Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 199

Archive 195

←

Archive 197

Archive 198

Archive 199

Archive 200

Archive 201

→

Archive 205

Translation

Hi there, how can I translate a page of an article from Bahasa Melayu to English by myself. I want to do it by myself! Thank you! Aiman Hamzah (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Aiman Hamzah: Hi Aiman. I suggest creating this in a workspace rather than directly in the mainspace. You have three options. You can create the page:

1. Through articles for creation (click the giant button labeled "Click here to create an article now!" which will take you to the article wizard, or just CLICK HERE);
2. Create a draft directly at a subpage of your user or user talk space, such as creating it at User:Aiman Hamzah/Name of article; or
3. You could use the draft article space, in which case you would create the page at Draft:Name of article.
4. Regardless of which you choose, your first edit would place in the page the text from the foreign page and (this is important): provide an edit summary that provides copyright attribution of where you got the text, linking the foreign article, and the URL of the revision you took it from. I did this yesterday, so here's an example of such an edit summary. So, your edit summary would be something like This is copied from [[:ms:Name of foreign article]], the existing Malay Wikipedia article on this topic, from this revision https://ms.wikipedia.org/...
5. Then just translate the text into English.
6. Remember though, that just because the article exists on the other Wikipedia does not necessarily mean it is appropriate there, or meets our policies and guidelines here. For example, it must be on a notable topic and must cite to reliable sources that verify its content.
7. If you create it as a subpage or draft rather than through articles for creation, once done with the translation, you can submit it for review by adding to the top {{subst:submit}}.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Major Error on page I was about to edit

There is this big error on the timeline on the page I was about to edit. I don't know how to fix it so I thought I would ask you all. 1939 Atlantic hurricane season

Shashenka (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think I've fixed it. The start date was after the date specified for the minorscale. Set them to the same date and problem gone (I hope). Nthep (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok cool thanks so much!Shashenka (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Biographies

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi!,I am JhuruliBittu. I created many biographies of person,but deleted showing the reason that"does not show any importance about real person".What can i do then? please help me soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhuruliBittu (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JhuruliBittu. You need to show in the article that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for "notability" (in a special Wikipedia sense), which is that several reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) that are indepedent of the subject, have written at some length about the subject. Please see the general notability guideline. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Reason of speedy deletion?

Hi, earlier this day I created a small article about a text editor as I have seen lots of them already from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_text_editors

My article was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sajjad_Altahan/sandbox

I don't see the line or paragraph that makes it 'an article to advertise or promote' a product. That's why I'm here asking this question; so those of you who have experience can help me out by pointing to me what's wrong with the article I have written and giving me possible suggestions about how to improve it.

Thanks! Sajjad Altahan (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Note for Admins: the discussion is about this getting G11ed by Jimfbleak.

In fairness, your article isn't the worst offender I've seen, but it does read more like an advert for that programme than like an encyclopedia article about it. Problems include: some advert-like language (a "better" replacement, "advanced features", "full ... support"); zero references (don't just say that there were reviews—link to them); and too many technical details about the software for an encyclopedia article.

I would recomment re-writing the article bearing those points in mind (and the piece could well become an acceptable article if there really are as many third-party sources writing about the software as you claim). If you do not agree with the original decision to delete the article, however, then you may contest it here. Personally, I would recomment the re-writing route. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the re-writing route. Thank you for your response - very appreciated.

Sajjad Altahan (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism, possibly persistent

My attention has been caught by 183.81.52.238 and 113.23.54.44 (sorry, don't know how to link to their contributions). Looking through their plausible-yet-total-nonsense additions to articles about the UK's ITV is worrying me. Can someone with a bit more experience than me have a look at those two addresses and... I don't know... do something? Or is that not possible? Sorry, I don't understand quite how this all works (although I love the term "rvv" I just discovered for edit details!) I suppose what I really need is someone who knows what they're doing to look at these two addresses and similar articles where similar addresses have recently edited and... oh, I don't know! Help! Trey Maturin (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Trey. IPs or accounts being used only for vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV. In this case, however, I don't think either IP needs reporting. The first hasn't made any edits in a couple of months, and to report at AIV the vandalism needs to have been recent since a lot of blocks (especially IP blocks) are only temporary and short. The second appears to have stopped and so I would say wait and see if they continue vandalising and only report if they do. :) Sam Walton (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Trey Maturin: Contributions can be linked with Special:Contributions/Username or IP address. For example, your contributions are at Special:Contributions/Trey Maturin, and the contributions from the two IP addresses are at Special:Contributions/183.81.52.238 and Special:Contributions/113.23.54.44. Hope this helps. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the best course of action here is to just undo the edits if you don't agree with them and move on. The problem doesn't appear to be persistent. Plus, their edits don't look like clear-cut cases of vandalism. On Wikipedia, we should assume good faith unless it is blatantly obvious that the edit was made to harm Wikipedia. Certainly, the edit may not have been accurate or beneficial, but it may have at least been made in good faith. If you are interested in becoming a regular counter-vandalism editor, read Wikipedia's vandalism policy and check out the Counter-Vandalism Unit. If you have any more questions, feel free to come back to the Teahouse. If any of our answers to this question are unclear, leave a follow-up below and a host will be happy to clarify. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help! I shall read the links you've given me and watchlist the articles this person is playing with just in case. Thanks again! Trey Maturin (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Remodelers Council Establishing

