Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 562

Archive 555

←

Archive 560

Archive 561

Archive 562

Archive 563

Archive 564

Archive 565

Adding image to member page

Hi, I want to add image to my page that I'm creating. Upload file was not able to take my image?

Do I need to make request to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeve Austin (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:autoconfirmed for details. Ruslik_Zero 20:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Steeve Austin. We don't really have "member pages" on Wikipedia. We do have user pages, which are pages that give information about ourselves as editors, but the page you are creating at User:Steeve Austin/sandbox seems to be an encyclopedia article about yourself. Is that correct? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is kind of information page that I'm creating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeve Austin (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are trying create an article about yourself, you need to read WP:Autobiography. Before you write an article on any subject, read WP:Your first article, and for information on how to cite references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

...whereas if you're just trying to write a page about yourself as an editor, see Wikipedia:User pages, Steeve Austin. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

yes, but i have the authorized image and i just need to add it to my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeve Austin (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Steeve, if you made the image yourself, please go to Commons:Special:UploadWizard. That should work for anyone to upload an image. For more info, please read Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. If you did not make the image yourself, please send an email containing written permission to use the image to OTRS, otherwise the image may be deleted due to lack of permission. All the best, Taketa (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Steeve Austin, you have now created User:Steeve Austin/sandbox, Steeve Austin and User:Steeve Austin, all in the form of articles. The one on your user page is in violation of Wikipedia's policies on what a user page should contain - see Wikipedia:User pages#User pages that look like articles. Can I suggest that you blank that page? If not, it will have to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

How can you help improving the article for the mentioned Title?

How can you help improving the article for the mentioned Title? Chet Kamal Parkash 18:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetkp (talk • contribs)

Hey Chetkp. Unfortunately, it's not entirely clear what article you're talking about, or what specific question you would like an answer to. I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific for us to be able to help. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chetkp: When someone writes "the mentioned title" (or the mentioned whatever), they're talking about something that's been mentioned shortly before, in the same text. Saying "the mentioned title" without mentioning it is like putting a footnote flag* that doesn't have a footnote. It's totally useless. --Thnidu (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The title is Draft:Chet_Kamal_Parkash, so the "mentioned" title was in fact 'Chet Kamal Parkash' albeit it confusingly looked like a manually-added-signature, instead of an article-title. In this case it was both the signature AND the article-title simultaneously, I suspect, given the username. Couple hits on news.google.com,[1] but sounds like WP:TOOSOON, unless there are sufficiently-reliable non-English-language sources which pass WP:GOLDENRULE. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The draft is new today. Presumably the OP was referring to the article Chet Kamal Parkash, deleted 3 times (including twice yesterday); a version was also deleted from User:Chet Kamal Parkash as no such user exists. The OP has been warned, on his user talk page, about the perils of attempting autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Images

When I tried to put images on a page, it told me I couldn't without permission. What do I have to do to be allowed to put images on a page?2602:30A:2C05:1EE0:1988:DB52:CC9:9DA2 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, can you explain what "it" means? Who or what told you? --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Our records show that this is the only edit you have made (as an IP). Perhaps you have an account and tried something while logged in. If so, please share your username and we can check to see what the problem might be.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

How to provide correct copyright information?

I want to upload a photograph to the Commons from a 1928 press cutting (obituary notice) from a UK local newspaper via the Upload Wizard.

Apparently, I need to provide the correct US and UK copyright tags. I think the UK one is {{PD-UK-unknown}} but I can't seem to find the apprpriate US one.

Can anybody help.

