Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 228

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 225

Archive 226

Archive 227

→

graphic descriptions of torture

I was reading the article on the Mau Mau uprising and there are several descriptions of torture that are not only horribly graphic but even highlighted in blue boxes. I have been sick and can't go back to that page. Can someone help remove this stuff? 174.88.8.213 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello 174. Wikipedia articles are not censored. The article contains information on war crimes. The descriptions of torture seem to be written in a dispassionate, non-sensationalistic manner and are unlikely to be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and so the text will probably not be removed unless there are other problems with it. See WP:CODI for the content disclaimer. For certain problems, say that the torture description was some kind of modern method and did not belong in the article about the 1500's, then it would be removed. But in this instance, the description fits into the article and is sourced. Tutelary (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello all members of this discussion. I totally understand that the Wikipedia should not be censored and that reality has to be explained however horrible it is. But just a thought: There are many articles with content that might in one way or another upset unsuspecting readers, and please bear mind that we also have underage readers, such as articles on violent crimes or sex. Is there no way or policy in the Wikipedia that allows for such graphic material to be put in collapsible boxes, with some kind of warning text, on the page? Just like in any other media where the public is warned about the contents in say a TV show before it is shown or when adult magazines are covered up in supermarkets (this is done in Sweden). Or is this a really bad idea that violates some of the standards here on the Wikipedia. All kind of other stuff is put in collapsible boxes. I understand that it is hard to draw the line as to which material should go into such boxes, but maybe the same criteria that govern what user names can be used, and so on, can be used. As I said, just a thought. I'm not biased in any way, just looking for a solution. Comments? Best, - W.carter (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Its better if you bring this up on the talk page of WP:CENSORSHIP as that is where policy could be discussed. But good luck with that. Everyone knows that we have underage readers. We have had them since the beginning of wikipedia. Its probably why wikipedia in the first place made the policy of wikipedia not being censored. NathanWubs (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I am still shaken to have run across such material. To Neil and Tutelary, I am not asking for censorship but for editorial judgement. The Mau Mau Uprising is an important incident in the history of Kenya. I can't imagine that thousands of Kenyan school children are not assigned essays on it every year. Do graphic descriptions of torture add anything necessary beyond the sourced assertion that there was torture? To W.carter, thank you for suggestion a compromise. Another alternative might be to remove that material into a separate article, is this not possible? 174.88.8.213 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to the last comment from the IP address, welcome to the teahouse btw, I understand your revulsion at reading such stuff. I have great difficulty reading it as well and haven't looked at the article in question for just that reason. But IMO yes, there absolutely IS a good reason to keep stuff like that in the articles. And that is that as awful as that stuff is to read about it's a billion times worse to experience and people still are experiencing it somewhere right now. And documenting dispassionately and honestly when these abysmal crimes happened is a very small part of the activism required to prevent torture in the future. Note, I'm not saying Wikipedia is or should take a political role, I'm saying that by nature of being an excellent, trusted source of information that has high standards for objectivity Wikipedia is a resource for people who get involved in political activism to document how torture has happened in the past and to work to prevent it in the future. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for suggesting others go edit the article for me. I am glad you didn't go there. Is there any rule to prevent me from putting the material in a hidden box or separate article myself? 174.88.8.213 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a "rule" for this, but since this is a controversial thing to do and you are new here, I would advice against it. It would be best if you mentioned the whole thing first on the talk page of the article and see what response you get. You can mention this discussion there. Don't do anything rash even if you are upset, these things take time. Oh, and another friendly advise: Since you seems to have become involved with the Wikipedia, you should consider staring up a user account instead of just using your IP-address. This would make things very much easier for you and everyone else here. :) I see that such a suggestion have already been made at your talk page. If you have any trouble doing this, just ask and I or someone else will help you. Best, - W.carter (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have read a number of discussions where this was at issue (though locating them is not easy), and the consensus was not to do this; that we do not hide content; that if it belongs, it belongs in plain view (note that I am reporting what I remember and not my own opinion on these matters). MOS:COLLAPSE does not specifically mention the desire to hide/collapse perceived offensive content, but does advise that "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content." Not perfectly analogous but see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Anything like this would require a community-wide request for comment as this would set a precedent. As far as I'm aware, no other article on Wikipedia hides objectionable content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unwelcome thankyous

