Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 520

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 515←Archive 518Archive 519Archive 520Archive 521Archive 522→Archive 525

Is this article becoming a fringe article?

I have been monitoring Daniel Obinim and the info is sourced but I think the article might be 'going south'. Whether it's okay or not, how do you bring it to an editor's attention and have someone examine it? Cotton2 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Cotton2: I have removed the "Speedy Delete" tag because I believe the references establish that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Maproom, I think you meant Cotton2. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How to improve “Capsim3.2 quick start manual”

Hi teahouse!

I'm a fresh user of wiki and I just created a wiki page with name "Capsim3.2 quick start manual". But I was told the page is proposed to be deleted because of "Per WP:NOTMANUAL or WP:NOTWEBHOST, or WP:NOTHOWTO, or take your pick of WP:NOT." Could you please give me some specific advises on how to improve this page and prevent it from being deleted? Many thanks. XinXinZhang2014 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You've obviously misunderstood the purpose of an encyclopedia. In your question I have turned the various shortcuts into wikilinks so that you can follow them. This page doesn't belong on Wikipedia; I suggest that you upload it to an appropriate website, such as the university site from which the software download is available. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello XinZhang2014. It is very difficult to see how a software manual is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article when we do not even have an article about the software itself. Why would independent reliable sources write about a software manual but not the software itself? And the content seems to be the manual itself rather than a description of the manual. A question has been asked about whether this content has been published elsewhere previously, or whether it is original writing for Wikipedia. This raises significant concerns about copyright, which Wikipedia takes very seriously. I do not see how this article can survive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have figured out that we don't need to put such manual on wikipedia and I have already removed the manual. Thx all! Since this software is half-open right now, It's appropriate to show it at this time. Thus I will delete this section later on. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XinZhang2014 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC) It seems that I can not clear this text by myself. Could the administrator help me do this? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XinZhang2014 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

XinZhang2014, I've requested speedy deletion under criteria G7 because you've asked for Capsim3.2 quick start manual to be deleted. PROD and {{copyviocore}} (which are both on the page at the moment) both would've likely resulted in deletion, anyway, but in a slightly slower way. An administrator will review the request for speedy deletion within (likely) the next day or so. After that, the page will either be retained (which is always a possibility, albeit an unlikely one in this case) or deleted. I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete pages.
In the future, if you want a page that you created and that no one else has substantially edited, you can request speedy deletion of the page by putting {{db-self}} (including the curly brackets) at the top of the page.
-- Gestrid (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

list References in a scrolling box vertically

I want to make the References list smaller when I visit wikipedia. I'm trying to edit vector.css as I found it was the way to do it, I added : 

@media screen {
  div.reflist {
  	
    overflow-x: auto;
    overflow-y: auto;
    padding-right: 0.5em;
    max-height: 300px;
  }
}

to it, but the box is scrolling horizontally instead of the very common vertical way, and its scrollbar is on x at the bottom. I want to make it vertical. Account245424 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of that isn't doing what you want it to. Try this:
@media screen {
	.reflist {
		max-height: 300px;
		overflow-y: scroll;
		-moz-column-width: initial !important;
		-webkit-column-width: initial !important;
		column-width: initial !important;
		-moz-column-count: initial !important; 
		-webkit-column-count: initial !important; 
		column-count: initial !important;
	}	
}
You can set max-height as you prefer. You have to disable columns to stop it from overflowing horizontally, but since they're used to save space that shouldn't be too much of an issue.
By the way, you're better off asking questions like this at WP:VP/T. The Teahouse is for beginner editing queries. Joe Roe (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Account245424 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How to create a page about Company

i want to create a page for company carlton leisure which is in existence from last more then 20 years.

i tried to create to don't know what guidelines i am not following. Please help me in creating page. Disclamer: i am directly associated with carlton Leiaure. Shivcarlton (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shivcarlton: Just to confirm, are we talking about this company? -- Gestrid (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes..

We are talking about this company Shivcarlton (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

its a travel company based in Uk

Shivcarlton (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shivcarlton. You should not create a page about Carlton Leisure as I'm afraid it is against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.
Note that unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. Wikipedia does not have pages "for" companies, it has encyclopaedia articles about companies. The key difference being that while a company might use other websites to post information about themselves directly, for promotion or other reasons, Wikipedia only aggregates information about notable companies that have already been written about extensively elsewhere, and always does so from a neutral point of view. If Carlton is a notable company, a volunteer editor should create an article about it in time. Joe Roe (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
A person who has a conflict of interest may create a draft article via Articles for Creation and submit it for review. There are a few points that they should consider. First, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and material that is copied from the company web site will be deleted. Second, promotional or peacock language is not permitted. Wikipedia presents its articles from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a medium for advertising. Third, you are required to disclose your association via the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing policy. You did disclose here, but there are specific rules about where to make the disclosure. Fourth, if your draft either doesn't both pass corporate notability or is promotional, it will be declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Undo my changes in witcher 3 wiki page