David H David hewick (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@David hewick: I assume this is a photo of the deceased that was included in the obituary not a scan of the obituary text we are discussing? If it's the photo then yes PD-UK-unknown is correct for the UK part (I've taken the liberty of amending your edit to link to the template rather than display it) but the bad news is that the image is unlikely to be in the public domain (PD) in the US. There is an extremely useful guide on the relevant provisions at c:Commons:Hirtle chart and a look at the section on works published abroad shows that something only published outside the US in 1928 is not PD in the US until 95 years after publication because it wasn't PD in the UK on 1 January 1996. As something published in 1928 it didn't become PD in the UK until 1 January 1998 so misses the cut off point. So the best you can do is to upload the image to Wikipedia, not Commons using PD-UK-unknown and adding a non-free use rationale to cover the US part. The good news is that it will be PD in the US as of 1 January 2024. Nthep (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep Yes it is just the photograph that I want to put in an infobox of an artist's biography that is currently in draft form in a sandbox (approved for submission for review). I would be very grateful if you could indicate to me how to do this via Wikepedia (not Commons). The Fair Use rationale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content. Para 3.1.3 No10) seems to be applicable.

David HDavid hewick (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

replied at your talk page. Nthep (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

When should I issue a warning to vandals and when threaten them with blocking?

I am a WP:RCP vandal cop, and was wondering, when is the right time to issue a threat-of-blocking-if-you-don't-cease-and-desist-right-now-yon-monster instead of a regular Template:uw-vandalism1. Because I have no power of blocking, I have refrained so from issuing any, and instead hand out Template:uw-vandalism1, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s before trotting over to WP:AIV and putting a complaint there. L3X1 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no rule that vandalism warnings, or other warnings, really need to escalate through 1, 2, 3, and 4. I personally think that escalating through 1, 2, 3, and 4 for vandalism is too easy. I start at 2 for unambiguous vandalism. (Other questionable edits are a different matter.) It really is a matter of judgment. Vandalism-only accounts should be blocked as soon as it is clear that they are vandalism-only. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. L3X1 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have the power to block, you shouldn't be using {{uw-vandalism5}} (which I hadn't realised existed). --David Biddulph (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

can somebody point to a policy-page on 'not-looking-their-best' imagefiles as used in BLP articles?

There have been several complaints on the talkpage by other people, which were never answered. Plenty of better-looking imagefiles exist, but none that are libre-licensed, after fairly exhaustive searching online. I tried to upload a better less-biased-appearing photo using NFCC exception rationale, but the copyright experts say that sort of thing is never allowed -- so I suggested removing the not-looking-their-best imagefile from the BLP entirely, and waiting for somebody to upload a more-neutral-looking and libre-licensed option at some future date, but this request was also denied. Is this being handled per policy, and if so, please link me to such policy? If this is a grey area, where is the best place to bring my worries to more eyeballs, at NPOVN or at BLPN or perhaps some other place? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP. One option you may not have considered is emailing someone...almost certainly not the individual but someone in his employ, and requesting they release a picture for use on Wikipedia. The instructions they need to follow can be found at WP:CONSENT. A lot of people are...fairly vain...about having their own Wikipedia article, and may very much prefer having a decent looking image attached.