I'm getting a lot of thankyous (grammatical problem?) just now for various edits. The thankyou posts in many cases seem to have been created by bots. Can I shut these off. Although it's nice to think that someone appreciates my efforts, it is not very gratifying when you realise that no effort was involved in the thankyou, nobody has looked at your work, they just programmed the bot to send you a "nice" message when they detect that you have made an edit. Please help me to stop it; if nobody can help then I am sure I can go back to school and learn how to stop it myself. By the way, I don't mind real compliments but computer created compliments count for nothing. Jodosma (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse. In relation to your question, bots should not be giving 'Thanks' to any edits. (I'm not even sure if you could get a bot approved for such a thing.) So they would probably be from individual users. If it IS a bot giving 'Thanks' for edits, could you let us know which one so we could tell the operator? About the notifications, you can turn them off in your preferences panel, the notifications tab. Clicky me <- Unclick 'thanks' under web notification and click save. You should be good. You can turn it on again if you wish whenever. Tutelary (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jodosma: I have looked at thank yous given to you in the thanks log and they are all real flesh and blood users. I think the issue is that the last user to thank you (three times in a row) appears to thank anyone for each and every edit they make to a particular page (a user who made many edits to that page has been thanked about 200 times, which is a tad obsessive and likely annoying but is probably done in good faith), but that's just an idiosyncrasy peculiar to that user and is unlikely to be seen often from others. Since it looks like the issue is just a one-off, I would suggest just ignoring. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should be grateful for such plaudits; I don't want to put people off saying thanks, although I probably have now. Jodosma (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments so much that it took all my self-restraint to hold back from sending a "thank you" for the message above! :-) --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with file page - Signature

A file, File:Taylor Swift autograph.png, was uploaded by me just now. However, it's not working when I inserted it into Taylor Swift. Why is this so? Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 07:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The infobox used on the article is {{Infobox musical artist}}, which doesn't support a signature parameter. You'll need to either change the infobox (not advisable) or add the image as a picture elsewhere on the page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I see. I got the idea from Justin Timberlake, where they put {{Infobox person}}. Is it even available for a musical artist? Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 08:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with changing to {{infobox person}} is that in doing so you have now disabled the genre, label and instrument fields in the infobox, all of which are more relevant to Taylor Swift's career than her signature. Remember above, where I said changing the infobox was not advisable? I'd recommend that you change it back, and either find a template editor to add signature as a parameter to {{infobox musical artist}} or just do as I suggested before and add the signature as an image elsewhere on te page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: Please see this archive post for an example of why it is not considered appropriate to add a signature field to the template. This has come up several times without consensus for the change. You are of course free to try again. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A signature is important for many entries. Signers of the Declaration of Independence, for example, are known for their signatures. However, a signature is also relevant in any field where people collect signatures. Do people collect signatures of musical artists? If so, you can make a case for a signature parameter. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

odd boxes when added images to preexisting list table

I recently added links and images to the List of the original 30 Anglican parishes in the Province of Maryland. I noticed that many have little grey boxes under them. I don't know if I did something wrong, or if this is a protection against people adding copyright protected images. One of the images (Christ Church, Easton, Maryland) I photographed myself from a book published before 1923 and which was in the collection of a local public library hosting a GLAM/wikipedia event, although presumably it's also in the book cited at the end of the list, which was republished by a different publisher in the 1992. Another image (Christ Church, La Plata, Maryland) I found by google, though it was on wikimedia commons with a horrendously long and basically unsearchable name (it apparently was taken by a govt. photographer in 1941). The others I took last weekend and uploaded today. Any explanation or help would be appreciated, since there are still blank cells remaining.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jweaver28 and welcome to the Teahouse. The pictures with the "little grey boxes" still have the "|thumb|" in the file description. If you remove that and just use the size "100px" the little boxes will disappear. You can also name all the files "|thumb|" if you want to keep the boxes. Best - W.carter (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You have to keep the "|thumb|" if you want the caption of a picture to show, but in a list such as yours it is not necessary.:) - W.carter (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Image Copyrights

Hi,

Im a little confused about the copyright of images and how to figure that out for a particular image. I went to the wiki pages for copyright of images but it went over my head. Could someone give me a simplified version? Thanks!

Kazmia92 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kazmia92. Copyright regarding images is quite complex, but I will try to give you a simplified answer: You must assume that any image you find on the internet, or in a book or magazine, or anywhere else, is protected by copyright and can't be used on Wikipedia unless you have solid evidence that it is not copyrighted or that it has been released under a free license. In other words, you can't use the large majority of images you run across elsewhere. Here are the most common exceptions:

All images on Wikimedia Commons are properly licensed for use here, or anywhere.

If you take a photo yourself of anything that is not itself copyrighted, then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable Creative Commons license, and use it.

Copyright has expired on any image published in the U.S. before 1923, and most countries have similar laws. Such images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and freely used.

Images created by employees of the U.S. Federal government as part of their official duties are copyright free. This does not always apply to state and local governments. I believe some other governments have such laws - you have to check.

Wikipedia allows very limited use of irreplaceable non-free images, such as book and album covers, movie posters, video game screenshots, historic photos, and portraits of notable people who are now dead. Such images are uploaded to Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons, as described in detail at WP:NFCI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Overly precise" coordinates

