Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 177

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 170

←

Archive 175

How to edit main heading or title of a new entry:

I created a new entry for "Josie Lloyd" recently, but in that initial set-up I did not capitalize the first "L" in Lloyd (lloyd). This is creating problems in establishing links. In the editing mode I am unable to make this simple capitalization correction. How do I make this correction? Thanks.Strudjum (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Strudjum, go to the article page and look for a down-arrow in the row of tabs; click on the down arrow; click on 'Move'; give the page the new correct Title Name; click on move. That should do it. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What is a disruptive edit?

What is a disruptive edit? How do I recognise them? How do I avoid making them? King sorks (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, King sorks. Examples of single edits considered disruptive are things like adding gibberish or deliberately false information, adding slanderous attacks against living people, or deleting significant, well-referenced content without good reason or discussion. However, "disruptive editing" usually refers to an ongoing pattern of editing that repeatedly violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A common example is repeatedly pushing a specific point of view in a way that is incompatible with the neutral point of view, against consensus decisions of other editors. Disruptive editors can be blocked or banned. If you follow our policies and guidelines and accept consensus decisions, your editing won't be considered disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help to create a company page

Need help. Can you please review this page and advice?

Page: TalentSprint

Thanks! Samdani Adi (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Samdani Adi, I've added an "Articles for Review" template to the top of your article; hit the "Submit" button when ready for review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My article for creation has been declined

Hello

Thank you for inviting me to this forum, I appreciate it greatly.

I've been working on my first page on a significant UK poet. My page was declined for the second time (the first time it was a layout point which I rectified) because I haven't referenced all the awards/prizes (this I am willing to do) but more importantly, and why I am writing to you, I have been asked to condense the publication and award/prizelist to the top three in each. This doesn't make any sense as a writer's history is found in their publications and the awards shows the public acknowledgements and achievements. I have written to my editor expressing my concern but he hasn't replied, and I don't think he will as he has a post on his page saying that he doesn't get into discussion on why he has declined an article. I have also checked many other pages of contemporary poets of similar standing and none of them have a condensed list of publications or awards. I am really at a loss as to what to do as I feel to put this page up with a condensed list is a slap in the face to a poet and yet, the alternative is no page at all. I would really appreciate your help on this as to what steps I can take to resolve this. With many thanks, Poppy Dickson (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't tell us the title of the AFC to which you are referring, but I guess that it might have been Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mario Petrucci. The editor who rejected it previously has said on his user talk page that he is no longer involved in the AFC process as his methods had been criticized by the community, so I would suggest that you address the absence of references from the 3 unreferenced sections and then might try resubmitting so that someone else can review it. Remember is that reliable sources need to be independent of the subject; a number of the existing references are to the subject's own website, and at least one has been used more than once so could be rationalized. Other contributors here may have other advice, of course. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Hi, Welcome to the teahouse. Please give us a link to your draft article. Keep in mind that a single review is only the opinion of one random reviewer. If you disagree with the reviewer you are welcome to resubmit the draft for another review - it would help if you leave a note below the review template at the top of the page (but above the "----" divider) explaining that you disagree. One argument I have seen for condensing such a list is that if it is so long that it completely overshadows the rest of the article, it is probably better to trim it down to only the most prestigious of the awards. A separate "List of awards received by John Doe" page can be created if the length really justifies it. The "main" biography then mentions only the most significant ones and links to the separate comprehensive list. Take a look at the example of Madonna and List of awards and nominations received by Madonna - this list article has a "Featured article" rating, meaning it is one of the highest quality articles on the English Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article on Mario Petrucci seems to be worthy of inclusion into Mainspace to me. I see no problem with the rather long list of awards. It helps to establish his notability. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

How to delete someone page? should I be contributor first, How?

I've got an inspiration from this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deb lots of people complaining their page being deleted just like that, even the page that hasn't been finished yet. I would really like to pay back this guy by deleting his page also.

Efrizzz (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Efrizzz. Only an administrator can delete an article, although any editor can nominate an article for deletion. Please read our Deletion policy. Articles should be deleted if they don't meet our basic standards for notability. Any effort to "pay back" other editors by deleting their articles will create lots of problems and will be considered disruptive. Please don't do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Efrizzz, you might want to have a look at Deb's contributions, which began on 30 March 2002. If Deb was a disruptive influence and the complaints against her were justified, it is unlikely that this picture would hold true. Please consider the alternative, which is that she is a valuable contributor doing a good job here. Have a look at the links in the Welcome message on your Talk page and you will see lots of information on how to create articles which last. But coming with a combative attitude and wanting to pay people back really, honestly, is not going to work. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Efrizzz = bizarre dude _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

