Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 306

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 300←Archive 304Archive 305Archive 306Archive 307Archive 308→Archive 310

Teahouse

When was the teahouse founded?YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi YoSoyUnHamster, welcome to the Teahouse! The Teahouse was first created on February 15th, 2012. The first "real" question was added about a week and a half after that. --NeilN talk to me 04:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And based on my contributions, I had posted there without realizing it. I had started helping on what was then called the New contributors' help page, which now directs people to where to get help and is not a page for answering questions any more.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Correction: the actual page I edited was Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions. After some research, I have found that the two pages were merged in May 2013.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of Images

Hi. I am drafting an entry on an artist. I own several of the artist's prints. If I photograph the images may I include them as part of the entry on the artist? Kind Thanks BBehl (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice project, though a WP:BLP biography of a living person makes usually a difficult first project. Easier to start by making many small changes to existing articles until you understand how things work. However, the way you're starting isn't impossible. Something even more difficult to do is use the work of an artist, apart from the long-dead kind. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing is awfully long and detailed but the main point for you is that owning a copy isn't enough. The artist must license it. Most don't like to do that, as it pretty much ruins the chance of making any more money from it. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, BBehl. Adding to the answer above, please think of it this way: The creator of a copyrighted work of visual art retains its copyright, even if it is reproduced through photography. A poster or prints may be authorized by the artist, but the original work is still copyrighted. You bought the print which gives you the right to enjoy or sell that single print, but not to copy it except in very limited ways. Copyright gives the original artist the right to control copies of their work. That right is theirs, not yours or ours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of quotations around controversial terms in article space

Is there an MOS guide to the use of quotation marks around controversial terms? The ones I'm looking at are gun show loophole and death panel. Are there other examples that could serve as a guide? Obviously neither of those terms should be treated any differently than other controversial terms. I just want to know how other terms are used before I make more changes. I feel the quote marks are appropriate, but there's no sense in re-treading old ground. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Faceless Enemy. The only thing I could find internally is MOS:BADEMPHASIS, which provides no rationale or guidance, just stating its discouragement. I do think scare quotes should be used carefully and sparingly as they express skepticism, derision, etc. – an implicit expression of opinion – which we generally tend to avoid in our writing (though context is everything). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Faceless Enemy. Here on Wikipedia, we should summarize what truly reliable sources say, and not express doubt in Wikipedia's voice, either with words or punctuation. Please see WP:SCAREQUOTES for further discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Should this be considered a self-published citation?

I am talking about reference 1 for the article Acronis (article version as of this posting). This is a link to the personal LinkeIn page of the founder and CEO of Acronis, supporting his role as CEO of Acronis. Personally, I would at least augment this with another source, if not replace this citation with such. A LinkedIn reference is not included in the biographical page for the company's CEO, which would certainly count as self-published. The general question in play here: if there are citations which use material which is published by officers of a company to support information about that company, including their roles at that company, should these be considered 'self-published' and could they be tagged with {{Self-published inline}}. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a self-published source. And that article is a mess by the way.... Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comma Usage

Hello,

I'm here to inquire about the use of commas in Wikipedia articles. I've been doing a number of basic grammar changes since I got on board with editing Wikis. Part of these changes is adding commas after a particular phrase or year such as "In 2000" or "After the _." So far, some of my edits have been reverted, particularly in regards to comma use.

So I just have to ask, when do we use commas? Do we only use it after a full date (complete with the month, date and year) as mentioned in the Wiki guide or can I add commas after the year itself? Your guidance will be very much appreciated! Jeunine 03:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeunine. General guidance about the use of commas can be found in our Manual of style. Please see MOS:COMMA for specific advice. Usage of commas can be controversial. When there are two legitimate options, battling in favor of your preferred option can be considered disruptive. I recommend that you do not go there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll read the general guidance and revert some of the changes I made these past few days. Thank you, User:Cullen328! Jeunine 06:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

about image uploads

I am very new to wiki and I couldn't find how to upload a image to a page. Is there any policy or rules with respect to image upload?Userblack (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Userblack welcome to the Teahouse. And yes, there are some rules and policies. Out of them the most important one is Copyright and licensing. To upload an image you must have a proper copyright license for that image. Otherwise it will be speedily deleted. And you can't link images from external sites to Wikipedia. You have to upload them to Wikipedia or to its sister project Wikimedia commons. Read this essay to learn more about uploading images and linking them to Wikipedia articles. Note that non-free content are no longer accepted in Wikimedia commons. So if you want to upload an image of copyrighted TV series/movie/game you should consider uploading it to english Wikipedia. Best --Chamith (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you list a school named after a person?