Help files often warn against making coordinates overly precise, and I understand the reasoning. However, GNIS always expresses coordinates in dms format. When I show GNIS as the source, don't I need to use the same precision to maintain source agreement? Or, is it acceptable to round the GNIS coords to dm format and still show GNIS as my source? Mandruss (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Mandruss, long time since I saw you at the Teahouse! You've probably already read this essay and this guideline, which emphasize that the key to Wikipedia's provision of geographic coordinate data is granularity (i.e. based on target size). Because coordinates can be verified using an online mapping service such as Google or OpenStreetMap, and GNIS data is based on public domain USGS data on which both are ultimately based, citing a source within the {{coord}} template is not mandatory. Hope this helps Philg88 ^♦talk 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Hey yourself Philg88, been too busy to ask questions! Ok, so we drop the source angle, how about a real-life example of coordinates precision? The article is 2014 Isla Vista killings. A circle with a diameter of about 750 meters would enclose all of the locations (crime scenes). Would dms format provide appropriate precision? If so, would you use the GNIS coordinates for the town of Isla Vista, or try to approximate the center of the circle? This probably isn't the best example since the difference between the two choices, if dms format, would be only one second each of lat and long. But I'd like to hear your opinion anyway. Mandruss (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss:. I'm not a great fan of dms coordinates as I find decimals much easy to work with. As a general rule of thumb, for a feature of this size I would use four decimal places of precision, which narrows things down to within 11 metres - more than enough for most conceivable purposes. The Vista killings article currently uses 34° 24′ 48″ N, 119° 51′ 39″ W (34°24′48″N 119°51′39″W / 34.413333°N 119.860833°W), which is unnecessarily precise. Dropping one decimal place will display the same DMS (34°24′48″N 119°51′39″W / 34.4133°N 119.8608°W). This isn't a hard and fast rule but I think that it makes the display look neater. Hope this helps! Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 04:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

For anyone interested, this discussion was continued here. Mandruss (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Where to report conflicting instructions for "Did you know" nomination

The background is that I have just started my first DYK nomination, trying to sort out the confusing and often contradictory instructions around. In the end I chose to follow the instructions in the "Learning DYK system" at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Nomination. But it turns out these are wrong, and I should have followed the ones at the top of Template talk:Did you know instead.

Fortunately, a very supportive editor took pity and fixed it for me, but as long as the wrong instructions are out there other people will also be in danger of falling into the same trap. Not to mention all the hair that gets pulled out along the way. Is there somewhere I can report the conflict to get it fixed? I considered using the page's Talk page, but there is none - since it has never been used I doubt that it would get any attention if I put a comment there. Any other suggestions? Gronk Oz (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gronk Oz. I agree that the instructions are confusing, and I have had difficulty with that process myself. Wikipedia talk:Did you know is a very active talk page. I suggest taking your concerns there. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen - will do!--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How to reset inaccurate changes to article title?

A well-intentioned editor place an accent into the name of Marcio Moreira, the global advertising executive, in an article about him. Although this accent is commonly applied to that name, Mr. Moreira's legal name does not include one. I am unsure how to remove it from the title. If someone can help me, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Joe. Intimeagain (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two or three things here. The first is that Wikipedia uses the name of subjects that is most common in English sources as the primary title of an article; so if his name is most often written with an accent, that should be primary title, and the name without an article should be a redirect page to it, irrespective of what his legal name is. The reference for this policy is WP:MOSNAME. At present Márcio Moreira is the article, and Marcio Moreira is a redirect, so if you are right about his commonly used name, that is correct.

Secondly, you rename an article by moving it: any editor who has been around more than four days and made more than ten edits can do this; but where the destination article already exists (as a redirect or an article) you may not be able to do so without help from an administrator. I'm not sure whether this applies in the present case or not.

But thirdly, since there seems to disagreement about which should be the primary title for the article, you should discuss the question on the article's talk page before moving it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Getting an article accepted

Please help me with getting an article "Jimmie A. Ellis, III" accepted. The draft was declined on July 1, 2014. My instructions are to add citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. I would like to use government and media citation and recognitions. Of course there are hard copies of the documents but how do I cite them correctly for the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorychristiancenter2014! (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Victorychristiancenter2014 and welcome to The Teahouse. You have already been imformed on your talk page that your username is inappropriate because it seen as promotional and also suggests more than one person could be using it. If you follow the instructions at WP:CHU you can continue with your work. It is not necessary for sources to be online, but it is helpful for us if the information can be easily verified. Is Jimmie Ellis covered in a local newspaper? That would be a good source if he has.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Company Mergers & Acquisitions: date announced or date finalised?

When adding information about mergers & acquisitions to Wiki articles, as a general rule, is it preferable to put the date the acquisition was announced or the date it was finalised? In a paragraph, there's often enough space to write that the merger "was announced on X date and finalised on Y date". However, in the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Group#Mergers_and_acquisitions the entries (apart from the last one) generally say "acquires..." but then put the announcement date. This doesn't seem coherent: it would seem more reliable to either say "Man Group announced" and put the announcement date, or say "Man Group acquires" with the finalisation date. I was wondering whether, Wiki-wide, there was a preference for using one date or the other. (note: this question also asked at the Help Desk, because I wasn't sure where the best place was) Jjlewis745 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Jjlewis745 and welcome to the teahouse. My first thought is that I would post that question on the Talk page of the Man Group article and see what people there say. Although IMO if you only have space for one date I would go with the date the merge actually happened not was proposed. To my knowledge there is no Wikipedia standard on this and it's specific to the domain of business and acquisitions so I think it's not very likely there would be a Wikipedia wide standard (although I could be wrong). If there was a relevant standard approach it would more likely be from one of the projects associated with the article. I think this project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Investment looks like the one most relevant. You might try posting on one of their discussions or contacting someone there. If it were me though I would just post the question on the talk page and if no one replied I would be wp:bold and just go with my best judgement and make the change I thought appropriate. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