I would like to get an idea concerning the page "African Leadership Network" that was proposed for deletion. What is its state? Will it be deleted? The discussion as to whether it should be deleted has since stopped.Rotich Giddie (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you go to African Leadership Network you will see a box at the top of the page with information about the deletion request. One sentence says "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.", and in that sentence the words "this article's entry" are in blue, showing that they are a link; it will take you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Leadership Network. The deletion request was made only 4 days ago, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion it says "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days". If you have any policy-based response to the deletion request, you can make such response in that AFD discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

ThanksRotich Giddie (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I now see that you asked a similar question, and received a similar answer at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 176#Nomination of article for Deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Policy on redirects

Hi. This may be a personal issue I have to deal with, but I am getting fed up of seeing multiple redirects etc. as the first few lines of articles. I edit mainly animal-related articles and these seem to attract a lot of "For the....see xxx". For some reason, these are often related to Non-English speaking bands or their music! For example Common raven has "Corvus corax" redirects here. For the German band, see Corvus Corax (band). Is there a policy on what should and should not be in the article redirects, rather than moved to a disambiguation page? If I am just moaning, let me know...but gently please ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

According to this page, about 75 people per day end up at the "Corvus corax" page. Judging by Google, most of them are looking for the band not the bird. In all fairness, one could propose that the Corvus corax redirect should point at the band, and then the hatnotes would be cluttering up the page about the band ("For the common raven, see Common raven") instead of cluttering up the page about the bird.

But, would this really be an improvement from an encyclopedic point of view? Taking the long view, the German band will presumably fade in importance sooner or later (or perhaps be replaced by a Slovak or Swedish or American band of the same name), while we can assume that the common raven will be known as Corvus corax for another few centuries at least. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. A fair point. Guess I will just have to put up with the redirects. Thanks again __DrChrissy (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Finding projects

I'm working on a college course project to improve and create articles for notable women electronic music composers. What's the best way to find out if there is a related project and project manager that I should connect with on this? Deloebrenti (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Deloebrenti, Welcome to the teahouse. Please start here: Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects and see if ~~you din~~ it covers what you need. Are you a student or instructor?--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Deloebrenti, and welcome to the Teahouse. Here's a directory of Wikiprojects having to do with music: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Music. Not all these projects may be active. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deloebrenti. Just to point out, a Wikiproject is just a collection of enthusiastic volunteers. They do not "manage" a collection of pages per se, and you do not need their approval or permission to edit any articles that may be within their scope. In fact, it is official Wikipedia guideline that one should be bold in improving articles :) --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Deloebrenti. Usually, a good place to start figure out what is going on in a subject area is to look at the categories. We have Category:Electronic music and Category:Electronic musicians, but no Category:Electronic music composers subcategory. (I did find an Category:Electroacoustic music composers subcatgory.) If you post a list of women electronic music composers at User:Deloebrenti/List of women electronic music composers, we can use that to revise the category structure to better receive the Wikipedia biography articles from your college course project as well as put you in touch with current WikiProjects that might be working in this area. -- Jreferee (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all! i thought i'd read somewhere that it was a recommended practice to touch base with people active on projects to give a heads up, hence the query. course page coming!

Deloebrenti (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hi everybody, Is there anyone who' d like to give me some feedbacks on the page I have just created User:Publicationbasis/Rare tumors ‎? It's the first trial and I'd like to have your opinions or suggestions before submitting it. Thank you! Publicationbasis (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I've moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rare tumors, which is the preferred place for these drafts. (The old name will still work by redirecting.) I'm not much of a reviewer, so I'll leave this for someone else... --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Article moved into Wikipedia space

A new editor User:Silverline1 moved an article from sandbox to Wikipedia space: Wikipedia:Barrister M.Zahurul Haq. I guess he/she meant to move it to article space, but I am not sure the article is ready for main space. Maybe it should go via AfC? Could someone at the Teahouse help out here? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment is correct. It seems this has now been rectified. --LukeSurl^{t c} 23:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

upload an image to infobox

How do I upload an image to an infobox?Alreporter (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Images are not uploaded "to" an infobox, rather they are uploaded either to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons (a central repository for free images for use by all language Wikipedias and more) and then the infobox is set to display them. Infoboxes vary in how they do this, but usually it means writing the file name as an |photo= or |image= parameter. If you can point us to the article/infobox in question we can provide some specific help.

For information on how Wikipedia collects images (and the copyright questions that go with this) see Wikipedia:Images or ask us here. --LukeSurl^{t c} 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Help in creating the article and making it live

Hi everyone, Need help in making my draft worthy article,Can someone help me further updating it like re writing the sentences. The topic is about a church Angles City, Philippines called the Holy Rosary Church (Santo Rosario Church) , feel free to re write , edit , remove items that are not supposed to be in the page.