i added a line about it being the highest rated game on PC,Xbox-one,Ps4 on metacritic but it was removed Why? i know wiki don't allow user-reviews abut metacritic is trust worthy site and i quote "For some high profile games, a flurry of user reviews that strongly counter the general consensus of mainstream reviewers (those listed as reliable sources) may exist." here is the case user reviews are reilable with 10K votes on pc and 9k on PS4 so it must be shown on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkmsn8 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dkmsn8, you have evidently seen The1337gamer's edit summary for his reversion of your edit on The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, since you quote from the section he linked to. But you have quoted selectively. I suggest you read the part of WP:VG/USERREVIEW which you have ignored. In any case, this discussion should be taking place at Talk:The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, not here, and the person to ask why it was reverted is the person who reverted it (whom I have pinged above), not random people at the Teahouse. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Dkmsn8: Incidentally but not insignificantly, your heading for this question, "Undo my changes in witcher 3 wiki", is confusing. When I saw it, I thought you were asking about changes you made in some other wiki, one devoted to "Witcher 3". There are plenty of wikis on the web, such as Ingress Wiki, Mrs. Berry's Civics & Economics Wiki, the Wiki of the Association for Computational Linguistics, and countless others.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is not a "wiki": it is a page in a wiki, specifically an article page in this wiki, the English Wikipedia. --Thnidu (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

My question is: How do I add an image of a fictional character to an existing Wikipedia page? Examples would be Barbie, Spider-Man, Scooby-Doo, etc. I see them on Wiki pages all the time, but am not certain if those images come from copyrighted sources, are approved because they're for reference, etc. Would that then be uploaded through Wikimedia Commons or another Wizard? Thanks! Catalyststyle (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catalyststyle. Images of copyrighted characters are used in a very limited way to identify the topic of an article and for critical commentary. Please read our policy on use of non-free images #5 for details. Such images must be uploaded here on English Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), and must have an acceptable rationale. Take a look at Scooby-Doo (character) as an example. If you click on the image, you will see that the file name is "File:Scooby-Doo.png". Now, click on the blue bar for more information, and you can see the formal legal rationale. Any similar image upload should be handled in the same way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How to Creat My New Article

Hello, I have a One Problem... It's I like Creat New Article. But This Article Deleted many more times. What I Doing? I Can Starting.--Sachin66 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sachin66. You have a problem, because you have plunged straight in as a new user and tried to do something which is difficult: creating a new article. Please read and study WP:My first article, and follow its guidance. In particular, I suggest you spend a few weeks improving some of our five million existing articles before trying to create a new one. Look at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya (2016 film) to understand exactly why it is being proposed for deletion. And, to be honest, the level of English competence you show in your question above makes me wonder if you should be editing in the English Wikipedia at all: you might be more successful in siwiki. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As it turns out, Sachin66 was not a new user, but a sockpuppet of blocked User:Ravindu Navin, and has been blocked accordingly. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Linking to an external image

I feel I ought to understand this after ten years, but...


{{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing includes the sentence

The largest control field formed had points between Germany, Greece and Ukraine, and took four months of planning and 200 players to create.

That sentence cites this article on Gamespot, where it is immediately followed by a map image, a webpage screenshot credited to Tim Hale. The shot is of a map from the Ingress app showing this field, a very impressive sight as you can imagine from the description.

Of course I couldn't include the image in the article without getting permission from Tim Hale, as well as possibly from Gamespot and Ingress.com, which would be extremely tedious and more than it's worth to me in time and effort; but I'd like to link directly to it. However, this

You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. (Wikipedia:Verifiability § Copyright and plagiarism)

and this

Do not use this template to cite material that violates copyright law.
Citations to such material must either be replaced with a non-copyvio source or removed immediately. (Template:Cite_AV_media/doc)

just aren't clear to me in this case, since I wouldn't be including the image, just referencing (pointing to) it. Does that count as "citing" it?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu: it is not possible to include an image in a Wikipedia article except from Wikipedia itself or from Commons. You can only link to one, and the comment about copyvio applies to all external links, whether in citations or in an external link. As long as the image is not a copyvio on the site where it is hosted, it is OK to link to it; but I think it would be rare that a map itself would be a source for a statement; in particular, I can't see that it would be one in this case.
If you are meaning that you want to upload the map to Commons and use it in the article as an illustration, that would be fine, provided the copyright holder agreed to explicitly release it under a suitable licence (which would allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose): permission to use it on Wikipedia is not enough. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Thanks for your informative and helpful (and prompt!) reply. I have gone ahead and linked the map with Template:Cite web. I agree that it's not much as a source, but "The largest control field [ever] formed" is a pretty impressive superlative, and imho it deserves to be seen.
I may, after all, pursue permission from the copyright owner, Tim Hale. Do you foresee any possible difficulties because of the connections to GameSpot and the Ingress app? --Thnidu (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Having looked at it, the map (as opposed to the article) is clearly inappropriate as a reference. Which statement is it supposed to support? Any information deduced from that map would be original research, and so inadmissible. In any case, any claim about anything being "the largest" anything (or any other superlative) should only appear if it is supported by an independent reliable source which explicitly says that it is the largest. I think the map would be a welcome addition to the article as an illustration if it is suitably licensed, but I can see no way it can validly be linked to externally. --ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing press references, pre-Internet