I am trying to establish one of the largest known organizations in the USA and failing miserably. Each acts with local government independently of one another under the Umbrella of the Remodelers Council. Each council members addresses ONLY the concerns of that community but they are Remodelers Council. I referenced various sites and they said that they were not 3rd party. Next, I referenced 3rd party articles and they said that it references only that specific council. Yep that 's right it is all the council but independent of each other because each has a territory that they serve. They are one of the largest in the USA and the guy on Wikipedia was not helping me. Everyone references the Remodelers Council and we know it exists but not in Wikipedia. I need help. here is the link. I may not be the Wikipedian for this subject. I am not Remodelers Council, NAHB or BIA or HBA. It should be there though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Terryakiwiki/sandbox Terryakiwiki (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Terryakiwiki. I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works. There may be an article on a subject not because you think there ought or because I think there ought, but because several reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) that are independent of the subject have written about it. If these books or articles don't exist (and it sounds as if you've looked at them) then we cannot have an article about the subject. Part of the reason for this is that Wikipedia may be edited by anybody, so you can never know for certain that an article you are looking at is correct (it may have been vandalised, or somebody may just have been mistaken); so we insist that all information be referenced to reliable sources, so that a reader next week or next month or next year can go and consult those sources to verify what it says in the article. Further, for some kinds of information a subject's own website, interviews, and press releases, and what friends or employees have written, is not reliable, because they are likely to want to present the subject in a favourable light. For this reason, if we cannot find reliable independent sources for a subject, it is impossible to write a trustworthy article on it, so we do not wish to allow an article at all. --ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Terryakiwiki I was the reviewer who declined your submission last time. The problem I saw was that there didn't seem to be anything in your references that proved notability. They all proved only that the Remodelers Council exists. It has to not only exist but be somehow notable. And it may very well be notable -- it was just that your sources didn't prove it. If you can find multiple articles in national industry magazines about the remodelers council, that would probably do it. valereee (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at a page for me?

I've written an article, and it was immediately tagged as reading like an advertisement. I went through it and looked for anything that seemed like promotional copy to me, and I'm just not seeing it. I'd like to do other work on the article, but the fact it's tagged as reading like an advertisement makes me want to first deal with that, because it seems like a fairly major issue to me.

It's at Macroom Oatmeal

For the record, this is not a product I have ANY connection with other than as a consumer.

Thanks! valereee (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Valereee. I gotta say this kinda does sound like something out of a PR firm. Articles need to adhere to a neutral point of view. It would also help to add some outside sources as references to verify some of the claims. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Vjmlhds, can you point out what in it sounds not neutral? Like I said, I'm just not seeing it. There's actually nothing of my opinion in there -- it's all opinions of food critics, chefs, etc., and it's all sourced. What can I change to make it feel less like something out of a PR firm to you? valereee (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Valeree. The problem is that it isn't an encyclopedia article. It just describes what you would need to know about the product if you were to go out and buy it, and praises the product. Thus advertising. An encyclopedia article covers the facts about the item - history, description, process, etc. and leaves out promotion: "boarded (whatever that means) on Slow Food's Ark of Taste", and the reviews. It might be easier to write about the company rather than the product. In any case, the Atlantic article has a lot of factual information that you can use. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

How to make named footnotes work

I struggled for about an hour trying to understand why the following text generated an error. (I did go to the Footnotes page and studied the formatting instructions and still don't see what I'm doing wrong, so please don't just give me a link to that page.)

