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.
A new user has unilaterally taken it upon himself to rename all the universities in the University of Wisconsin system from "University of Wisconsin-whatever" to "University of Wisconsin in whatever". (See: [1]). Why this was done is mysterious. Not only is UW-whatever the official name of each university, no one even unofficially refers to these schools as "UW in whatever". I'm not sure if this is vandalism or just really, really misguided editing. In any case, can someone please return these schools to their correct, official names? 32.218.41.190 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Yesterday i go to afd and listed List of pokemon (This is a redirect). There is only 1 delete vote, then the article got keep per WP:SNOW. And i am citing a guideline, but they says that does not apply. I think i may be blocked for abusing afd. What can i do! S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ssaz 12: Hey Ssaz 12. What makes you think anyone would look askance at this at all, much less block you following what appears to be an entirely good faith AfD nomination, that just happened to be unsuccessful? Is there some particular message you've received that has caused you to worry? Unless there is something like that, I don't think have anything to be worried about at all. There is nothing unusual (or necessarily bad) about nominating an article for deletion and having the discussion result in a consensus to keep.
If someone did take you to task on just the existence of this AfD that would hold very little water unless there were extenuating circumstances, like it not being about this particular AfD but this being emblematic of something you do over and over. And even if there were such extenuating circumstances, any discussion would likely not be about a block at all unless there was some bad faith on your part involved and shown, but about a possible action ban enjoining you from talking any more articles to AfD or something like that, after a problem was seen repeatedly. But we're getting way ahead of ourselves even discussing such matters when there's no specter of abuse, at least on the bare facts as you've stated them, of any such problem. Again, my advice is don't worry a moment more about it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Ssaz 12, welcome to the Teahouse. To me, your nomination looks like it was done in good faith. Don't worry about the comment about abusing AfD. Sadly, there are people who like to bite newbies. Still, there is a lesson here. If a page looks like it has been around a while (as you can see by looking at its edit history) or has a busy talk page, it's a good idea to dig a little deeper before nominating. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ssaz 12! I'm sorry if my comments in closing this discussion were perceived as criticism; you're actually probably right that it goes against the spirit of WP:GAMECRUFT point 6, and I am impressed by the fact you realized it and had the courage to push the article through to AfD! In this particular case, as S Marshall pointed out, there is a very long history behind the current situation, and the community agreed a while ago that this compromise is an appropriate exception to the WP:GAMECRUFT rule. In the future, if you want a second opinion before nominating an article for deletion, I'd be more than happy to advise you! Thanks for your hard work in trying to maintain a good standard of quality across Wikipedia. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉15:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Need clarification on Removal of Speedy Deletion Template
Wikipedia CSD states "anyone who is not the editor may delete a speedy deletion template". I have come across quite a few IP users who removes SD templates albeit explanations and when i warn them to instead contest the deletion, i am being told about this criteria by other user as it happened here. Isn't this criteria a wide loophole which meat puppets can (mis)use and simple delete the template. Or even the creator of the page can delete the speedy template through any of his friends' PC or public computers as an IP user , right ? Shouldn't we be contesting the deletion other than deleting the template without reason ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talk • contribs) 14:52, July 25, 2014
Hi Sahil. Yes, the system is open to abuse. However, we assume good faith unless given a good reason to do otherwise. If an IP editor removes a CSD template, they are within their rights to do so. That doesn't mean that another editor cannot reinstate the template, or that deletion cannot take place through another means - and of course, if abuse is confirmed, the editor in question will almost certainly be blocked. But from a purely procedural standpoint, yes, in theory you can log out and remove speedy deletion templates from an article you created as an IP. Yunshui雲水14:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think its provided as a safety feature to prevent errors in the speedy delete system. If SD doesn't work you can try PfD but it might have the same result and may need to go to AfD for final review and a full discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
How to link any file like video or picture, on wikipedia's article?
hi sir,
i am new in wikipedia!