Hi, I've been working on a draft of a musician's biography, which has been rejected. The message is as follows: "This would still need all additional amounts of in-depth third-party news and especially list URLs if they are available please." My question is, how to provide links to music press articles from the 1970s an 1980s? (Dates and issue references have already been included). There are a number of valid links also included in the article relating to other aspects of the biography, but the majority of the press articles are pre-Internet. Thanks in advance for any advice on this subject. Newamordia (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Newamordia and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to provide links if you have consulted paper sources. If you have consulted digitized sources, then providing a link is a good thing to do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Newamordia. I will add a bit to the advice given above. When you include a reference to an article not available online, please provide the most complete bibliographic information possible, including author(s), article title and subtitle, name of publication, city of publication, date, page number and so on. You can also include a one or two sentence direct quote from the source, in quotation marks. All of this adds to the credibility of your reference. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Viewing a more detailed TOC

Some pages that I visit and edit regularly have very long sections that are quite reasonably subdivided for several levels down; e.g., Ingress (video game) has two levels of subsections, down to h4 (==== ====). Also quite reasonably, the TOC on such pages tends to be limited to displaying top-level (==h2==) sections only. But often when I go to such a page I want to get to a particular sub(-sub(-sub))section. If I know its exact name I can add it to the browser bar after a #, but I'm not always certain.

Is there any way for an editor to view a TOC in more detail without editing the page?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Thnidu. While it does involve editing, this method will only take but a moment. Click edit → search for TOC → remove the TOC limiting template such as {{TOC limit|2}} → click show preview → voilà. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: D'ohh! Thanks. Of course! Using Preview, getting the link or URL, then cancelling, will get me to the § I want without changing the TOC and messing up others' experience. Thanks again. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

i need help getting my bio published

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User blocked for self-promotion

i am frustrated because i made a bio page and it was marked for deletion and cant get anyone to repsond. i fixed it and it still says the same thing(06:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FULLCIRCLE (talk • contribs)

Note: user has been blocked for self-promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tye Leigha Hagood

im new to this im trying to create a new page about Publicist Tye Leigha Hagood shes a very well known publicist but never had a wiki page, she does have a few articles but unfortunately as it is in the public relations industry alot are well known internally but not alot of articles but she does also have a imdb that list alot pf her clients... ive created and posted the page is there anyone that csn help me with editing im so lost please feel free to search the page and give comments i also included a lot of references but not sure if i did it right Tlhpr (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to its own section, Tlhpr, as it was likely to get missed where you had placed it, in the section for another editor's question. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Tlhpr. As I'm not an administrator, I can't see the article which was deleted. But here's the thing that probably explains what's going on: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody (or their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or publicists) say about themselves. None. It is only interested in what poeople who have no connection with them have published about them. It follows that nothing published by Hagood, or her clients or associates, will contribute in any way to her notability (in Wikipedia's sense), and that unless there is substantial material which has been published about her by people unconnected to her, there will be literally nothing that can be put in an article about her.
I also observe that your username suggests that you are connected with Hagood: if you are, you need to read our policy on conflict of interest carefully.
If you can find some substantial independent published sources about Hagood, and decide to go ahead with writing an article, I suggest you read Your first article carefully, and use the Article wizard to prepare your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The transition innovation in the classics.

Good day! I am a famous historian, my book ( www.rusocka.ru/irs.pdf ) for two years, downloaded about 35,000 times. I spoke at the Congress of historians in city Rostov- on -Don, held numerous debates, met with authoritative historians in person or corresponded with via the Internet. However, on Wikipedia I remained blocked, since then my book was unusual, as the theory about the roundness of the Earth in the middle ages. However, while I was blocked, some articles in Wikipedia, which I relied, were distorted by hackers. I understand it comes from lack of training on the history of the managers of Wikipedia. Maybe this is a reason to allow me to write the amendment? Can you take me to the managers of history? Rusocka (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rusocka, welcome to the Teahouse. This is your first edit at the English Wikipedia so I guess you refer to your block at the Russian Wikipedia. Each language edition is edited independently with its own policies and administrators. We have no authority over the Russian Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I choose the article title for a singer when there is more than one with the same name?