First citation defining the name, seemed to work fine (cut and pasted from my editing attempt):

The challenge for the marketer is to understand the potentially complex dynamics of the virtual community and be able to use them effectively.<ref name=Powell2011>Guy Powell, Jerry Dimos, and Steven Groves, ''ROI of Social Media: How to Improve the Return on Your Social Marketing Investment'', (Singapore : John Wiley & Sons [Asia], 2011), p. 32-37</ref>

The second citation, the one that generated the error:

Development of a social media marketing strategy must also take into account interaction with traditional media including the potential both for synergies, where the two combine to greater effect, and cannibalism, where one takes market from the other, leading to no real market expansion.<ref name=Powell2011 /ref>

Thanks for any help with this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2015Anderson's (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I fixed the coding with "nowiki" tags...they make it so that all wikimarkup is ignored, leaving the plain text. To answer your question, the format for reusing a reference is <ref name=Powell2011 />. You don't need that "/ref" in there, just a / when reusing references. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I stared at this for an hour looking back and forth from the instructions to the text and just couldn't see it. Sigh.

Perhaps having pulled an all nighter and slept four hours had something to do with it. But still, I used to be a software engineer, I really should have found this knowing that I was pairing up the ref's incorrectly somehow. 2015Anderson's (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

When will I become a registered user?

I've made dozens of edits (a lot more if you include the stuff from the Wikipedia Adventure), and my account was created at least a week or two ago, but I still cannot edit semi-protected articles. Why is this? Do I just need to accomplish more in order to qualify? Thanks! Flipandflopped (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flipandflopped. Your account should be autoconfirmed so you should be able to edit semi-protected articles. Are you sure you cannot? If you see an "Edit" tab at Bigfoot and clicking it leads to a red box above an edit box then you can edit it. The red box is informational and does not mean you cannot edit. If you cannot edit then you see a "View source" tab instead of "Edit". You can log out to see the difference, assuming you have an "Edit" tab when you are logged in. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Did someone enable me? Before all I saw was "View Source - this article is semi-protected", and now I'm able to edit (like literally not 20 minutes ago I couldn't). Well, thank you! --Flipandflopped (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Image help

I've uploaded a file under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license File:Natalie Appleton Melanie Blatt 2014 Tour.jpg and I see this is unacceptable on Wiki? How do I delete this file? I feel like such an idiot! Also I was wondering if I could upload pics on this page: http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/4238165/All_Saints_Smash_Hits_2000_Bla ? —Coolmarc (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's no need to worry about the image you already uploaded; it will be deleted by an administrator shortly. The site you link to also appears to be under the CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license, so you shouldn't upload these. --Jakob (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Only administrators can delete files, and since there is a tag on the image, one of them will come around shortly.

The images in the page you linked are probably copyrighted (and not released under a free license), so they are also probably not acceptable.

Note that Wikipedia does allow copyrighted "non-free" images, but one requirement is that it is not possible to replace it with a free version. In the case of a concert, it is quite possible to replace a non-free image with a freely licensed one that someone else took. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 18:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm finding it EXTREMELY frustrating re:Images on Wiki, every image I can find about All Saints (group) is Copyright, I've searched everywhere, flickr, everywhere. Everything is copyrighted. How on earth will I ever be able to upload an image to All Saints articles if its not my own work? 99.9% images are going to be from Copyright sites. I understand if images are not tagged with Copyright on the image itself but from Copyright sites or forums? It doesn't make sense to me, the images appear on Google then? Surely that makes Google infringing copyright laws then? And people sourcing info from copyright sites on Wiki? It's all so confusing, fussy and contradictory for me, the explanations on Wiki are explained in such complicated way that I don't understand. :( —Coolmarc (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to work from the assumption that everything is copyright unless it expressly says otherwise. Yes it does make it difficult and frustrating when you can't find anything to illustrate an article but you just have to live with it. Nthep (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Coolmarc: I'm surprised that Flickr doesn't have anything. (Note that images licensed under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are acceptable.)

This is not legal advice, but to my understanding Google can serve thumbnails of images as a result of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation. Information can be sourced from copyrighted sites in different words because expressions of ideas can be copyrighted, while ideas themselves cannot. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 19:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anon126, I have a better understanding now. I just want to better the All Saints wiki but I'm finding it impossible imagewise. :( —Coolmarc (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Images on this blog for example http://allsaintsband.blogspot.nl/2014/04/pictures-from-manchester-5th-april-2014.html don't mention any copyright details. Would I be allowed to upload any of these? And if so, how? —Coolmarc (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, as I said earlier treat everything as copyright until it is explicitly stated otherwise. Anonymous images on a blog are not going to be accepted as copyright free. Nthep (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you suggest a possible means of finding images that explicitly state they are not copyright please? —Coolmarc (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Think of it this way, Coolmarc. Google is a tool for finding all sorts of things on the internet. Simply viewing a copyrighted image for your own personal use does not violate the copyright. But images on Wikipedia are part of a free encyclopedia, and the content can be freely reused by anyone, even for commercial purposes. You can download the very best high-definition award winning photos from Wikimedia Commons, print up posters with a credit line under the image, and sell them at your local flea market without asking permission. Or use them on your own commercial business website. Or used them as illustrations in books. We use non-free low-resolution versions of copyrighted photos in very limited circumstances, only to illustrate the corresponding articles: book covers, album covers, movie posters, corporate logos and portraits of people who are now dead are common examples. These can't be replaced by freely licensed versions. For the detailed guideline, please see WP:NFCI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

