Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 195

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 190

←

Archive 193

→

Copyvio and cleanup

Hi all.

I came across the article Dominique Stevenson today to find that most of the article was written in bullet format. I then tagged the sections with {{Prose}}. Further research showed that the collegiate play section was a copyright violation of this, so I tagged it with {{Copyvio}}. Is there anything else that can or should be done? Vycl1994 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the section, thanks for bringing it to our attention.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Bold text in citations

Hi, For hours now, I have been trying to get rid of a BOLD text in the 14:ref in the article The Origins of Political Order. What am I doing wrong? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I've done it - there were a series of "unbalanced" single quote marks e.g. ''title''' which were confusing the software. Once it has a '' to turn on italics, or ''' to turn on bold, it stays in that mode until the marks are repeated to turn them off, or certain other breaks turn them off automatically. So, with unbalanced single quote marks - with 2 before the title, and three after, it first turned on italics, and then turned on bold instead of turning off italics, and than carried on with both, as it had no instructions to turn them off. - Arjayay (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You have indeed! My thanks! I shall now know what to look for in more detail the next time! Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Help a group of student to improve an article

Hello everyone. Me Maksim Kanev and a few of my fellow course mates: joe1992w, Davidvfu1, Davidvfu1, Vinchenzi and LewisHoward are working on the "Elaboration likelihood model" article, we will upload our changes by Tuesday (25 March 2014). If any of you is willing to contribute to the page, I would like to ask you to help us improve the article as it is not in a very good shape.

Thank you! Maks kv 91 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks, any help would be appreciated. Here is a link to the page Elaboration Likelihood Model. --LewisHoward (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as i dont really have a set page to wrok on i could help out today if you'd like me to look through :)LewisHoward MarinaLouise (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey MarinaLouise. You are more than welcome to help us as much as you like. We greatly appreciate your support! Thank you Maks kv 91 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Contains copyrighted material?

I am only using material available on the web for reference purposes. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jake_Wood_%28Author,_veterans_activist%29

Team rubicon (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Team rubicon, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that the page has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G12, which means that content was copy and pasted directly from another source - in this case, http://www.linkedin.com/in/jakewood78 and http://www.gotyour6.org/storytellers-bios/. Generally when writing an article, you should write it in your own words, otherwise it is known as Copyright Infringement. The way Wikipedia likes its articles to be written is that everything is properly cited with a reliable source but it is written differently. Kinda like an essay for school, where copying someone else's essay would be considered plagiarism. Hope that helps! K6ka (talk | contribs) 19:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about referencing and citations

Hello,

Myself and 3 fellow students are working on improving the Uncertainty reduction theory page on Wikipedia as part of a class project at the University of Hull which can be found here. I noticed that there were some citations and references missing on the original page, so I've altered the references on my sandbox. I'm just asking if I've done the references correctly before I make any changes to the article itself, as you can never be too safe. My sandbox can be found here. I eagerly await any reply. RStoakes (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! I've just taken a look at the sandbox, and the references look good, except for one minor point: Inline citations generally go at the very end of the sentence or sentences that the source supports.

For example, currently, one sentence reads: Berger also acknowledges the works of Gudykunst, et al. (1985)^[3] and Parks & Adelman (1983)^[4] to extend uncertainty reduction theory to the realm of more established relationships. But it is better to put the references at the end after punctuation: Berger also acknowledges the works of Gudykunst, et al. (1985) and Parks & Adelman (1983) to extend uncertainty reduction theory to the realm of more established relationships.^[3]^[4] (It is quite common to place multiple references in the same place.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 16:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that these citations (to Gudykunst (1985) and Parks & Adelman (1983)) do not actually support the statement - I'm guessing that nowhere in either work does it say, "Berger acknowledges this work", which it would need to do in order to support the sentence quoted. Remember, citations are used to prove that Wikipedia's content is verifiable - in this case, the content is, "Berger acknowledges the work of Gudykunst ect.", and so would need to be sourced to either a) Berger saying, "I acknowledge the work of Gudykunst etc." or b) another reliable source saying, "Berger acknowledges Gudykunst ect." (which would be slightly preferable). Whilst Gudykunst and Parks/Adelman would be useful in a Notes or Further reading section, they do not support the claim made in the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for a somewhat late reply,

Thank you to you both for your help and quick responses. I've made the changes that the two of you have suggested so hopefully now the changes I make will be the right ones. Again, can never be too safe. Once again, thank you very much. RStoakes (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

editing a reveiw

Hello,

I am wondering if it is possible and/or not against the rules to add a comment on a review of a wikipedian. As I am not a reviewer.