I've been editing Herman Badillo, and have moved the list of publications to the location recommended in the MOS. But there's also a school in that list:

There is a school in Buffalo, New York called P.S. 76 Herman Badillo Community School.

Obviously it's not a publication. I know I've seen mention of things named after the subject of a biography article, but I don't remember where.

What should I do with this? Is there a policy to handle eponymy? If so, I sure can't find it.

Please {{ping}} me to discuss. Thanks. Thnidu (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I'm not sure about the best place to mention it but It's about Herman Badillo Bilingual Academy so it should be linked if it's mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, PrimeHunter. Got it. --Thnidu (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Thnidu. In a number of biographies of people who have died, I have created a section called "Legacy" to describe honors and awards they received after their deaths. That's one possibility. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen328, but that's not the case here. I don't know when the school was added to the article (it was not there originally), but it was there before his death: it's mentioned in the revision of 16:07, 28 February 2014, and he died on December 3, 2014. --Thnidu (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Here in California where I live, we don't usually name public places after people when they are still alive, but who knows what squeaks through. If the school was named after him while he was still alive, perhaps a section called "Honors" might be appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Heck, that was done with the public school my kids went to in Framingham, Mass. See here:
"Mary E. Stapleton Elementary School is named for a former school principal and school board member, who gave more than 50 years of service to the schools. The school was renamed in 1980."
She was the guest of honor at the renaming ceremony. And she deserved it: A disproportionately large number of the award-winning teachers in the state had taught under her.
Eh, just some nostalgic recollections too late at night. --Thnidu (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How to suggest a person to be included on the list of folk who died on 22nd Feb

Hope this is the right place to ask this...... The English-born chemist Smithson Tennant FRS (1761-1815) has become quite a hero of mine, and as the holder of the Chair of Chemistry at Cambridge University and discoverer of two elements (iridium and osmium) I feel he has reasonably sufficient status to be included in the list of 'those who died this day'. The 200th anniversary of his death falls on 22nd Feb this year, and so feel that it would be appropriate to see his name in the list of those dying on the 22nd Feb. Thanks for any response you can give. 109.153.42.127 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I have had a look and he does seem to be an appropriate person to add to the list. You don't need to suggest to anyone, just put his name in your self whilst including a wikilink to his page with two square brackets like this '[[]]'. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
If you mean listing him in our article for February 22, there's a problem: the apparent local consensus (which I strongly disagree with and believe is trumped by core policy) is that all such lists need not have direct citations to reliable sources that verify the information placed in the date article. However, for anyone you add, the information included must be referenced in the linked article on the person. See the fourth bulleted point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style. The problem is that the general sources in our article on Smithson Tennant do not verify his date of death (I might go fix that after this post though).

If you mean listing him on the main page on February 22, in the On this day... section the article will not qualify as selections are chosen by article quality and the article on Tennant is meager. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit, where is this consensus to which you refer? I cannot find it. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Arfæst Ealdwrítere: Hey Arfæst. I described is pretty specifically: "See the fourth bulleted point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style". To be clear, I strongly disagree with the idea any list escapes requirements for direct sourcing. The idea that sourcing is provided by the attenuation of the linked entries being properly sourced is insufficient. Nevertheless, the entry for Tennant failed even that standard (though I've since fixed it by adding sources).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's OK to have the source on the target page, although a note to that effect might be placed on the sending page. Or the source can be placed there, too; I have done it both ways. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

WP RM or Wikipedia request for move?

I attempted to look up "request for move" upon finding it on an article, "10 Years", and am now even more confused. What is a request for move, and why is it used? I'm guessing it might have to do with inactivity in this case. Are these terms better described in the village pump?Lbhiggin (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lbhiggin. RM stands for requested moves. An RM is simply a request to rename a page. A user starts an RM, and the community has a discussion on whether or not the page should be moved. A person could decide to be bold and simply move the page, but RMs should generally be started for possibly controversial moves. --Biblioworm 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I have moved pages to a new name with no comment beforehand and no kickback either. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Page deleted

I spent most of the afternoon writing a page about Modstox, pretty much the same as the BriSCA F1, BriSCA F2 and Hotstox page, yet it has been deleted and I have been given a warning.....This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Modstox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont have a clue what I have done wrong or why the page was deleted, please can someone advise me please. I cited and referenced and done everything correctly.Nij4829 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you will have to ask user Coffee for his reasons because since the page has been deleted, I can't see its history. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 17:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This user knows full well that they were advertising (and I would assume works for the company or is being paid to do the editing). Here's just a taste of the article: "The main focus for Modstox is low cost, easily attainable parts, durability, close performance, safety and most importantly fun." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you I will do that now Nij4829 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Nij4829:Don't bother, you know you are attempting to advertise for Modstox on this encyclopedia and I've told you it's not allowed. End of discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Coffee I am not trying to advertise anything. I was simply trying to write a page just like the BriSCA F1, BriSCA F2, SuperstoxNij4829 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As regards the quotes you have posted, They are just snippets of information that I have found from the internet.