All of the above with one additional and extremely important piece of information...attribution. You must attribute the author of the image you use from commons. This is the entire purpose of the attribution license. Always give credit to the photographer or copyright holder of any image you use in the real world for either commercial or educational purposes. Free means "without charge" but not free to use without attributing the author/photographer.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger

Can anyone please perform merger of Flight recorder and Flight data recorder? It has been proposed for merger since June 2012, Unfortunately I don't know how to perform this. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aftabbanoori. The merger has been proposed for quite some time (I see merge discussions dating all the way back to 2006), but hasn't been carried out because no one seems interested enough to discuss how it would actually be done. Both articles seem reasonably detailed and not strikingly overlapping at first glance, so I don't think it really matters if they are merged or not. A flight data recorder is one of the two most common types of flight recorder, according to the article. The other being the cockpit voice recorder. I don't really see a huge concern for performing a merger here. Pinging User:Thumperward, who apparently proposed the merger back in 2011, for his thoughts. Mz7 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is long overdue: the main things holding it up are lack of time and interest, and vested contributors. I'll look to see if I can repurpose Black box (transportation) purely as a disambiguation page, and merge all the flight recorder pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

auto deletion of Images

I had a perfectly acceptable page for Rozumice but the Bot has auto deleted my non-free images. These images were rare images that were very important for setting the historical background. I believe this justifies free use. I tried to Undo the deletion but the Bot has deleted and blocked their replacement. Can anyone tell me what steps I have to follow to get these images replaced in my article, in simple English please, I am very unsure of Wiki requirements. AnnaSomerset (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi AnnaSomerset, the images were deleted by a person, not a Bot. The only reason I am aware of, for an editor or an administrator to delete them, and block you from undoing is copyright issues. Wikipedia takes violation of copyright very seriously, and the action taken is swift.

Everybody (well, almost) at Wikipedia is here to help, so don't take it personally. As to what steps you need to take, someone with more experience with images will need to help. All the best.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a bit confused. The only listed Deleted Contribution of yours to a File is to File:Laimes to Farm Haines.jpg, which was deleted in 2010 (and by a human editor, not by a Bot). Your other en.wp uploads are listed here and have not been deleted. Could you provide more details (inc. links) of which File/which Bot you are talking about? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AnnaSomerset. Looking at the history of Rozumice, User:Werieth removed a number of images from the article with the comment "remove files lacking critical commentary see WP:NFCC", so Werieth believes that the use of the files does not meet the criteria for using non-free images. I am not clear what Werieth means, (I don't see the words "critical commentary" on the NFCC page), but rather than simply reverting Werieth's changes, you should have then opened a discussion on the article's talk page or Werieth's talk page, first asking Werieth to explain their rationale for removing the images. --ColinFine (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ColinFine critical commentary derives from NFCC#8. AnnaSomerset was using 5 non-free files on an article about a village. The files where being used decoratively, which for non-free files isnt allowed. Usage of non-free media is very limited and in the case of Rozumice it just is no where close to meeting the bar for inclusion. Werieth (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear, Werieth - I did not recognise the item in the wording in your comment. AnnaSomerset: Looking at the first image, it appears that the source is a book which was published in 1903. It seems likely to me that the copyright on the image has expired, in which case the image is in the Public domain. If this is the case (and I am not an expert - you could ask at copyright questions) then it does not need to be uploaded as non-free content, but can be uploaded as public domain (preferably to Wikimedia commons). There will then be no restriction on how it can be used in articles. (I haven't looked at the other images, but the same might apply to them) --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your useful comments ColinFine. I will first check whether images are now in Public Domain. I do however disagree with Werieth. These are not decorative but images that are necessary to set a unique historical content that could not otherwise be conveyed by words and do comply with the ten point criteria, as far as I can understand them. AnnaSomerset (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with this as a reference entry? Please help, it keeps getting rejected.