So i want a help... How to link any file like video or picture, on wikipedia's article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by S04AV (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 July 2014
Hello, S04AV, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find instructions at Help:Files, particularly Using files. Note also that you can learn a lot about how things are done by looking under the hood: Choose an article that does something you want to do, and click on the Edit tab at the top of the page or the Edit button at the top of the relevant section. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, S04AV, and welcome to the Teahouse. Search "File:YourFileName" without the inverted commas and select your file from the search result. Now if you have to add it to an infobox copy the file name with extension for example if it is "File:Example.jpg" just copy Ëxample.jpg" and add it to infobox and if it is not to infobox just tupe "File:YourFileName.jpg". If you have any further doubt pls contact me. AsifRasheed-Asif Rasheed (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, S04AV. What RockMagnetist and AsifRasheed have perhaps not made clear is that you can't generally link to an image or video elsewhere on the internet: you have to upload it first, either to Wikipedia or (preferably) to Wikimedia commons - which means that first you have to be clear on the copyright status of the image or video. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Can I write an article about an upcoming event ?
Hey there ! Can I write an article about an upcoming movie or events without any proper reference. For example most of the short films in malayalam gets famous after their release, so if a friend of mine is making a short film and I knows that it will be famous and if he is a celebrity then can I write an article about it without proper links and reference ?. Thank You.-Asif Rasheed (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Telleroftheunknowns. No, you can't create a main space encyclopedia article about a film you admit yourself is not yet notable. But you can write a draft in your sandbox or another userspace or draft page. And if, as you predict, the film actually receives significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in the future, and becomes a notable film by Wikipedia's standards, then you can add those references and move the article to main space. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You can find more information at WP:CREATE or WP:ARTICLEWIZARD. Alternately you can "nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code: subst:submit (surrounded by these {{}} brackets) to the top of the draft or sandbox page."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Many articles related to grammar use boldface and underlining to identify parts of sample sentences. Are there any ongoing or past discussions about guidelines for doing this consistently and more in line with MOS:BOLD?
The article I am working on is starting to look frightful with all the boldface I added. I wonder if there is a better approach. Whikie (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Anon126. Yes, the article is Apposition, but the problem can be seen in other articles, such as Noun Phrase and Predicate (which I have no intention of changing). I agree with you, italics look so much better. The boldface is making things a mess. The problem is that different parts need different emphasis (this is the verb, this is the noun). Identifying subscripts as done in formal grammar books, maybe? If there are no established guidelines for this, should I be bold and try something new, and then see who screams about it? Whikie (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't intend to get into details here. My questions for this page are: Has this been discussed before? Should I start a discussion on my talk page? Should I just do something in the article and watch for fallout? Whikie (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Policy on national/international Wikipedia
Many articles in the WikiPedia world only exist in English, and only on en.wikipedia.org. For some articles and for many users it is not neccessary to have it any other way. For a large part of the WikiPedia user community, the English pages are the most natural place to look for international (or any foreign) information. For instance: If I want to read information about a Chinese book, I look for the English pages since I am not able to read Chinese.
In a situation similar to my example, I added information to an article about the Norwegian edition of a Japanese book. This was promptly deleted. When I asked for a reason for this deletion, I was told that since this was an article on en.wikipedia.org, only information relevant to the English language editions (and the original Japanese edition) was to be allowed.
I find this very strange. Does this mean that I would have to translate the article to Norwegian first, and then add my information? That would lead to the situation where this new information would only be available to Norwegian users. That doesn't make sense.
What is the policy in this kind of situation?
Roald Andresen (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That advice seems a little unusual and in my limited experience of Norwegian wiki, not how things usually work there. Each Wikipedia will have its own rules, but generally speaking an article which has sufficient reliable sources to support it, will be fine. It's something that you'd have to discuss there though, probably with the admin who deleted it. Can you give a link to the Norwegian discussion? Valenciano (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The situation did not occur on the Norwegian wiki, but on en.wikipedia.org. I wanted to add the Norwegian release information about the book 1Q84 (see revision history), but this was promptly deleted (see discussion) Roald Andresen (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but in the same way as an article on a writer will not necessarily list all the writer's books, an article on a book will not necessarily list all the translations of it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That's true Colin and books wouldn't be my area of expertise so that's why I believe it's better that the editor discusses it with the person that reverted him and seeks further input if needed at the books wikiproject, as they'll be more knowledgeable about the subject. Valenciano (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi S/s/a/z-1/2, welcome to the Teahouse. As Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, things get done when they get done. It'll be closed sooner or later, just have to be a bit patient. Is there a specific reason why this is urgent? --NeilNtalk to me15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I very much doubt that this is the case, but I was writing a new article when my computer crashed. There's no chance it is autosaved somewhere on Wikipedia, is there? Thanks, Matty.00718:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Matty.007: I'm not sure. Sometimes when my browser crashes, I can restore the session without losing any work. Maybe you'll have that option, but I don't know for sure. --Jakob (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If you happen to use Chrome, Safari, or Firefox, I highly recommend downloaded the browser extension Lazarus. It autosaves form data as you go, so you can restore it in the event that your browser crashes, computer turns off, etc. It's saved my back a good number of times. There are also other similar browser extensions out there that do the same thing, if Lazarus doesn't float your boat. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs19:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I've simply re-written the content now (on a Commenwealth GB gold winner), but I'll take a look at Lazarus. Thanks both for the help, Matty.00719:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Reference lost
Hello Teahouse !