Here is the link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kixzer/Holy_Rosary_Parish,_Angeles

Thanks in advance--Kixzer Franz710 ^(talk) 23:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed a few layout errors. I think you should reduce the photo gallery to no more than 5 or 6 images - multiple images showing basically the same view don't add any value to the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

looking for advice on Evaluating WP article quality

I have previously had students review this information for a WP assignment in my class but now find a broken link: File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.e9/e/e9/Evaluating_Wikipedia_article_quality_2010-11-26_%28web%29.pdf

Does someone have the link to this information in a non-pdf format? It would also be helpful to know how to search for information like this (i.e. guidelines, policies etc, but not an article)? I tried typing "WP:Evaluating" in the search box, but did not find it.

Many thanks Biolprof (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The fixed link is: [1]. You can read each page as a separate image there, or access the PDF by clicking on the page. --LukeSurl^{t c} 00:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

many thanks. Can you tell me if there is a way to search for files like this, or do you have to have some idea of where to look? Biolprof (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The file was moved (i.e. renamed) in [2]. This automatically creates a redirect at the file page of the file so it would have worked if you had saved a wikilink File:Evaluating Wikipedia article quality 2010-11-26 (web).pdf or commons:File:Evaluating Wikipedia article quality 2010-11-26 (web).pdf (click edit to see how the links are made), or a url to the file page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evaluating_Wikipedia_article_quality_2010-11-26_%28web%29.pdf or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evaluating_Wikipedia_article_quality_2010-11-26_%28web%29.pdf. But you saved a direct url to the uploaded file itself and not its file page. That url is not redirected when a file is moved. A direct url also hides copyright information and other details (whether the file is moved or not) so it's better to link to the file page. In many cases it is even required by the license in order to give attribution. Normally it would also have been required for the license of this file but the pdf itself seems to contain the required attribution. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations without URLs

Can I cite old newspaper and magazine articles which do not have a URL available? The articles were published in the 1990s and hence don't have links. Can I cite the articles in either pdf or jpeg formats?

Bill1979 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bill, welcome to the teahouse. It's not necessary or advisable to upload PDF or JPEG scans of old newspaper or magazine articles, as that would normally be a copyright violation.

Instead, cite the article itself. For example:

Doe, John (October 29, 1993). "October has been an interesting month". The New York Times. New York: The New York Times Publishing Co. p. 17.

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. Thanks for the reply. Based on your response, it would be alright to cite a source without having a URL to link it to, right?

Bill1979 (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sources do not have to be available online. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping is correct that articles cited as references need not be available online, and I have personally used many such sources. This is perfectly OK if sources are limited. However, if a wide range of reliable sources are available on the topic, then I recommend citing those that are available online. The same principle applies to non-English language reliable sources. They are perfectly acceptable as sources on niche topics. But if solid English language sources are readily available on the topic, they are preferred. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

References and quotes that follow

Hi! I'm using a book as a reference. Also, I'm including a quote so the reference is more flexible for other editors.

I want to use the reference again in the same article. Should I make a new reference with a second quote, or should I use the same reference with both quotes? How should I do that? Would the best option be to use no quotes at all?

Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bananasoldier and welcome to the Teahouse. In my experience, the most common reason to include a quote in a reference is if the book is not searchable online, and someone might question the veracity of the source. If that is the case here, I would recommend creating two separate references with similar content. Only the page number and the quote would be different. Other experienced editors may have other ideas, which I certainly welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! Bananasoldier (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Allowed to make pages on child abuse?

For example, Child abuse in the United Kingdom? Seems notable with millions of results, and 100s of notable incidents, rackets. OccultZone (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi OccultZone, I'm not personally sure either way but Talk:Child abuse might be a good place to ask for opinions. From a brief search it doesn't appear like there are currently any 'Child abuse in X' articles. Samwalton9 (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you retrieve photos you save on wikimedia commons(Silverline1 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC))

Hi, How do you retrieve photos you save on wikimedia commonsSilverline1 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Silverline, if you head over to Commons you should see yourself logged in and able to click the contributions button in the top right. This allows you to see your contributions there, which should mostly be a list of your uploaded images. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You can use a photo saved on Commons in an article just as easily as one saved locally. The instructions for doing this can be found at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Book Creator: Template for Upload photo for cover

How do I find the template for uploading a cover photo for a "book" of articles/pages I have created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2010MiMi (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any option to do so. I'm afraid Wikipedia "books" are stuck with the default text-based cover. (I could be mistaken, very few editors have ever used the "books" option here, including myself up until a few minutes ago). --LukeSurl^{t c} 00:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Help:Books/for experts, cover parameters "are not currently supported by the book creator but will be at some point in the future". This means you cannot download a book with a cover, but if you use the "Preview with PediaPress" button and order a printed book from our print-on-demand partner PediaPress then you can select a cover image from one of the articles in the book. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

need help

Hi, I was wondering if I could get someone to help me list a draft page for deletion [3]. I tried to but have somehow messed up. Turn685 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for speedy deletion as per your request. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, if you are the only person to have edited the page, you place {{db-user}} on the page - preferably at the top. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy because it was not the original author requesting deletion; also, I think Turn685 has based a new article on it by cut-and-paste, in which case the histories will need to be merged to maintain attribution. I will sort it out one way or another. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I ref enough but avoid WP:BOMBARD simultaneously