• Quinn Cody

Slowfire (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe {{cite web}} needs a |title= parameter? What does the error message say? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 20:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as a minimum {{cite web}} requires both url and title. That's what someone else has done in tiding it up in the article you used it in. Nthep (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm a complete newbie and I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one who has been editing this article and I tried it, couldn't make it work and took it back out. I'm getting the error you see in my question in red. It doesn't like when I try to reference a footnote using a name I previously defined (citation [1]. I think I used the exact formatting I found in the Footnotes page, which I guess you can see if you "edit" my o=post, but it gives me an error. 2015Anderson's (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not quite sure what you're stuck on, so I've added one instance of Template:Cite web and one of Template:Cite book to Marketing buzz for you to have a look at. Does looking at those links help you see what the template code is meant to look like? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable podcast source?

Hello! I stumbled upon some facts for an article that I haven't found anywhere else except for this source: http://terracycle.podbean.com/2012/06/25/talking-trash-with-terracycle-episode-8-the-interns-episode/. The problem is that it's a podcast. Am I allowed to count it as a source? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bananasoldier and welcome to the Teahouse! You should only add material to Wikipedia that is reliably sourced and follows these guidelines. As for the specific source that you mention, it does not prima facie appear to meet the criteria as it is a blog site and therefore disallowed. However, it depends what you want to add. If, for example, it is a quote from an interview with a notable individual then that would be OK. If on the other hand it is a wild theory that is not backed up by any other reputable source, then it would not. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 05:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, about the only time a personal blog is acceptable to use for sourcing content is when it is about the person themselves. If the blog is sourcing information about the person (who is notable enough for an article or being mentioned in one) who owns the blog than that is acceptable. If the blog is from a notable expert, it may be used to source content that they are experts on but that also depends on the information and what expertise they have and what kind of blog is in question as there are some other factors to consider.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, and thanks for answering my question! The podcast was done by the company themselves, so I hope it's alright to use for the small facts it mentions, such as the fact that one of the company's co-founders left in 2007. However, I'm not sure how to cite the podcast. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: Some quick research confirms that the company appears notable so cite the podcast using the {{citation}} template, fill in the url, title and date etc. and you should be good to go. Don't forget to wrap it in <ref></ref> tags. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 06:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Philg88 and Mark Miller! Bananasoldier (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: It's also OK to use a blog if the author is a notable expert in the field that they're writing about. --Jakob (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

reuse of an image

Hello all, I have uploaded an image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/e/e9/Yonah_Melnik.png for the Yonah Melnik page in hebrew, I am now writing the same page in English (for now in my sand box), but I have difficulties reusing the same image on the English page. This is the syntax I am using:

{{Infobox sportsperson
| headercolor      = 
| name             = Yonah Melnik
| native_name      = יונה מלניק
| native_name_lang = Hebrew
| image            = [[Yonah Melnik.png]]
| image_size       = 200px
| caption          = 
| nationality      = {{ISR}}
| residence        = Hod Hasharon, Israel
| birth_date       = 27 May 1947 
| birth_place      = [[Germany]]
| sport            = Judo
| Rank             = 8th Dan
}}

Am I doing something wrong ? Thank you :) Eliforme (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Eliforme, welcome. The problem is that the image is only uploaded to the Hebrew Wiki. To be used here you either need to upload it to en.wiki or move your image to Commons where it can be used on all wikis. If it is a free image then the second option is the better solution, then the syntax you have used will be correct. Nthep (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. en.wp articles can only display Files uploaded to en.wp or to Commons. he.wp articles can only display Files uploaded to he.wp or to Commons. Etc. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I feel really "green", I can't figure out how to move this file to common. Need help again ...

Eliforme (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe try CommonsHelper? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

About Talk

I made a Change to the "Gary Larson" article, which was more of a Question. TYeliot corrected my Change and explained my Error. Just wanted to tell Him Thank You. How do I do that.? Or is that possible.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenr77 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kenr77. As well as simply saying "thank you" on his talkpage, you can also use the little heart icon at the top of that page (near the Search bar) to offer WikiLove, in the form of barnstars or food. Alternatively, you can go to the article, select the "View history" tab, and click on the "thank" button next to his edit. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Image not showing