I've never done this with a political person, but I have with things like historical societies and they have always been pretty good about getting back to me. Since this requested image would be pretty self-serving for the person involved, I imagine they may have some incentive to oblige. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That tactic was attempted successfully by another person, for a different BLP article, Sid Miller (politician), see talkpage of the person who uploaded the imagefile. But in that case, Miller was already an elected official, with a public campaign&office website, and a public staffer-email(s), who turned out to be responsive. The page I'm working on is here, Talk:Steve_Bannon#picture.2C_request_number_three, sorry I failed to link to it above, and as far as I can tell the person in question 1) has no public email 2) is a privacy-conscious multimillionaire 3) has former staff at breitbart.com but has resigned from there 4) has future staff at whitehouse.gov but has not yet officially taken on that role. So I don't know whether email will be much use, in this particular case; any contact-attempt might be lost in the chaff. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You could try tweeting @StephenBannon. Couldn't hurt. But as far as a policy, I'm afraid it boils down to who wins the argument of "some picture is better than none" vs "a bad picture is worse than no picture". Or you could try to find an email for the transition team. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess, since 'consensus' says two to one that it is inconceivable for a picture to be POV, that is what is required. As I mentioned, though, I expect the practical difficulties will be pretty insurmountable -- I cannot imagine trying to explain the byzantine NFCC policy and CCBYSA4 licensing via tweets, but more to the point, I cannot imagine that Bannon will even notice such a thing, as I expect he gets more than his share of tweets-from-strangers nowadays. There is a generic transition-team email, media-at-ptt-dot-gov, but again, I can hardly imagine that one email will be anything more than a needle in a haystack. I expect the 'solution' is to just wait until a few weeks or months from now, by which time most likely a libre-pic from the inauguration or from some photo-op will get uploaded. But I don't like that, it's bad. Not your fault of course, or anybody's fault really, and I do thank you for the good-faith advice 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. And I wouldn't overestimate the number of unpaid interns it takes to sort a haystack. Incidentally, a two person consensus is hardly, and you could always open an RfC on the issue. There was a similar lengthy debate regarding Trump's picture, in case you weren't involved in that. But at any rate, an RfC can run for a month or more. So, by that time, you'll probably have a solid email address to use for the new administration. WP:TIND anyway. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I had a very similar take on the former picture of Caitlyn Jenner, which was so unflattering, I removed it citing WP:BLP, expecting to be reverted (and I was, quickly), and then I discussed it at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 8#The current photograph should be removed. I didn't follow-up there as I should have, but in any event, I thought it might add a bit here by analogy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Once Trump is sworn into office on January 20, then White House photographers will begin taking thousands of photos, which presumably will include portraits of his senior White House staff and advisors. That has been past practice, at least. These photos will be in the public domain, so it is very likely that this issue will be resolved in a few weeks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"Standard YouTube License" vs "FREE government content" as the main event in Frisbeeland

Folks, my head is spinning. I know how important images are and I want to make many, but I find situations that appear contradictory to me. A seminar presented by an NIH employee and posted on the NIHvcast player/website is, to my understanding, free. I should be able to capture a screen shot from that, modify it, and upload it to en wp as long as I cite the source. Correct? (Please don't ask me if the artist who actually made the slide shown during the presentaton is an NIH employee. I've got to believe (s)he is. I'd bet my life's fortune on it.) However, the folks at NIH have been kind enough to ALSO post the same video on YouTube under the Standard YouTube License". My first inclination was to ask which license is the one wp wants to follow? Now, however, I wonder if I should try to get somebody to prosecute the person(s) responsible for placing use restrictions on US goverment work... Comments? Also, since this gets way more than complicated enough to deal with in the US (yes, I am an American citizen), is there some reason I should upload the image to the Commons and risk the possibility of involving laws in Frisbeeland or the right of the US government to enforce copyright in Frisbeeland? What is the point of uploading to the commons instead of en wiki? sigh. If I could have a second mulligan on my user name selection I'd change it to "somuchtodosolittletime". Thanks again for your time. DennisPietras (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DennisPietras. Works of employees of the U. S. federal government are free of copyright and in the public domain, both within the United States and in Frisbeeland. And in every other country, the high seas, the Moon, Mars, Venus and so on. The best reason why you should upload such images to Wikimedia Commons is that the image will be available for anyone else to use on other language Wikipedias, and for other purposes anywhere. Inadvertent language restricting use of indisputable public domain material is invalid, unenforceable and can be ignored. Wikimedia projects are governed by U.S. law. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, Cullen328 is right. The lawyer side of things is different. That these works are maybe copyrighted in Frisbeeland (see Copyright status of work by the U.S. government and Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works). It's one of the few aspects where the Wikimedia communities have decided to ignore some obscure legalities that have never been tested in court (the other one that comes to my mind is to ignore copyright attained by sweat of the brow in some countries, see c:COM:ART#Why do we allow the PD-Art tag to be used for photographs from any country?) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:@Cullen328:Wp is ignoring some obscure legalities???? Now I'm worried that the sun won't rise tomorrow! 8-) In response to a posting on the commons, I did some digging, and will also ping you on that page. For now, I went to the NIH videocast faq page at https://videocast.nih.gov/faq/ One of the faq's on that page is "Can I add, share or embed a VideoCast past event to my web site, blog or profile?" Clicking that links to https://videocast.nih.gov/faq/#embed, which answers the question thusly "Yes. In the video player menu at top left, select share video to send email or copy syntax to your site, blog or profile". Since they don't say that your website has to be non-commercial, I think I've got permission to do even more than I dared in the past. Specifically: some of the NIHvcasts are of invited speakers to the NIH who work at universities that are not affiliated with the NIH. I was going to stay away from them, but based on the faq, it seems that those presentations by outside speakers also meet the wp requirement for free content. Comments? DennisPietras (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, DennisPietras, I think the NIH videos are fine. You asked can you assume that the graphics are drawn by NIH employees. There are always things you need to assume since few works come up with an utter and complete record of when, how and where were they made and by whom (see c:Commons:Copyright rules#Dealing with uncertainty). I'd say assuming that the digram was drawn by NIH is fair. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