Hey. I am quite new to editing on wiki and just finished my first article: ConIFA World Football Cup. Just a few minutes later the article got an AfD because of missing ref's to prove notability. When I added more ref's the admin that opened the AfD immediately complaint about WP:BOMBARD. So I kindly request you how to do it? I mean how can I know which source from somewhere in the world is "better" than others? What is too less and what too much ref'ing? Could please someone help me to fix the ref's and its quantity? I would really appreciate any help. NikauTokelau (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I wold suggest keeping all the main notable reference, but getting rid of any that do not completely show its notability or key facts. Also, I would not worry about it getting deleted just yet, as currently the AFD is tilted towards keeping the article. I also think the article should be kept. -Pending ^{Tell me I screwed up!} 23:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks loads! I was simply unsure if there is something like a balance between Bombard and under-ref'd. GiantSnowman seems experienced to me and thus I thought he knows best. I'll keep an eye over that article and expand it whenever more info is published. NikauTokelau (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

My recommendation, NikauTokelau, is to use a relatively small number of the highest quality references when beginning an article. An average for me might be from three to ten references when I bring an article to main space. Over time, you can add more. Never add a mediocre reference just to add to the reference count. High quality references are books or periodicals that are professionally edited, that have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and that devote significant coverage to as opposed to a passing mention of the topic of your article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NikauTokelau, just a tip for you: when you mention somebody, like GiantSnowman above, you can if you like link the name by typing [[User:GiantSnowman|]], which will display as the blue link GiantSnowman. What's the point of that, you ask? It's wikimagic: if you link his name, he'll be notified that you've mentioned him here, and he may decide to come here and comment further on your questions, which would be useful, I'm sure. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

My advice is to use the content of the references to expand the article; a very short article with a bunch of references tagged along at the end tell us nothing about the topic, or more importantly, its notabiliy. Giant Snowman 16:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

incomplete hyperlinks

[[______]
Why are incomplete hyperlinks important? How do I deal with them? Thanks.King sorks (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello King sorks, I'm not sure I understand your question, but from your example, you need to have either two-open-square-brackets and two-close-square-brackets, or you need to have one-open-square-bracket and one-close-square-bracket. This is because the 2+2 style is for wikilinks like White House and the 1+1 style is for external links like this one.[4] Does this explain why you should only do one or the other? The software cannot tell if you accidentally forgot one at the end, or accidentally inserted an extra by mistake at the front, when you type [[whitehouse.gov] or something similar which is 'unbalanced' in terms of brace matching. This is a limitation of computers that do not yet have strong AI, and is not specific to wikipedia. :-) Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

create account

it wont let me click on it71.195.162.122 (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

i missed something71.195.162.122 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to click on create an account, perhaps its an issue with your browser or computer? Have you tried from a different PC or using a different internet browser? Samwalton9 (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with Sam that you should be able to click. The specific IP address you are using at the moment is not blocked by wikipedia, and Comcast does not prevent people from editing wikipedia that I'm aware of... did you get an error message, or something like that? If it works from another computer, but not from your regular computer, I would strongly suggest that you have a computer-savvy friend look for malware on your regular machine: something like a computer virus might prevent you from logging in, if it was trying to capture your passwords, for instance. Sorry you are having trouble, and sorry we cannot be more help, but the problem doesn't seem to be on this end. You can give us more info, if you are comfy with that, and maybe we can give better suggestions, but if my suspicions are right, you really will end up needing somebody physically there with the machine, to clean it and repair it. Hope this helps, thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have an updated logo for our company that is not hosted anywhere yet. How can I submit for upload?

I'm a non-confirmed user, so I can't upload myself. The upload instructions require a URL where the image is hosted, but we haven't updated our site yet. Just wondering if there's a way to submit for upload without the image being hosted on the company's domain? (I have an email address from that domain, for example, and other ways to confirm easily.) Thanks for the help.