Thanks,

Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 20:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi attack dog, welcome to the teahouse. The reviewer right is a technical thing of questionable value. Everyone is entitled to add a comment on an editor review whether they have the reviewer right or not.

(If you mean something other than an editor review - you say "review of a wikipedian" - then let us know.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox scholar

This unanswered question has been moved to the top of the page for higher visibility. Please use a ping in any answer.-- 17:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone (check/tell me) where is the name paramter in Template:Infobox scholar? I can see name and fullname after 4-5 parameters, (I feel name parameters should be the first one), but that is not working. Tried in Rajeshwari Chatterjee Tito☸Dutta 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Titodutta: The |name= parameter of {{infobox scholar}} changes the title of the infobox to something else. The title is the bolded text at the very top of the infobox. The |fullname= parameter for that template adds a new field in the infobox for the scholar's full name. You should only add a fullname parameter if the subject has a bigger name that the subject does not usually go by. It is strange how the "name=" parameter doesn't appear in the template documentation until 5 lines later. I hope this helps; sorry for the late response. If I am unclear, feel free to leave me a message below and I'll be happy to help. Mz7 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Tito. I am not sure quite what you are asking. The "name" parameter is defined in Template:Infobox scholar, and used in Rajeshwari Chatterjee. If you are asking about the order of the parameters in that template, I don't know whether or not there is a standard order, but my advice is to ignore the order and always use parameters by name. --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am confused. In Rajeshwari Chatterjee I can see {{Infobox person}} but not {{Infobox scholar}}. I suspect, however, the order of the parameters does not matter, whether in the template documentation or in the article using the template. Help:Template says "Named parameters can be defined in any order."--David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Titodutta originally tried adding it using infobox scholar. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Titodutta: I've made an example at my sandbox. Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A minor personal attack on someone else

Hello, I was searching the recent changes page, and I found an unregistered IP address user making a minor vandal edit on an article. I looked at their contributions, and found a minor personal attack on other user's page from about a month ago. This isn't the first time that this particular IP address has made an attack on this user, and I reversed the edit. In short, I'm wondering what I should do. Should I report to an admin if something like this happens again? Thanks! --IsisAthenaArtemis Talk 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you should report them to WP:AIV if this happens again (or possibly already if they've been warned enough times). Jinkinson talk to me 19:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. If you look at the user in question's talk page, you'll see they've accumulated a number of warnings. The general policy is to warn disruptive users with progressively more serious notices (see Wikipedia:Warn_vandalism#Warnings) and then if they vandalise after getting the most serious warnings, report them to WP:AIV. Any user can issue warnings and reports, though only an administrator can issue the final block. The whole process of warning and reporting vandals, as well as reverting their disruption, is made much easier by WP:TWINKLE. I would highly recommend using Twinkle if you are a frequent vandal fighter. --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Luke, do you mean to imply that if an IP editor received a level 4 warning two years ago, and you see the same IP vandalising an article (on a different topic) today, you should report the IP to AIV? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I think a period of inactivity of a month or two (or sustained good editing) generally "resets the clock" as far as the warnings go. For IPs in particular, patrollers should be aware that the person who is currently editing from a particular IP may not be the same person editing from that IP a few months later. --LukeSurl^{t c} 02:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Making suggestions for future changes

I was wondering if there is a formal procedure or correct way to leave a note on an articles talk page making suggestions for future changes or sections that others may want to consider adding? JPeachman (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@JPeachman: Even if there is, most folk just leave an informal and informative note on the talk page. I know I do. Fiddle Faddle 20:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no formalities, JPeachman, other than an expectation that your suggestions will be logical, clearly written, and based on Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Compensation for research acquisition

For the first time ever, I have requested information from a museum (The National Museum of Play), so I can receive materials relating to the Carmen Sandiego franchise. Though there is a $0.45 charge per page, that can pile up rather quickly when it comes to dense documents. As I am volunteering to edit Wikipedia in my spare time and as a pure lover of knowledge and in particular this series, I was wondering if there was a system whereby one is reimbursed for the money spent on acquiring research materials. Thankyou.--Coin945 (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Coin945: One volunteers to edit Wikipedia, and one donates one's time and other resources freely. It would be inappropriate to pay for materials such as this. Wikipedia relies on the skill and generosity of editors to survive. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no compensation but at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request you can ask whether somebody else has access to a resource. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Coin945, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may find WP:GLAM to be of interest, which describes Wikipedia's increasingly successful efforts to collaborate with galleries, libraries, archives and museums. Also of interest is an article in yesterday's New York Times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Where to practice editing?

