they do on Wikipedia. The paragraph you put there was not appropriate, and also contravenes our policy on biography of living persons, which is why I deleted it.
Finally, I strongly advise you to read our guidance for younger editors before you go any further. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

why are my posts getting deleted?[edit]

Seems someone does not like my suggestions for changes so simply deletes before others can look at it and comment on itJohn.r.r (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You have had many explanations on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi, is Supurbia a right redirect for Grace Randolph? I doubt so thought of discussing first before tagging. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Peppy Paneer, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks reasonable to me. I gather that Grace Randolph is the author of Supurbia. If a creative work is not independently notable, or does not yet have an article, redirecting it to the author's article is a common option. What else would you do instead? Do you think that Supurbia is notable enough for a separate article? Or is there somewhere else you would redirect it?DES (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi DESiegel, at first I thought that its an ambiguous redirect but then changed my mind as its a work of an author and had a doubt. So thought of knowing about these cases of redirects. Well I did a little research on Supurbia, it has got coverage but from the same few sources many times, so would not comment on its notability. And the article Grace Randolph has been tagged for "general notability guideline". Anyways, Face-smile.svg Thank you for such a clear explanation. Peppy Paneer (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Can anyone help me with merge request on Naraka -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles of Subcategory in Main Category[edit]

Why are articles of subcategories not listed in Main Categories? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo because the subcategory itself is included in the parent category. However there are some exceptions when certain categories are non-diffusing. See WP:CATEGORY for further details. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Amália Rodrigues - first name or surname?[edit]

WP policies state that "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only..." The article on Amália Rodrigues uses first (given name), Amália, instead, according to Portugeuse tradition per talk page: "... to use the first name for females when just one name is used..". Is this OK country-specific use or should we stick to the standard surname only? Erik den yngre (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre, use the surname, this is the English Wikipedia, not Portuguese, so the rules and conventions of English apply. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This great artist deserves a better article, I am struggling to improve it, to conform to WP standards. Erik den yngre (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

shameless self promotion[edit]

Hi there, i visited

There appeared to be two entries which I found to be spurious and I deleted them.

The first "There are Police reports of anti-social behavior, theft, burglary, violent and sexual offences.[5]" seems fairly self evident especially as the link does not work.

The second is the laughable

"Tristan Stephenson a mixologist and drinks industry expert became a director of Surfside Cafe on the beach of Polzeath in 2014.[8]"

This is surely blatant self promotion, and is of no interest to anyone other than himself and perhaps his girlfriend and mother.

Anyway, this chap has the Polzeath page on his watch list and has reverted the page to it's previous state.

His comment;

" Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Polzeath, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. "

seems reasonable enough, but I feel that he will hit me with a prepared arguement regarding his inclusion on the page.

What do we do when people shamelessly promote themselves on wikipedia when it is little use to anyone else? (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the content on Tristan Stephenson which you removed without explanation, the section is entitled "Economy" and Stephenson is a notable part of that economy. I am not self promoting, I am not Stephenson, I have created a large number of articles on all sorts of people as you can see from my user page. I have however removed again the content about policing as this was not referenced. Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
In that case can I please open the discussion a little further and suggest that you are displaying unwarranted "ownership" of any article that you have edited.

I honestly cannot see why directorship of a cafe is notable for inclusion, perhaps you think that drones of "mixologist" related tour buses will soon start rolling up to Polzeath beach. (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephenson is the owner and director of a cafe on the beach which is part of the economy of the resort. I don't understand what the problem is? Perhaps you would like to continue the discussion on the Polzeath talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is probably a better place than anywhere to discuss this as I feel that a wider issue is in play.

Does anyone else believe that we should be able to read about tourist destinations without having someone's CV landing in our laps. (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for personal or business promotion. While individual items of content in an article need not meet any of the various notability guidelines, they should be relevant and significant. What should be included is always a judgement call. I don't see a systemic problem here, merely a question of a specific decision. i agree that the article talk page would be a good place for further discussion of the matter. DES (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Are lists required?[edit]

What's the difference between categories and lists on Wikipedia? If they are same, why not delete all lists? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You might try reading Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploading vedios[edit]

Sir i want to upload a vedio with is in ".MP4" can I do it? Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan 08:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan hindustan (talkcontribs)

Hi @Aryan hindustan: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia only takes videos in the WebM and Ogg formats. This is because these formats or more free, open, and unencumbered by patents than other video formats. You can find info on converting video here.
Note that videos typically need to be freely licensed for anyone to use. What video are you hoping to upload? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan 10:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan hindustan (talkcontribs)

worth noting[edit]