One more thought I had after looking at the table a bit more carefully. In the main column, the one labelled "Transaction" the language used there to me sounds definitely like most of those dates are when the acquisition happened. They say something like "Man Group acquires X" But a few of the rows say something like "Man Group agrees acquisition of X" which to me is more ambiguous, that could mean that specific date is when it was announced or when it happened. Keep in mind that you can of course edit the table. You can change the text in any row. From my quick look I think the text could be clearer and it would be a good idea to specifically say in each row either "acquired X" or "announced acquisition of X" Also, those tables are pretty adaptable, you can have a lot of text in one row and a little in another and it will size appropriately, btw in general that's why it's better not to specify too much info in terms of column size, etc. on tables, the more you don't say the more the system will figure it out for you based on how much text is in each cell. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi MadScientistX11, thanks for your reply! The lines where it says "Man Group agrees to..." rather than just "Man Group acquires..." were actually added by me this afternoon (after asking my question!) as I think this makes it clearer. I will probably check the dates on the older ones and try to make them clearer, too. Will also check out the project page and ask there, if need be. Thanks! Jjlewis745 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

dentistry

Hi,i would like to edit some articles related to dentistry,could you please guide Kirti13 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kirti13 and welcome to the Teahouse! Well if you click here you will find 198 articles on dentistry that are in dire need of your expert help.

Best, - W.carter (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kirti13. Wikipedia articles should summarize what reliable sources say about a topic. In the case of biomedical fields such as dentistry, we have some special standards for sources which are described at WP:MEDRS. For more general information for new editors, I recommend A Primer for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Template

Hi, I was editing a DYK nom template today, and saw a new box in (or above) the pagenotice, and it said "Manage template documentation". It has the look of a new Twinkle gadget, is that what it is? Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: Apparently not? It was still there after I disabled Twinkle. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: I'm pretty sure it's the new Twinkle gadget. For me Twinkle loads after I reload the page 2 times, the first load I don't see "Manage template documentation", until I reload again I see it. Here's some screenshots:

File:English Wikipedia - DYK - template documentation editor.PNG & File:English Wikipedia - DYK - Manage template documentation button.PNG Best, ///EuroCarGT 19:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It has the look of one, but I didn't see any fanfares when it came out-or any explanation of what it is, or how it works. Those pictures were of the same nom I was looking at, I presume you used my contributions? Thanks for the help, Mat ty.007 19:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wonder if it's to do with Visual Editor and updating the template documentation for the benefit of VE users? Nthep (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Swimming through some distinct lack of transparency, it appears to have been made as a MedaWiki extension for the visual editor's "TemplateData" (see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates/21 May 2014), and someone has enabled that MW extension here without announcement. I'm wondering if that's an error.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I've initiated a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#MW extension "Manage template documentation" now affecting every template.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Cannot get my my submittal accepted.

I submitted this information and it was not accepted: Draft:Education Facilities Clearinghouse

CAN YOU TELL ME what I need to do to get acceptance. Thank youLinda Lemasters, Director, EFC (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Linda, welcome to the Teahouse. I've replaced the copy of your draft which you had pasted here with a link to it. Editors will click on that and give you some feedback. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Linda Welcome to the teahouse. (And thanks to Voceditenore for adding the link.) If you look at the article there are several links that will give you guidance as to why the article was rejected. The main reason given for rejecting the article was that the article as written does not "adequately evidence the subject's notability". That's Wikipedia speak for saying the article doesn't make a good enough case that the topic merits a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has standards for what is and isn't an acceptable topic for inclusion. This article Wikipedia:CORP will give you the specific guidelines for government agencies and corporations. So the first thing to realize is that not every government organization is note worthy enough to merit a Wikipedia article. That link will explain the specific requirements better but in a nutshell if there aren't several references to the organization from good 3rd party references than it's probably not noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. An example of good references are books, journals, newspaper articles, etc. So for example the organizations own web site is not a good source. A few other things to consider: you seem to be the Director of the EFC. If that is the case you shouldn't be writing the article anyway. Wikipedia has rules for conflict of interest and the prime directive (sorry I'm a Star Trek nerd) is that you shouldn't write about any organization that you are a member of and even more so if you are an executive of that organization. One last thing I immediately noticed was that you have no wp:references for the article. A good article has to have all it's major claims documented by references. BTW, note that I left several links in this comment, I suggest you click on all the linked text here and read those articles, they provide more info on conflict of interest, references, etc. Also, keep in mind that everything I've said here are just some of the preliminary issues, there may be other issues I haven't addressed, writing an article can take time especially if you haven't done one before and it's possible to get an article rejected many times or even to just realize that the topic isn't notable enough for Wikipedia at all. Just FYI I was editing Wikipedia for at least two years before I even attempted to create a new article. That is always my advise to new editors, get some experience making simple changes to existing Wikipedia articles first. There are LOTS of articles that need improvement. This comment is already book length so I'm trying to keep it short but if you are interested I can provide lots of ideas about how to find and edit existing Wikipedia articles. Hope that was useful. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's assistance. It is now posted!Linda Lemasters, Director, EFC (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a difference! Good job Linda and Voceditenore who did outstanding work on the article! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright issues, citation rules

