Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 563

Archive 560

Archive 561

Archive 562

Archive 563

Archive 564

Archive 565

→

Archive 570

Is this image file legal?

@Finnusertop and Marchjuly: Folks, I've uploaded an image derived from an image made and published with a notice that it is an "NIH Public Access Author Manuscript". The article is at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3040116/pdf/nihms270337.pdf The image is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CTCFLoopDevReg1jpg.jpg Why am I concerned about whether the file is legal? 2 reasons: 1)The final version of the paper is published by the prestigious journal Cell, as one of their open access articles, at http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0092867409006990/1-s2.0-S0092867409006990-main.pdf?_tid=8202163c-d5e8-11e6-a193-00000aacb362&acdnat=1483910707_fa60a17032f48d6483ba2813d22954c2 Although it is not specifically stated, I believe that the Cell archive is ND and NC restricted. I am also unsure if the "NIH Public Access Author Manuscript" has ND and/or NC restrictions, but I suspect that it should not. I took my time making changes to the image to make sure that this test case will be a test of both NC and ND. 2) My second concern is that the manuscript was published by an NIH grant-holder, not a full time NIH employee at one of the NIH buildings! Grant-holders are generally part-time NIH employees getting "summer support" at a university. (For those just reading about my unusual images for the first time, there has been discssion about them in other forums) Based on our previous discussions, I'm thinking that the fact that it is an "NIH Public Access Author Manuscript" means that the image is OK regardless of what Cell might think, but I'll let you folks make the decision without any argument from me, regardless of how much time it took me to edit the image, since the Steelers were winning big while I did the editing. 8-) Finally, is there a better place for discussions like this? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. There is a difference between public access of NIH funded research (meaning one doesn't have to pay to see it) and putting the copyright in the public domain. See the Public Access FAQ where it says "The NIH Public Access Policy does not affect the ability of the author, the author's institution, or the publisher to assert ownership in the work's copyright." The Cell article is clearly labeled with a copyright. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, there is a noticeboard at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for images, etc. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @StarryGrandma: DennisPietras (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Another refQ: half-dead (zombie) link

In editing Anagram, I've just added an example (ars magna) with a link to a short PBS video so titled, about anagrams and a particular brilliant anagrammatist. Trouble is, the page is still up on the PBS website, but the link from there to the video no longer works. The Wayback Machine's earliest copy of the page (I haven't tried the others) has a working link to the video.

I didn't want to just call the original page link a dead URL, because the brief article about the film is still there and contains useful information. I compromised like this.

References

Is there a better way to handle such cases? --Thnidu (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: I've tried three times now to add this comment with the ASK A QUESTION button, and it keeps appearing at the bottom of the page. I'm inserting at the top now by hand, but WTF is the matter? --Thnidu (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps someone has seen sense and agreed with the frequent requests that this page abide by the same convention as on other Wikipedia discussion pages, rather than deliberately confusing new users by doing things differently. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be a result of the recent page move, as is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Move initiated. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What does the article I created in my Sandbox need in order to be acceptable?

I created an article in my sandbox and would appreciate input on it from more experienced editors. Thank you in advance for your assistance. KuliMK57 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KuliMK57. User:KuliMK57/sandbox is currently written in too promotional a tone. You need to remember that you should be writing in Wikipedia's voice, not your own. So, passages such as "Their courageous work as members of strong teams to 'dream together' motivates others to become involved in the struggles and reality of marginalized persons whose human rights are often violated" do not belong in the article. Such claims also need to be verified by references to reliable sources. Large parts of the draft are missing references. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

how to edit

hello...my name is muhammedradil and im new here.i want to know how do i make corrections for articles and how do i attach references to it..thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammedradil (talk • contribs) 02:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Muhammedradil. A couple of help pages should be useful to you: Help:Editing and Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Stopping a stalker

Hi all, how do I go about stopping a stalker? The user keeps posting warnings on my talk page. For example, can I prevent unregistered users from posting on my talk page? Thanks. -Human like you (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like those warnings were valid for the most part. I suggest you read them carefully, follow the links, and heed the advice. And be careful throwing around terms like "stalker". It is normal when a disruptive edit is observed in one place, to examine the contributor's history to determine if similar disruption has occurred elsewhere. That isn't saying that you are being intentionally disruptive. I believe you are editing in good faith but you are unaware of the policies and guidelines that the "stalker" has been trying to inform you about. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you realize this MAC address is following my contributions and reverting them on purpose? Thanks. -Human like you (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful if the anon IPv6 address in Münster would register an account, as you have done, as evidence of good faith, but meanwhile it would probably help the situation if you could concentrate your edits on uncontroversial, non-political articles for a while. Administrators would then be able to see whether there is any ill-will in what you regard as stalking. Dbfirs 11:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Deltahorse - draft