I want to write about an organisation GOVINDALAYA ( How do I know whether its worth writing?GOVINDALAYA (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GOVINDALAYA. The answer is that you need to determine whether or not the organisation meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability. This is not about whether or not it is important, or influential, or popular: it is simply whether people who have no connection with the organisation have written at length about it. Since every article should be based nearly 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have written about it, it follows that if such writing does not exist, then there can be no article.
By the way, our username policy forbids usernames which appear to be editing on behalf of an organisation. Please either change it, or abandon that account and set up a new, personal, one. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Translating articles[edit]

I have an interest in translating existing (not my own) French articles into English. Is this acceptable? If so, does Wikipedia have articles requiring such translation, or, do,I,just chose my own? Is it necessary to ask permission of the original author? If so, should the translation be submitted to that individual? The references will, of course, be in French. Must I verify the references for accuracy or is it understood that they meet acceotwnce guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProulxMike (talkcontribs) 02:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey ProulxMike. It is not only acceptable but very, very welcome. See generally Wikipedia:Translation and note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related. In order of your statements:
  1. Yes you choose your own. I have done a number of French translations and often trawl their good articles (Bons contenus) and their featured articles (Articles de qualité), and the respective nominations pages for those two projects 1, 2. We have here Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia.
  2. No you need ask no one, but you must provide mandatory copyright attribution when you perform the translation. For an example, here is the copyright attribution edit summary I used upon a translation from a French article.
  3. Well, you certainly should look at the references if you can, to at least get an idea that the original author was faithful. Also, our sourcing standards here are more robust than they are at the French Wikipedia and in my translation efforts I've often had to both look at the sources and find additional sources. I recommend choosing what to translate by how well it is sourced. I recently made the mistake of tackling a translation where the original was relatively poorly sourced and the result was not stellar.
By the way, I am in the midst of a translation right now and if you wanted to work on it, I'd welcome help (each section has a machine translation below – some I've turned into passable English; some are untouched and quite garbled). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, ProulxMike. It is always acceptable to translate articles, if you have the ability to render "near native" prose in the target language, namely English on this Wikipedia. You can choose your own articles to translate as you see fit, although responding to good faith requests by other editors is a wonderful and kind thing to do. All previous editors have already given explicit permission for derivitive works such as translations. Their review or approval is also not required, though I recommend paying attention to their opinion. You do need to furnish attribution, as explained at WP:TRANSLATE. If you have other questions, please return to the Teahouse at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
As for the references being "of course" in French, I would question that assumption. Of course, there are many "highly French" topics that will have been discussed almost entirely in French sources. If do, that is fine. But it is always worth five minutes of effort searching for English-language sources, as they may exist on a very large percentage of French topics. This is the English language encyclopedia, and we encourage (but do not require) English language sources. They may add to the content, or they may provide more accessible referenced content for editors here (not all of whom speak French but all of whom should speak or read English in at least basic levels).Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have a beginning and am starting to catch the beat...[edit]

I have various tags. I'm think I understand them and am addressing them. I have multiple editors who've weighed in. I think I grasp what's wanted of the article I've initiated (Alberto Gómez Gómez) and I'm quite certain I can ameliorate its deficiencies. All that being said, must I alert each editor that I've provided what was lacking in this form of this article in order to have the dreaded "multiple issues" tag removed? Understand, please, that I don't mean "please check this out right now," I will be fixing the bugs (so to speak) over the next two days. I'm just looking ahead and asking: "Then what?" Because this experience is so new and because I want to do well at it, I will be looking for ways to improve its status to the best of my ability and will not stop until it's reached the highest regard that any article can. If I can do that, then I imagine I should keep contributing. If not, not. I'm sure you understand. Thanks, Rmark1030 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome back to the Teahouse, Rmark1030. You do not need to notify anyone that you have fixed an issue and removed a tag. If editors want to know, they can put the article on their Watchlist and monitor any and all changes. Once you have fixed an issue, you may remove the corresponding tag. If you are not sure if your fix is sufficient, you can post on the article talk page, or ask here. If you wan to know why a given editor placed a given tag, or ask that editor if s/he thinks a change is sufficient, you can post on that editor's talk page, or perhaps better post on the article talk page and use {{ping}} or {{U}} to notify the editor. But that is strictly optional.
Note that not all articles can achieve the very highest status on Wikipedia. In some cases there is just not enough information available to achieve Featured Article. Achieving B-class is a significant landmark, many articles never get there.
I hope this helps a bit. DES (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Siegel! Your help is much appreciated!!2601:602:8100:5FC1:98A8:3E4D:D8F6:D7E8 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

page: Craig Sheppard question: citations[edit]