I am working hard on Education in Ghana and I am just facing an annoying problem: One of my most cited reference(a pdf file) has been deleted from its source. I had saved the document before its deletion and now, I'd like to find some way to put it online again. I don't know under which licence this document is(it's a performance report issued by the ministry of education) so I don't dare using wikicommons.
I guess I could just write the references and forget the URL, but I'd really like to make that document accessible for all again. Any idea of a reliable host that would not destroy the link after a couple of months ? :( Thank you ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey KaptainIgloo, welcome to the teahouse! If it's a document about Education in Ghana, then I assume it is an academic work, a journal entry of some kind? You could just cite it fully using Template:Infobox journal (or a similar template if it is not an academic journal entry), then you wouldn't need to upload it anywhere. Hope this helps! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@KaptainIgloo: (e/c) Hey KaptainIgloo. It would be easier to answer concretely if I knew which of the multiple pdfs cited in the article was the non-working link (I looked at the two citations that provide Ministry of Education as the publisher and they are both working). Anyway, the answer depends on whether works of the Ghanaian government are copyrighted. Unfortunately, after looking at both Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Ghana and the Ghana Copyright Office FAQ I am left scratching my head, and so unless we learn otherwise, we must assume the article was non-free copyrighted. The result of this is that unless and until you learn it was in the public domain or bore a free copyright license allowing you to post it, you should just cite it without linking. You should not try to post it to some other site and then link to it because 1) posting it to some other site is a putative copyright violation in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, and concomitantly 2) we cannot link to it because we are both ethically and by policy restricted from linking to copyright violations. While convenience links to online version of published sources are useful, they are by no means required. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK it is not possible to archive without a live version to draw from and I don't know that they archive source documents that are hosted on websites. They may, but it seems a very dicey copyright proposition (truthfully, while I find the Wayback Machine massively useful, I'm not clear on how exactly what they do in the main meets fair use).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi and thanks a lot Demiurge1000,Fuhghettaboutit and Carter for your answers. I was talking about the "Education Sector Performance Report" for the year 2012/2013( Ministry of Education, Republic of Ghana), sorry for not precising it earlier. The link is still dead and the file cannot be found elsewhere. But well...as Fuhghettaboutit said (thanks again for checking the copyrights by the way !!), one can't consider it as a free-copyright document, so I guess I'll just give the references. On another matter: I would be glad to have opinions on Education in Ghana. I'd like to make a GA out of it some day, so every advice is welcome :)KaptainIgloo (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record: I have found the document again, at another location and under a different name. Thanks again and sorry for the disturbance !KaptainIgloo (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Where do I begin?
Hi, pretty new to wikipedia editing. I made my first article years ago and went back to look at it a few weeks ago and was glad to find someone had tagged it for improvement. But what do I do to help make it better? What else can I do to improve that article and others and help out with wikipedia? Is there some sort of mentoring program or a novice wikipedian workshop or something?
Here is my, admittedly awful, article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Chomsky
Hi Ultan42, I'll admit I've seen worse articles, if that is of any comfort. Well done for having a go! Some of the 'clean-up templates' seemed to be over-the-top so I've removed them, to help you pin point the main problems. The very fundamentals of Wikipedia are that subjects need to be "notable" enough to be included in the encylopedia and, secondly, that the information is verifiable. You can read Wikipedia's golden rule for ideas about how to prove someone is widely known/important enough for Wikipedia. 'Verifiable' is more self-explanatory - cite a reliable source that confirms the facts/claims are true.