Hello good people at Teahouse, thank you very much for offering me support. I have made the required corrections and am now awaiting approval. In case my draft gets declined I would love to get back to you on this. Again, big thanks for the offer. ChristinaSlower Faster Music (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be wise for you to expand the bare URLs. And it be worth tidying up the refs used more than once, see WP:REFNAME. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Multimap links are broken

Hi, I noticed on the UK railway stations – M page that the links to maps via the postcode using, for example: SK10 1JD do not work. On the talk pages back in 2010, this was noticed and people have since been converting them to Bing maps, but so far have only got up to the letter K on this UK_railway_stations list of lists. Is there a cleverer way of updating this because otherwise it will take many more years before it is all updated, and I am sure the are a lot of other links scattered over Wikipedia that are also broken in this way and which would benefit from a scripted "find and replace". Cdgillie (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why on earth are we using a Multimap search on the postcode for these links, when every article already has a set of coordinates leading directly to the location on every significant mapping program? Seriously, I wouldn't waste your time fixing these, since the Multimap links will almost certainly be removed en masse at some point. ‑ Iridescent 15:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

E-mail address

Hello I have added an email address to the Sisua Village gram panchaya, a warning popped up, I kinda panicked and i cant seem to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod Fathers (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rod Fathers. You also asked this question at Wikipedia:Help desk#Rod Fathers, where there has already been a response. You only need to ask in one place at a time, and if you have follow-up questions about this issue then I suggest replying there. If you have any other questions about editing Wikipedia, do come back to the Teahouse though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, Rod Fathers, please always sign your Talk page posts and comments (Even one-word ones like "OK") with four tildes: ~~~~. That will make the software attach your signature and a time stamp...much easier than doing that yourself! --Thnidu (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Article

What makes an article legit so that it wont be removed by the administrators — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqperson (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Iqperson, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Much the most common reason for an article to be removed by administrators is that it fails to show that its subject is notable. The word notable here is used to mean that the subject has been discussed by multiple reliable independent sources. This notability must be demonstrated in an article, by citing such sources. Maproom (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to add some context here, in the hopes of providing Iqperson with better answers (Note: I don't know what triggered my search, but here it is anyways)

His question may specifically concern Kuda Pofa, which was both subject of a (brief) discussion on Articles for Deletion (specifically here), and was in the end speedy deleted by an admin. The reason for its speedy deletion was, from what I gathered, that the article provided no indication of importance (see Criteria for speedy deletion#A7).

If I may be so bold (again) as to recommend anything, it would be to a) read some of the Wikipedia pages on notability, Your first article and Reliable sources, and b) to discuss and contribute in a spirit of cordiality (per WP:CIVIL). Note that I'm not accusing you of anything, but words such as "inconsiderate" (here), "abuse of your administration priviledges" (here), and "personal grudge" (e.g. here) do not help you or anyone else.

Finally, as DMacks responded to your query on his talk page, your (deleted) article did not satisfy the criteria for notability of people. Please do consider this, and if you believe that the subject (Kuda Pofa) is a notable person, follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines by providing independent reliable sources to sustain your claim of notability.

Hopefully this will help the Teahouse better answer your question. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 19:12, 8 January 2017 (UTCv

If DMacks is correct, then the content of the deleted article is still present at Draft:Kuda Pofa. That is a draft about a 16 year old that makes no plausible claim of notability. If you are Kuda Pofa, then I recommend that Facebook or another social networking site may be a better place for this type of content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The current draft just contains three bullet points. If it were in article space, it would be subject to speedy deletion as no context. However, it is in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

From the top to the bottom and vice versa-- editing my references for proper style

I have to make paper copies of the reference for beginners which will take a bit of time.

My question is like the subject says, starting at the top of the entry there is a proper name. That proper name is referenced for wikipedia down at the bottom but not in textual order.

 1.)  Will the <ref> instructions automaticlly insert a [1] or 

 2.)  Does my reference section have to be in the order of the inline references?