I am not in anyway or have ever been connected to the club, I just appreciate grassroots motorsport.

I will happily delete anything you deem as advertising. This is my first page, so I am sorry if I upset anyone or made a mistake.Nij4829 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Nij4829 as I can't see your original article I will assume good faith on what you are trying to do. To avoid any similar issue again I would suggest you read Your first article and create the article in your sandbox, or another page within your user space. If their was work in the original page that was not advertising then you could ask Coffee to copy the deleted page into your user area for you to work on further. As you said you are trying to create pages like BriSCA Formula 1 Stock Cars etc, I would suggest you look at the style and content of these to guide you. Also if this 'advertising' was just because you copied "snippets of information that I have found from the internet" this could be a copyright violation anyway. Lastly as I don't know the subject to comment you would have to be sure that the subject passes Notability at this time as you said it was "grassroots motorsport". — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi KylieTastic, thank you for that in depth reply, it is very much appreciated. I will ask Coffee to copy the deleted page if they can.

I created the page 'live', I didn't think about the sandbox feature, for which I apologize. I used a similar style to the hotstox page. The subject has as much Notability as hotstox and superstox. I admit, I didn't think about copyright violations.

Is there a way that I could get a admin to look over a page from my sandbox before going live?

Sorry for being such a newbie. I feel such a fool to be frank.

Thank you for your advise Nij 18:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nij4829 (talk • contribs)

  • Hi Nij4829 to be honest I've never actually got around to creating any articles from scratch - I somehow got distracted into maintenance and anti-vanadalism work and never got arround to it.... However from what I understand you could either start with the Wikipedia:Article wizard or if you create in your own area and once complete move to the draft area and then you can submit for review by adding {{subst:submit}} on the top of your draft. A link of interest may be Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Hopefully someone with a bit more knowledge in this area can add anything I've missed. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
KylieTastic Your a star. I must admit to being naive and probably going at it like a 'bull in a china shop', I have been looking at some of the creating pages (probably too late now).

I have done some editing already, tho I just felt that the page needed to be created. I will await Coffee's reply and see if they are happy to let me have another go (I certainly wont be restarting it as it took me all afternoon). All the best Nij 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nij4829 (talk • contribs)

This is supposed to be a welcoming teahouse, so I am sorry if somebody might have been offensive to you, Nij! Have a cup of tea and a biscuit before you go. Relax. And come back here any time you want. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Reliable Sources

IWiki uses reliable, academic, and peer-reviewed sources to referenced in the articles here, but how can the sources be trusted when, for example they make mistakes or contain a bias (ex. Time Magazine "scientific discoveries of the year" publishing pseudoscience as science .National Geographic publishes a magazing on Naturopathy, which isn't backed up by scientific evidence?) I am a bit worried aobout pseudoscience is inadvertently promoted in reputable organizations, like National Geographic, Time, Scientific American. . Frogger48 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Frogger48. Is this a question about editing Wikipedia? Well, anyway. Your gripe is with Time and National Geographic, not with Wikipedia. No source is 100% reliable, and even the worst sources are usually reliable for the name of their editor-in-chief on any given day. If a generally reliable source prints some credulous gossipy garbage because of 21st century mass media pressures, that does not make that specific garbage reliable. It is up to us as editors to gauge the reliability of every source we use. Sometimes, this is not an easy process. Naturopathy is a fringe health topic, though, and medical topics are held to the very stringent standards of WP:MEDRS. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Frogger48. In addition to what Cullen328 has said, Wikipedia is not just a scientific encyclopaedia - it covers topics which are regarded as pseudoscience but nevertheless have roots in human belief and thought, established by sources. I agree with Cullen that pseudosciences such as naturopathy or astrology should not be presented as scientific facts or effective treatments, but that doesn't make them non-notable as part of human existence. As he says, evaluating sources doesn't mean trying to decide whether or not something is 'true' or 'false'. It means analysing them for what they have said about a subject, and deciding how much weight to give them. Time and NatGeographic wouldn't be good sources for a scientific article anyway, since there is a huge wealth of reputable scholarship in these areas out there anyway to use first. However, we also have a lot of articles on things that aren't traditionally 'scientific' at all, such as art and literature and anthropology; National Geographic might be a good source to quote on some aspect of global culture, which can't be quantified or measured but can be examined academically. Similarly, Time IMO would be a reasonable source to quote on current affairs, to find out what someone thinks about a particular issue. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 08:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Section of text dissapearing?