Hey, where is a good place to practice mistake editing on wiki page? I am trying to edit wiki page, but having a problem with referncing.J.podolski (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you

@J.podolski: You can practice in your sandbox if you wish. See the very top line of your screen for the link "Sandbox". A great thought, though, is to edit live articles and use the Show Preview button until you are happy with the edits you have made. They only get saved to the article when you save the page. Fiddle Faddle 08:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are having problems with referencing, try reading WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Literal Translation" for non-English articles

hello!! i just want to ask if the "lit. Only You" translation as seen in this article Ikaw Lamang is correct,, is it acceptable or should it be just "in english: only you",, im new here and was just wondering if this is the norm,, Damngoshgosh (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Damngoshgosh. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way it is done. There are often different ways of doing things that are equally acceptable in Wikipedia. What is wrong with the article is that it does not have a single reference to a reliable source independent of the subject, and without these it does not establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criterion for "notability", and the article is liable to be deleted. The article needs references to reliable published sources such as major newspapers. (They do not have to be in English) --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

helping friends

hi there, i am currently looking over the page Elaboration Likelihood Model. i was hoping for advice on how to best sort the mark up and citation errors on this page. thanks for reading MarinaLouise (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marina Louise, I was just floating about this morning, as one does, so I had a look at the article and adopted a consistent style for the references. Have a look and see what you think. And, anyone else, if it is no good, let me know. Regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Marina Louise, I noticed the revision of the references I made this morning has been reverted. Sorry it didn't work out. Let me know if I can be of assistance or the hosts here at Tea House. Regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC) (Tea House hosts, sorry for interfering).

License

Why does Wikipedia not use non-commercial license? We do not use it for commercial purposes in articles, right? Zince34' 12:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(Please leave a teahouse talkback template at my talkpage to let me know.)

One of the core, fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that it is free, and its content can be reused by almost anyone. The CC-BY-SA license allows this, whereas the non-commercial-only variant of that license would legally prohibit a huge number of potential users from utilising Wikimedia content. For example, many schools and educational institutions are legally commercial entities.

Because you can't change media's copyright by including it on your website, we can only include media that is compatible with the CC-BY-SA license (with fair-use exceptions).

There's a lot more information on Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ and links therein. Hope that was useful. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

One more question too. What does cleanup mean in Wikipedia ? Zince34' 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Zince34. :) Wikipedia uses a commercial-friendly license because we want our content to be reusable as widely as possible, even if this means that people can sell it. There may be good reasons for this - for instance, people may need to recoup the cost of distributing the information. But with the licenses we've chosen, what we've done is make sure that they can't use it exclusively and that they can't prevent people from in turn redistributing their derivative content. They can sell it, but they don't truly "own" it.

Cleanup means various things, but generally just that somebody sees a problem that needs fixing. It can also refer specifically to Wikipedia:Cleanup - a project that is dedicated to (naturally) fixing problems. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As a rule-of-thumb, "cleanup" is a broad term that refers to issues that can be fixed without knowledge of the article's subject. Spelling, grammar, layout and formatting issues are typical "cleanup" tasks. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that really ended my doubts. Zince34' 12:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

common errors

hi there, as i am pretty new here, i was hoping for advice from other users about what the most common mark up and general errors a page can usually have, as i am hoping to edit a few pages for an assessment i have. thanks for reading :) MarinaLouise (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse. This page is very helpful WP:CHEAT. You may also see Wikipedia:GettingStarted. Tito☸Dutta 15:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

And you might also find Wikipedia:Getting_Started helpful.