This work is fascinating to do and I am only tackling a single job. I am starting from scratch. My entry is currently in Draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loninappleton (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful when using <ref> tags in your questions. If you look at the version of this page after your edit you'll see that there is an error message in your question, but more importantly many of the sections following yours are not visible because of the unterminated ref tag. If you want to put a ref tag in your question, you need to surround it with <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. You need to use the "Show preview" button to check the effect of your edits before saving them. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Loninappleton. Using the <ref> will generate the superscript numbers automatically. The references will be numbered in the order they occur in the text, and displayed in numerical order. Please see Referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

So Pyralidae is where I added information and all, but it falls in copyright issues as said by somebody who saw it. The issue is, however, most of the information (as I think) seems to be retained while some of it being exact to some source. I thought even if some of the information was matching some source whilst the remaining did not (this is because the information might be particular and exacting, so altering it might have lead to the decrease in it's quality) then it were fine. So, how does one know if their information is falling in copyright issues? (This was as well asked by me in the talk page, but the more important question being) Also, the contribution shows a strike-through, even though a lot of things are retained, and neither can I click the diff to see what was omitted. Also does it look like all of my information was pasted from other resource or something due to the strike through (even though I do not think it was) , so can you suggest something on the same?Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Adityavagarwal, welcome back to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we usually cannot accept any material that matches or closely matches what somebody else has written. Even if it is not a direct match, if the wording is too close, it can still pose potential copyright problems. I understand that a source might express something in a very particular and exact way, but it is crucial that you paraphrase, or state the same idea using your own words, to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

There are a few resources available to help you with this. On Wikipedia, the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing essay contains advice on how to identify when the material you've written too closely matches the source you're reading, and the "How to write acceptable content" section contains some advice on how to adjust your approach. Essentially, you want to take notes, ensure you understand the idea that the source describes, then explain that idea using your own words. It helps to pull from multiple sources to see how different sources explain the same idea. The Purdue Online Writing Lab also offers some advice on how to paraphrase and even gives a few examples.

The reason your contribution shows a strikethrough is because an administrator has removed that particular contribution from public view—when you post material that infringes upon copyrights, we need to hide that material since leaving it on Wikipedia exposes the project to potential legal issues surrounding the copyright. I hope this information is helpful. If you need additional guidance, please do not hesitate to ask a follow-up question here. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC), revised 18:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mz7, it's not quite true that we cannot accept any material that matches or closely matches what somebody else has written. Short quotes are allowed, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry is correct, and that was an oversimplification on my part – I apologize if there was any confusion. The close paraphrasing essay I linked to above also lists a few cases where close paraphrasing is acceptable, and Adityavagarwal, I invite you to take a look at those if you are interested. For a general approach, however, I recommend being cautious and only quoting when you feel you have to. Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit more about quoting, Adityavagarwal: when you do so, you must indicate you have copied someone else's words by using quotation marks, and you must cite a source using an inline citation, clearly showing where the quote is taken from. This is one of the four types of material for which inline citations are not optional.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It was helpful. :) Also, I nominated the article for GA, and also will be improving it more like further paraphrasing it and all, so will the information retained be considered for fetching points in the wikicup? (Along with the new edits and adding paraphrases and all?)Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: It's ultimately up to the WikiCup's judges (see Wikipedia:WikiCup for who they are), but part of the GA review process is checking for copyright violations, so I'm willing to believe that, yes, if the article passes the GA review, then you will be entitled to the points in the WikiCup as long as you significantly contributed to the content in the article. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring has more information about scoring in the WikiCup. Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

when will my page go live?

I made this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_Acharya but it is still not live on web. can you please tell me how many days does it take to go live? Meghasehgal (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It will not go live until a new page reviewer marks the page as patrolled. Articles are noindexed until they are patrolled. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meghasehgal, I've patrolled it now so it should be live. Experienced editors patrol articles to check them for problems, and see if they are suitable to be included on Wikipedia, and mark pages as patrolled to avoid other editors being led to the same article. New articles can be seen at Special:NewPages, where articles that have not yet been patrolled appear in yellow. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meghasehgal. You need to rewrite the article in your own words, copying from nowhere, and citing the sources of the information (ideally from highly reliable, secondary sources entirely unconnected to Acharya), but not the words. There's more information about the copyright issue in the template I left at your talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible need for a "breaking news" aspect in some of the technology areas?