Hi, not sure if its just on my browser, but the first paragraph of the 'Critical Reception' section on the page 'Zookeeper (film)' dosen't appear in the published article when I view it. Its there when you click 'edit source', but when reading the article it just dosen't show up. I've never encountered this before. Thanks, Jonie148 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonie148 I fixed it. There was a typo in the markup used to close a reference, this caused the software to include everything after that reference up to the "proper" end of the next reference to be included as the reference itself. It's a fairly common error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks for that Roger (Dodger67). --Jonie148 (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
That's happened to me a lot: I forget to close the ref, and then everything afterward gets lost. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Titling

Hi, thanks for making this resource available. I work in the field of forensic psychology generally, and my main area of research is assessment of risk for violence and other criminal behavior. I thought I might like to write a new article on that topic, but I've got an initial point of confusion. In the field, we call this type of assessment simply "risk assessment;" however, there are other fields that use the term in other contexts, and there is already a "risk assessment" article that describes many of these. What are the rules for deciding on a title that is sufficiently distinctive while also close enough to the common usage that a person looking for information would be able to easily find it? "Risk assessment in forensic psychology?" Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but there's plenty of precedent for naming the field in the title, in parentheses after the term, like this:
Risk assessment (forensic psychology)
For example, the dozens of articles named "New York" this or that include, under "Literature",
Then you can add a brief section to Risk assessment, titled "In forensic psychology", with a note pointing to the main article via Template:Main. See the section "In information security" in that article for an example. Hope this helps! --Thnidu (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu and Starke hathaway: Thnidu is right that an appropriate suffix parenthetical would be the way to go. As far as how to represent in the Risk assessment article ... this could be done as Thindu suggests, as a small section, or it could be done with a hatnote {{for}} cross reference. If you are writing a new article, might be good to start with the hatnote, then consider later how to add a small section to the "parent" article, which would also contain within the section an instance of {{main}} pointing at your new article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu and Ceyockey: Thanks very much to you both, that's very helpful. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Starke hathaway. Contributions from an expert in a field are always welcome, but please make sure you follow the policy on original research. An article should summarise what the reliable sources say on a subject, which may include accounts of arguments, discussions, conclusions in those sources; but it should not include any argumentation, judgment or conclusion not found in a source, not even straightforward conclusions which one might draw from comparing two sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Empying my Sandbox

Hi, A few minutes ago, I tried to delete the contents of my Sandbox, so that I could enter another article. However, what I succeeded in doing was deleting the article from Wikipedia, which is not what I intended at all! Please help D1ofBerks (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@D1ofBerks: User:D1ofBerks/sandbox was a redirect to the article. You edited the target of the redirect instead of the redirect itself. I have removed the redirect code.[1] See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for how I did it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to write and article on my father late Mr. Prakash Nayudu

and a menion of him in Wikipedia as he was a national level player of Table Tennis player and a Ranji Trophy cricketer. He was so of India's first Cricket Captain Col.C.K.Nayudu's son I request you to contribute to the article, if you know about him.Bariissh (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bariissh welcome to the Teahouse. Since you want to write about someone who is really close to you, it's very likely to create a conflict of interest. So I wouldn't recommend it. However if you can assure that you will be neutral when discussing the subject then there won't be any problem. Also the subject has to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. If not, refrain from creating an article. Before creating an article you better write it as a draft on your sandbox. That way we can review your content before moving it to mainspace. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
ja Superkid761 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to make my first improvements...

Hello, everyone. So for my first real shot at editing an article, I went to They Bleed Pixels, which is an indie game that I'm already familiar with and fond of, to try and improve on the article, since it only cites from game site reviews and the official dev site, and moreover the information presented re: the game isn't even factually correct as well as full of unnecessary buzzwords and puffery. I figure there's probably a guideline/policy/essay WP: page that delineates what makes for a reliable online source for video games, but I can't seem to find one that explicitly mentions which ones would be best. I'd appreciate some help in trying to figure out what a good RS would be, and in general what the best way to go about improving this article would be. Thanks in advance! BlusterBlasterkaboom! 13:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@BlusterBlaster: Hi BlusterBlaster. Adding to KylieTastic's excellent advice above, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library for a page specific to video game articles. Also note the existence of WP:RX, where you can request copies of sources that look promising but are behind a paywall or which are otherwise restricted from access. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

things I did wrong my first day... what to do today?