Supnah (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If the new logo is not yet being used by the company itself then WP should not be using it either. Only once the company has begun using it would the new logo be verifiable anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming it's copyrigthed, we aren't even allowed to store it before it's used by the company. Copyrighted logos are uploaded under a fair use claim as identification of the company, but if the company itself doesn't use the logo then it doesn't serve that purpose. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Supnah, the answers above are correct; because the logo belongs to the company, and is only going to be on wikipedia for fair use reasons, you should not (yet) upload it, before it goes into wider use. Once it is in use, it will be stored on the company website, facebook page, weebly, tumblr, or wordpress.com ... or something like that. At that point, you can ask for help with the upload:

Wikipedia:Files for upload , to ask for help from an autoconfirmed user getting the image uploaded
Wikipedia:Uploading_images , general instructions (in particular that fair use logos must be uploaded to en.wikipedia.org and not to commons.wikimedia.org)

Feel free to come back here to the WP:TEAHOUSE if this gets confusing. :-) Image-uploading is a bit of a pain, at the moment, sorry about that. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I include a photo of my historical painting in a new article about Chapman Harris?

Chapman Harris was an important figure in the underground railway. There is currently no Wikipedia article about him, although there are several references elsewhere on the internet. I am considering creating an article about Chapman Harris, and I would like to put a photo of my historical painting into the article. The painting shows his St. Paul's Second Baptist Church and he and his wife Patsy (from descriptions in the Negro Registry). The church no longer exists, but I have reconstructed its probable appearance from 1996 photos of its remains. This article would contain my original research (from public records) and an artistic interpretation of the appearance of Chapman, Patsy, and the church in 1866. Does that make my idea inappropriate for Wikipedia? MadisonstanMadisonstan (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the copyright holder of the image, and it is at your discretion how you dispense with that copyright. If you are happy to surrender most of your rights to the work, including commercial rights, you can upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons, which means it can be used by any language Wikipedia (or pretty much anyone, for any purpose). Please note that such a surrender of your legal right's to an image is irrevocable, so I would recommend making sure you fully understand the consequences of this.

Wikipedia does host some fully copyrighted images, however these are limited and every image needs to be justified for a purpose in an article. As your article in question does not yet exist, this is not an avenue that we could explore until after the article had been written and become part of the encyclopaedia.

As to your quest to write an article, good luck! I reccommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article before starting. You say you will do your own "original research". Wikipedia has a specific meaning of this term to describe a practice of using Wikipedia as a publishing tool for new information/theories. I don't think this is what you mean, but I suggest having a look at Wikipedia:No original research.

Creating a new article is a difficult process. Wikipedia now has an article on pretty much every topic that was ever covered by any prior mainstream encylopedia. To create a new article, not only do you need to do the work creating it, you also need to show the community that the subject is sufficiently notable (see Wikipedia:Notability for what this means) to warrant having a new article. It's a very difficult task for a new editor. I wish you well, but please remember that apart from creating a new article, all 4 million+ existing articles could also use your help. --LukeSurl^{t c} 23:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia now has an article on pretty much every topic that was ever covered by any prior mainstream encylopedia." Uhh... no? Architecture of Puerto Rico. Stub created Sep'13. We are still just getting started methinks, Luke. :-) (If you mean, every pop-culture topic, well then sure. <grin> ) But no, there is still tons to do. And like Madisonstan, about half the folks that show up here are intending to write articles about something that is not yet in wikipedia. It's not *that* hard to write a new article, with a little help from your wikiFriends, right? Right. AfC is a good place to start, and writing the article before deciding whether to upload the image, is excellent advice, given the financial ramifications. Otherwise, agree with most of your points, good answers and good advice. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Madisonstan. To answer the one part Luke did not address: the appropriateness of the image (assuming you do choose to licence it in a way that you can upload and use it). Like all article content, its appropriateness will be a matter of consensus among those who take an interest in the article. If you put it in, somebody else might decide it is not appropriate and remove it (from the article; it would still be available in Wikipedia or commons). If you felt strongly, you would then have a discussion with that editor on the talk page of the article and try to reach agreement.

But actually, I doubt there would be any argument. Wikipedia has many articles about subjects for which no contemporary image exists (for example many ancient kings), but the article is illustrated with a much later painting or sculpture. A picture or two makes any article look more attractive, as long as they have some relevance to the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A Google search on "Chapman Harris underground railroad" produced some good secondary sources, including a New York Times obit from 1890 [5] and a National Park Service site [6]. I would not discourage Madisonstan from attempting this article, though I agree he should read Wikipedia:Your first article and WP:No original research.--agr (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Difference between categories and lists

Hi all - I'm curious if someone can explain the difference between categories and lists. For example, [Category:American novelists Women] is a subcategory, but when you look American Novelists, it redirects to a list, List of American novelists. Thanks! Deloebrenti (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Deloebrenti. The differences, similarities and strengths are discussed in WP:CLN. (I know it's not preferred practice on the Teahouse just to give a link, but I don't think I could answer myself without studying that page at length). --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Publishing Article

I have published an article about a local company that is very community oriented and it has been rejected twice and no one has ever written anything about them before how can I get it published? 216.178.85.242 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopedia. That means it is a collation of pre-published information for the reader. As no-one has ever written anything about this company before we have nothing to collate and we cannot have an article about it. Wikipedia uses the term "original research" to describe using Wikipedia to publish new, previously unpublished information. This practice is explicitly against Wikipedia's practices. --LukeSurl^{t c} 00:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Luke is correct; the company in question is not yet suitable for being published in the encyclopedia. However, that does not mean it is not ready to be published somewhere. I suggest you look into weebly and wordpress.com and similar services, which allow you to get the word out. You should also contact the local newspaper, and see if they would like to run a story about the business. Similarly, sometimes local teevee newscasts will cover you.