Hi. The Wikipedia article on the basilica of San Frediano looks like it was copied in its entirety from the worldheritage.org page on the same subject. Is this a concern? At a minimum, the original article should be cited to help assess accuracy. Thanks. 95.246.207.191 (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's actually the other way round and the worldheritage.org entry is a copy of the Wikipedia article without attribution as to where they got it from, which also seems to be the case for most of the entries on that site. Nthep (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was just investigating and came to the same conclusion as Nthep (we call this backwards copying). The Wayback Machine has nothing on the world heritage page, but it says copyright 2013 at the bottom and our article has developed since 2005 (which is not determinative but one indicia). Much more conclusively, if you look at this edit from 2005 as an example, you'll see that an author organically changed an existing sentence by adding "during the period 1112-1147". That changed content made it through to today, and lo and behold, the worldheritage article copies this current content, with that change included, word-for-word, strongly indicating we are the origin. It may be time for us to take some action.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Added to the non-compliance list. The clincher for me is the line at the bottom of the Basilica of San Frediano article where they haven't an equivalent for the Template:Landmarks of Tuscany. I forgot to say above but thanks to the OP for spotting this and raising it. Nthep (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's also very strong!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Good to know citation is important here :)95.246.207.191 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Hello Wikipedia editors. How can i find a reference with name "Pienaar2012" in order to change the url link of the reference please?Mdpienaar (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mdpienaar. I assume that you are talking about your draft article. Take a look at the wikicode, and you will see the URL at the very end of the body of the article, right before the "References" section begins. Just erase the old URL and paste in the current one. Please be aware, though, that it is very unlikely that your article will be accepted, since it is about a neologism that you have coined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is my page not valid?

I created a new page viz. 'Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies' under 'Companies and Organisations' and I intend to make it full of information under the coming weeks. However, I received a message stating that it does not fall under the terms and conditions. Please help.AbdullahSultanUsmani (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi AbdullahSultanUsmani and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your article to the draft workspace, which will give you more time to add references. Please read this guideline to give you an idea of what you should do next. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Spelling error in source title

"What If?" for Saturday, July 5, 2014

The title of a news article used as a source misspells Virginia as Virgina. Should the ref correct the error, or is it more important to match the source exactly? We can limit the question to clear and unambiguous cases of misspelling. Mandruss (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mandruss. In general, we reproduce quoted text exactly. However, the Manual of Style allows for obviously misspelled words to be corrected. An alternative is to mark the error with "sic", and we have a template for that. Please see MOS:QUOTE and Template:Sic for complete details. In this case, since the error is obvious and minor, I would just correct it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. Note that I'm referring to the specific case of the title of an article, which we enter as the title= param of the cite template. Does it warrant special handling of spelling errors, maybe for example since the title is one of the things used to find the article when its URL dies? Mandruss (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO citation titles should be entered exactly as they appear. If the source suffers from Link rot, it is then far easier to retrieve a copy or find another source, if the correct title is used. You can indicate that you are aware that it is a mistake by using (sic) after the misspelled word. - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You can also use the template {{sic}} which has the advantage of keeping the mistake clear of bots and some overly keen human editors who don't notice it's intentional misspelt. Nthep (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, and the principle that four heads are better than one, I agree that using {{sic}} is best practice for such errors within references. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanking everyone for the help. I replaced "Virginia" in the title (the spelling error had recently been corrected by someone else) with {{sic|Vir|gina}}, as per guidance in the help for the sic template. I got some very strange results, including a red error message. Can someone take a look at this? The article is Virginia Tech massacre. Mandruss (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, an experienced editor looked at it and concluded that the sic template doesn't work within the title= parameter of a cite template. He used a simple [sic] instead. Thanks. Mandruss (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons candidate

Hi! I have two pictures that are candidates to be copied to Commons, but then it's left there for very long and nobody's checking it. Is there anyone there that could check? They are:

Please, someone move move yeah? Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 08:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of Collapse in help files

Template:Collapse refers to its use on talk pages and other discussions, and that's where I've seen it used. I think it would also be useful in help files, to collapse optional information that would otherwise get in the way of one's understanding of the material (e.g., a space-consuming example). Is there a policy for or against this? Mandruss (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

creating an article about my own movie

Hello, I want to create a wiki page for my new upcoming movie.....I have already created one but the wiki is telling that it is violating some guidelines.......what is the problem in my page that I have created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Punters_-_Masti_Unlimited . And the reason they are stating is :

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:

Non-notable film Sreeneshkini (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sreeneshkini: You need at least a line a text in the article to demonstrate why the film is notable. With just an infobox, the article may be deleted. Piguy101 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Far more importantly, you need to cite references to show that the film has already received significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
If you cannot demonstrate this, possibly because independent journalists don't usually write at length about films before they are released, then it is Too soon for your article.
You also need to read our policies on conflict of interest under which you should not be creating an article about your own film in any case. - Arjayay (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

HELP me : Fastunlocker

Fastunlocker

Some error is showing in the above link , how can i solve it ..please help Sibipaul (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sibipaul. I don't know what the article looked like when you posted this question, but since then the article has been deleted, as an "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Please see WP:CCOS for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source for documentary

Hi teahouse, this is my first question here!