On your other questions, I'll leave someone else to answer them, but there are very many useful tasks you can help with (besides writing articles) which will give you good experience about how Wikipedia works. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ultan42, and welcome to the Teahouse. One good place to start is with reliable sources. You likely have books (or e-books, of course), and magazines about subjects that you like, or maybe a newspaper subscription that others might not be able to read. If you find some interesting information on one of them, and find it missing or unsourced in Wikipedia, you can add it in your own words to an article about that topic, and include a reference to your document. Most importantly, choose topics that you enjoy, and have fun! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ultan42: Sionk and Anne Delong have given you some good advice. With regards to a "mentoring program" on Wikipedia, we do have what we call the Adopt-a-user program. See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user for more information on what it is, and if you are interested, head to the Adoptee's Area. If you seek any more advice about Wikipedia editing, you are more than welcome to return to this Teahouse! Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Totally new here. Could I write a page about a musician/bowmaker what looks like this?
Basil de Visser
Basil de Visser (born 22 March 1956, Amsterdam) is a Dutch baroque violinist and bowmaker.
Basil began playing the violin at the age of 12, and later went on to study violin with Jaap Schröder at the Amsterdam Conservatoire. It was his baroque violin playing which first sparked his interest in this instrument. After graduation he spent three years studying baroque violin with Lucy van Dael.
In 1988, Basil was invited to join the Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra in Toronto, Canada. It was there that he began making historical bows under the guidance of Stephen Marvin, who learnt the craft from the master bow maker William Salchow in New York.
Two years later he returned to Amsterdam, where he now works as a bow maker and baroque violinist.
Bowmaker (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Bowmaker and welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft currently has a few issues—namely the use of peacock terms. Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view (representing all viewpoints fairly and without bias), and words such as "beautiful", "wonderful", and "celebrated" impart very little real information beyond promoting the subject. If you are considering writing an article, a good place to start would be to read Wikipedia:Your first article and following the Article Wizard. Wikipedia articles generally require that you cite your sources. Help:Referencing for beginners will show you how to do that. A test I often recommend is the amnesia test:
Forget everything you know about the subject you want to write about—act as if you know nothing.
Go online and do research on the subject, focusing more closely on third-party news sources and less on sources affiliated with the subject; be sure to check the reliability of the sources
From your research, and your research only, write an article
If you find that there are few or no sources to use, the subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Is it pompous to merely make an edit due to grammar?
Every now and then I see an obvious grammatical error. I am proud to be a part of Wikipedia. Is it proper to edit content for grammar?25thfret (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Any edit, no matter how small, helps improve Wikipedia - and is encouraged! Small edits for things such as grammar are considered "minor", and can be marked as such by checking the box labelled "This is a minor edit" below the edit summary. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs00:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The best advice editors can give on Wikipedia can be summed up by two words: Be Bold! If you see anything—be it grammar, spelling, content, or images—that needs to be corrected, you are encouraged to be bold and correct it. Don't take it personally if your edits are reverted at first. It's all part of the process to gain knowledge. It is important, however, that you be bold, but not reckless. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Grammer corrections in articles are unconditionally encouraged in Wikipedia. However be careful while correcting user comments in Talk Pages and discussions (or wherever) as this could irate the users unnecessary. Do it only when you feel absolutely necessary. Peace > SaHiL (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
How to edit page title?
Hi--How do I correct a typo in a page title (in this case, it's the name of a person)? The name is spelled correctly everywhere else in the article but there, and it's the only place I can't find a way to edit. I'm brand new at this. Thanks for your help. Sttrs (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sttrs, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to rename a page and move it to a new title, your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which means your account needs to be at least 4 days old and has to have made at least 10 edits. After your account surpasses 4 days and 10 edits, you will see a dropdown tab labelled "More" next to the "Read", "Edit", and "View history" tabs. This new "More" dropdown will contain a button that will let you move pages. If you don't want to wait, I or another Teahouse host can perform the renaming for you. —Mz7 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You may wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Article titles which has the basic guidelines for naming articles. There are some limitations. Also, and I am not saying this is the case, but sometimes article titles will indeed differ from the spelling in the body. This may be due to a consensus to title the article in a specific manner per a discussion or the MOS. Also, some special characters cannot be used in the title due to the nature of Wikipedia mark up to recognize these characters as code which causes issues with the mark up on the page itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi 172.6.246.2 and welcome to the Teahouse! Our article on Raccoons actually has a section on keeping them as pets. You may want to look at that as you consider taking on one as a pet. --McDoobAU9318:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I have submitted this article for review as I believe it has sufficient information regarding the renowned video maker Dimitri Devyatkin. If you have any time, please skim through and help me stylistically and thoroughly edit anything that is off. Thank you very much!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dimitri_DevyatkinPaveld6 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
How to upgrade article on Alan E. Freedman from C- grade
At its last ceremony, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences presented a science and technology award of merit (Oscar statuette) ...