The important thing about getting an article in wikipedia is to start keeping a scrapbook of any coverage that the company gets in wikiReliable Sources, which basically means newspapers, teevee, magazines, and similar things. They can be in English or not, and they can be online or not, it doesn't matter. Just get date, title, publisher, author/speaker, and such. If the sources *are* online, try to put a copy of their specific story-URL into a backup-service for long-term archival of the information; that way if the newspaper-story or teevee-blurb is taken offline by the publisher, we will still have copies available at a neutral third-party location to verify there *were* sources about the company, historically. Some of the options are http://archive.is and http://archive.org and http://webcitation.org — that way, once you do have enough sources in your scrapbook to satisfy WP:42, then you can get the information verified for the article.

Also, I would give WP:NOTEWORTHY a glance... once the company *is* mentioned in WP:RS, it is probably worthy of a sentence in the existing article about the community. While you are waiting for press coverage of the company, feel free to look around wikipedia for other articles that need improving, related to the community in question, the industry overall, or our vast collection of entertainment-articles. :-) Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Experimental Templates

I have made a lot of experimental templates. Are these okay? King sorks (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, could you link to them? I can't seem to find any templates in your contribs. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

They have been deleted. Please don't use the template namespace for such experiments. You can make tests in your own userspace, for example at User:King sorks/sandbox. You can also test template code there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

what articles were in "Category:foo" in April 2013

When I look at a category-page, it shows me the reasonably-up-to-date list of articles which are in that category. However, when I click on 'view history' at the top, instead of seeing what I expect (the history of when articles were added to... and articles were removed from... the category in question), all I see is a few entries about the boilerplate of the category-display-page itself. How do I see the chronology, of what articles were in the category, back-in-the-day? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have such a feature. https://archive.org/web/ may have taken snapshots of a category page on some specific dates. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and I could always download the multi-gigabyte dumpfiles, and extract the info from them. But both approaches are likely to be inaccurate reconstructions, because they are snapshots in time. Is there really no chronology of categorization, except buried in the database tables which only disciples of Chuck Norris are able to access? There are some search-prefixes which allow specifying namespaces, like only searching the helppages... but there does not seem to be a way to easily search *historical* page-contents, historical category-list-instantiations, historical deleted pages, and in general, anything not actively visible in the most-recent-version-of-any-given-page. Is that all basically true, at present anyways? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The historical page contents is actually stored as the history of the page, so it is in principle available (and actually available by toold such as WikiBlame). Deleted pages are available, but only to admins, as a matter of policy. The contents of a category (in the sense you mean it) does not exist as an entity in the database: it would need to be constructed as needed, by selecting from the category links in the database. Not that it couldn't be done, but it is a harder and probably more time consuming activity than grabbing the history of a page. Perhaps it would be worth asking at WP:VPT and see if anybody has had thoughts about doing this. (If they did, they could also satisfy another request I've seen recently: to identify the versions of the pages in the category which were current at a particular date. --ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter and ColinFine, appreciated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Zelda Chaos a reliable source?

I requested the article Softlock at Wikipedia:Requested articles and I'm wondering if Zelda Chaos is a reliable source because unlike Wikipedia, it doesn't work in such a way that anybody can edit a glitch page when ever they want. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, BlackBombchu! I would say not; even if it's not freely editable, it's not a peer-reviewed site or one with a serious reputation for fact-checking. REally, it's just a personal website; anyone could put one up, so we can't really consider it reliable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

After you "improve" an article, is there a way to keep that issue from showing up?

Hello, I am just getting started editing for Wikipedia. I have been looking for topics I am familiar with to edit, especially if they have the "This article has multiple isses" box at the top. My question - if you fix one of these issues (or think you do), is there a way to get that box, or the bullet point with that issue, off the page? Narragangirl (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @narragangirl! Always nice when a reader wants to contribute. Especially someone literate. You can take down those notices just like editing anything else. Templates (those things in the curly braces) usually at the top are the flags. Just delete the right one. Usually no need to ask permission.