I am in the processing of making an article for the Atlanta-based singer Abra. I was going to name the article Abra (singer), as there is a rapper called Abra (who has an article called Abra (rapper)). However Last.fm informs me that there is also a Polish singer called Abra. A quick Google didn't fetch any information about this singer, which suggests that if I make an article called 'Abra (singer)' it will not cause problems, but I just wanted to check what other people think? Sarahstaniforth (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be completely fine to name the article "Abra (singer)". If we don't have an article about the Polish singer with the same name, they might not be notable anyway, at least for the English Wikipedia. In general, if a title isn't taken, use it. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How to propose a redirect for removal

Hello, I would like to ask how to propose a redirect for removal. The page in question is Dhammakaya ordination, and the redirect to Upasampada doesn't make much sense. I'd like to address this, and have done so, by indicating the reason on the talk page and using the g6 template. Some other editor grumpily said it is the wrong template and removed it, but hasn't informed me which template to use or which procedure to address this issue. Could you advise me? S Khemadhammo (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, S Khemadhammo. The proper venue for resolving this issue is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't find it.S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
According to my watchlist, Dhammakaya ordination has been marked as reviewed. On Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, it says "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]" next to the entry. What is next? According to what I have read about this procedure, it should be deleted automatically, but right now, Dhammakaya ordination hasn't been deleted yet.S Khemadhammo (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It won't be deleted automatically. You list a page on redirects for discussion so that other editors can discuss it. If there is a consensus that it should be deleted, then an administrator will close the discussion and perform that action (this is what the [ closure: ] links are for). However, there hasn't been any discussion in your entry yet. You don't have to do anything at this point, just wait for others to chime in. It usually takes a least a week for a discussion to run its course and be closed.
The entry on your watchlist saying it has been reviewed has nothing to do with the RfD you initiated, it refers to the new page patrol and simply means somebody has checked to make sure the page doesn't violate Wikipedia's basic policies. Joe Roe (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Joe Roe. S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Adana derby and previous deletions

I reviewed Draft:Adana derby and declined it for notability reasons. I commented that there had already been two deletion discussions. I then received the following snarky comment from User: Abcmaxx: "You didn't review it though did you, you just hashed out the same old stupid argument. I'd like to know which bit of it has no reliable or independent sources because clearly there's a) a lot of them b) they're significant and c) reliable"

I did review it, several times, and was prepared to comment on it and defer it to another reviewer, but the AFCH script then showed me the three previous deletes, two deletion discussions and a WP:G4. As a reviewer, one of the instructions is to consider whether the article will survive a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. Since the deletion discussions have already been held, and the consensus has been Delete, if I were to accept the draft, it would either be tagged for WP:G4 again or get a third deletion nomination. Being sarcastic to a reviewer should not in itself result in a draft being declined, but it does not increase the likelihood of acceptance. I would suggest that, if the author thinks that the deletion discussions missed the mark, rather than just resubmitting, the author should go to WP:WikiProject Football and ask them whether they think that this rivalry (when rivalries are not ipso facto notable and require general notability) is notable.

Do other experienced editors have comments on what either a reviewer or an author should do in this situation, where a topic has already had a deletion discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right about this not having a hope in hell of surviving CSD under WP:G4 as it's the exact same content. In the AFD I think Fenix down has the right response - if this were a game between two clubs under any other circumstance would it be notable. Just because they share the same ground doesn't elevate this above the norm. Admittedly this is closer to meeting the notability threshold than some football rivalries I've seen articles attempted on. Nthep (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw the draft and had it been moved to the mainspace I would have G4d it as essentially the same as the previous version. To be honest I am baffled why this has come through AfC in this state. Fenix down (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure what User:Fenix down means by "come through AfC in this state". It is in AfC in this state because User:Abcmaxx submitted it to AfC in this state. I see that User:Nthep says that it is the exact same content as when it was deleted, and I assume that they mean that they have used admin glasses to view the deleted version. If Abcmaxx thinks that it should be accepted, I would suggest that they ask for opinions at WP:WikiProject Football. I will comment that, in the second deletion discussion, at least one editor said that the title should be salted to prevent tendentious re-creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It is salted. Nthep (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, Abcmaxx: CSD G4 is a general criterion, meaning it applies to all namespaces (and this draft is not "content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement"). Of course, it can be difficult to place G4s with confidence if you can't see the deleted content to compare, but you can always ask an admin to check if it's G4-able – including by using {{db|reason}} containing your explicit query as to whether the deleted content is substantially similar. Here, as Nthep states and I confirm, it is, and so I have deleted. Abcmaxx, you participated in both articles for deletion discussions, and yet created this as a draft and submitted for review knowing you had changed nothing substantive since the second AfD debate was closed as delete on the merits. Your path, if at all, is to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, showing that the deletion debate close was against consensus, or on the basis of significant new coverage of the topic in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic and treat it in substantive detail. Just recreating it again is in my view disruptive behavior.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, but none of you have said any of the above at all before. Been left with just a bunch of warning messages and weird threats instead without much explanation or alternatives Abcmaxx (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Submitting a draft that was the same as a deleted article was an attempt to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion is underway at WP:ANI#User not assuming good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Recover a pitcure