This question is about the Graffiti article (specifically its last section on Documentaries and films).

I thought it would be useful to add a link to an early Australian graffiti documentary (Sprayed Conflict) as the list of early graffiti documentaries is quite small. This documentary made in 1994 and quite influential for its time (certainly in Australia, and it was also translated into various languages). Last year it was published in full on vimeo.com by its original producer/director.

I added a [suggestion for it to be added] and the response was: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vimeo is not considered a reliable source. — Technical 13

I read the wikipedia article on reliable sources, but I didn't understand the nuances. I don't understand how a video re-published by its original director is not a reliable source of the video, especially as the mention of the documentary in the article wouldn't be making any claims other than the existence of the video. Is it preferable to not reference primary sources at all? Is it better to reference the original 90s DVD? Wouldn't a link to the original documentary online be useful for people wanting to watch the documentary?

I am also confused why this was not added when other documentaries in the list don't even any references at all, let alone a link to the actual documentary.

Thanks for any help. 1above (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 1above. I am pretty new to this, so I don't purport to know the answer. I would certainly want to see a link to something viewable on-line. However, I think that a safe bet would be to cite the original published source. In your case, I went to Worldcat.org and searched for your documentary. I found it listed as a VHS tape in one library in Australia. Nonetheless, that gives you all of the info you would need to fill in the citation form. The fact that it is an item that a library has would probably make it considered reliable. You might give that a try. Again, I am new, so I don't know, but I do work in a library, and that is the way I would go.

TravellingCactus (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I added citations... When will the "this needs citations" banner go away?

I'm just wondering. I just recently added some citations (and did some minor editing) to an article in a section that had been flagged as needing citations. I think that I added enough references such that the banner could be taken down, but I don't know the criteria, and I also don't know if I have to request that it be reviewed or if some bot re-evaluates the articles periodically. No big deal, but I'm just wondering. TravellingCactus (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi TC, welcome to the TeaHouse. If you're sure there are enough references, you can remove the template yourself. However, even on a very quick look at Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister, there are substantial assertions that are unreferenced, for example the whole of the paragraph ending '...Lister confirmed Pasteur's conclusions with his own experiments and decided to use his findings to develop "antiseptic" techniques for wounds. As the first two methods suggested by Pasteur were inappropriate for the treatment of human tissue, Lister experimented with the third.'

In general, we aim to have at least one inline citation per paragraph, with the exception of the lead (because the lead is most often just a summary of statements referenced in the rest of the article). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Bethnaught has removed the references needed template in any case. Luckily, Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules about (almost) anything :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

New Wikilove

Hey Teahouse! I thought of an amazing Idea for a wikilove food message. Is it possible for me to submit it for use? Thanks, SkaterLife (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you would submit it to - perhaps someone else can help with that.

If you'd like to add it for use in your own wikilove, this instruction page at mediawiki.org might prove useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hey Teahouse, This user, Wheelchair Lifts, is having some trouble with creating an article that is not promotional. Can anyone help him out? Thanks, SkaterLife (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the draft article has been blanked, what do you recommend we do?

I saw several things wrong with it, other than the fact that is entirely unsourced. It uses words such as "unique" and "invisible" without specifically quoting a source, and "our" should never be used. I think it would probably qualify as notable, but we would have to see what sources are out there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I did find three sources indicating probable notability, including one source referring to a BBC2 Architects series that aired June 12, a UKTI listing, and one from the Institute for Civil Engineers. However, both the user name and the possessive plural in "Our lifts conform to British Standards..." indicate conflict of interest. I'd suggest Wheelchair Lifts read Wikipedia:FAQ before proceeding. There is also a WikiProject_Companies Talk page where Wheelchair Lifts can ask for help from editors without COI issues. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming British programmes and their sources

Hi, This is my first post in here and hope that this question is acceptable as it has to do with editing. My question is what is the consensus in adding information about pretaped television programmes (upcoming guests for example) when the shows will not be broadcast until late in the year and the only sources are forums and Twitter?