To all those who built and operated film laboratories, for over a century of service to the motion picture industry. Lab employees have contributed extraordinary efforts to achieve filmmakers’ artistic expectations for special film processing and the production of billions of feet of release prints per year. This work has allowed an expanded motion picture audience and unequaled worldwide cinema experience.
Having found a paucity of information on the individual who created and oversaw the world's largest motion picture film processing plant, and whose tenure I speculate was exceeded by few if any, the above event motivated me to research and create the referenced article on Alan E. Freedman.
If it can be done in a reasonable amount of time, I would like to improve the quality rating of the article, "Alan E. Freedman." To do that, I request that the reviewer provide me a list of each specific deficiency found and a suggestion for improvement, to include what modifications/additions would be necessary for the article to achieve at least a "B" status.
I have extensively interviewed the subject himself and every other individual I could find who had first or second-hand knowledge of the subject and/or his accomplishments. I have researched as extensively as I know how. I am the sole possessor of most of the references cited. These include hours of video tapes with the subject's two younger sons (which I chose not to post in the commons nor to reference as the audio quality is poor and much of the material overlaps other material which is cited). Neither the successor to DeLuxe Laboratories nor 20th Century Fox appear to have any relevant materials in their archives. In short, I am doubtful that the reviewer has access to any knowledge that I do not, but I sure welcome any that he or she might possess.
Hello, Wikipedia!
I've been visiting pages for a few different companies and adding links to virtual tours of their stores and offices. I received a warning that my external links may be blacklisted if I add too many, so I'm seeking further guidance on what I can do to stay within editing guidelines.
As I'm only adding links to pre-existing articles, the topics at hand are more or less already accepted by Wikipedia as suitable information to publish. As a virtual tour is highly descriptive and by its nature, accurate and truthful, I think they are of benefit to Wikipedia's reputation for accurate information.
Hi Chris and welcome to Wikipedia. So far your entire contribution history consists of repeatedly adding external links to a single for-profit website. This is the profile of a link spammer and is prohibited on Wikipedia. I would suggest you stop adding external links, especially to that virtual tour website and begin to make other kinds of contributions to the project. WP:EL says: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." You may not be trying to promote that website but by repeatedly linking their site throughout WP, that is in effect what you are doing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
How much should I provide in the history section of a Company's article?
Hi there.
I am working to update the article on EZCORP, which has only had minor edits since 2009. The current history section includes the number of stores the company operated by state in 1996, and goes on to describe details that are largely irrelevant now, such as the number of items offered online in 1998. It seems to me that as I update the article, I should delete this data and replace it with more material information.
However, I am employed by EZCORP in the Communications Department. Part of my job is to keep outward facing information about the company accurate and current but I don't want to overstep my boundaries. Would deleting that information be considered "spin" or "marketing" on my part?
Hi AGeasy and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, if you are connected to the company that is the subject of the article, your conflict of interest would likely make any edits you make, no matter how innocent or neutral they are in reality, appear suspect. I would encourage you to read the section I linked above on conflicts of interest and see if what you have in mind would fit within those parameters. --McDoobAU9320:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys and gals! That is not what a conflict of interest is. Just being connected to the company is not a COI. Just being employed by a company is not a COI. What we currently have as a guideline is simply:"Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest."
Basically, if you are going to receive any sort of monetary compensation as an employee for your edits here, you are discouraged from direct editing. But just being an employee is not that. Sometimes an employee has a better understanding of a companies history and so it is not, in any way against policy or guidelines for you to edit your companies page. Just a quick and friendly note here!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It also may be possible to request help from editors in WikiProject:Companies--see WP:RACO. Although the page is for requests for new articles, your information on updates to an existing article might interest an editor there. You can also make a list of suggestions for improving the article on its talk page, and include a link to that talk page in your request. ----Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure outdated information should necessarily be deleted. After all, if it was done right, such as when the company reached a particular milestone for each detail, we could see the progress the company has made in its history. I keep running into the problem of people deleting outdated radio station formats, when in fact people would want to know the old formats and when the station had each format. That's what a history section is for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Can I post images (taken during WWII) from negatives inherited from my father?