Hi there. I need help with recover a picture. Here is the link of the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hongchi_Xiao. The picture was "deleted" and the copyright issue was resolved via email. I was told from email that I did not need to re-upload the picture, but I could not get it to show up right. The original file name is: Hongci_Xiao_at_Central_Park,_New_York_in_2008.jpg. I have asked in the email that the file name be changed to Hongchi_Xiao_at_Central_Park,_New_York_in_2008.jpg because I made a mistake spelling Xiao's first name (wrong spelling being Hongci, and the right spelling being Hongchi). I'm not sure if the file name was changed. I have tried both ways. It would not work. Thank you for any help you can give me. I appreciate it. jdxzhu 15:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jdxzhu. Your image was deleted on Wikimedia Commons in November, 2015. A notice was placed on your Commons talk page by a Commons administrator called Mys_721tx, who edits only occasionally here on English Wikipedia. I suggest you ask for further information on their Commons user talk page. We can't help with Commons image issues here at the Teahouse. Commons has completely separate administration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Jdxzhu: the file File:Hongci Xiao at Central Park, New York in 2008.jpg was deleted from Commons on 10 Nov 2015 for being a copyright violation. You would need to ask for it to be restored at Commons:Undeletion requests referring to VRTS ticket # 2015111210002462. Nthep (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I have sent a request to Mys_721tx a while back, never heard from him. I will try asking for help from Commons again. Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. I appreciate it. jdxzhu 15:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Undeletion requests page does not exit any more. :( jdxzhu 15:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)
Jdxzhu c:Commons:Undeletion requests is the full name of the page. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Your signature isn't working properly, Jdxzhu. You might want to check that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in your preferences isn't ticked. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen328 Let's discuss it, StarryGrandma (talk) , and Cordless Larry (talk) for your help! I found the right place to ask for help with recovering the picture. I think I also got my signature working properly. Fingers crossed! :) I appreciate all your help! jdxzhu (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Your signature works fine now, Jdxzhu. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen328 Let's discuss it for confirming it! :) jdxzhu (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see my page "Death Wish (2017 film)" which I created starring Bruce Willis

Hi all, the page "Death Wish (2017 film)" that I created which stars Bruce Willis is now move forwards, with the name of the producers the a few casts announced. Can I have the article back, please, I can't see the page. Also, the page "Flatliners (2018 film)" which I also created is in the limbo, that I can't see the page because I predicted the wrong year, when Sony announced that the film will be released in 2017, that's my mistake :(. I don't want to talk about this page but can I received my page "Death Wish (2017 film)" again ? Giangkiefer (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Giangkiefer. According to our notability guideline for films, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."
Do reliable sources report that principal photography is underway on these films? If not, you should wait until then to begin writing the articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Giangkiefer. It can be frustrating to lose track of articles you have worked on. In this instance, it appears your efforts were either deleted or merged with an existing article because they did not meet notability guidelines for films, as Cullen328 advises above. However, you can still see the latest version of Death Wish (2017 film) you edited in your contribution history, here. But there is currently also a redirect to Death Wish (film)#Remake, which has several paragraphs about the remake with much the same information as you wrote. It looks like your version may have been merged with the article on the original film. The Flatliners (2018 film) is also a redirect to Flatliners#Remake, and the latest version you edited is here.
Your choice is either to further develop the "Remake" sections of the existing articles, and/or to discuss on the articles' talk pages whether to split the information to new pages once the remakes have "commenced principal photography". Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with Draft: Pamela Schulz

I wrote an article about an Australian academic called Pamela Schulz. It was rejected twice, on the grounds that the language was too 'salesy' and notability had not been established. I removed the 'salesy' language and engaged one of the reviewers in discussion. During that discussion it became apparent that the reviewer did not know about the Australian Honours System and this lack of knowledge had led to the question mark over notability. Under Wikipedia's own guidelines, an academic is considered to be notable if they are awarded a major national Honour. In Australia, an OAM is such an Honour - it is awarded by the Queen, via the Governor General of Australia, after a rigorous process of nomination and review. I referred the reviewer to Wikipedia's own pages about the OAM and Australian Honours, and the reviewer said he/she would revisit... but nothing. That was several weeks ago now and the draft has still not been reviewed. Can anyone help? It seems strange that Pamela Schulz meets Wikipedia's own guideline regarding academics and notability (due to her OAM) and yet the draft is not progressing.ShazzaMD (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if we ping User:SwisterTwister they'll see this message and respond. Rojomoke (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, ShazzaMD. According to our notability guideline for academics, a person is presumed notable if they have received a "highly prestigious academic award". The Order of Australia is not an academic award. The order has five classes and the medal (OAM) that Schulz received is the lowest of those five classes. The higher classes have quotas, while the OAM does not. Accordingly, this neither a highly prestigious award nor an academic award by any stretch of the imagination. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. When I checked just now, the notability guidelines read 'highly prestigious academic award or national honour'. The OAM is a national honour. Whether it is highly prestigious or not is a matter of opinion. Many Australians would say that it is highly prestigious. Your comment 'by any stretch of the imagination' is your imagination, therefore, and you do not speak for others.ShazzaMD (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too hung up on using the OAM as a measure of notability, it's not going to fly. There are similar issues surrounding the lower levels of the Order of the British Empire and having an MBE, OBE or even CBE and using that as the main indicator of notability almost inevitably leads to failure. Concentrate on her academic works instead. Nthep (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not a Teahouse host but this may help. Are we all looking at the same guidelines page[1]? ShazzaMD quotes 'highly prestigious academic award or national honour' but I am seeing '2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.' which differs in meaning, not just in the spelling of honour. I think it would have said 'The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or an honor at a national or international level' if non-academic honours were intended to be included. SovalValtos (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Article ownership

I'm not naming names, however recently there's been an editor who has, out of the blue, began editing two pages which I too edit. I'm thrilled, I love it when new editors join to constructively build an article. However, this user appears to be quite obsessive in the article. They've rewritten every section - despite there being no real need to. The editor has also been rewriting/reverting virtually all edits made by other users since they started working on the article. One user in particular cleaned-up the article last night, to which the new editor rewrote the work of that user. This editor is also particularly obsessive over an episode summary they've written. If anyone tweaks or cleans-up the summary, they're edits are overwritten by the editor.