Hi. I am currently in Sri Lanka. I have been meeting many leaders in contemporary arts like 'Jagath Weerasinghe' and all he's peers. These people has started important artistic movements and institutes. I would like to do articles about them and their work. I am also working with a few Marine biology organisations and institutes Like Howard Martenstyn and Centre for Research on Indian Ocean Marine Mammals. In fact that's not much information about contemporary Sri Lanka or it's history is up on Wiki. I started to work on an article about OHT Ocean Heritage Trust, I made many first timer mistakes... One was, as I wrote the website info for OHT so I thought I could use it in their wiki page, I had copyright issues, the page has now been deleted... I also started a page about my work as a marine conservation muralist... which I now know I can't do hehehe I made about 4 or 5 big mistakes my first day! I am new it this and would appreciate help. - Can I start to rewrite the OHT article today? - Some of the info about OHT, like their research agenda is a not an easy thing to change the words to, what can I do if I quote from their web site? - When and where can I upload their logo and other photos? - Can I add links to videos on Youtube? Thank you for your time. The Painting Pirate (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi The Painting Pirate, and welcome to the Teahouse! Because of your conflict of interest, you should not be creating an article about this organization directly. I suggest you work on it in Wikipedia draft space and then submit it for review by non-involved editors. I also strongly suggest that you create your draft using the Article wizard. Click on that link and it will take you through the process. It will also help you to understand if your draft has any chance of becoming an article. Click on all the information links at each stage and read them carefully. For the purpose of your subject meeting our inclusion criteria, we treat companies and organizations the same way, including charities and non-profit organizations. If you still want to go ahead when you reach the final stage of the wizard, enter your title in and click on the option Create new article draft. Having said all that, I doubt very much if there are sufficient independent sources available for this organization to pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at this time. It appears to be less than a year old, with virtually no coverage from reliable sources (books, newspapers, journal articles, etc.) which are independent of the organization. See [2]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the teahouse. Please don't feel bad I made a real mess myself. Since I report for an ezine. I decided to become a wiki editor. I made a page about myself and submitted it as an article. That was mistake number one. Then I attempted to post a picture. I wound up reverting or re-editing several times. Come to find out reverting or re editing can also be a mistake. May i suggest that today you might go on a wikipedia adventure game. It helped me substantiallyLbhiggin (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How do i identify and remove copyrighted materials from article?

I submitted an article for review and i received a message that it contained copyrighted materials. How do I identify and remove the copyrighted materials from my article? (197.214.100.252 (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse 197.214.100.252! When i look at your Contributions to wikipedia, i don't see anywhere that you have made any edits other than this one, it's possible that you've accidently logged out when asking a question. If that's the case, can you log back in and respond? Thanks! LorTalk 09:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you User:Dada Michael who created Draft:Victor E. Udo, PhD.? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks (Michael O. Dada (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the teahouse. Please don't feel bad I made a real mess myself. Since I report for an ezine. I decided to become a wiki editor. I made a page about myself and submitted it as an article. That was mistake number one. Then I attempted to post a picture. I wound up reverting or re-editing several times. Come to find out reverting or re editing can also be a mistake. May i suggest that today you might go on a wikipedia adventure game. It helped me substantially.Lbhiggin (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive the intrusion on this discussion my mouse jumped the page somehow. I was writing in response to things I did wrong... Lbhiggin (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Artical submission/editing help

I am from the United States and there is only one college/university in the state of Nebraska without a Wikipedia page. I have tried to do my best making a page with their website, but it is very limited information. I need help with making citation better. I am also not great with writing, so any grammar or other edits would be helpful. I think this is the link to the article I wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bryan_College_of_Health_Sciences. Look at other articles about colleges in Nebraska, Bryan is listed on there but isn't recognized.