I've uploaded File:Melanie Blatt Black Coffee Video Screenshot.png but for some reason it is not showing on Black Coffee (All Saints song), and I have no idea why! Most likely some stupid mistake I've done with the formatting but I can't figure it out! Could a kind soul please help me out? —Coolmarc (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not actually sure why it didn't work before, but changing thumb to frame seems to have worked. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 3:00 pm, Today (UTC+1)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/58/Melanie_Blatt_Black_Coffee_Video_Screenshot.png/280px-Melanie_Blatt_Black_Coffee_Video_Screenshot.png says: "Error generating thumbnail There have been too many recent failed attempts (5 or more) to render this thumbnail. Please try again later." I don't know why. It means the image can currently only be displayed at the uploaded size. That's what you did by replacing thumbnail with frame. frame ignores the size specification. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this and was nonplussed as to why it didn't work, since Coolmarc's coding looked perfect. As it happens there's not a lot of difference between uploaded size, 320 px, and requested size, 280 px, but that's just luck; obviously the editor ought to be able to specify and get the size they actually want. It would be seriously frustrating if one was trying to display a thumb of a big-ass image (as most are). Do you think it's a temporary glitch, PrimeHunter? Bishonen | talk 14:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

I'm not an expert on image formats but I suspect something in the png file is incompatible with our MediaWiki software so it cannot be resized. If it's shown in the original size then the original file is just delivered directly to your browser whether MediaWiki can understand it or not. The browsers and other programs I have tested can display the file. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

How do i know if my sandbox post has gone live and will it have my user name as the heading?

Hello people of wikipedia!

I have created an article in the sandbox and received a message from the Robot thanking me for contributing to Wikipedia. Does this mean my post is live and will my post have my user name as the heading, it should state Mandela bangle instead, is there a way to fix this?

Keep up the good workMandela Bangle 09:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darylgoz (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You hadn't submitted your sandbox article for review. I have added a {{userspace draft}} template to it to allow you to submit it when it is ready. It is, however, nowhere near ready yet. I have added a few links in a welcome message on your user talk page; in particular you need to read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that the bot had intivited you here, to the teahouse. Your Sandbox is as is, without any changes. Zince34' 09:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the title of the article, this will normally be in bold characters in the first sentence of the lede. At present you start with "The 46664 Bangle is a ...", but if you intend the article to be entitled "Mandela bangle" you would start the lede with "The '''Mandela bangle''' is a ...", which would display as "The Mandela bangle is a ...". You would, of course, as outlined in WP:YFA, have to show that the subject of the article is notable in Wikipedia's terms by showing that it has had significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am also confused about the status of an article that I have been attempting to create. I submitted the draft and was told it would be reviewed within two weeks, but that time period has now passed without any further word. The page is live and searchable on the web, but it is also stuck as a User page!

I would be grateful is anyone knows what I might do about this. Many thanks. Jabambridge (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You originally submitted your user subpage for review, but as a blank page. Your next edit removed the submission for review, so it is not currently in the review queue, and exists only as a user subpage. I have added a {{userspace draft}} to allow you to submit it again for review when you are ready. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Glancing again at your draft, I see that all the references are bare urls. It will make it easier for a reviewer to be convinced that it is suitable sourced if you expand the references using {{cite web}} or other appropriate citation templates and fill in whatever information is available, particularly a title and hopefully a publisher. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cropping an Image

I need an image to be cropped, what are the steps to do it? (Monkelese (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You can use {{Annotated image}}, though the syntax is a bit complicated if you aren't used to it. You can also tag the image with {{Crop}} to indicate to other users that it needs to be trimmed, or (assuming the image is at Wikimedia Commons) you can download it, fix it in Photoshop or similar, and then upload a new version. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a bot that I can alert for it to do it? (Monkelese (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is I've never come across it - I'm not sure image cropping is something that a bot could do anyway. What's the image, and what are you trying to do to it? I may be able to help (or if not, I probably know someone who can...). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The image is this: Image

I'm trying to crop the prince out since he's blurry. hope you can help. (Monkelese (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Can do, but not right now. If no-one else has sorted it by tomorrow, I'll figure out the code for you. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a really easy method I use: this tool from the WikiMedia Foundation. Thanks, Matty.007 15:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Monkelese: can you do it, or do you want me to do it? Thanks, Matty.007 15:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Matty, I will really appreciate it if you do it for me. Thanks.(Monkelese (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you want Camilla's body, or just her head? Thanks, Matty.007 15:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Her body too should be added (Monkelese (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Monkelese: result is at File:The Diamond Jubilee Balcony at Buckingham Palace - Camilla (cropped).jpg. Is it OK? Thanks, Matty.007 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks great. Thank you very much for your help. (Monkelese (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am still working on a page in the sandbox and got some feedback but deleted it because it was a

I am working on a page in my sandbox. I submitted it and went to a helper page to get some more hints as to why it was declined. I deleted the comments in the sandbox because it was not part of my article. It that ok in Wikipedia and I do not want to submit it at this time until I have fixed the references that were requested. It looks like I cannot submit that page now and do not know what to do. I want to check it with a helper again but lost that helper page too.