How do I add citations to the above-mentioned page? I've never done this before.2601:602:8100:5FC1:98A8:3E4D:D8F6:D7E8 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

for reference: Craig Sheppard
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, D8F6:D7E8.
For more details, read Referencing for Beginners. For full details, read WP:CITE and Help:Footnotes and pages linked there.
First, find a source the supports one or more statements in the article. Gather the bibliographic information from the source: title, work (newspaper, magazine, name of web site, etc), author (if known), date of publication (if known), url (if online), page(s) (if printed or PDF), publisher.
Second identify that fact (or facts) supported by the source. Directly after the clause or sentence containing the fact (and any closing punctuation) insert the following <ref>Citation details here</ref>. You may optionally use a citation template to format the "Citation details here" part, such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite book}} (or any of several other specific ones), but this is not required.
That is all that is needed. Repeat for each source to be cited. There should be several. DES (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd also like to add a picture over on the upper right. Can you tell me how to do that?2601:602:8100:5FC1:98A8:3E4D:D8F6:D7E8 (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, you will need to find a picture that is in the public domain, or that has been released under a free license, such as CC BY-SA 3.0. A picture from a web site will not do, unless it very specifically is released under a free license. Permission "for use on Wikipedia" will not do, it must permit reuse by anyone in the world, for any purpose, including commercial use, and including making modified copies or derivative works. Wikipedia's fair use rules pretty much never permit use of a non-free image of a living person. Once you have found a free pic, upload it using the commons upload wizard. Thne see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for instructions on how to add the image to the article. But until you have a free image uploaded, the instructions are pointless. DES (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Do we include nationality in articles or is it not included anymore because of a dispute of whether to use [[United States|American]] and [[Americans|American]]. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello TeaLover1996, and welcome to the Teahouse. I always include it, using the former form, unless it is unclear or complex enough that in needs an explanation in the article body. I'm not aware of any guideline or consensus which says to do otherwise, but I might have missed something. DES (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of biographies, according to MOS:BLPLEAD there are two key points you should consider when mentioning someone's nationality or current location. Which are,
  • 1) In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
  • 2) Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
But when it comes to movies WP:FILMLEAD states the the nationality should be mentioned if it's singular and defined by reliable sources. If, however, multiple nations are involved in the production, different national interests must be covered later in the lead section, not in the opening sentence. And avoid wikilinking (or piping, such as [[United States|American]]) when mentioning the nationality as it could be considered as overlinking. Best, -- Chamith (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
ChamithN, TeaLover1996, the advice not to link is not in WP:FILMLEAD, nor in MOS:BLPLEAD , and at least for biography articles, I strongly disagree with it. I don't think this is in any way overlinking. DES (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Actually I advised him not to link as per the guideline WP:OVERLINK which considers linking everyday words, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions as overlinking. -- Chamith (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

subject's notability[edit]

Hello TeaHouse,

My proposed article was declined because the subject lacked notability. In the article I included 4 links to newspaper articles about the subject. Why wouldn't that be enough to establish notability?


Hhabashi VAI H Habashi (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Joseph Wagenbach
Hello, H Habashi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Those links should be converted to proper inline citations, and it wouldn't hurt to have additional sources. There are also some other formatting details to clean up. But the subject looks at least probably notable to me. Happysailor, who posted the decline, could best say why he or she did so. I can help you clean up the formatting if you like. DES (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
hello DES,

thanks for you help. I'm not sure I see problems with the formatting of my proposed article but would appreciate your input. In the meantime I will see if I can find more sources. I know articles have been written about the Joseph Wagenbach character in the German press - would that be eligible in this context?

Thanks again, Hhabashi VAIH Habashi (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

new article question[edit]

Hi - I have one article already on Wiki: Now I have a new one that I need a bit of help submitting. It's about Keith Schooley - who, as a former stockbroker with Merrill Lynch in Oklahoma, sued the firm all the way to the Supreme Court and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, after he blew the whistle on corruption there and was fired as a result. He wrote and published a book about his account there and the book was later translated and republished in China. SO my question is: under which category would this be submitted and what are the steps to do this as a second-time submitter? Thanks so much, Hillary Chase - <email redacted> Hillary Chase (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Same as last time - use the Article Wizard to create a draft and then submit it for review. --ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Keith A. Schooley

Don't worry about categories yet, Hillary Chase, get the draft into good shape and notability clearly established.
For one thing, citations such as "Tell-tale risks." Chicago Tribune. 18 August. 2002. are incomplete. Add the page and column in the print edition, or a link to an online edition, or both. Add n author if a byline was published.
A citation such as {{xt|"Building Effective Whistleblowing Programs." Control Solutions International. June 2003.)) is significantly incomplete. Where can a reader find this to verify it? Was it published? A link would help, or some data which indicates how it might be found in print, or both. Other citations have similar issues.
Turn these into proper inline citations, either using ref tags or one of the other acceptable methods discussed in WP:CITE.
Wikipedia does not normally cite public records such as marriage and birth certificates, but rather mentions of such events in reliable sources, which may be primary (such as the subject's own web site or autobiography) or secondary (such as a published news or magazine account).
I have broken the draft into sections for you. Of course you may rearrange or rename these if you choose.
Information and citations over a period of time would help to establish notability. Otherwise it might be argued that our one event rule disqualifies this subject.
I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