I've not come here as an annoyed editor, however I do believe that this user has come to the article and literally taken over, as if this article is officially their article. I've considered issuing a level one article ownership warning, but I wanted to come here first to ask what other editors think of the situation. Is it obsessive editing, or more "perfectionism"? I'm asking because I've never experienced a situation like this. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that one of the articles is Too Old for This Shift? It does look like they are trying to control the article and their edits are not really helpful, in particular the bloating of the plot summary. You might have to ask an admin to look into it. I did once have this happen to an article I wrote, where somebody basically made lots of minor edits with no reason to make them. They were a sockpuppet and were eventually blocked. I don't think this editor has gotten to that point, but they do need to understand that they're not helping. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You are right, White Arabian Filly, the other article being Casualty (series 31). Is there any chance you could look through the edit history of Casualty (series 31) and tell me what you think? Any other editors advice would also be much appreciated. I've even written a message on the user's talk page telling them it needs to be shortened. I had, in fact, written a plot prior to theirs, which was much shorter and outlined only the major details, which they also completely overwrote. I also noticed that they were warned about producing excessively detailed plot summaries in the past. I'm trying to get the article to GA-status and potentially FA. Like I say, I'm not annoyed, I just want guidance. I think I'm going to have to take your advice and maybe ask an admin to look into this. Thank you for your reply and advice. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like they're doing the same thing there. They just don't seem willing to listen or discuss, either, based on their lack of talkpage communication. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I'll leave this until tomorrow night to see if any other editors comment on this section, and if not, I'll speak to an admin – which leaves me with one more question: do I go to any admin? And how do I find an admin? Thank you again White Arabian Filly for your help, it is much appreciated. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably go to Wikipedia:ANI, and inquire on the talk page of one of the admins who hang out there. I don't think it's worth filing a complaint about the editor there yet, but you can get an opinion and maybe more eyes watching the articles. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh no it definitely isn't worth filing a complaint yet I agree, but I will definitely inquire on the talk page, and get another opinion. Thank you for your help. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft: CityU MFA

Hi all, I am referring to Draft: CityU MFA, the draft I added several days ago, based on the advice from multiple editors (Thank you so much!) Since I have not seen any responses, either approval or decline, or further advice, I am wondering how long the CityU MFA needs to wait till being live for public. Thanks. Knoxtennessee (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Knoxtennessee. You have not submitted Draft:CityU MFA for review. Please add {{subst:submit}} to it (with the double curly brackets) to do so. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
When you originally submitted the draft, the primary question was whether a stand-alone article was in order or whether the information could be added to City University of Hong Kong. That would still be the primary question that you should address when you resubmit the draft. Also, the discussion of the controversy about the program's cancellation will be reviewed very carefully with respect to neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, ColinFine! Will do. Hi Robert, I hear ya and yes, these are what were kept in my mind when writing, editing and multiple editing following each editor's advice. I appreciate all the reminders, suggestions and directions, and I hope the community recognize the value of the topic and support its existence, and perhaps share more advice on how to make it even better. Regards. Knoxtennessee (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Knoxtennessee, in my opinion, this is not a notable topic as Wikipedia defines notability. This MFA program should be given due weight at City University of Hong Kong, but I see no need for a separate article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

how can i create a specific page in that side.?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User was blocked for advertising.

i want to create a specific page in en.wikipedia.org side such as quickbooks supportSumit143143 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)my page name is related to quickbooks customer support phone numberSumit143143 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock of a blocked editor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anhinhhhd Meters (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Before it was deleted, the user's page was overt support phone spam. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why was my "The Art and Craft of Knitting" article rejected?

Hello. My name is Stacy Goodyear. Why was my article rejected? Please answer. I cited the one source I had for the article. The rest of the information was what I believed to be general knowledge. I cited a Wikipedia article under the heading of Culture. I don't remember the exact title or author of the page.