I have several hundred negatives made during WWII aboard my father's ship. These negatives have been in my fathers possession since 1945. He is deceased and I am the owner of the negatives.
I am writing an article about his ship and want to use several of the images of the ship and crew. May I post the images in Wikipedia? If so under what category?
I tried to figure this out myself, but could not find a clear category. This is my first article.
Unfortunately no, just owning the negative does not give the possessor the copyright. Copyright is maintained by the original photographer.....unless the photographs were created by the US government. Sometimes photographic negatives are given to a particular person and the rights waived or transferred to the new owner. This must have been explicitly stated at the time the negatives were handed over.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That's clear enough and the same conclusion I was reaching. Too bad. Thank you for taking time to explain this to me. I will just not post the images here.
Hello Emerdog, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you have so many photos, they have to be sorted and categorized with the help of someone who really know about photos, copyrights, etc. I would suggest that you take your questions to the Wikipedia Commons (the "picture-library" for all things Wiki). Ask for help at their Village Pump, where you can find people who are experienced in things like this, and start up a discussion. Some pictures may be free to use and some may not be (copyrights are different in different countries), but those that are would probably be a very welcome addition to the Commons, and once uploaded there, pictures can be used by all the Wikipedias around the world as well as by you in an article here. Best, w.carter-Talk00:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that applies if they take the photos as part of their duties, but not if they take personal photos while on duty. Formerip (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You can look at this photo and read the exact words of the license Formerip and Howicus mention. But it's best to ask someone who really knows. I have been thoroughly helped by kind users at the Commons in similar matters. Cheers, w.carter-Talk01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments and suggestions. I will definitely ask for some help at the Commons.
Unfortunately, these pictures were not taken as part of "their duties". However, there are some great images and it would be a shame to keep them "under wraps".
Since they are now over 70 years old, is there any chance they are in the public domain and no longer subject to copyright?
Hello Emerdog. Let me offer a slightly different perspective. First of all, we have to assume that the photos are still copyrighted since they were taken after 1923, and your father took them while off-duty and not under government orders. Mark Miller is correct that just owning a negative does not mean owning the copyright. So, if someone buy a bunch of photo negatives from a garage sale, that person does not own the copyrights. However, if you inherited these images as part of your father's estate, then you own both the negatives and the copyrights, and in my humble opinion, are free to upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons. Copyrights are intellectual property that can be conveyed through a will or a legal trust. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Emerdog. Upon your father's death any copyrights he owned must have passed to someone. If you are the sole inheritor of your father's estate then you must own the copyrights as well. If your father's estate was divided (perhaps among your siblings) and it is not clear who owns the copyrights, an agreement between yourselves to release the photos under a free license should be OK. --LukeSurltc13:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, my father did not take these images and never held the "copyright". I don't think the crew would have thought much about such things during the war as they took and shared images.
I recollect that most of the images were said to have been taken by one crewman who, last I knew, was living in California. If he can acknowledge taking the photographs and is willing to allow their upload, would that suffice?
If so, what evidence of this permission would be needed?
@Emerdog: Basically, the owner of the copyright would need to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, agreeing to the posting of the photos under a suitable license. Instructions and a sample of an acceptable e-mail message can be found at Commons:Email_templates. Deor (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be enough to upload the images...if the original photographer is available through e-mail to confirm the permissions through OTRS. Cullen328 is correct that, should your father have been the original photographer and you inherited the negatives, you would then become the copyright holder. Here is something I had forgotten about and may have some impact (ask at Wikimedia Commons) There is another copyright issue that may impact the upload in your favor Emerdog and that is, photos taken from 1923 to 1977 that have not been registered for copyright, or were not re-registered at the needed time may be in the public domain. I will look further into this but, you should certainly ask at Commons as there are experts that have better knowledge on this specific copyright law. The issue is (I believe), if published. If they were never published, I think the copyright stays with the original photographer.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Mark Miller, that is my understanding as well. The photos would have had to have been published for that "loophole" to apply. I believe that unpublished photos or negatives taken since 1923 are covered by copyright, unless there is specific evidence otherwise. Sorry for assuming the OP's father took the photos. This is tricky business. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It can be a full time job just trying to understand the copyright laws of just the US...not to mention international laws and how Wikipedia and Commons handle them. Makes my head spin.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. This is getting much more complicated than I ever imaged, so I appreciate the help greatly. I will try and see if any of the crew are alive that will confirm they took some or all of the images and is willing to confirm permissions via email.