How to give Barnstar? Why is Jainism Barnstar not in list. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 14:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can give someone a Barnstar by writing on their talk page the appropriate "What to type" code from the table on Wikipedia:Barnstars.
A "Jainism Barnstar" does exist. You can find it at Template:Jainism_Barnstar. In theory this barnstar is "managed" by Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism, but that Wikiproject appears to be mostly inactive apart from yourself. I think you'd be fine awarding Jainism Barnstars however you see fit. --LukeSurl t c 15:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :D, I have archive enabled on my talkpage. Is there anything by which I can disable barnstar from archiving and stay on it.
I see you have already copied the barnstar to your user page, which will not be archived, and is the right place for it long-term - not both. - Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to keep it on userpage, that's y asked. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: Per the documentation at User:MiszaBot/config, I've made the thread permanent through this edit, which is the output of {{subst:DNAU}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a newbie please suggest help submitting a page for acceptance[edit]

I've become interested in a group called Feral Five and have made some contributions to a draft page about them. I've also been honing my skills making minor amendments to other pages to improve them which has been fun. I want to try and find an image of them to upload but am not sure if I can just take something that seems like it is publicly available (i.e. on the web) and simply upload it to wikicommons. Also, another question regards what I need to do to suggest the page is (almost) ready for approval. I think they seem to be a bit more 'notable' as they've released more stuff and done some interesting things and got played by a few people on BBC etc. I also noted that had got written about by some 3D print gurus in the states. Chantelle Cooper (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Feral Five

Hello, Chantelle and welcome top the Teahouse. If there are more reliable sources available (that discuss the group in some detail), adding them wouldn't hurt, but I think this is ready to go live, by being moved to the main article space.
As to an image, it is rare that an online image of a person or group is acceptable on Wikipedia. Such images are almost never released under a free license, and to qualify for fair use on Wikipedia, they have to pass ALL the conditions at WP:NFCC. Images of living people are normally replaceable unless they are of a historic moment or soem other special reason applies. One couls writ to the band and ask for an image to be released under a free license, but since this would mean that anyone could use the image commercially without paying the band anything, they might well not agree. If you or another fan took a pic at a performance, and were willing to release under a free license, that would be ok, but a pic from the web, no. DES (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I think I will practice a bit more and search for a bio or something more about them but then move it to the main space. Is moving simple? Oh and thanks for the points about images etc. I will leave that alone. Chantelle Cooper (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving is easy, Chantelle see WP:MOVE. There is a link "move page" under Page in the menu on most skins. Or if you don't feel comfortable, ask me or any experienced editor or ask here. DES (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion of first article[edit]

My article "Iain Lachlan McGarvie-Munn" has been marked for speedy deletion, please help me to make the corrections necessary for it to be acceptable on Wikipedia.RoberFfitzwilliam (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's all explained in the messages on your talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this[edit]

What is the wikipedia teahouse?Subsistence (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Problem uploading image to Commons[edit]

I maintain a website for a band named “The Nightowls”. I’m trying to upload a photo using the wizard – which is named “the Nightowls.jpg” - but I get the message “there was another file already on the site with the same content but has been deleted”. This is the standard pic they use – which is used for their website photo & it’s in a section with several photos for people to use, but this one is that most people use when writing articles, stories, interviews etc. about the band etc. I tried renaming the photo – but I assume it’s looking at the imbedded info from the pic. Not sure if there’s a way to still upload this? Thanks David R AustinTx David R AustinTx (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David R AustinTx. Did you take the photo, and do you own the copyright as an individual? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then you can release it under a Creative Commons license, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Please be aware that this type of license allows anyone to reuse your photo anywhere for any purpose, without permission. This includes commercial purposes without payment to you. You may need the help of a Commons administrator because it was previously deleted. That is a separate project.
If you are not the copyright holder, then you cannot upload that photo. Either take a new photo of the band yourself, or ask the copyright holder to upload it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Patrolled? What does it mean?[edit]

Hi. I was part way through the Wikipedia Adventure and I was "patrolled". What does that mean? 6thgeneration 17:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eric. You'll see information at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages and at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi David, Thanks for the information.