Can someone advise me on how to use Wikipedia- protocol? I keep trying but I am not sure what I am doing. Here is my sandbox page .

Terryakiwiki (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I deleted the leading spaces at the start of the paragraphs in your question, because those leading spaces screw up the formatting of the display. I have added back the feedback that you deleted from your sandbox draft, & it is there to help you & to help subsequent reviewers. (It will be deleted if and when your draft is accepted.) The feedback template also provides the "Resubmit" button, so the reason that you couldn't see how to resubmit was that you had deleted that feedback template. Now that I've added the template back in you can see the "Resubmit" button, but I've also added a {{userspace draft}} template to confirm that you are still working on the draft; that userspace draft template also provides an alternative button to resubmit when you are ready. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Terryakiwiki: We leave the comments so folk helping you assess the article can track what previous reviewers said and can see what has improved.

You need to take the comments on board, asking the individual reviewers if they will explain some more why they think what they do. Ask them on their talk pages.

I have not reviewed your article, on purpose, because I just want to answer your question on protocols, etc. However you may find a guide such as User:Timtrent/A good article is worth working through. Ot will give you an idea of what makes a decent article. You need to compare your creation with the ideal and edit yours to make it better and better. Do not give up! Fiddle Faddle 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

How to properly flag/tag image file that I uploaded

I uploaded a scanned image [:File:Page_3_of_4-page_glossy_NRA_ad_in_American_Rifleman,_Oct._1993.jpg] as part of an ongoing discussion on the Gun politics in the United States talk page. Another editor told me that it will probably be deleted. I told him this won't break my heart, but I think it's a useful file, and could be in the future too? Any suggestions, or should I just delete it, or wait for it to die? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lightbreather and welcome back to the Teahouse. The file you mention seems almost certain to be a copyright violation. Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, you should take prompt action to have it deleted. Please see WP:NFCI for the very limited circumstances where it is OK to use non-free images. Such use is limited only to articles, not talk pages. You can always link to a version hosted on the copyright holder's web page for discussion purposes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. The problem is, it's not on any web page that I can find. I bought a copy of the magazine that it was in (Oct. 1993 Ameircan Rifleman) and scanned it. (Before I scanned it, I put a reference on it in the lower, right-hand corner.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not an extenuating circumstance. It still appears to be a copyright violation, and accordingly, should be deleted ASAP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has flagged/tagged it, so it will be deleted by April 14 if not before. In researching further, I actually see that the ad is part of a controversy dating back to LaPierre's "jackbooted government thugs" comment of 1995, which pops up regularly in these discussions.[1][2][3] Last year in Mother Jones, which was then reported in The Nation. so I need to ponder a little more and then decide what to do. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

sandbox

I have looked all over my account but a sandbox comes up. edit below this line can you explain to me what a sandbox is. Tylkrby767 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tylkrby767. Your sandbox page is a place where you can try things out. You can experiment with wikicode and, when you are ready, draft new articles or additions to existing articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tylkrby767: (e/c) Hi Tylkrby767. You know what a real sandbox is – a place to play around. A "sandbox" here is a workspace, a place to work on draft articles, draft templates or otherwise work on (play around with) things not yet ready to be "live", such as before they are to be moved to the main part of the encyclopedia (called the article space or mainspace). Any subpage of your userspace or user talk space is a type of sandbox, and such pages will always be at a name starting with the namespace, followed by a forward slash and something after it, e.g., User:Tylkrby767/Some title. Often, the name following the forward slash will be the intended target for a draft for a time when it is ready to go live. For example, if I was creating an article on Whoziwhatzitz, I might work on it at User:Fuhghettaboutit/Whoziwhatzitz and a few months from now move it to the mainspace.

As I said, any subpage like this is a "sandbox", but sometimes people actually use the name "sandbox" to designate their sandbox, though there's no need to, and this has increased astronomically in the last year or so since they implemented a feature of the interface you may have noticed that provides an automatic link at the top of the page to create a sandbox actually named user:your name/sandbox. Meanwhile, since you've never created a sandbox it appears, I assume you left out the words "does not" before "a sandbox comes up" in your question. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

When you click the "Sandbox" link at top of pages you should see the explanatory box at Template:User sandbox. Are you saying that doesn't happen? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

what is the benefit of using the talk feature ?