--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks Gronk Oz & Tito for your help there :)MarinaLouise (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Help me "delete-proof" my article

Please review my latest edit and changes I tried to make on my article. I have credible info about myself and my work as an actor with credible articles written about me, but it still gets kicked out. Please review this link and advise - thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikilink Mvoliphant (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mvoliphant and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such thing as a "delete-proof" article on Wikipedia, although I consider it highly unlikely that either William Shakespeare or Janis Joplin will ever be deleted. That is because those topics have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and no sane person would argue otherwise. On the other hand, it is a demonstrated fact that people have a very hard time writing neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia articles about themselves. Please read, study and absorb WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and consider stepping back, unless you are as famous as Shakespeare or Joplin. But you are alive and neither of them are. So you have the extra obligation of complying with our strict policy on biographies of living people. Are you prepared to deal with that challenge? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome to wikipedia! I looked at the biography. I have seen that episode of Snapped--great job! At this point, I think it will probably fail notability standards. It sounds like you've got a good start and will likely continue to get good roles, but I've seen actors with more than you be deleted for failing notability. My advice is to stick the draft in your sandbox and try again when you have a few more roles under your belt. A good strategy for the time being might be to create your own website. Let me know if you need any help. :-) Bali88 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion because of Notability

Can you take a look at this article and help me understand how to make it more notable? I thought that the references were solid. Maybe I am not supposed to use their website as verification?

[[1]]

Jedenl (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jedenl, and welcome to the teahouse! I don't know that there's too much you can do, at least at this point. What we're looking for is a significant amount of coverage by folks who don't have a financial interest in promoting the business. The article in Verily is a start, but that's probably not enough to build an article around. Once that business gets a bit more press, notability shouldn't be an issue. If you want to read the actual guidelines, check out WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response!

What about the press from the Oprah Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Glamour Magazine, Lucky Magazine, etc. Are those considered notable sources?

Jedenl (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For future reference- is it okay to use their website as verification albeit not for notability?

Jedenl (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jedenl—if those sources discussed (as opposed to just mentioning) the business, then I think you have a pretty strong case for notability. Would you mind heading over to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and requesting that the article be put into your userspace? Once that happens I can take a look at the references and get a better idea what's going on. (I'm going to be offline for much of the rest of the day, so another editor might decide to help out before then.) As to using their website: that's not considered to be an independent source, so it would not be considered reliable (in the wikipedia sense) for any potentially controversial claim. Ideally, a link to the website should only show up in the "external links" section. In practice, there's generally not a problem with using a home page to establish the location of the business, number of employees, date of incorporation, etc. The home page can't be used to establish the notability of the business. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added a "reflist" and references section, but the red message still shows about there not being one.

Hi, I've been adding some further details to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Damp_(film) and I added a references/"reflist" section because the message in red showed up: "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page)."

But adding the "reflist" dosen't seem to have worked - the error message still shows, and there is no references section visible on the presented page, even though I've added one. I don't understand why, or how to rectify. Any help would be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beryl reid fan (talk • contribs) 10:06, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC) (Editor had tried to sign, but signature didn't work because of unterminated <ref> in question.)

Hello Beryl reid fan. You had missed out the closing '>' from </ref>, so it failed to close the <ref>, which therefore swallowed the rest of the page including the {{reflist}}.

Fixed ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ta v. much - Someone (perhaps you?) seems to have fixed this for me - thanks - though I'm not entirely sure which </ref> was missing the final / ??? but ta, anyway Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see which one by going to the article history page and looking at the diff. This was the one. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. Beryl reid fan (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

New Article for Review

I recently wrote a new article about Wilma Johnson (artist) and this template is present at the top of the page:

"This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup. (March 2014)"

How long does it take for new articles to be reviewed?

Thanks Mathilde761 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at which editor made the last edit but one, I think you could almost regard the article as having been reviewed! :-) --David Biddulph (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Great thank you David. And how long will the template still be visible on the article?

Mathilde761 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many people are formally reviewing new articles. Category:All unreviewed new articles has 870 articles, and the breakdown by age is shown at Category:Monthly clean up category (Unreviewed new articles) counter. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Article tagged AfD, consensus "Keep," Then re-tagged AfD

I wrote an article Fox Attacks which a user tagged as AfD. The discussion resulted in "keep." The guy who tagged it just re-tagged it as AfD again. What do I do? Sanshuimom (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The AFD was closed as "Keep", but when it was realised that a contributor to the debate was a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, the editor who had closed the AFD reopened it to allow the debate to continue. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So...I wait, I guess.

There was one inappropriate contributor, and one who said delete. Does it matter that there were 5 other contributors that said "keep"? (Am I whining?)

Also, the person who AfD'd the article in the first place has deleted many of my sources, IMO making the submission weaker. And I think it might be inappropriate to plug them back in. Correct?