I thought the Wikipedia Adventure was a place to practice editing. As such, the edits are not part of the main Encyclopedia, but are just for personal development. Do I have that correct? If so, why would it be subject to a patrol? Eric 6thgeneration 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)

Almost all pages on Wikipedia are subjects to being patrolled, and patrolling is just a way to let others know that your userpage was approved and does not contain any unallowed content (advertising, etc.). ~Liancetalk/contribs 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liance! 6thgeneration 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talkcontribs)

What if I can't find unbiased references?[edit]

There's a disambiguation page "KVS" with a reference to "Kitchen Video System", but no article, so I'm creating one (my first article). The problem is that any online source telling about KVS features and setup seems to be trying to sell THEIR system. Should I submit the article without references? I'm guessing that I'm not the first person to encounter this. Any ideas? Hudsondunn (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A draft/article without references will be rejected/deleted. Wikipedia articles must cite reliable, third party references that demonstrate that the subject meets our notability guidelines. If there are no such references available, then the subject may not be notable, as Wikipedia uses that term (WP:CORP for companies) and would therefore not qualify for an article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In articles sources connected to the subjects of articles can be used, but with caution and judgement. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources for a detailed discussion on this. However, as Ukexpat explains, such sources do not carry any weight with regards to demonstrating that the subject of a draft is notable. --LukeSurl t c 14:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Hudsondunn. It sounds like you've done the research to determine that Kitchen Video Systems does not merit an article (and therefore you should not write one on it). The essential test for whether a topic warrants an article is whether sufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources exist that have published about a topic in detail, such that an unbiased article with all verifiable content, and no need to include original research, can be written. If those source don't exist, Wikipedia should not have any article. See the notability guideline. I've just taken a look myself through Google Books, News and Scholar (which tend to concentrate reliable sources, unlike a Google web search) and found precious little.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...In theory, an article about the Kitchen Video System should be just as notable as articles about other technologies used in the restaurant, such as the point of sale.
I will keep looking for good references before I submit. Thanks for the feedback! Hudsondunn (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hudsondunn. Your use of the phrase "in theory" suggests to me that you haven't yet understood the concept of notability as we use it in Wikipedia. There is no relevant "theory": notability is a practical test: have several people unconnected with the subject written about it in reliable sources? Two subjects can appear to you to be equally famous (or important, or popular, or influential, or notorious) but if nobody happens to have written about one of them yet, then it is not notable, and there is no way other than looking for sources to determine whether it is. --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rules regarding foreign language sources[edit]

I am contemplating creating an article, but I am curious as to the rules regarding foreign language sources. It seems as though they are allowed, but in an English language based article / section, how can one be assured that the source articles actually state what the English language author/editor claims it states?73scooty (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

English sources are preferred but non-English sources are perfectly OK. If verification is the issue, then maybe leave a message at WP:RSN asking for help from someone who speaks the relevant language?--ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We initially assume good faith and if we want to check (and don't speak the language; there are plenty of bilingual people here), then we use Google Translate, or ask for help at the language section of the reference desk or at a Wikiproject and so on. For example, besides the ref desk, I've asked for help with translation for this purpose at Wikiproject India and Wikiproject Japan. I've also taken sources that are not directly translatable by Google because they are book images (i.e., not renderable text), taken screenshots, OCR'ed them, and then run that through Google translate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How to contest the deletion of article[edit]

Pls help me to improve this draft article - True.indian.raj (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

hello... pls help me.. True.indian.raj (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Inspector_Chandra_Prakash isn't going to be deleted. However it will not be moved to the main section of the encyclopaedia in its current state. See the guidance at Wikipedia:Your_first_article for help with developing it. --LukeSurl t c 13:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please also read the words alongside the resubmit button: "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again." To resubmit without having addressed the issues was a waste of your time, and that of the reviewers. Note that the feedback messages, both on the draft and on your user talk page, include a number of words in blue. These are wikilinks to pages which give you more information on the issues which you need to address. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Article declined[edit]

Hi There

I have had my article for WallsandFloors declined twice and I need to understand what to do to achieve publication.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisK10000 (talkcontribs) 13:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ChrisK10000. I think the main thing you need to do is to stop thinking about "achieving publication", and think instead of writing an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia has no deadlines, does not promote anything (commercial or uncommercial), and has very little interest in what anybody - or any company or organisation - wants to say about itself. If you want to write an article about WallsandFloors, you need to find some places where people unconnected with the company have written substantial material about it, and been published in reliable places.
Of the four references in your current draft, three are mere listings; the fourth (Northants Telegraph) is probably not regarded as a very reliable source (local papers tend not to have a reputation for fact-checking) but the piece is in any case is clearly based on a press release, and so is not independent of the company.
Since a Wikipedia article should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have said about it, it is impossible to write an acceptable article without such sources: that is what is meant by the Wikipedia jargon word "notable" - until you exhibit some substantial independent sources about the company, no article about it will ever be acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


At the outset, Thank you for the assistance offered. I would like to add a page on "ZAAFAROON" Authentic South Indian Food Restaurant serving ethinic and very traditional food from the southern states of India. "Zaafaroon " is registered under TRADE MARK and it has its URL. I would like to know how to get it edited for Wikipedia.( (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The first question is whether the restaurant is notable or not. When I look at the website, it appears to be a South Indian fast food restaurant with a single location. Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of every single pizza parlor, noodle soup shop, and hamburger joint on Planet Earth. We do have articles about restaurants which have received significant, non-local coverage, and restaurants which have received major awards like Michelin stars, for example. Or large chain restaurants with hundreds or thousands of locations. If this particular restaurant has received widespread significant coverage in reliable sources, over and above routine local coverage, then perhaps it may be eligible for an article. I suggest that you open a Wikipedia account, disclose any possible conflict of interest, and use the Articles for Creation process to draft the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about image copyrights[edit]