I'm a fan of ITV game shows in the UK and do edit them when valid sources appear. Some programmes like The Chase , Catchphrase and Tipping Point do have celebrity episodes that tape early in the year and are broadcast towards the end of the year. Last year, there were a few editors that deleted their episode guides as they deemed it Fancruft and Not Stats. I've noticed that there is a user named SolomanMcKenzie who is also a big fan of these programmes and I notice that he does watch the Twitter feeds and other fan forums, when the Celebrity episodes are taped and edits the show pages accordingly. He tries to put back the celebrity episode guides and information on who was in each episode, who won, how much and for which charity, even after being warned the previous year that all of this is seen as fancruft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SolomanMcKenzie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Hollywood_Game_Night_episodes (example of the Fancruft debate)

He also likes to go on each celebrities page and put the particular programme that they just taped under guest appearances when it will only air 8 months from now and there is no valid sources as of yet. I did revert these edits citing WP: Crystal No Source mirroring another instance I had noticed a few years ago about a guest on a pretaped programme with two unrelated editors. He did alot of this on Sunday. The breaking point for me was when I noticed that he created an episode grid for Celebrity Squares with a post that I myself had written on a Digital Spy forum thread with a list of upcoming guests from the unscheduled series that was taped last month. (Would it not too be deemed fancruft anyways?) He also does not seem to read the sources he does cite properly, so I do edit that as well.

I just want to know if I am being paranoid or are this user's edits all right? I'm not slating everything he posts but I do think that some of the edits that he makes are a bit premature, poorly sourced and fancruft. I was just curious on what the best way to deal with this is. Thanks in advance and any help would be appreciated.74.15.186.97 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Forums and Twitter are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. You are correct in removing such material. You can also give graduated warnings for improper referencing and report it to the admins noticeboard if the editor continues after a final warning.

You may find it easier if you create an account as this will give access to editing tools after a while which make it easier to deal with warning templates etc.Charles (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can an edit summary be corrected?

I finger-checked a piped link in an edit summary, failing to enter the pipe character. So the link doesn't work of course. It's an important link; is it possible to correct that? Mandruss (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You could issue a dummy edit immediately after, correcting the link. Tutelary (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Greetings,

I read an article on Huffington Post online about the organization Campus Crusade for Christ inviting an anti-gay pastor who is advocating for the death penalty in Ethiopia for homosexuality to speak at one its rallies in Africa.

I tried to find a major daily newspaper covering this topic, but I have not been successful. The Dallas Voice media outlet has an article on its website about this topic. However, because this is an organization devoted solely to LGBT issues, I fear a great deal of push back from folks monitoring Cru's Wiki page if I cite an LGBT news source.

My thought is to create a section titled "Controversies" and using verbiage along the lines of: In 2014, gay rights activists criticized Cru for ...." and then citing either Huff Post or Dallas Voice. A related, sidebar is whether news conglomerates feeding articles to consumers from a wide array of sources (such as Huff Post and Yahoo) are reliable sources.

Assuming my addition is contested and removed, does any visitor here at teahouse have any thoughts as to my chances of having my edit stick? I don't want to create drama, but I believe an organization enjoying tax exempt status with a net worth of over $500 million (according to Cru's Wiki page) becoming involved in a heavily charged political issue in Africa is noteworthy.Badgernation777 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Badgernation777 and welcome to the teahouse. The easy questions first, Huffpo and Yahoo are good sources. Although, I agree with you that if possible, since they are mostly aggregators, it's better to get things like NY Times but I think Huffpo or Yahoo are OK. I agree with your concern, especially on this issue quoting an LGBT source would be like someone who has the opposite view quoting a Fox News source, it's better to stick to publications with a reputation that is not tied to advocating a specific political agenda. As for the issue you raise I think it all depends on how you frame it. The way you were describing it above sounded a bit to me like someone with a wp:POV (for what it's worth it's a POV that I am totally in synch with). What you need to do is try and be as objective as possible. Try not to talk in derogatory tones, just stick to the facts and let those speak for themselves. But if you do that, at least IMO, the issue you are raising sounds worth adding. Of course the first step would be to open a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Cru_(Christian_organization) That is always a good idea for just about any change but especially in this case I think it's essential to do some collaboration before you even attempt to do an edit. Good luck! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your response.Badgernation777 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate corporate information.

Dear sir/madam

I am from Singapore Press Holdings Limited and I happen to be browsing on wikipedia and came across this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Press_Holdings

The information under History isn't accurate. Would you change them to:

Singapore Press Holdings Limited was formed on 4 August 1984 through a merger of three organisations - the Straits Times Press group, the Singapore News and Publications Limited and Times Publishing Berhad which was later de-merged from SPH in 1988. The merger brought together the English, Malay and Chinese newspapers under one roof. SPH later also bought Tamil Murasu Pte Ltd.

Would appreciate your urgent attention to this. Please let me know once its done.

Thank you.