Thanks! TinyMAK5 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TinyMAKS. I'm afraid that if there is limited information, it may not be possible to write an acceptable article. Whether or not a subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article does not depend on what it is (still less on what other articles exist) but on what people unconnected with it have written about it. Bryan College may be very similar to other colleges in Nebraska, but if it happens that somebody has published a book, or several newspaper articles, on one of the colleges but nobody has on Bryan College, then Bryan College is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and an article will not be accepted irrespective of how it is written. See WP:NSCHOOL. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi TinyMAKS. Things are a little more complicated than this for institutions of higher education. Bryan College is non-profit, awards BA degrees, and is accredited. While the Notability documents don't say this, there is as statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools that says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The college web site is enough. Keep it factual and leave out public relations stuff like "Bryan Medical Center and the School of Nursing build upon the strengths of both organizations to establish Bryan College of Health Sciences, a partnership that provides significant clinical experience to its students". StarryGrandma (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely with StarryGrandma here. Ideally, Wikipedia should have an article about every single accredited degree awarding college and university on this planet. If any are established in orbit or on other planets or moons, we should have articles about them as well. The working assumption is that some coverage exists in reliable sources, whether on or offline, whether in English or in other languages. Arguing that such an accredited institution is not notable is possible in theory, but very difficult in practice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd seen that idea somewhere, StarryGrandma, but I couldn't find if in WP:NSCHOOL - in fact, the link you've mentioned cites that, but then proceeds to outline a practice which contradicts it. One of them needs changing. --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree ColinFine, but who knows what WP:NSCHOOL actually said when the link was written. There is a lot of discussion and changes in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), especially in Archive 11 and Archive 13. What is going on in practice is determined by one group of people; what gets recorded as a guideline is determined by another. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

New Article

Need some clarification on the article submittal process. If you use the article wizard does it automatically move it into WP:AFC or does it publish? Alternatively, if I use my sandbox to draft an article and put {{AFC submission|||ts=20150213163243|u=SusanChana|ns=4}} at the very top is there somewhere I can verify it has made it into the queue to be reviewed? Appreciate any guidance! SusanChana (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi SusanChana. Putting the AfC template at the top of the page in your sandbox marks the page as waiting review. The page will be listed immediately on the various lists of articles to review, some of which can be seen at Category:Pending AfC submissions. The article wizard creates the article in Draft space, at Draft:(article name), so it can be worked on before being added to the main Wikipedia pages. When you submit, that is ask that it become a Wikipedia article, the same templage is put on the top. You can move your sandbox page to Draft:(article name) yourself before asking for review.
AfC is way behind reviewing articles, so it is wise to make sure your article meets all the requirements first. Is the subject of article already well-known? Have you put in reliable references that show that? Is the article written like an encyclopedia article? Read User:Yunshui/Article creation for beginners first. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, StarryGrandma! SusanChana (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Changing a redirection page to a disambiguation page

Currently, there is a redirection from Trigeminal to Trigeminal nerve. But a new article has been written for the Trigeminal artery, so that redirection page needs to be changed to a disambiguation page. Can somebody please point me to where I can find instructions for how to do this? Gronk Oz (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Gronk Oz!
Basically, you replace the redirect page with a disambiguation page. The redirect page can be accessed from the  (Redirected from...)  link on the upper left of the page that you were redirected to. Or, in your case: click here. Guidelines for disambiguation pages can be found here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. My apologies for this help being rather skimpy, I have never done this. I'm sure that somebody more knowledgeable will be glad to provide more detailed assistance if required.  —I hope this helps, ~Eric, aka:71.20.250.51 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: If there are only two articles then we often solve it with a hatnote. I have addded {{Redirect}} to Trigeminal nerve.[3] That also means all the links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Trigeminal don't have to be changed, assuming they really are meant for the Trigeminal nerve. I'm not qualified to judge that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, both of you. @PrimeHunter:, you saved me from making a big mistake with those links; I am so glad I asked this question. I have also added a hatnote to the new Trigeminal artery article to complete the loop.--Gronk Oz (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploading images taken from official websites

I had uploaded an image from the official website of the institution about which i had written an article about. The image is available in the public domain. However it was deleted due to copy right issues. How should i go about uploading the image? Dr. Ajay George AkkaraAJAYGEORGEAKKARA (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@AJAYGEORGEAKKARA: See the answer in the section directly below this one, which asks the same question (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#about image uploads). In short, you shouldn't, unless you first obtain proper copyright clearance. --Thnidu (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, AJAYGEORGEAKKARA. If you can provide proof that the image is truly in the public domain, then it can be freely used here. What is your evidence?Was the image first published before 1923, which means copyright has expired? Is it the product of the U.S. Federal government, or another government agency which overtly releases its work free of copyright? The burden is on you to explain why any particular image is free of copyright, in convincing language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
For those reading this once it has been archived, the additional information will likely be above, not below.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

Hello

I've received the following feedback on an article; The Six Rockets, which was resubmitted after replacing the unreliable source: the Wandervogel website. There are now 2+15 sources (references). What please warrants this response: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Apart from the myriad newspaper clippings, about half a dozen media items were also proposed alongside the text.