Jim.henderson (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, @Jim.henderson! Narragangirl (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You do need to check for compliance before you remove the tags. You removed tags in this edit, but the article still has non-compliant external links, and the only "reference" is a blog which isn't acceptable as a reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Corrected article that was declined last week

Does one always go to the end when declined? There are 1200 plus articles waiting for review and I'm just wondering if I'm back at the very end of the queue. Thanks Graffitinucular (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sort of but not really. There's no real 'queue' so to speak, as for the most part editors review articles that take their interest or that they are confident in reviewing. It may be that the previous decliner will see your resubmission within a day, or that your article is the last to be seen of the 1200 currently submitted, it's a little bit random :) Samwalton9 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah so! Well, I really made a mess on my first try and this is my third resubmit. It's been quite a learning experience actually. If it goes well from here I may upload some more articles on graffiti artists I've been following over the past decade. I do hope some editor has an interest in notable reformed graffiti types. ;-)

Cheers Graffitinucular (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graffitinucular, are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Graffiti - you'll find other editors who share your interest there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roger, yes Thanks. I saw the page and that's pretty much why I'm posting. It was a shock not to see the guy my article covers. I don't have much time for stencil kids though, they all look the same to me. That's taste for you eh? lol.

Cheers Graffitinucular (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Graffitinucular, the article is much improved! Good work. There are still some troubles with WP:TONE that need correction... it is a bit informal and chatty at the moment. Try and write like you were a suit. :-) Just the fax. Also, some of the refs are WP:ABOUTSELF because they are not fiscally independent. The publisher of the amazon book is Nucular, and the info at IMDB is not professionally fact-checked by an editorial board. Is the Yudu information connected to the artist or the publisher in any way? Those sources can stay, but they need to be moved to a Notes section, rather than be in the References section, methinks. I'll show you the WP:FOOTNOTE syntax. p.s. I added some colons in front of your messages above, to indent them. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for looking in on. me. Yudu is an open digital publishing site so YES, it is connected to the artist. I'll have to read up on footnotes again but I'm not sure I 'get it' yet overall. Be back soonish Graffitinucular (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How to recover the draft of an article created using Article Wizard

Hi, I prepared the rough draft of my first article, using Article Wizard. I did not register. I clicked on save and closed out of Wikipedia. Now I do not know how to recover the draft to work on it again. I thank you for your help, Lesley 121.45.14.73 (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You can always check you history for your contributions but here:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daphne Gum MBE--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can find your work over at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daphne Gum MBE.

For future reference, you can find anyone's past contributions at Special:Contributions; in your case, your contributions are located at Special:Contributions/121.45.14.73. Note that a user's IP address is often dynamic, so the IP address you're editing under now might be different than the one you'll be editing under a week from now, making it harder to track your work. It's not required, but I definitely recommend creating an account to make it easier to keep track of your work :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Many many thanks for your help! Lesley121.45.14.73 (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I auto number equations and refer to them later in the text?

I need this feature, which i expect to be similar to LaTeX. Also, for figures, tables, etc... EdwardGoldobin (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey EdwardGoldobin. I'm not quite sure what you are envisioning. I'll take a stab at what I think you might mean though. An anchor (using the template {{anchor}}) can be used to create a set point that you can link back to. Thus, if you had a section with a number of equations in it and you numbered them and then provided an anchor for each, you can refer back to that anchor by the name you gave the anchor point. Let me demonstrate:

#{{anchor|1}}<math>U(\phi) = I_c[1-\cos(\phi)]</math> #{{anchor|2}}<math>U(\phi) = I_c[1-\cos(\phi)]</math> #{{anchor|3}}<math>U(\phi) = I_c[1-\cos(\phi)]</math>

formats as:

$U(\phi )=I_{c}[1-\cos(\phi )]$
$U(\phi )=I_{c}[1-\cos(\phi )]$
$U(\phi )=I_{c}[1-\cos(\phi )]$

And if you wanted to refer back to, say, equation two, you can link to it using the anchor name:

"In [[#2|equation 2]] above", which will format as:

"In equation 2 above".

Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Fuhghettaboutit, this is exactly what I need! Thanks! But there is no automatic enumeration. Those 1,2,3 can be any text or only numbers? EdwardGoldobin (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@EdwardGoldobin: Ah, let me separate out the coding for you. Any time you type a hash tag (#) at the start of a line it formats as "1". If you start the next line (without skipping a line) with a hash tag the software will automatically understand this as a continuation of a number series. See Help:List. Thus:

# text

Formats as

text
text
text

Thus, it is the hash tags in the prior code starting each line that are providing the automatic numbering, but you could just number it manually (and would have to do so if you had, for example, explanatory text between each numbered section rendering them non-contiguous). The anchors you choose can be anything at all, but you want something intuitive, so 1, 2, and 3, for sections you're going to be referring to as 1, 2 and 3 makes sense, but it would work just as well if your code was:

# {{Anchor|cat}} some math equation # {{Anchor|dog}} some math equation # {{Anchor|kangaroo}} some math equation

Which would format as

some math equation
some math equation
some math equation

And then section 2 can be linked later on in the text by typing:

"In [[#dog|equation 2]] above". To wit:

"In equation 2 above".