One last question. What is meant by "publish". As mentioned before, these images were printed and freely distributed among the crew during and after the war. Does that constitute "publishing"?
Hello Kinggakhal831, welcome to the Teahouse. One of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles is that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. To sustain this principle, we have a strict image use policy that generally prefers images made available under an acceptable free license. However, it appears you want to add a logo to an article. Wikipedia allows logos to be uploaded to provide illustration in the article about the subject which the logo represents.
To upload the image to Wikipedia, you must first download the image to your computer. You can do this by right-clicking the image you want to upload and clicking "Save Image As..." or something similar. Next, head over to the File Upload Wizard, which will guide you through the rest of the uploading process. In step 3, make sure you choose the "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." option. You must choose the image in the location where you saved it on your computer, describe the image, then provide important information about it (i.e. the source of the image, how you will use the file, etc.). Once you have provided this information, you can then upload the image to Wikipedia and add it to the article.
I know the process sounds arduous, but it is necessary to ensure that we don't infringe on copyrights and we are able to provide the best free-content encyclopedia there is. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask at this Teahouse again. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Savannah38 to Teahouse! Looking at your edit to the page, you did a good job adding the citation. You added a JAMA (journal) link which is alright, however you could add an additional source for another reliable source to back it up. ///EuroCarGT01:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The article relates to a mathematical problem which has a $1 million bounty. One unfortunate consequence of the money and prestige attached to solving such a problem is that attracts interest from people who may only be described as crackpots -- I realise this is not a nice word to use, but I am unaware of an alternative. While the topic of the article is of high interest to the mathematical community, it is not of high enough general interest to receive sufficient protection from the broader Wikipedia community. Discussions on the talk page are often fruitless, as such people are quite fanatical and are not amenable to reason. The typical modus operandi in the scientific community is to not engage, this course of action on Wikipedia however only leads to the 'tyranny of the minority'.
Hi AnonymousMath, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, one of the best options we have is page protection, which prevents users from making changes to the article unless they meet certain criteria. Most frequently we use "semi-protection", which will prevent anonymous (using IP addresses, not accounts) and new accounts (<10 edits and/or <4 days old) from editing. In the case of severe edit disputes, full protection prevents editing by all but administrators, and they will almost always honor the protection except in significant cases. If discussion on the talk page isn't working, perhaps full protection is necessary. I see that Bbb23 (talk·contribs) has already semi-protected the page. --McDoobAU9317:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi AnonymousMath. It is indeed sometimes really easy to get frustrated when dealing with others on Wikipedia. In a perfect Wikipedia world, everyone would agree with every post I make on an article's talk page and wouldn't mess with articles that I spend time working on.
Wikipedia is, however, not perfect. In fact, Wikipedia is not a lot of things. What Wikipedia is (or at least what it is supposed to be) is a collaborative effort where editors assume good faith and work together in trying to improve articles through consensus as best as they can. Sometimes this is easy, and sometimes it can be very hard. Anyone can edit an article for better or worse. Contributions from experts are most welcome of course, but being an "expert" on a particular subject matter does not give one any special editorial control over certain articles and certainly does not mean one can claim any kind of "ownership" over a page. My understanding is that protecting a page is something typically done when all other options have been tried and have not been successful. It is not meant to be a way to try and push or support a particular point of view by limiting the access of those who feel differently. So, if you feel someone is editing in bad faith or in a disruptive way, then you can undo the edit, citing the relevant Wiki-policy, and politely ask them to stop on their user talk page. As long as you remain civil and stick to commenting on content and not the contributor, you should be OK. If you're nervous or unsure about doing this yourself, then it's OK to ask for help at the article's respective WikiProject page(s) (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics). WikiProject members are usually quite familiar with the subject matter of their project and the relevant Wiki-policies that apply; Moreover, they usually have a special interest in ensuring that the pages under their project's purview are well maintained and satisfy Wiki-standards. If things still don't improve, then there is a formal dispute resolution process that you can try. Finally, even though pretty much nobody wants to lose an argument, especially if they consider themselves to be an "expert" on the subject matter, the best thing to do sometimes when arguments get really heated is to simply just drop it for a little while and edit something else. You're not obligated to reply to someone just because they want to argue with you. If the other editor is truly disruptive and acting contrary to Wiki-policy, then their behaviour will eventually be noticed by someone else (perhaps even an administrator) and they will promptly be warned about it. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your sound advice. I am very glad you brought up the WikiProject pages. I was unaware of them. It would seem unfortunate to have to protect a page due to one individual when there are other options. I will also take your advice and 'drop it' for a little while (something I should have done before). The conversation has become too heated (my failing) and is not productive.