Something to ponder. In technology in general and the area of medicine specifically, there are fast-breaking bits of progress around the world at an unprecedented and increasing pace. Since this affects patient welfare and access to care, is there a need for a special paragraph/section on the wikis that highlights current breaking trends (treatments in the case of medicine). Understandably, the core of wikis are their well-vetted and published substantiation. But it can take years for new approaches to achieve such level of vetting, while they may be critical to human lives in the meantime. Some treatments, for live and death situations, should be out there earlier for patients to choose. I think the community should think about a separate section, either within the current wikis, or a special less-well vetted wiki on a given subject, to inform the world of these early and as of yet not well known developments. Why should these early treatments only be available to the well-connected and privileged few? Biofilmman (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless multiple, independent, non-trivial reliable sources exist for a topic, we don't cover it; that isn't going to change. I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia; we exist only to summarise what other people say about things, not to make our own judgements or to break news stories. This is particularly true in the case of medical articles, where for both legal and ethical reasons we can never deviate from mainstream opinion on any given topic. ‑ Iridescent 14:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If for example, you find a published, reliable primary source that describes a phase II trial of a promising new chemotherapeutic agent for colorectal cancer, I think you could edit section 6.2 of that page to include something like "A phase II trial of xyz has shown some benefit^ref". DennisPietras (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, you definitely could not add content to a medical article based on a primary source. Because of the legal and ethical issues involved, medical coverage has much stricter rules on sourcing than the rest of Wikipedia—all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge, if you want the exact wording. ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent:I am going to argue with you, particularly your "definitely could not" statement. The followiing quote (with my bold emphasis added) is from the link you provided: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." So, as opposed to your "definitely" the real guidelines are "generally". I agree with the care that must be taken not to mislead readers with in vitro results. I indicated that I think a brief mention of phase II trials from a reliable primay source is OK, and I stand by that. Not in vitro. Not phase I. DennisPietras (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Making small addition to page for Christine Chubbuck

Hi,

I have been trying to include the following line in the 'Popular Culture' section: "In 2014, Paramount Song in Nashville, Tennessee, recorded the song "Christine (I Wish I Could Have)". According to the song's author, the lyrics are a tribute to Chubbuck." I have included three references, including original third-party sources. However, whenever I add it, another editor keeps removing it, in the edit summaries dismissing it as "non-notable" (it hasn't been recorded by a superstar).

I asked the same question at the Helpdesk, and they replied that "you need to have solid sourcing (besides YouTube) mentioning it and tying it to the subject of the article...please provide an original source." I did this and explained to O'Near (editor who keeps removing my changes), but he still removes it, insisting that the sources are not good enough.

Is there any compromise that can be reached, so that the line about the song doesn't have to be deleted altogether, while still satisfying guidelines? Thanks.

165.228.1.35 (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for your question. I will have a look at your edits and give you feedback directly to your talk page. Hope this helps, Flat Out (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 165. Welcome to the Teahouse. There are approximately 27,437 different guidelines and policies regarding article content (that's hyperbole, lol). The most important one is WP:CONSENSUS. If someone disagrees with you about the usefulness of an addition to an article, it stays out unless you (or others) can persuade them that it is useful. In order to even begin doing that, you will need sources entirely independent of yourself that have discussed the song. They do not exist. It appears to me that you are simply trying to promote your song. That isn't Wikipedia's purpose. John from Idegon (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, but I can assure you that I'm not trying to promote my song at all, I know Wikipedia isn't a means of promotion, and I don't care if no-one at all listens to or downloads the song. Everyone seems to think that I added it for self-interest and promotion, but this is simply not the case. I simply thought that Ms Chubbuck was a very special woman, her situation was a particularly tragic one, and thus wished to share with readers that there is a tribute out there that acknowledges her and her situation. (Other individuals with untimely deaths have had songs written for them and mentioned on their WP pages, but no-one disputes them). I tried reporting objectively and without giving undue weight, as well as sourcing it as best I could, but there are only so many kinds of sources I could provide.

I thought that, according to the WP disputes page, when disputes occur the goal is to reach a compromise, not for one editor to get things his way and the other to get nothing. I can see, however, that everyone agrees with O'Near, so I won't try to add my song any more. Btw some of the comments he made in his edit summaries were just condescending and sarcastic despite the WP policy not to bite the newcomers. 1.144.96.250 (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the idea is to come to a consensus, not reach a compromise. No one will know any more about Christine Chubbuck by knowing YOU have written a song about her, and you will profit from it. Your noble claims are entirely disingenuous. Now how about letting us help people who really want to learn how to use Wikipedia and not profit from its existence? John from Idegon (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, if a consensus should be reached, then fair enough. But please don't call me a liar and imply that I'm not acting in good faith, when you don't even know me. If you did know me, you'd know that I'm telling the truth. I have not and will not profit in any way, nor do I expect to. And I'm not stopping you from letting you help people who want to learn how to use WP. I already said I would make no more attempts to add it. 1.144.96.4 (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Page deletation Query

I am currently IT manager in Leo Club of Kathmandu Fulbari and We want to make a Wikipedia page about it. But it was deleted for some reason. I need help.124.41.219.140 (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm afraid you should not create a Wikipedia page about the club because you have a conflict of interest. If it is a notable organisation, a volunteer editor will create an article about it eventually. Please be patient. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I add sections? (VISUAL EDIT)