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I like Fuhghettaboutit's suggestion. There is another way to do it, if you would refer to use that way, however. The whole page Help:Math explains how to use LaTeX (with AMS packages) on Wikipedia. πr² (t • c) 04:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:PiRSquared17, thanks a lot. However inside <math>..</math> one cannot use LaTeX environment \begin{equation}...\end{equation}, which produces numbers automatically. After <math> you are already in LaTeX's math mode. Anyway, I have found Help:Math#Equation numbering. This looks even more specifically designed for math than {{anchor}}s above. As far as I understand {{NumBlk}} just formats (the name is a bit misleading), while {{EquationRef}} inserts a label which is named manually. This can be also done without {{EquationRef}} and {{EquationNote}}. It seems that the only reason to use {{EquationRef}} and {{EquationNote}} is that they auto-insert hyperlink. Anyway, thank you. I am learning new things every day. EdwardGoldobin (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unhappy name being unrelated to a title page or subject.

How to replace a user name with a more suitable and descriptive for a topic?

If I had known the problem I would have chosen a different title page or I might have to cancel it and start under a new more suitable name. What is the best option?Maba2013 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Maba2013, go to the article page and look for a down-arrow in the row of tabs; click on the down arrow; click on 'Move'; give the page the new preferred Title Name; click on move. That should do it. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Maba2013. I don't understand your question. Do you want to change the name of the article or you want to change your username? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the confusion was because the 2 pages which Maba2013 had generated were User:Maba2013 and User:Maba2013/sandbox. Both were deleted as unabiguous copyright violations, but the sandbox has now been recreated. The content is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Referencing episode

I need help referencing an episode I have used the template but it wont turn into a reference Article Maids of honour tart

reference "Jamie and Jimmy's Friday Night Feast". Jamie and Jimmy's Friday Night Feast. Season 1. Episode 3. 24th January 2014. 46:49 minutes in. Channel 4. Retrieved 29 January 2014. {{cite episode}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |city= and |serieslink= (help); More than one of |minutes= and |time= specified (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) Novalia (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Novalia, you were lacking the <ref> and </ref> tags. I took the liberty of adding them for you to make sure that was the problem. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rejection help please!

Petermfaulkner (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Hi I got a rejection but the messgae from Aggie did not give any reasons User:Petermfaulkner/Faulkner packaging#Request review at WP:AFC is the link. what do I need to do? Thanks Peter

Petermfaulkner (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the URL in your question to a wikilink, which should avoid the formatting difficulty. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I am confused that you say that Aggie did not give any reasons. The pink box at the top of User:Petermfaulkner/Faulkner packaging says (inter alia):

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

There are 6 links within that part of the text on that page to give you further information. Aggie also added:

"Comment: No independent sources provided to establish notability requirements found in the link above. More marketing than factual. Submitted by company director, so WP:COI issue." with an extra link.

If there is something there that you don't understand, please feel free to ask again. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I tag a portion of a section to be moved?

I have searched the various options, but I can't a tag specific to what I want to propose. That a portion of a section be moved while at the same time creating a new article. Is there such a thing? I would just create the new article and then suggest moving the material there, but it's controversial material and I'd like others to have input on what to title the article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing the template {{Split}} will work. Happy editing, --Jakob (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 64.253.164.194 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

New one in the house...

I am a newbie to Wikipedia. Even I admit that. What am I allowed to do, and what am I barred from doing? King sorks (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, King sorks, and welcome to the Teahouse. I posted a Welcome template on your talk page to help you introduce yourself to Wikipedia. You should start by reading this: WP:Introduction and this: WP:WELCOME. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! 64.253.164.194 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit request

This isn't exactly a question, but is there anyone available to copyedit Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)? I know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, but it seems to take weeks to get to requests there and the article is currently at FAC. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jakob/Jakec, I added some categories and polished your references. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rubai (album)

How do I Improve on my poor article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Cleary 2 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. You can improve the article by finding more outside reliable sources that have discussed this album. Good information to add might be the planning behind the album, sales figures, and reviews. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed and Rejected

I am trying to create a wiki page for our company and only put some basic details along with links of some articles and even our website. I don't know if the information was incomplete or what more could be done. Appreciate if someone could advise and I will be happy to go through the process.

Submission was in the same of Expo Freight (EFL)

Eflcreativemedia (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Eflcreativemedia, the page can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Expo_Freight_(EFL). There are some suggestions on your usertalk page. Checkingfax (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)