New article

I have drafted a biography of an artist in a sandbox. I want to add some pictures (but don't know how) and improve the layout. I would like help from an experienced editor. How to I submit the draft?

David HDavid hewick (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David hewick. Let's focus on getting User:David hewick/sandbox up to scratch formatting-wise before we think about submission for review. You have manually included a table of contents in the draft, but that's not necessary. If you use headings properly (e.g. use == This level of heading == for the main sections), then Wikipedia's software will automatically generate the table of contents. As for the image, you would need to upload this to Wikimedia Commons, as explained at Commons:First steps/Uploading files, and then add this to the draft article as described at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Adding the first picture. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Larry for the prompt response. I've quickly corrected the Table of Contents issue. I started the procedure for uploading pictures via Wikemedia Commons. I wanted to insert a photo of the artist from a 1928 press cutting, into the infobox. However, when I attempted to download the photo from my PC, I got the following message.

Could not store upload in the stash (UploadStashFileException): "Error storing file in '/tmp/QWvysa': Could not connect to storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".".

A problem at an early stage! Any ideas? Also, do I need permission to reproduce this? I can contact the successor publisher if necessary.

David HDavid hewick (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is that error message appearing, David hewick? You say downloading the photo from your PC - do you mean downloading to your PC from the web, or uploading from your PC to the Commons?. On the copyright question, others here know more about the rules than I do. Commons:Copyright rules outlines the basics, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Larry, I meant uploading the photo from my PC to the Commons.

David HDavid hewick (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up questions answered at User talk:Cordless Larry#New article on artist and #How to provide correct copyright information?. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

regarding source references

Hi - I have entered my first article and am advised it may be deleted becasue i haven't quoted sources - I am very knew to wikipedia as a contributor -

I have embarded on a new part of my career and want to create a page for it - everything i am saying is fact but it's how do i say what my sources are - for example I am in duncan jones film and he has talked about me in that film s0 do i put duncan jones as a source for that ?( LalaLamborn (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LalaLamborn. If I understand correctly, you're writing an article about yourself? I'm afraid this isn't a very good idea and is strongly discouraged under our conflict of interest policy. Wikipedia articles must be based on existing, published information in reliable sources (not personal experience); if these exist, a volunteer will write an article about you eventually. I suggest you be patient and in the meantime stop editing the article yourself. – Joe (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing red-- not angry but my edit looks wrong

The entry for Jiggs Whigham, RIAS Big Band leader:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiggs_Whigham

Did not have several cds in the discography. I tried to duplicate what I saw in the entry to add the items. The text appeared in red.

Admins, editors please correct my error. I am inexperienced in the style of wikipedia hypertext and code.Loninappleton (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Loninappleton. Red links appear whenever you use an "internal link" like this: [[Article name here]], so that you get Article name here, which indicates that there is currently no article with the title "Article name here". Sometimes this can be from a typo, or a difference in spelling or capitalization, and others it can be because no one has written an article on that topic yet. It isn't always a bad thing, and can indicate to other editors that this is a topic that may deserve its own article one day. TimothyJosephWood 18:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Loninappleton, and welcome to the Teahouse. When a link to an article appears red, it means that there is no article with that title. This is sometimes indicative of an error, but not always. If you've typed the name of the album correctly, and believe that someday there might be a Wikipedia article on the album, then the red link is okay. Indeed, having a red link there is beneficial as it reminds us that we are missing an article on an encyclopedic topic and it encourages content creation; anyone can click on the red link to start a new article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Loninappleton. I was able to partially rescure one of those red links. As described above, there is no article "RIAS Big Band" (which is why it is red), but "RIAS" here refers to "Rundfunk im amerikanischen Sektor", which does have an article which mentions their Big Band. So I have Wikilinked that article to the "RIAS" part of the name in your article. I'm not sure I explained that well; see the article to hopefully understand what I did. Or of course you can always ask back here. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