Sanshuimom (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly OK to improve an article during the AfD process by adding solid sources, Sanshuimom. It is also OK to make note of that in the debate. However, if the sources you add are weak, expect that to be noted as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of a Source

I am looking to improve the stub, "Expense Accounts." I found an article online at accountingcoach.com but at the end of the piece, there is no author listed. Does this mean that this source won't be considered verifiable or notable? Gina at Stockton College (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gina at Stockton College. According to the "About" page on that website, all the content is written by Harold Averkamp, CPA, MBA. The issue is reliability. The website looks solid to me, but I have no expertise in accounting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding images from computer desktop

I was wondering how to add images from your computer desktop. VladDroid256 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello VladDroid256, and welcome to the Teahouse! To prevent spamming, uploading images is only enabled after your account is 4 days old and has made 10 edits. After your account has met those conditions, head over to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which will guide you through the process of uploading files, but I would keep the following points in mind: Wikipedia has a rather stringent image use policy that entails what kinds of images are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. All images you upload must be one of the following: your own work, freely licensed, in the public domain, or meeting the non-free content criteria. In other words, in order to respect copyrights, we cannot simply take any random picture from the internet and use it in Wikipedia. May I ask what kind of image you would like to upload? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding the following image which I downloaded onto my computer. I wanted to stick it onto my user page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mercedes_sls_amg_e-cell.jpg VladDroid256 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Just paste this code on your userpage: [[File:Mercedes sls amg e-cell.jpg|thumb]] Perhaps some other kind host will add links here to the tutorial for images. I'mm headed out and don't have time to look them up right now. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Article on TXTImpact

I submitted a article on TXTImpact and it was deleted due to copyright. I wasn't sure why, can you help?

Thanks 98.221.140.9 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 98.221. I can't find any record of such an article in the deletion logs, so I can't say for sure; but usually this means that the text has been copied from somewhere else. This is not generally allowed, as that would be an infringement of copyright: you should write the text in your own words, summarising what is in existing sources. There are certain circumstances where text may be copied: if the material has been explicitly put in the public domain (which means much more than just being published) or has explicitly been licensed under the CC-BY-SA licence. But even if it is legal to use text from elsewhere, the text will often be inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia, especially if it is promotional in any way. --ColinFine (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Located it: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TXTImpact. See what Colin said above. The text you posted appears to have two whole paragraphs of text copied and pasted from this website or a number of others that come up in a search for unique text that was used in it and that appear to preexist it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Republish after making changes

If an article was deleted because of notability issues and I think I have fixed them- should I try to republish the article or should I try to get more feedback for it in The Teahouse?

Jedenl (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You may publish the article again, there is no rule against it. But, you should be aware that the article may be deleted again for the same issue if the problem is not resolved. If you are not sure whether the article is ready, you may use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to hear other editor's opinion on the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

how to create a new Wiki page about a person

How do we get started creating a new Wiki page for an individual? 50.190.212.55 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey person editing from 50.190.212.55. I assume by "Wiki" you mean Wikipedia? Using that term to mean Wikipedia can be confusing, as Wikipedia is just one of thousands of wikis. The first place I would suggest you look at is Wikipedia:Notability (people). That is a good starting point to answer the threshold question: Can an article on the person be sustained within the bounds of our policies and gudelines? The second thing I suggest you do (assuming the answer to the first question is yes) is sign up for an account. But please note that Wikipedia accounts are only for one person; shared accounts are forbidden (I say this because of your use of the word "we"). Then head on over to the Wikipedia:Tutorial where you will learn the basics of editing and our policies. And finally, you might take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

When you have gotten used to editing, head on over to the Article Wizard. It is often a very good place to start creating articles.

Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with recent deletion

Greetings all,

So I put together an article and went through a lot of back and forth with various reviewers to refine the data to an acceptable format. At that point, things looked good only to come back today and see that the article was deleted.

Fortunately, I saved the page in a text document and it is currently in my sandbox. Can anyone help me understand why it was deleted? I would have been happy to have worked to make it right (which is what it says is the preferred course over deletion), but I did not have that opportunity.