Stacy Goodyear (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your sandbox draft was only one sentence and doesn't really add any content to what we already have on Knitting. Please read some of our existing articles for a while to see what we consider to be an article, as opposed to a one-sentence comment on a subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This looks more like a nomination for the Wikipedia:Did you know feature on our home page than an actual encyclopedia article. Was that your intention, Stacy Goodyear? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry. It was not my intention to issue only one sentence. I was distracted from writing the rest of my article.
Stacy Goodyear (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Stacy Goodyear, you should only submit or resubmit your article for review when you think you're done writing it and you think it's ready. Also, you should probably read Your first article to write a better article than the one you currently have there. It would also need some reliable sources to back up what your article would say.
Also, as Cullen328 asked, was it your intention to write a Wikipedia:Did you know, or were you trying to write an article?
-- Gestrid (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Olympic medals

Dear Wikipedia,

In the article All-Time Olympic medal count Poland's medals are added up incorrectly. T totals should be 73 gold, 91 silver and 138 bronze. Thank you. Thanks.2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:77 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, IP user! It looks like you've already fixed it. Great job being BOLD! -- Gestrid (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

How Do I Delete A Footnote?

Hello, experienced editor, I have a question pertaining to the Wikipedia page about Euphrosyne. I have the same reference at the same spot twice. Do you know how to delete a reference? Please help!GrecoRomanNut (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GrecoRomanNut, and welcome to the Teahouse! Were you talking about the citation problem in the section "Greek mythology"? If so, I've gone ahead and fixed it for you. You can see what I did here. It appears you accidentally put in an extra "reference end" tag, if that makes sense. (For other editors, the specific page seems to be Euphrosyne (mythology).) -- Gestrid (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, GrecoRomanNut, I would suggest you take a look at our guide for Referencing for beginners. That should help you with any future referencing problems you may have. Judging by your contributions, you should probably read it. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I need help with editing and formatting

Hi- I am desperately trying to make edits to the following page, which has many innacuracies. I am an expert in this field but sadly not with Wikipedia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_soul

My edits keep being rejected due to formatting etc etc. To help me along, can you advise how I would insert a line such as this? At least it will get me started.

The Kings Hall, Stoke has operated as the best attended UK All Nighter since 1996.

Thank you Gaynorjones (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The important thing to remember is that we can't include anything based on your own knowledge of the subject, unless it is backed up by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Your user talk page has a number of useful links regarding sources, citation, & references. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair use and pictures extracted from scientific documents

I would like to scan a figure from a scientific paper (or a book) in order to illustrate an article. Is it legal to upload this figure into the English wikipedia where the copyright attribution will be performed? Thank you in advance. Malosse (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, Malosse. Unless the figure is explicitly released in the paper under a compatible licence such as CC-BY-SA (unlikely, but not impossible), the only way to upload it would be as a non-free image, in which case its use would have to satisfy all the criteria in WP:non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I think that I will get a picture from the French Wikipedia which will make things easier. Malosse (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Malosse, there are a number of scientific journals that do publish under the requisite licenses. PeerJ and Frontiers in Earth Science come to mind. If you find suitabble illustrations in articles published there, those would be fine to use. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Iphigenia Wang/sandbox - Splitting an article via a draft

I reviewed User:Iphigenia Wang/sandbox and declined it as being better to add to Decorative box rather than to spin off into a separate article on Snuff box. The author then inquired on my talk page:

with Wikipedia UK, and may I ask some confused questions in here? I am a bit confused why the Wikipedia UK doesn't allow an independent article of " snuff box" exist? In my sense it's a notable cultural stuff in European cultural art.Here are many different styles of snuff boxes in my placement museum, they include both aesthetic and practical value, and I also found an independent article “Snuff bottle” which refers Chinese snuff decorative box in Qing Dynasty. Qing Dynasty is a similar historic period with Victorian period,it seems both snuff bottle and snuff box could represent both different special cultural sense and similar cultural link together. Also in my placement museum, here are some touched snuff boxes'stories with soldiers.For example, here is an interesting Highlanders’ Regimental tradition adopted by General Wemyss about recruiting the new soldiers. The General with a “snuff mull” in his hand and followed by an attendant with a bottle of Whisky, went down the ranks, and to every young man that he wished to enlist he offered snuff. This signal was perfectly understood, and the young man would step out of the ranks and take the snuff and his dram while the clerk recorded his name.Another example is a rectangular tontine silver snuff box which has four hinged compartments for snuff. On the lid is an inscription explaining ownership, which was the last remaining Officer on the list who was serving with the Regiment.It's normally considered this box is belonged to four different regimental officers who purchased it together, and when an officer died in the battle, the others kept it until the last keeper. It stands for a precious friendship of these officers. So why do you highlight the art value of snuff bottle, but ignore the same value of snuff box? Thanks indeed for read my long questions, looking forward your reply, and have a nice day! Iphigenia