Thanks very much in lieu,

Jerome Jeromesamuelsimpson (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jeromesamuelsimpson and welcome to the Teahouse. I must say that I am just as surprised as you. The Variety Magazine is used in many articles as a reliable source and the Binghamton Press is an ordinary daily newspaper. I think the main problem is that you have not written the references in "the Wikipedia way" as shown in Help:Referencing for beginners. This makes it hard for everyone to understand the references. A well written reference is written in a specific way and includes the title of the article, name of the person who wrote it, a Wikilink to the publication, etc. Not just name and page. I can "start up" some of the references for you and you can fill in the rest. I think that is a good way for you to understand how it is done. There may be some other issues with the article that perhaps other editors can tell us about. Happy editing, w.carter-Talk 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Erasing a duplicate Guest profile

I had a lot of trouble embedding an image into my Guest profile, so I decided to start over and let the algorithm choose one for me. But I left a duplicate profile here in the Teahouse. Could you please delete the one that has no details? Or tell me how I can do it? Thank you. Lavomengro (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A related question is: if an image is already on Wikimedia(c) Commons, is it fair use for Wikipedia(c) articles?Lavomengro (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Lavomengro: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you look at your contributions, you'll see that you added your profile to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Right_column - you can directly edit the page to remove the duplicate section. I've gone ahead and removed your duplicate section myself with this edit.
As for Commons images: The Wikimedia Commons serves as a repository of free images that anyone can use for any purpose, without having to ask for permission first. The Commons is also integrated with other Wikimedia wikis (including Wikipedia) so that you can easily use any images from there. So yes, you are free to use valid Commons images anywhere on Wikipedia - but not under fair use, as fair use does not apply to free images. Fair use actually applies to non-free images, and describes the set of circumstances that one can use a copyrighted image (or other media/text) without having to acquire permission beforehand. Common reasons that allow for fair use can be education, commentary, or parody. Wikipedia:Non-free content provides more details. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Objections of Wikipedia.

What are your responses to Wiki pages that point out errors objections to Wiki? The pages on Metapedia, Rationalwiki, and Conservapedia are the ones that I am talking about. What points made in the pages are factual grounds?Frogger48 (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Frogger48: Welcome back to the Teahouse! I think you'll find this to be a rather personal question (not that that's a bad thing), and you'll get varying answers depending on the individual. Depending on their nature, I think wiki alternatives to Wikipedia can be good resources, and that people focused on criticizing Wikipedia can be a very good thing - in the hopes that positive change comes out of it. Some sites, such as Citizendium, aim to directly improve on Wikipedia's flaws (with Citizendium removing anonymity and encouraging professionalism). Other sites, such as RationalWiki, have a much more narrow scope than Wikipedia and function much differently.
That being said, some sites can be rather polarized in their views, and may make unfounded criticisms with no real solutions. It depends on the site, and no wiki is perfect. Wikipedia itself does keep a list of articles that highlight some of the more notable criticisms and controversies surrounding Wikipedia:
In the end, the important thing is that Wikipedia is continuously improving - and personally, I don't think any other general-purpose wiki comes close to matching the usefulness, size, and reliability of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's structure is what has allowed for that to happen. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back Frogger. For me personally it depends what the source is and if there is evidence for it. Sources like conservapedia and/or fox news, just make me laugh as they are not reliable at all. But that is mostly because of my personal bias for evidence based reasoning, and not believing in woo woo like creationism. I think almost every wikipedian knows that wikipedia is not perfect. But things have been improved since it inception. And should keep improving over time so that the writing is better. For the rest I mostly agree with superhamster. NathanWubs (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In my view, Citizendium presents the most credible intellectual challenge in theory. But encyclopedias must be judged in practice. If you want to compare articles about important encyclopedic topics, take a look at Abraham Lincoln here, and on Citizendium. Our article is very good. Theirs ends in December, 1864, with Lincoln alive and thriving. There is no discussion of the final months of the Civil War, nor the unpleasant events at Ford's Theater in April, 1865. I would like to forget those events, but do not want an encyclopedia to do so for me. Citizendium is a failed project, while Wikipedia thrives. Wales was right, while Sanger was and remains wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
the same statement could apply to other projects founded by meta-wiki, including, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikisources, Wikibooks, Wikivoyag etc..? as well, overlooking the controversies, omissions, errors, vandalism, and flaws for Wikipedia as well as the other projects made by the Wikimedia Foundation (WFD), are all of these projects still general reliable and trustworthy? Hey, if someone could answer this, it would do me great, Thanx.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger48 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, those other projects you mentioned don't aim to serve the same purpose as Wikipedia, Citizendium, or any other general knowledge wikis - they're not encyclopedias. These projects have their own unique goals (Wiktionary is a dictionary, Wikivoyage is a travel guide, Wikisource is a library of source texts, etc.). Many of them, I'd say, if not the best sources out their for their respective fields, are at least the best free sources that you can find. Of course, not all are the best. For example, Wikinews is certainly not as expansive or detailed as many other news sites. At the same time, however, the goal isn't necessarily to compete (for example, Wikinews requires citations to other news sites), and each project does have its own strengths (the primary one for all projects being that they're completely free resources).
All wikis are the same - they all strive to be as reliable as possible, but will never be perfect and will always be improving. Many of Wikipedia's sister projects aren't as open to vandalism or mistakes as Wikipedia is - both due to popularity, and the nature of the projects (for example, there isn't much room for editorial mistakes on Wikisource, as it's simply a collection of free sources). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