This was the reason for deletion: 17:19, 25 March 2014 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted page RJ Parker (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW))

Jasonwilczak (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jasonwilczak: Welcome to the Teahouse, Jason. Thanks for your question. I've read over the article in your sandbox and reviewed the sources used to establish notability. The biggest concern I have is that many of your sources lack reliability because they are blogs ([2], [3], [4], [5]) or are self-published or otherwise not independent from the subject ([6]). In addition, the World Book Award does not appear to be a particularly notable literary award. Its own website is unavailable and the only info about it comes from a PR website. In order to establish the notability of this author, I would suggest trying to find news articles from sources that have an editorial board, like a newspaper or magazine, and see if there are more recognized literary awards. Otherwise, the author does yet reach either the notability criteria for authors or the general notability criteria to merit an article right now. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fluxys Page

My previous text has been deleted because it was considerd too promotional. I have deleted all the stuff around mission, vision, values and strategy and made the intro less promotional. May I kindly ask you to review it and give me your views? I will add references as well to documents like press articles in the course of today. Thank you very much for your feedback. --Laurent Remy 06:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentremy (talk • contribs)

Hello, Laurentremy. The current text in Fluxys (as edited by Beagel) is now fine, as far as it goes. Please do add references: at present the article is almost devoid of references, and therefore does not establish notability, and is liable to be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

Can we change redirects ? Zince34' 11:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(Please leave a teahouse talkback template at my talkpage to let me know.)

@Zince34: Hey Zince34. When you are redirected you will always see at the top of the resulting page (Redirected from NAME) just below the title of the page. If you then click on the link, you can access the redirect itself. For more, please see Wikipedia:Redirect. I've used a ping instead of a teahouse talkback message, which should be just as effective in drawing you back here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What does the ":" say? (Before the [[]]s )

May I just ask, when I see someone adding [[:Hello]], what does the colon do? I did try this on my sandbox, but I did not see any differences. Why is this so? Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Nahnah4. For Wikilinks with a prefix which normally cause the link to be treated in a special way, such as Category, File, or language codes, the colon turns off the special treatment and makes it display as a normal wikilink to the category, file, or foreign-language article. I'm not aware of any effect for other kinds of wikilinks. --ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

However, problem is, the [[:Hello]] (just an example) has a colon on the beginning with no prefix. So I don't get it. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 10:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Found it. WP:Wikilink#subpage links explains that there are circumstances where you may need the colon in distinguishing subpages, but says "An initial colon is always allowed in links to, and inclusions from, article namespace to denote "mainspace". Use only when needed." As it happens, subpages are not enabled in mainspace in English Wikipedia, so I believe there are no contexts in which the colon will be required with a simple page name, but as the statement I quoted says, it is always allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

When I first saw this question's header I was sure this was some sort of Wikipedia pun on What Does the Fox Say?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Many templates and automated tools always add a colon in user notifications about a page, so the link will work no matter what kind of page it is. It's easier to just add a colon than to check the namespace and determine whether a colon is needed. User talk:Nahnah4 has examples of this so maybe this is where you saw it. A colon in article links is rarely made by humans. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: It wasn't intentional. I only figured it out after I came up with the question, lol. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: So are you saying the colons are as of no use? --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The colon is of no use (and does no damage) in [[:Hello]] from your example and [[:Sweeter Than Fiction]] from your user page, but it's of great use in [[:File:Sweeter Than Fiction.jpg]] where it makes the link File:Sweeter Than Fiction.jpg. Without a colon it would have displayed the file instead, which isn't even allowed outside the article because it's a fair use image. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Oh, I see. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 12:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

my article was deleted continously

i don't know why my article was deleted, they said i can't show the importance of my article. please tell me what can i doEng.class.cityu (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HKU_Dry_Club? This is an article about a Facebook page. It will not be "notable", and will not be suitable to be an article unless there exists significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Facebook groups, unless they become extremely large, will almost never obtain such status. From reading your draft I am almost certain HKU Dry Club is not a notable entity. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do on Wikipedia to change this. --LukeSurl^{t c} 01:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am a Hong Kongese. May be foreign people think that it is not singificant for them, but HKU dry club is a facebook page which the majority of Hong Kong's universities students or even the young generations pay a lot attention to them. We are introducing the new popular facebook page which means a lot to Hong Kong culture as well as young generation. I believe this page will gain more and more popularity. So that we really want to post it on wikipediaEng.class.cityu (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If the club reaches Wikipedia's standards of notability in the future then a page can be created. However Wikipedia does not create articles in anticipation of future notability, nor as part of campaigns to make entities notable. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Company page?