I'm new to editing in the visual editor. How do you add a section? >_< Brick5638 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brick5638. You add sections by creating headings. To do that you can use the paragraph style drop-down box in the top left: change "Paragraph" to "Heading" or "Sub-heading". Or, as a shortcut, just start typing the wiki markup (i.e. == or ===) and the Visual Editor will pick it up. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laia_Falc%C3%B3n_(disambiguation) May I please receive some help for going on with this entrance?. Tanks Barbarajhonson10 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Barbarajhonson10. Was there anything in particular you wanted help with? The article was in the wrong place and strangely formatted, which I've attempted to fix. However, there are still some major problems which may lead to it being deleted:

• There isn't a clear statement of why Falcon is notable. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to include an article. If these are available, you should add them to the article.
• The article is written in bullet points and has no lead section. It needs to be rewritten in continuous prose.
• A lot of the references that are there are to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, you can't use it as reference.

To be honest, this article does not seem nearly ready for publication. If you like, I can move it to a draft which you can work on and submit for peer review when it's in a more finished state. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

May be you help moving to sandbox again. Thanks. Barbarajhonson10 (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

.. or to a draft, Joe. Thanks. Barbarajhonson10 (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The version in your sandbox―User:Barbarajhonson10/sandbox―is still there. I'll request that the copy at Laia Falcón be deleted so you can continue working it. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. Barbarajhonson10 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

How can i add football club uniforms on a template?

Please can you tell me how i can add football club uniforms on a template cause i need only that and my article is fully complete.Andi2003 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that you are talking about KF Studenti, don't waste time now worrying about uniforms. Two previous versions of the article have been deleted in the past few days and this third version is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KF Studenti. You need to understand verifiability and notability. If the article survives the deletion discussion, you can then ask again about uniform, but you may find it useful at that stage to look at a similar article which does have uniforms shown and see which templates ((such as {{Football kit}}) have been used there. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I need Help

I want to know that can I edit the setting or information displayed about something at mid right of screen? Selfloverboy (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Selfloverboy. I assume you are referring to what's called an infobox. Infoboxes can, at times, be difficult to edit and easy to break on accident. If you can tell us the information that is incorrect, and a source for why it is, I'm sure someone here can try to fix it as best we can. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Licancabur/GA1

So, this article seems fine for GA, so how to add the plus sign on the article?Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Adityavagarwal. It looks like the assessment is well underway, and was only started a few days ago. GA assessment can take a while, especially with article that have a lot of references to check, or ones that are difficult to find. Nothing to do now but wait, and try to fix any issues that are pointed out in the course of the review. TimothyJosephWood 17:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal is the reviewer, Timothyjosephwood! See Talk:Licancabur/GA1. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hah! Yeah.. that does make things a bit different doesn't it? I just saw Jo-Jo and thought they were the reviewer. Let's try that again.

Adityavagarwal, The step by step instructions can be found at at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_4:_Finishing_the_review. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, how to add the GA button for that?

Yeah, it seems a bit unusual though right? This may be because I do not think I reviewed any article before. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Please don't be offended but with less than 500 edits to your name and, as far as I can tell, no significant experience expanding articles, it might be a bit too soon for you to jump into GA reviewing. You should at least ask someone at Wikipedia:Good article help to check your first few reviews before awarding GA status. – Joe (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the link looks nice, let me ask for some assistance in the reviews. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If citations lead to non-existent web pages, should the text and citation be deleted?

If Citations in articles lead to non-existent pages, is it legitimate to remove the citation and the text that it supported?WikiEdit56 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey WikiEdit56. Usually it is better to first try to find a different version of the reference, such as by searching for the title of the publication online (if available) or by searching for the url at https://archive.org/ to see if there is an archived version available. TimothyJosephWood 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There are more suggestions in WP:LINKROT, WikiEdit56. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to make an image multi-lingual?

As my first Wiki subject I am making an English translation of a German article(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidar_Suisse). This article contains an image. The image (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:SAH_Engagement.jpg or https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/SAH_Engagement.jpg/220px-SAH_Engagement.jpg,a map of the world with some identified countries) includes a German description together with German names for some of the countries.

Do I have to start over with a new .jpg? or can I modify the existing .jpg to make it multi-lingual? Do I have the "right" to do either of these things? (I do volunteer work for Solidar Swiss and I believe that AndreasSteiner also works there.)

How should I change the .jpg file to include an English description that will be used for the English article while keeping the German one for the original article? Is that possible? How could I have learned this by myself?

Actually the country names appear to be part of the image itself. Can I change them too? I am afraid I will just have to start over which makes the future evolution of these two entries difficult...