Hi, I am currently willing to edit some infos about my passed school . I have some images which I would include . The pictures will be from the Magazine of our school. So there is no issue of copyright because no one owns them and if these pictures are used in any place it will not breach my purpose , I am okay with it along with the institution . Please reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh Salman Nihal (talkcontribs) 15:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this question under its own section header. CabbagePotato (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Sheikh Salman Nihal. School magazines are copyrighted just like any other magazine unless the magazine has a printed notice saying that the contents are copyright free. When you say that "no one owns them", I am sorry but you are incorrect. The photographer owns the copyright to each photo unless that person has released or assigned the copyright, in writing, to someone else. Therefore, you cannot add these photos unless you can prove that they are free of copyright or freely made available under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you just mentioned . Well , even if the Magazine holds the copyright if I can make the official website of my school mentioning that the contents of can be usable or if the institution gives me the copyright to use it . Will that be okay ? yes I will make sure that it is proved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh Salman Nihal (talkcontribs) 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

im not vandalizing any article.[edit]

Bgwhite said i was vandalizing an article but i was adding more info on, can anyone help.DalexB (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite's reasons for undoing your changes have been explained at User talk:DalexB#August 2015, and in their edit summaries. If you wish to discuss this with them, you can either respond on the section on your talk page, using the code {{Ping|Bgwhite}} to send an automatic notification to them, or you can use their talk page.
Your edit here is not constructive because the page is clearly titled I See Red (Clannad song). You were removing valid information about Clannad's song, and inserting information about the song of the same name by Frida. If that song is notable, then it needs its own page, not one with an inaccurate title.
Additionally, in this edit, you removed three tags from the article without fixing the issues they stated. If you wish to remove the tags, you must first fix the issues: the article needs references to reliable sources to provide evidence of notability. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Bilorv, it does appear that the song is actually the same song, and Clannad's performance was actually a cover of the song originally performed by Frida. That may mean that the page is actually mis-titled. @DalexB and Bgwhite: DES (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
They are they same song. Clannad and Frida recorded it a few months apart and Clannad's version is the one the charted (as far as I can tell). The songwriter also recorded the song in 1992. I See Red is a disambig page. To call it "I See Red (Frida song)" is clearly wrong. Not sure what to call it. "I see Red (song)"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DalexB (talkcontribs)
Different recordings of the same song should, assuming they are both notable, have separate articles. So IMHO I See Red (Frida song) would be the appropriate title and if created it can be added to I See Red.--ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ukexpat, I've never seen this done. All versions of the same song are in that song's article, and if there was an exception to this rule I don't recall it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks everyone for explaining what was going on. I believe Vchimpanzee is correct in that covers of a song are usually included in the same article under a different heading. But references (e.g. to charts / reviews of the song) are needed for either version of the song if they're to be included in an article. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Bilorv I think you are mistaken there. Once the topic is notable, in this case the song itself, relevant information does not need to separately pass notability tests, see WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. A primary reference to show that a version exists would be sufficient. Now not all covers of a much recorded song should be included, but I think the original version of a song would always be relevant, even when it was a later cover that charted. And with a song that has only been covered a few times, all covers should probably be included, given that the song itself is notable. Ukexpat, I have only seen separate articles for different versions of a song when lyrics and music have been changed enough that it is essentially a different but related song, and not always then. I have frequently seen articles listing multiple covers of a song. DES (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting an article created, in accordance with COI guidelines[edit]

Hi! I'm looking to create an entry about the company I work at. I'm looking to get this entry made not for advertising, but because I believe that the company fits the notability guidelines and has earned a place in Wikipedia. I'm trying to do this as honestly and transparently as possible. (I've also made a COI disclosure on my user page.)

What is the best way for me to go about this? Should I write the article (using a NPOV and a full set of legitimate sources) and submit it for review at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation, compile said legitimate sources and make a request in Wikipedia:Requested Articles, or something else? I'm happy to take the effort to write the article, but I want to make sure it doesn't come off as biased or as an advertising attempt. Christine Elena (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Christine Elena. You have made a good start by disclosing your conflict of interest and I commend you for that. In your situation, I recommend the Articles for Creation process. Please feel free to ask additional questions here at the Teahouse as you develop your draft article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help, Cullen328. I'll get on writing that article. Christine Elena (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Get content of Article deleted[edit]