so as a new user i just wanted to know how using the talk feature can really benefit me ? and how can i get the best use out of it ? Ninjanasha (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ninjanasha, welcome to the Teahouse! Talk pages are pages where Wikipedia editors can discuss changes and improvements made to an article. You can use talk pages for discussing changes you are unsure about, or for proposing changes that would be controversial. Talk pages can also be used to propose merging and renaming pages. User talk pages are places where you can contact another Wikipedia user. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and we make decisions by consensus. Talk pages are the means for that. That said, it's important to be bold in editing. Don't discuss all of your changes on the talk page. Only the ones you feel others may disagree with. If this doesn't answer your question, feel free to leave a follow-up below and I will be happy to clarify anything. Best, Mz7 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Mz7 Thank you for the welcome and for such a quick and brilliant reply, I have now used the talk pages although have not yet received any feedback from any other users on the page i was hoping to edit for a university assignment. Once again Thank you again for a clear and decisive answer ! Ninjanasha (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

How to create a wikipedian article

I would like to create my wikipedian article. How do you do this regarding infoboxes? Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can add Infoboxes by inserting an appropriate Infobox template. Which one is "appropriate" depends on what the subject matter of your article is. If it was about a singer or a music group, for example, you could use {{Infobox musical artist}} in the article. The Infobox template's own page (Template:Infobox musical artist) will give examples of how to insert the template/what code to use. You can browse the available Infobox templates at Category:Infobox templates and its sub-categories. Hope that helps! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject is about myself, as a wikipedian. Do i just go on my personal page and start writing? Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your user page may, broadly, say what you wish, though may not be used for improper purposes, nore, really, as a replacement for a personal web page nor as a blog. There you go in and start editing. Be aware that search engines have very long memories. Never reveal more than you would be happy showing your white haired grandmother.

For an article about you as a real Wikipedia article, not on your user page, please do not do this. Even if you pass WP:GNG please do not do it. I guarantee it will not be a life enhancing experience because your life will be picked to shreds. This is not true of your user page. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Just seen these replies as messages weren't left on my talk page. Cheers for the tips and advice. Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

re "Ian McFarlane" article

Could another editor, please, take a look at Ian McFarlane because I suspect that it breaches guidelines including notability, original research, and NPOV? Could they, also, take whatever action they deem appropriate? The reason I am not doing this myself is that I don't believe I can be objective on this subject at this time.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi CaesarsPalaceDude. I'm not seeing the NPOV and OR issues you are seeing; everything in the article looks verifiably sourced besides the dead link. Notability is questionable, since the only reliable source included in the article that appears to be working and independent of the subject is [4], and that is just a passing mention. I've added a {{notability}} tag. I'll try to search for more sources. Do you think you could clarify your neutrality/OR concerns on the article's talk page? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mz7, thanks for responding to my question (again). I can see that my explanation was not clear. My problem is with the references. They are all books by Ian McFarlane or involve his participation. Ref#1 is OK. Ref#3 praises the subject's most notable book, but is a dead link. Ref#4 is a newspaper article in which Ian McFarlane is interviewed. Ref#5 is a book written by (hey, you guessed it) Ian McFarlane. Therefore, we are not getting a range of views. We are getting only one POV, which is against the guidelines, as far as I can see. As you can see, I am too emotionally involved, and I trust your judgement. Should the article be tagged for its citations? Thanks for taking the time to help.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I dispute the placement of a notability template on this article and have removed it. My reasons are given at the first place I'd look if I wanted to discus an article's notability: its talkpage. Further discussion should occur there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I welcome an IP and ask him to be a member?

There is a template welcoming new members but is there one to welcome an IP and ask them to become a member? Thanks. GnGn (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Gnorman Gnome: {{subst:welcome-anon}} is the main one. More are listed at WP:WT#For unregistered users only. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Anon. GnGn (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation for obsolete usage

There is a place in Sydney called Ballast_Point_(New_South_Wales). And there is another place which Kurraba_Point,_New_South_Wales which was also known as "Ballast Point" in the 1800s. So for clarification, I would like to put something at the start of the "Ballast Point" article to point out that the name also had this historical alternate meaning. Is there a proper way to insert this sort of disambiguation? Gronk Oz (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse Gronk Oz. In your example above you would use the following code at the very top of the article (known as a hatnote): ''For the area known as Ballast point during the 1800s, see [[Kurraba Point, New South Wales]]''. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To editors Gronk Oz and Philg88: This can be done in a more "standardized" way with {{for|the area known as Ballast point during the 1800s|Kurraba Point, New South Wales}} Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anon126: Indeed and thank you. Not sure why I didn't say that in the first place. I think another cup of coffee is required .... ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To editors Anon126 and Philg88: Thanks for the help!--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)