Allanatwork (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Allanatwork. Since the image is under the share alike license, you are free to reuse or alter it for any purpose, even commercial, as long as you publish it under the same license, and attribute the original work. So if you have the image editing experience to replace the German names with English ones, you may do so. If you do not, you can request that this be done at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Allanatwork. I would suggest simply removing the text labels. They aren't really helpful, and we generally prefer maps not to contain text so they can be reused in as many languages as possible. If necessary, you could list the countries in the image caption or the body of the article. You can ask at the map workshop if you don't do it yourself (not the link Timothyjosephwood just gave you, which is actually just for maps of American roads).

However, there is a problem: you say you work for the company you're writing about. Here at the English Wikipedia (I don't know the situation on dewiki), we have a conflict of interest policy that strongly discourages editors writing about their employers or any other entity they have a personal or professional connection to. The correct thing for you to do in this situation would be to request an article (noting that it could simply be a translation) so that an unconnected editor can create it. – Joe (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Autoconfirm

When will i be autoconfirmed? I would like to move a page in the public realm however i need to be autoconfirmed.Mokillem (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mokillem. In most cases, user accounts are autoconfirmed after at least 10 edits and four days. But looking at the draft in your sandbox, it's definitely not ready to be published yet. Right now it only has a single source, which seems to only cover information related to the individual's death. Before the article is published you should include additional sources for the remainder of the information in the article, and to help demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia standards for notability. You may also want to check out further guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. WP:Autoconfirmed will tell you. But if you are talking about User:Mokillem/sandbox you oughtn't to move in into article space in its current state as it is almost completely unsourced and would therefore be at risk of being deleted if it were moved to mainspace. I have added a {{userspace draft}} template to give you a submit button to submit the draft for review when you have added references to the unsourced text. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Confused about Drafts-- I seem to have lost some work

I'm trying to chase around all the places where my full draft might have went either by a deletion or some other means.

This draft page:

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

lost some entries made to the Sandbox. The Sandbox is empty and only contains a redirect message.

I can redo the entries but why is it necessary? I cannot retrieve the sandbox entry which I understood said it would be saved.

This is highly confusing between 'talk', teahouse and whatever comments turn up from editors as messages in the work and all their links to other "talk".

I want to see the image of Signals through the flames from the Sandbox and begin fresh doing the references in proper order. Some references in the link above appear to be missing.

What's the right thing to do?Loninappleton (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You can see all your edits by clicking on the "Contributions" link at the top of any page. This will take you to Special:Contributions/Loninappleton. If you click on the "History" link at the top of Draft:Signals Through The Flames it will take you to the history of the draft. If you are saying that some references are missing, you may be thinking of those removed in this edit which removed some supposed references which were to Wikipedia. You can't use Wikipedia as a reference, for reasons explained at WP:CIRCULAR. You do need to read the feedback and comments given by those who have reviewed your draft. The words in blue in the feedback box are wikilinks to useful guidance, including WP:Notability#General notability guideline, WP:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Help:Referencing for beginners, and WP:Verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Loninappleton: To clarify, the draft in your sandbox was moved to Draft:Signals Through The Flames because you submitted it for review and that is where drafts for review live (so multiple editors can collaborate on them more easily). It was just moved, none of your edits were lost. However, after it was moved another editor deleted some content for the reason David Biddulph explained. This is how Wikipedia works – it's collaborative. If you notice an article or draft has changed since you last edited it, the first thing to do is to check the history to see what was changed and why. You can also add it to your watchlist to keep an eye on changes as they happen. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Loninappleton: To avoid you getting further confused as to where you are editing, I've changed the redirect which was sitting in User:Loninappleton/sandbox into a simple link to the Draft. If you want to edit the draft, do so at Draft:Signals Through The Flames. If you want to use your sandbox for other purposes in future you can do so. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok this explains many things-- about those wiki references. I will reread this message carefully and have made a printout which I can read more easily. The task grows as my errors occur but I keep at it. I'm still in the process of learning the inline reference technique from the guide.

Also, to lighten the email load, it is better that I take Teahouse off of 'watch this page.Loninappleton (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I always see dead links

How can I edit deadlinks and citations I always see them and links are not working so is it ok if I replace them with some working links ? Quitesailor (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quitesailor, welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a lot of information about how to handle dead links at WP:Link rot. Perhaps more relevant for you are the sections about repairing a dead link, finding alternative sources for dead links and about the usefulness of keeping some dead links. Remember that, just because a URL no longer works, does not mean that a reference is no longer valid. This is especially the case where enough bibliographical/citation information have been provided, so that the source could potentially be accesses by some other method (for example, a dead link to a book or journal article may still be a valid reference or citation, if the source can be found in physical form at e.g. a library). See also WP:DEADREF, which explains what to do for sources which contain a dead link.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

is there some way to determine who wrote a section of text EASILY?