Hi. One of my competitors has a company page? How can I create one for my company?Sarahpo1114 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've left some important and useful information on your talk page. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems you forgot to sign your talk page message, Anon126. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So I did

Anon126 (talk - contribs) 16:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

i want to start a new entry on: Dennis Loraine. how do i do this?

there is no entry for Dennis Loraine. i want to create an article on him. how do i do this?Pearce Mitchell (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pearce, welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, assemble your sources about this person. Newspaper articles about him, magazine articles about him, significant coverage of him in books published by respectable major publishers, respectable online news sites like this one - if that is the correct Dennis Loraine.

Then start your article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. You may find Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners useful as well. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU. I WILL START THIS ENTRY FOR "DENNIS LORAINE", A BRITISH STAGE ACTOR AND A BIT OF A ROGUE. AM READING A BOOK ABOUT HIM, WRITTEN BY HIM, AND PUBLISHED BY A REPUTABLE PUBLISHER.Pearce Mitchell (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to use sources *not* written by the subject. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The book was not written by him, but by his son. I realize I still need to be careful to ensure my account, my Wikipedia entry, is factual and accurate. PearcePearce Mitchell (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The son still has a conflict of interest.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

notability guideline for biographies

Hello, I am trying to finalize my page on wiki - Coskun Yilmaz (business man) but i receive the same notification as:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

i changed all the references, i added the english ones.. What can i do more? Kindly please inform. Should i broaden the content? Kindly please help. It is so important for me Ylmazcsk (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ylmazcsk. I have moved the page to Coşkun Yılmaz: we don't add extra information to an article name unless it is required to distinguish it from other same with the same name.. It looks to me as if almost all the references on the page are to the company, not the person. The businessweek link is about the person, but is only a directory listing, not substantial coverage, so does not establish notability. All the rest might establish that the company is notable, but not that the person is (Notability is not inherited). Unless you can find substantial coverage of Coşkun Yılmaz personally in reliable sources, independent of him or his company, then I'm afraid he is not at present notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the word, and we will not have an article about him. Also, if you are Coşkun, you should read about why we strongly discourage autobiography on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine, thank you very much for your help. I will do the changes as per your reply. i will reference the independent sources - but those references should be english ? or other language is also fine? Kindly please let me know, thanks a lot Ylmazcsk (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, Ylmazcsk. English sources are preferred on English Wikipedia but if you can't find them, opther languages are fine.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

putting an image

Hey, so I want to put an image as an album cover. How should I do that? Xx7nick (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Xx7nick and welcome to The Teahouse. The first question is where is the image now?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is some advice I found elsewhere on the page: Is the image one that you've created completely yourself? If so, and if you're willing to freely license it, you could upload it to Wikimedia Commons.

If you wanted to put an image in. First, you would want to check and see if it is copyrighted. If it is not (or the owner said you could use it), you could put in the following template. (Note: replace example with the correct Info)

[[File:ExamplePicture.jpg|thumb|left or right|Example Text.]]— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Now chances are an album cover is copyrighted but in the article about the album, it would qualify as fair use.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Album covers are almost certainly copyrighted and in most cases, should be used only in a Wikipedia article about that album. You can't photograph an album cover (or any copyrighted image) and say "I took the photo so I can freely license it". Since the thing you've photographed is copyrighted, such use violates the copyright. Such images should be uploaded to Wikipedia itself (not Wikimedia Commons) under an appropriate fair use rationale, which honors and protects the copyright. The only images that should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are those made freely available for use by anyone under a proper Creative Commons license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've put it as non-free album cover and it's been approved. so what should I do next?

Xx7nick (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I had intended to put this here earlier, but you go to WP:FFU. None of the information I was finding led to that, but someone asked a question here that got answered with the information I needed.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And I found an even better answer, which I have adapted for your situation, except that there could be changes to what you do when you get to the movie poster form.

Download the album cover to your computer. Make sure either the file you download is small, or you reduce its size. This is to comply with the non-free content policy's minimal use requirement. A proper size will typically be in the range of 250 to 350 × 350 to 450 – there is no exact dimensions guide. (If you need help with size reduction, tell us in a follow-up post.)
Go to Special:Upload. Note that if you click on "upload file" from the interface you will be taken to a file upload wizard. This is good for some things but you can dispense with it here.
Click browse and choose the file from your computer.
Place there the license and the fair use rationale template. I recommend following the form here
Since you are copying and pasting from the form above (and tailoring for the specific of your upload of course) which already provides the license directly, do not choose any from the dropdown menu you will see in the upload interface.
Make sure the box for "Watch this file" is ticked and then click Upload file.

— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and how to put it into infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx7nick (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You would put the file name after "cover=". I went to the album Madonna (Madonna album) and the file there was "MadonnaTheFirstAlbum1983AlbumCover.jpg". Your file name should be something like that. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help and feedback with page

If there is an experienced Wikipedia editor out there that isn't afraid of an article about a software design pattern Dependency injection could use some help.

I had an experienced editor working with me but he's grown quiet. If this isn't the right place to ask please tell me where is.

Thanks,

Galhalee (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Galhalee. Perhaps Ironholds might express an opinion? Or Technical 13? It's WAY above my grey head. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Largely above mine, as well, but I do have some comments:

More inline references would be good;
Most of the article seems to consist of example Java. This is (I'm sure) great code, but relatively limiting for the reader, first because it's exclusively Java syntax, without examples in other languages, and second because...well, the goal isn't to provide an essay about or tutorial around dependency injection (which is what this reads as, with its hypothetical questions and extensive inline code), but simply to explain what it is, where it's commonly used, why it's commonly used, and what the advantages and/or disadvantages of it are.--Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've been researching more citations and will add them and reflect them in content as I do. Is this what you mean by inline references?

As for the code I trust it's easier to look at then this was. Rather than great I was going for simple and understandable.

I'd love to provide examples in many languages but, well there are a LOT of programming languages. I'm using the language Fowler used in the article where he coined the term Dependency injection.

I removed a hypothetical question from Interface injection comparison.

As for sounding like a tutorial, can it be saved? Or should I move the bulk of it to wikihow and gut the page?

I welcome any more feedback. And thanks for the help Galhalee (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Galhalee: happy to help out in more detail; I totally think it can be saved :). Want to chat on my talk page? Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How i make new wikipedia

I realy want to know how i make new wikipedia, so how there is wiki.teamfortress.com or others, please help :c

Martynas Šalčiūnas (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Martynas Šalčiūnas: Are you really talking about a Wikipedia or just a wiki? A wiki is a site that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is one of thousands of wikis (but is probably the largest and most famous). If you want to start a wiki, then http://www.wikia.com is probably the best place to do that. It's free and takes all of two minutes to do the initial setup. Starting a new Wikipedia, on the other hand, is only done after a lengthy (sometimes months or years long) discussion at m:Requests for new languages. Hope this answers your question. --Jakob (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

But im blocked in wikia and in wiki.com is impossible to do something i tested :l

So i realy need help, ill be thankful

Martynas Šalčiūnas (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Martynas Šalčiūnas:: Wikia and wiki.com look similar to Wikipedia, but they are entirely separate organisations and are run by different people. We cannot help you here. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference (but probably not entirely helpful) - this article tries to clarify between "Wiki" and "Wikipedia". Basically, "Wiki" is an improper noun, while "Wikipedia" is a proper noun. Calling Wikipedia "Wiki" (not "A Wiki") is like calling the Eiffel Tower "Tower". K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

, http://wiki.teamfortress.com already exists. (Sorry if this isn't what you were asking about.)--Auric talk 19:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Marratt and Ellis Opticians

Hi there, I'm about to give up. This business had a very long and significant history. I wanted to record the facts and events for present and future generations. Am I wasting my time? Is the article considered lacking in notability and therefore always will be declined, or does it just need more input to reach a successful submission? This is my first and perhaps my only attempt at a Wikipedia article. If it's worth going on, I need some encouragement. Gomez050 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "This business had a very long and significant history". You need to illustrate that in the article and back it up with verifiable references. Failing that your time would be better spent on another article. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The article appears very unfocused, Gomez050. It has more material on the neighborhood the business is in than on the business itself. How is it relevant to the business that the Germans bombed the neighborhood? That is true for most of London. At the end of the day, an article on a business has to meet the notability standard for a business found at WP:NCORP. It requires mention of the business from reliable sources from a diverse geographic area. A case may be made for notability for the founder and perhaps that may be a better article to attempt. I really find nothing on the business from outside of London. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi John
Thank you for your advice. I expected this submission to be eventful. The exercise has been long, but I have come away with a knowledge of the weird and wonderful ways of Wikipedia. I have carefully considered the points you have raised and perhaps you are correct. I've enjoyed the challenge, but disappointed with the lack of success, and will now sign off. Gomez050 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)