In which type of editings the consensus is required? Sumedh Tayade (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sumedh Tayade hello and welcome to The Teahouse. This is hard to answer, but the simplest way to say it is that controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page. A good example of a controversial topic would be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Or Barack Obama. Or even a non-controversial topic might have a controversial claim added. Otherwise, you may be safe in making an edit as long as you provide a relaible source for what you are adding. If someone disagrees and changes the article back, that is when you should consider discussion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Sumedh Tayade. Consensus is the main tool used to resolve disputes here. Editors are encouraged to learn our policies and guidelines, and also to edit boldly for the sincere purpose of improving the encyclopedia. If no one objects to a specific edit to an article, that is a "consensus" of one, and the edit stands. Any editor acting in good faith is welcome to revert that edit. At the point, the first editor can either relent, or discuss the matter on the article's talk page. That is where consensus needs to be hammered out, and the article edited (or not) accordingly. We call that process the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

my question is can i have some help with editing and how do i know if something's spelled wrong?

as stated in the headline i need help with editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkid761 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Superkid761. What kind of help are you looking for? As for spelling, most browsers have spell-checkers which will warn you if they think a word is misspelt, though unless you're sure, it's worth checking a dictionary, for example Wiktionary. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
i need help due to using internet explorer Superkid761 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Superkid761 if you have a modern version of Internet Explorer it has a spell checker built in (in IE 11 you go to "Manage Ad-ons" and you can set the "Spelling Correct" options - language and if enabled). In older versions of IE I used to use an addon program called ieSpell - not great but it helped) KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
my school uses internet explorer 8 Superkid761 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Blue

How do I add the blue colour to the words that I type? For example the blue colour that appear in the words 'talk','sandbox'etc.Holmesme (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Holmesme: Hi Holmesme. Those blue words indicate links to existing pages. Linking to existing Wikipedia pages is done by placing doubled brackets around the name of the page. Thus, [[Wikipedia]] produces Wikipedia.

A useful expansion of this is done by separating what you want linked, from what you want displayed, with a pipe character ("|"), to create a "piped link". Thus: [[Wikipedia|encyclopedia]] produces encyclopedia, with the displayed text linking to the article, Wikipedia.

You can link to internal sections of pages in this way: Wikipedia#name of internal section of that article.

By contrast, for external links: http://www.example.org produces http://www.example.org; [http://www.example.org] produces [4]; and [http://www.example.org example] produces example.

For more information, see Help:Link and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sending messages

How do I send a message to a host of the teahouse? KatieCollins (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi KatieCollins! You have a few options:
  • Everyone's signature has a 'talk' link, although sometimes they're customised to read e.g. 'pigeonhole' (mine) or 'Let's Discuss It' (Cullen328's). You can open up that link and leave a message on our talk pages - use two equals signs either side of the heading to create your ==Message title== and then write your message underneath it.
  • You can use a template to notify a specific user with {{u|Lstanley1979}} or {{ping|Lstanley1979}} (note that again some people customise their signatures to read differently to their actual username, but mousing over a user title will usually show you in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen like any other link will.) This will mean we get notifications that you have mentioned us in a post, like you will get when I press 'save page' after finishing the message.
However, I answered your message below under WP:TEAHOUSE#Can anyone help me?. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 14:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_306&oldid=1078532149"