I created an article Vishuddhasagar which was speedy deleted. Is there someway in which I can get the last version of the article for recreation as special Mypage. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 05:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Capankajsmilyo. I assume when you say "special Mypage" you mean a user space page. Such pages can be used to prepare and draft articles for the main encyclopaedia, but a userspace page should not be used as a permanent alternative location for content removed from the main encyclopaedia. There are also types of content (such as copyright violations) which Wikipedia cannot have anywhere.
You can request a copy of the latest version of Vishuddhasagar by following the process at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --LukeSurl t c 13:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks LukeSurl -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of article - I believe in error[edit]

I'm just new and still learning, but I created an article for a notable deceased person on August 19th. I saw that an addition was added to an external link by an administrator and I believed it was fine. Just today, August 25 it got speedily deleted and I believe this is a dreadful error. How can I dispute this deletion? The link/article I created was for Robert Jaffray Christie - the only son of (existing page) William Mellis Christie. Please advise of any help or improvements I could make to have him reinstated on the site. Thank you.Anorr-christie (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anorr-christie. The articles was speedily deleted by FreeRangeFrog under justification "(WP:A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)". It may be that FreeRangeFrog would be willing to userfy the article, so that you can work on it. But please read your first article, and understand that 'notable' has a special meaning in Wikipedia: it doesn't mean famous, or important, or popular, or influential; it means 'has been substantially written about by people unconnected with the subject, published in a reliable place' - without such writing, there is essentially nothing which could be put in an article on the subject. If you want to try again, I suggest using the article wizard, to create the draft in Draft space, where it is not normally at risk of being deleted when it does not meet the required standards. --ColinFine (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The article did not make a credible claim of importance, it was just a CV essentially. I'm sure the person existed, but that's not enough. If Anorr-christie can provide a single example of why the subject is notable, I will restore to draft. @ColinFine: thanks for the ping. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The names involved — an article on Robert Jaffray Christie written by a user calling themself Anorr-christie — strongly suggest a conflict of interest, which would in turn strongly militate against the article's acceptability. --Thnidu (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On mobile how do you make a thumbnail of a photo show up on a wiki page?[edit]

I've noticed alot of wiki pages don't have any photos on mobile at the top of the page. Is there a code you need to put in on the page or is it when a photo is first uplaoded. Here is an example of a photo at the top of an article.,_WMF_Metrics_Meeting_March_2015.pdf&page=43 Snagle77 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Snagle77, do those pages have any photos in the first place? The Wikipedia app should use images appearing in the article in the banner. If you find an article missing images in general you can remedy that by following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Opencooper (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a P&G search box?[edit]

Is there a quick and simple way to search through WIkipedia’s myriad policy and guideline pages, like the search box at WP:MOS that enables us to quickly search through the myriad style-related pages? — (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Although I am not aware of a specific search function limited only to policies and guidelines, I do recommend Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines which is structured in a pretty logical fashion. Another suggestion is to use the "WP:" prefix in the search box, followed by a relevant key word. So, for example, entering WP:NOTABILITY into the search box takes you to our "General notability guideline". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The MOS pages are all subpages of WP:MOS, so it is easy to implement a search button. The policy pages are not so conveniently organized. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Is that a thing that is possible? Feasible? — (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist? @Cullen328? Or anyone else? Is a better (and more searchable) organization of policies and guidelines something we could do? (Something that wouldn’t include every random essay and AFD page.) — (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) might be a good place to discuss this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
What, just propose some half-baked idea of my own? I was hoping there was already something floating around, if not already implemented. — (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So could someone suggest something to propose? — (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I upload a non-free JPEG file to Wikipedia?[edit]

Help! I am a Autoconfirmed user, 'Peter B Lloyd', and I have now spent a day trying without success to upload a 2 MB non-free JPEG to an article that I have been editing.

I started with Tools / Upload file, then selected the column 'Wikipedia' rather than 'Commons' (although the difference is unexplained on the page). This gives three choices: (a) 'Files for upload wizard' / (b) 'Plain form for local uploads' / (c) 'Old guided form'. On my first iteration, I went into the 'Wizard'. It said, "If you are registered and autoconfirmed please upload the image yourself." So, I clicked on this link, and it took me right back to the Wizard front page.

I therefore inferred that the Wizard was not the right method. So, I clicked on "Plain form for local uploads". This had a button for selecting and uploading files. I used this to select and upload the file from my computer. The upload process started but never finished: the 'buffer wheel' kept on revolving for hours. I tried it in Google Chrome v44 and Internet Explorer v11 several times. There was no error message displayed. I right-clicked the page and got the diagnostic console. Still no error messages. I reported this in Help Chat, and someone recommended that I use because the method I was using was "deprecated" (even though it was signposted from the Wikipedia main page). I successfully uploaded the file and filled in all the details, but apparently this method uploads files only to Commmons, which is not appropriate as my file is non-free. Accordingly it has been slapped with notice saying it will be deleted in seven days.