Maybe I wasn’t clear that I thought that a discussion of whether an article should be split off an existing article should be done on the talk page of the existing article, Talk: Decorative box, rather than just via submission via Articles for Creation. I don’t have a definite opinion on the content issue of one article or two, but I do have an opinion on the process question of where to discuss creating the new article within the context of an existing article. Do other experienced editors want to comment either on the process question or the content question? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised that Wikipedia does not already have an article titled "snuff box". I believe it should have such an article, and I would encourage Iphigenia Wang to go ahead and create one. Her sandbox is a good start, but needs some work – I am willing to help. I used to use a snuff box myself – they may be much less common than they were, but they are not that obscure.Maproom (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Iphigenia Wang, I agree with Maproom that a separate article on snuff boxes is appropriate. About two hundred years ago, collecting elegant snuff boxes was a hobby of many famous people, including Frederick the Great, Horace Walpole, George IV and Beau Brummell. Reliable sources are abundant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If two experienced editors think that a separate article is in order, I will concur with their judgment. In general, however, is there agreement that discussion on the parent article talk page is an appropriate way to address splitting an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, Robert McClenon, Decorative box is a lightly edited article with no previous talk page discussion. The most developed section of the article is the one on snuff boxes, to the point that an article intended as a broad overview of all types of decorative boxes is skewed. In my opinion, that article could easily be improved by expanding the other sections, and having a much shorter proportional section on snuff boxes, linking to a separate article on that notable topic. If the article had been heavily edited and was well developed, I would agree that talk page discussion would be best. That would also be appropriate if the topic was controversial. But in this case, I think that bold editing is the operative principle, to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sir/ Madam
Thanks indeed to consider my opinion. I am a Chinese MA Heritage student who currently do placement work in a Highlander Regimental Museum. And I found there are some interesting cultural stuff in the Museum may attract international visitors. After the discussion with the leader of the Museum, we decided to publish some cultural topic on Wikipedia. And he strongly supports me to use the resource of the Museum to edit these articles. This is the first time for me to edit English version Wikipedia article draft, also is the first time to participate the Wikipedia project. This article may still have many issues, such as grammar mistakes, copyright and others… I would like to hear any advice about improving the issues of this article, please feel free to guide me. And may I ask a question, I have read the rules about CC-BY-SA copyright, but still have no idea how to solve this issue with my article? I used all the reference of texts and images from the resource of The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Regimental Museum (Stirling Castle, Scotland), and have got the permission from the Museum’s CEO to publish recourse on Wikipedia Project. So may I know what shall I do next, what shall I offer to support the copyright? Also the CEO hopes if I could publish the article successful, I may continue to edit Chinese Version for same topic.
Many Thanks
Iphigenia Iphigenia Wang (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Video game notability standards?

I was wondering if Wikipedia has standards for notability, specifically on video games. I checked the categorical standards, and I couldn't find guidelines for video games. Do such standards exist, and if so, where can they be found? Thanks a lot! Joshualouie711 (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Joshualouie711, I couldn´t find any specifically for videogames (slightly surprising, that), but if you check WP:GNG with WP:VG/RS maybe you can get something out of it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Then again: Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

want to add a city article, that's name Nagarukhra.

Dear Friends, I am trying to add a article about my city, where I live in. The name of the city is Nagarukhra, but when I creating this page after few hour later it has been deleted by other users & does not show proper information about the city on Google as well as on Facebook. When I am going to add my hometown as Nagarukhra, it doesn't show any result, even in Wikipedia also. Again & again the article's name/title convert to Nagarukhra to Ukrah, but our city's name is Nagarukhra. So guys, please help me build a article about my city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo500 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

But it isn't called Nagarukhra - of the five references you have cited Census 2000 and Accuweather both call it Ukrah The tribune calls it Nagar Ukhra and the other two sources do not mention Nagarukhra, Ukhra or Ukrah at all. AFAIK Nagar is a Hindi word for city, which you are trying to add in front of the official Census name Ukrah. - Arjayay (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
and Wikipedia already has an article on Ukhra. Maproom (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maproom: They seem to be two different cities: Ukhra is in Bardhaman District while Nagarukhra in Nadia district (of the same state of West Bengal). --CiaPan (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ukhra is not the same as Ukrah - Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
To quote Census 2011 "Ukrah is a large village located in Haringhata of Nadia district". The population statistics of this village, are those used in the Nagarukhra article, which Neo500 describes as a city. As mentioned above, AFAIK Nagar is a Hindi word for city, and I wonder if the editor is trying to make his village appear more important, by tagging "city" on the front. If it has been renamed since the census. there must be reliable sources covering this, which need to be cited. - Arjayay (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Not going to support any option, just for information: The United Bank of India seems to maintain a Nagar Ukhra branch in Nadia district: [2]. And their address is 'PO-NAGARUKHRA, DIST-NADIA, WEST BENGAL, PIN - 741242'. Same name we have in Nagarukhra High School and Nagarukhra Kshetra-Mohan Girls' High School.
Other official and almost-official uses: Google nagarukhra site:gov.in --CiaPan (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have been given permission to use a photo by the image creator (volunteer) and the organization (non-profit) hosting the image. Do I need to submit a form for both parties? Thanks! Deedeefleur (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Deedeefleur. Unless you mean by "use" that the owner is willing to release the copyright of the image to the world, irrevocably, under a suitably-free copyright license, allowing anyone to take the image and use or modify it, even for commercial purposes (so long as they give appropriate credit to the author(s) and post the license when they use the image), the answer is, "neither". We cannot use images by permission while the owner(s) maintain non-free copyright. If the owners are willing to provide such a release, they would have to do so directly (not secondarily through you as intermediary). For some of the methods that can be used to verifiably provide such a release, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Deedeefleur (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_520&oldid=737488778"