Intend on creating new Stub Article, not sure what category it belongs in.
I'm trying to create a stub article on the Flame of Hope (here's a little about it [there are many more sources than this one]: http://flameofhopewalk.ca/history/). First of all, I just wanted to make sure it was relevant enough to be accepted as an article.
Second - I'm having trouble figuring out which stub to put it under, as the stub templates don't seem to have descriptions of what they're intended for. For example, I thought "tourism" might work, but I'm not sure if it's an effective correlation. Please help! Thanks :)Washoe42 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Washoe42:Hi! It seems that the article would fit it in some sub-category mentioned in Category:Monuments and memorials, so maybe you can have a look at the articles there and see what categories they are placed under (look at their talk pages) and see if you can find an appropriate one. A similar event in Sweden ("The Blood Circulation" running/walking for awareness of heart diseases) is listed under "Sports organizations" on the Swedish Wikipedia. Best, w.carter-Talk23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help! I'll add the category "Monuments and Memorials in Ontario," and put it under the stub category "Ontario-stub." Washoe42 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Should I delete heartedly-written content?
As I'm new and unfamiliar, I have another problem. I was editing the Austrian Women Artists Organisation's page. The issue was that it was written in a fan point-of-view (This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (July 2014)) . A lot of literary phrases and influential phrases were used, like this part:
This is where the emancipatory history of an artistic women’s movement, dating back to the days of imperialism and which still has yet be inscribed into official art history, meets the history of the collaboration with the Nazi regime. Through knowledge gaps – resulting from historical and internal fractures in the association’s own history – history-writing and research, in regard to National Socialism and the association’s class-specific and colonial entanglements, are more easily forgotten.
I put that in comments, as I didn't feel like outright deleting it. Should I delete whatever conflicts with Wikipedia's standards for an article?
Hello Princeeternity and welcome to the teahouse.
First of all, Wikipedia should be written from the Neutral point of view, also called NPOV for short, is the idea that Wikipedia does not have its own opinions or rely on the opinions of its editors. Instead, we summarize what good sources have already written about a subject and do that in a balanced way.Therefore, you should delete whatever conflicts with Wikipedia's standards for an article.
Thank you.
SparrowHK (talk)12:39 July 2014 (UTC
Greetings Princeeternity and welcome to the teahouse. I agree with what SparrowHK said but I would also add that IMO editing is usually better than deleting. From my quick read of the text you posted it seemed at least possible that there was actually some substantive content in that excerpt and the issue was more the way it was written. If that is the case I think a better approach than just deleting the content would be to rewrite it to be less promotional and more encyclopedic. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Image Copyright Issue!
I would like to upload and use one of two images, but am unsure whether I am allowed to or not, and which tag I would use for copyright information.
One image is considered public domain, and so I believe it is allowed, but I'm not sure how to tag it.
The other image is the product of an institute, and the institute said I was welcome to use it on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this is sufficient allowance for Wikipedia to accept though, and I don't know what tag I would use for that one either. I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me! Washoe42 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If an image is clearly public domain (and note that doesn't mean that it's freely available on the internet; public domain has a specific meaning), it can be uploaded to Commons where there are a number of PD templates that can be added to it. For the other image, permission to "use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Any copyright release must be for all purposes, including commercial reuse, see Commons Licensing. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Done There was a redirect in the way from the previous two moves. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