Best regards Deror Wong (Mr) Senior Executive Corporate Communications & CSR DID - (65) 6319 1226 202.27.30.75 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello 202.27.30.75, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, it seems to me that you have a conflict of interest with Singapore Press Holdings, and I can't really add the information that you state is correct, unless the information is verified by a 3rd-party reference that you can read up more here. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wong, welcome to the teahouse and thank you for bringing that to our attention. I just wanted to add a few things to the excellent information that MrWooHoo left for you above. Even though you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't edit the page you can still bring things to our attention and request others to correct errors. However, we can't just take your word for what is correct. It has to be stated in an independent source like a newspaper, book, magazine, etc. I know that seems a bit strict but that is an essential rule that applies to all Wikipedia articles. The best place for you to post issues and questions is on the talk page of the article. I took your comment above and posted it on the talk page for you. You can see it here: Talk:Singapore_Press_Holdings#Request_to_correct_Information_from_Deror_Wong A few more things to keep in mind: if you want to post additional questions or concerns you should clearly identify yourself as having a wp:COI and what your position is. If you have good references for the information you provided in your initial question, e.g., if there is a newspaper article that essentially says what you say, then you can leave a pointer to that source on the talk page of the article, you could reply on the section that I started and provided a link for above. Hope that makes sense. If you need additional help feel free to reply here or leave a message on my talk page Good luck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Dual column Reflist

I recently expanded the former stub article for William Holland Wilmer and contacted one library that might have a picture of him. However, I can't seem to get the reflist to form two columns. I've tried several reflist labels, including two from articles with similarly long lists of references, but nothing seems to work. Any suggestions you might make would be appreciated.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I find that I can make any two-column reflist switch back and forth between one and two columns by simply adjusting the width of the window; this implies that it's the browser doing it, not the website. That photo appears to be in the way; you might get better results if you move it up to an earlier section. Mandruss (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See if this version works any better for you. Mandruss (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I coded the reference list in a way that forces a two column reference list in all browsers except mobile view. Personally, I prefer two column reference lists in all browsers whenever there are more than about ten references. However, other editors disagree, and prefer a format that toggles back and forth depending on the page display. Accordingly, the method I used is deprecated and someone may come along and change my coding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Rollbacker or not?

Some time ago I thought about asking for rollbacker rights but when I go to a contribs or history window I see the rollback button which I have used once or twice. If I have access to a rollback facility does that mean I'm a rollbacker with full rollback rights? My confusion arises because I don't see myself listed as a rollbacker in any of the various user lists. Perhaps I only have partial rollback rights? Jodosma (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you enabled the Twinkle gadget in your user preferences? Eric Corbett 09:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A check of your user rights (as found on the link at the bottom of your contributions list) shows that you don't have the special "Rollbacker" designation. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jodosma. This is a very common confusion amongst autoconfirmed users that have Twinkle enabled. Twinkle is a third-party set of javascript functions that offers many additional tools, one of them being a "makeshift" rollback function. This rollback is different from the MediaWiki rollback, which rollbackers and administrators have access to. Both "rollbacks" pretty much do the same thing, they just work differently. For example, take a look at this image:

The colorful links at the top are the Twinkle rollback links, while the "Rollback" on the third line is the MediaWiki rollback. It's common for users to mix these up - just remember that Twinkle's links are at the top, and the MediaWiki one is at the bottom. In other words - TTMB - Twinkle Top MediaWiki Bottom. I hope this helps! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, my confusion has been cleared. I think I can do without full rollbacker rights for the time being; the Twinkle version seems quite adequate for my needs. Jodosma (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems editing the Teahouse

User:Mandruss has made a couple of attempts to edit this page - but they are corrupting / overwriting previous posts. I am trying this as a test edit, using the Blue button - Arjayay (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting - the big blue button has put this at the bottom of the page - I thought it was supposed to put it at the top, - is something broken?
At least I hasn't over-written other posts - Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

how to hide my username on wikipedia or take it off? Bettina von zwehl (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ofile as an artist but my user name is revealed at the top and I don't know how to take it off? Any ideas please? Bettina von zwehl (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bettina von zwehl: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can be renamed by following the instructions at WP:CHU. Please note that for transparency reasons, all username changes are logged, so it will still be possible for people to find your old username. --Jakob (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bettina, do be aware that changing your username will not solve the problems with your userpage that were noted on your talkpage. You can find your talkpage at User talk:Bettina von zwehl. Adding promotional material to Wikipedia usually ends in its deletion. All Wikipedia articles must have a neutral point of view and be written in an encyclopedic tone, and writing autobiographical articles is strongly discouraged. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bettina. I think that the previous replies had misunderstood your question, and so did not really answer you. I think you were trying to find out how to change the name of what you intended to be an article from User:Bettina von zwehl to just be named as an article Bettina von zwehl (both those appear as red links, because neither of the pages currently exists.)

If my understanding is right, here is the answer. Your user page User:Bettina von zwehl is not and should never be an article. It is where you share information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. It may contain a little bit of other information about you, but its purpose is to introduce you to the community of Wikipedia editors. An article about you would be a different thing: it is allowed only if you are notable in the special Wikipedia sense, that is, reliable sources such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers have written at length about you; it should be written in a neutral, non-promotional manner; and everything in it should be referenced to a reliable published source. And you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself: see Autobiography. So, if you do meet the notability criterion (and I'm not sure you do at present: most of the sources I have found are not reliable sources, independent of you) your best course is to make a request at requested articles for somebody else to write an article about you. If you provide some good quality independent reliable sources, that will make it more likely that somebody will choose to write the article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I made an entry for her at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#Photographers. It looks to me like she meets all the criteria in the Notability criteria for photographers -- solo exhibitions, in major collections, in Union List of Artists, etc. -- Margin1522 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)