Folks, I've identified a sentence in an article that I think is misleading at best. I've discused that on the article's talk page and suggested a replacement sentence. I also believe that I could tediously review the histories of the article to find out who wrote the sentence, but I fear that my life is too short. So, is there some way to, for example, highlight the sentence, copy it, and paste it into the "who wrote this?" app to get the answer? If so, where is that app? 8-) If not, the wiki code writers need to write one, IMHO!!!! This would not be to dump on the author, but rather to make sure the person sees the discussion on the talk page. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, DennisPietras. You're in luck. From the history page for an article, click "Revision history search" and you will be taken to the sinister-sounding but very useful WikiBlame tool for the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That is waaay cool. DennisPietras (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes Cordless - thanks for that. A great tool I did not know existed. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I learned something new today! :) Justin15w (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello.How to create a famous Persons Full Biography to create his page on Wiki ?

Hello. I am on your teahouse . Thanks for your love. I am a indian Writer and news paper editor. I want to know how to create a persons biography page to save in wiki? Every time i create but it nominates for speedy deletion. Please send of a full idea how to create a biographical page of a celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednova (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rednova and welcome to the Teahouse. You've posted your question at the bottom of the page, instead of at the top, but it can be answered here just as well.

If your articles are being speedy deleted, it means that you have not yet grasped how an article must be written for Wikipedia. Can I direct you to WP:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners? If you can master the instructions in those articles and find a subject for whom sufficient supporting references can be found, they you'll be on your way.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Explanations for the speedy deletions were given at User talk:Rednova-india, as were links to many useful pages. You are not permitted to edit while blocked. Instructions as to how to request an unblock are also at User talk:Rednova-india. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sortable table not sorting?

I am building this sortable table, but when I push the arrow to sort by size of "burned area" it doesn't sort from largest to smallest.

Wildfire Table

Wildfire (year)	Burned area	Cause
Water Canyon Fire (1954)	3,000 acres (10 km2)	trash/construction debris fire
La Mesa Fire (1977)	15,400 acres (60 km2)	human-caused
Dome Fire (1996)	16,500 acres (65 km2)	abandoned campfire
Oso Complex Fire (1998)	5,200 acres (20 km2)	arson
Cerro Grande Fire (2000)	48,000 acres (195 km2)	controlled burn
Las Conchas Fire (2011)	156,000 acres (630 km2)	Power line

Patrick Fisher 05:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding (not properly signed) comment added by Patricksfisher2 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You forgot to specify the data sort type. Try:

Wildfire Table (with data sort type specified)

Wildfire (year)	Burned area	Cause
Water Canyon Fire (1954)	3,000 acres (10 km2)	trash/construction debris fire
La Mesa Fire (1977)	15,400 acres (60 km2)	human-caused
Dome Fire (1996)	16,500 acres (65 km2)	abandoned campfire
Oso Complex Fire (1998)	5,200 acres (20 km2)	arson
Cerro Grande Fire (2000)	48,000 acres (195 km2)	controlled burn
Las Conchas Fire (2011)	156,000 acres (630 km2)	Power line

--David Biddulph (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

References

How to select a template for biography and which is allowed for sub page?

Please answer the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednova (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Any material suitable for Wikipedia can be placed on a subpage. There is not a pre-defined template that can be filled in for creating a biography, but you can find articles of many different sizes. If you pick a smaller one, that may give you a rough idea of what your new article needs to have in it. Review standards for new pages have been getting tougher, so just because an existing substandard page has not been deleted, it does not mean that an equally substandard page will now be accepted.

Most of the Teahouse hosts will recommend that you spend quite a bit of time improving existing articles to learn the Wikipedia ropes before attempting the rather daunting task of creating a new article. Attempting to create a new article without having absorbed some of the WP culture first can be very frustrating. Don't be discouraged! The Teahouse is here to help.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Rather than concerning yourself with templates, you should probably focus on explaining your actions and/or defending yourself the accusations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rednova-india. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How does one know if an uploaded image has been "certified" as OK for the commons?