So ... I went back to the upload page. This time, I went back into the Wizard and ignored the link for Autoconfirmed Users, and instead clicked on 'Submit a request' (which actually looks like a heading, not a link). This took me to 'Files for upload/Wizard', which gave me seven options, and I selected the one relevant to me, "Upload a file that's non-free, and I am an autoconfirmed registered user". This took me back to the Wizard front page. Next iteration, I pretended to be non-autoconfirmed, and clicked "Upoad a file that's non-free, and I am a non-autoconfirmed registered user", which took me to "Files_for_upload/Wizard/Search", where I followed the link "The image I want uploaded doesn't exist on Wikipedia"; this took me to "Files_for_upload/Wizard/License" where I clicked the link "The image is copyrighted"; this took me to "Files_for_upload/Wizard/License-Copyrighted", which at first seems to be a dead-end, stating: "Unfortunately we can't upload images that are copyrighted or don't have a compatible license", but this is contradicted in the same paragraph where it says "If your image constitutes fair use and you can provide a suitable rationale for the image then please click 'Go back' below and click 'The image is suitable for Wikipedia for another reason'."

I did so, and filled in all the details very fully, including Fair Use tags and Rationale for Use, and then clicked Save. This saved all the textual details but offered no means for uploading the file. If I understand correctly, this has submitted a request for my image to be reviewed and uploaded. But I cannot see how that is going to work, as the image is sitting on my hard disk, and has no URL (other than the misloaded one in Commons, which will be deleted in a few days). So, my question is still: HOW DO I UPLOAD A NON-FREE JPEG TO WIKIPEDIA?

Peter B Lloyd (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Screenshot of the "Upload file" landing page (Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard)
Peter B Lloyd, welcome to the Teahouse. Oh man. Firstly, it sounds like you spent a lot of time trying to figure this out, and I'm really sorry for the inconvenience. Let's go back to the very beginning. In the left sidebar, under "Tools", you click "Upload file". This should take you to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard page. If you have javascript enabled on your web browser, right above the box that has the "Wikipedia" and "Commons" columns, there should be a large link that says "Click here to start the Upload Wizard". If you click that, it should take you to a place that allows you to upload your file and fill in the licensing information correctly. Make sure you are filling in all the required fields for the upload process (name, description, licensing, etc.).
With regards to the "Plain form for local uploads" method, I am willing to bet that the "buffer wheel" you mentioned was really the software trying to produce a preview of your file—that method actually doesn't have a buffer wheel when it is uploading the file, the buffer wheel is the software generating a preview prior to uploading. If you try that method again, this time ignoring the buffer wheel, filling out the title, description, and licensing fields, and at the bottom of the page hit the "Upload file" button, it will successfully upload the file. I want to mention that Wikipedia has a very strict policy regarding non-free images—they are only to be used minimally when there is no free alternative. Make sure you have read Wikipedia:Non-free content and can confirm the image you want to upload is in line with our non-free content policy. If you are still stuck after trying the above, please follow-up here so we can clarify. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
One other point: a 2MB image file probably doesn't comply with 3b of the non-free content criteria which requires that an image be of low resolution.--ukexpat (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Mz7, Many thanks for your answer. I have now succeeded in uploading the file using the steps you gave. Sorry I didn't discover this method by myself! The last snag was that the upload button remained greyed-out because of a comma in the title. All fixed now. Thanks again. (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ukexpat, Thanks for your comment. In fact, the 2 MB file is much lower resolution than the 10 MB file it was derived from, which in turn was coarser than the original vector graphics file. The reason for having such a large file, even as a low-res copy, is that it is a map of the complete New York Subway system, with 486 stations, and the image has to be large enough to see the original designer's method of showing multiple routes on one track. (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assuming File:Map of New York City Subway, by Reka Komoli 2015 reconstructed from handdrawn map by Raleigh DAdamo 1964 for NYCTA Subway Map Competition.jpg is the image in question, I'm afraid 1,994 × 2,745 is far too high-resolution for a legitimate fair-use claim, and it will almost certainly have to be deleted for legal reasons. As a rule of thumb, no fair-use upload should be larger than around 300–400 pixels wide, which is usually the largest size at which images are ever used in articles. If the purpose is to display a colour scheme rather than to reproduce the map, the best thing to do would be to just reproduce a small section of the map. I know this is frustrating, but because content on Wikipedia can be (and is) reproduced by anyone, including commercial publications, we need to make fair-use images effectively unusable by print publications and other websites as much as possible. (The very fact that I can read a lengthy copyright notice on this image without straining my eyes a giveaway that we can't really use it.) I appreciate the frustration, but we need to take copyright very seriously. (For comparison, see Wikipedia's current treatment of the London Tube map, which is intentionally at a resolution which still shows the colour scheme, but renders it commercially useless.) ‑ iridescent 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)