Hi, I'm a newbie trying to be bold with images. I've had 2 "collage" images deleted because one or more of my source images were not acceptable for commercial use. Finally I think I'm beginning to understand the criteria wp needs, and have uploaded revised versions of the files, which haven't been deleted. However, I'm hesitant to incorporate the images and new associated text into a wp article until I know the images won't be deleted. How can I know if they have been approved? If you can tell from looking at something on the image pages, they are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConEvoSkin2jpg.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConEvoEyes2jpg.jpg Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you ascertained the copyrights of the pictures taken from flikr? Dbfirs 07:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. I think it would be better for you to upload the Flickr images you're using in File:ConEvoSkin2jpg.jpg directly to Commons as separate files if their respective licensing allows you to do so. You can then tag the files for a license review by adding c:Template:Flickrreview (leave all the parameters blank). A Commons bot or license reviewer will eventually review the file to see if it's OK for Commons. Once you've been given the OK, you should be able to use the individual files as part of your collage.

Finally, one last thing about files. You can link to them as blue links in the almost same way you do with articles, etc. The thing to remember is the colon trick. If you use the mark up [[File:ConEvoSkin2jpg.jpg]], you're telling the software to show the photo. However, if you add a colon before the word file like [[:File:ConEvoSkin2jpg.jpg]], then the file will appear as a blue link as it does above. It's OK to link to the url pages of the files like you did above, but it's not really necessary for internal pages on any of the WMF projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I add an image to a wiki entry

 [ShaneHawkins1982] comment added by ShaneHawkins1982 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 

Hi ShaneHawkins1982 I'm afraid I don't know well enough to explain to you. If you make your question a title like I did for this section (see above with the == each side in the edit view) then your question will have more chance of getting noticed and answered. Best of luck! Philbobagshot (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find guidance at WP:Uploading images and WP:Picture tutorial. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi ShaneHawkins1982. If the image already exists on Wikipedia or at commons.wikimedia.org you can just do it like this: [[File:FILENAME.jpg|thumb|Optional text caption goes here]]. If you want to upload a new image then see the links above. Alsee (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at this essay for a really basic introduction. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How to create infobox?

Can I please know how to create a infobox?Divyanshujisharma (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Divyanshujisharma and welcome to the TeaHouse. There are many varieties of Infobox to suit different topics, and each one has a corresponding template. For example, {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox settlement}}. I assume this question relates to your empty article on Shyam Sadhu, but I can't tell what that is about so I can't advise which sort of Infobox to use. The first task is to write the body of the article, sumarizing the best quality independent references. Then choose the appropriate Infobox, and copy the code from the template (such as the ones above) to the top of your article, and fill in the most important details from the rest of the article there. Don't start with the Infobox; it is something you might add at the end. Start with references and writing the article. You can read all the details about Infoboxes at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How to archive discussions

I don't know how to archive old discussions. Vladi 14:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimirrizov20 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find advice at Help:Archiving a talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is the submissions page

I recently signed up for WikiCup, but being a new user I'm not sure where it is.HerodotusTheFraud (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi HerodotusTheFraud, and welcome to the Teahouse. This year's WikiCup can be found here. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I made somewhat of a typo there. I meant that I didn't know where the submissions page was. HerodotusTheFraud (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions. EDIT: Your submission page is here: Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2017/Submissions/HerodotusTheFraud but I don't see you in the list of contestants and therefore this page hasn't been created yet. Justin15w (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse vs Help desk

Is there a difference between the teahouse and the help desk? Like, are certain types of questions more appropriate for one place, but not the other? Thanks! Anne with an E (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anne with an E. The Teahouse was established with the goal of being a friendly place for new editors, and about 75% of the questions do come from very new editors. The Help Desk is for any editor and is perhaps a bit more businesslike, with less "hand holding', you might say. But both perform the similar function of assisting editors with this very complex project. You can ask editing questions at either one. General knowledge questions belong at the various reference desks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The boxes on user pages

How do you put the boxes that display information on your user page, like on Iryna Harpy ? From Dylan. Cricketer993 (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cricketer993. First you decide what userboxes you want displayed. For that, see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery and Template:WP:UBS. There are various ways to organize userboxes once you've decided which you want to display. The ones at the userpage you cite as an example are organized (in the most common way) using the templates, respectively {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} (note that the user page you cite does use these templates but by alternate, redirected names, which could be a little confusing here; they are the same).

Anyway, clicking on those template links will show you documentation for them, explaining their use. In summary, you place the first template (and can designate certain options), followed by the userboxes you want to have displayed in an organized fashion, and sandwiched at the end is the other template — it might look something like this:

{{userboxtop
| toptext         = 
| align           = 
| left            = 
| backgroundcolor = 
| bordercolor     = 
| extra-css       =
| textcolor       = 
}}
{{userboxname1}}
{{userboxname2}}
{{userboxname3}}
{{userboxname4}}
{{...etc}}}
{{userboxbottom}}

See also Wikipedia:Userboxes#Grouping userboxes and Wikipedia:User page design center. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)