One more comment Loninappleton - links are very sensitive to spelling. (And to capitalization, punctuation, etc.) So it would help to double-check things like whether the name should be "Allen Farnham" or "Allan Farnham". You have swapped between these two variations. At the moment, neither one has an article - but if one is created, you want it to be found by having the name spelled the same.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm the original poster (OP) and reading the responses here. I have a long way to go to get my use of Wikipedia right. Today I am going to change the spelling (I missed an instance of it after I rechecked) which I missed.

Also I'm reading some of the how to edit material to get this red thing fixed. Is there a template for doing music cds or albums? With the disks in hand I could make an entry for that. Since there is an English/German problem in the case of the German Folk Songs ...Our Way entry, perhaps the cd whose liner notes are in German has a German title somewhere else(?)

Plus I just thought of another question: There is an audio program which has a button to a database which can look up the cd (if it was entered) and supply the times and tracks accurately. I was able to do this with the German Folk songs disk (2000). How could Wikipedia handle that? If it's pertinent I can look up the database info.

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation, additions and insight.Loninappleton (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Loninappleton (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

one addition

From my software program mentioned above I found that there is already a wiki entry for the cd database. For any interested it is called the CDDB and has a wiki entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB

CDDB is a very mature site since I've used it with the Audiograbber program which is authored by Jackie Franck. It is 'proprietary freeware' starting many years ago. Audiograbber has been around for a long time as well but it still works in Windows up through Win7. Audiograbber has an entry here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiograbber

Without going back through the Audiograbber info in detail I see that Freedb is also mentioned. Those knowledgeable about the music world would know more.Loninappleton (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that you don't necessarily have to "fix" the red links, Loninappleton. You can either leave them in the article to encourage others to create the articles the links point at, or remove the links if you think it is unlikely that the articles will be created or that they are not needed. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

:Thanks Cordless Larry.  I will leave as-is after I corrected the proper name Allen Farnham.  If there is interest someone could advise on how to make a separate entry for the cds with  track list.  Loninappleton (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding photos and launching a draft article

Hi Teahouse,

As a novice Wikipedia writer I have drafted an article on my city's art museum, "Draft:New England Regional Art Museum". I've had assistance over several months from editors and my Talk tab and I believe the article is ready to launch.

As an art museum, a small number of photos of the building and artworks (about 6 images in all) are important. I have written formal copyright permission from photographers of the building, and from the museum itself to use selected images from their site of artworks by artists long deceased and out of copyright. Can a helpful editor assist me to add these images (with titles) to the text article please. I can provide copies of the written permissions if they need to be put on the record.

Secondly, when that is done, can an editor launch the article to Wikipedia please? Dirrigeree Dirrigeree (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dirrigeree. In my opinion, your draft article is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. Several of your references are bare URLs which should be formatted with complete bibliographic detail. See Referencing for beginners for more information. Your "Further reading" section is excessive and should be trimmed back to a few really useful resources, Similarly, your "External links" section is excessive. Normally, an article about an organization such as a museum should contain only a single external link, to the group's own website, and not to a bunch of sub pages. Again, this link should be formatted properly, as opposed to a bare URL. There should be at least one reference for every paragraph of content, and you have one section, "Museum of Printing", with no references at all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As for the written permissions for use of photographs, do these people know that any image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons can be re-used by anyone for any purpose what so ever, including commercial purposes? Have they released their work under a specific Creative Commons license? If so, which license?. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

pagination of PDF in reference

I've encountered this issue before, but never in so serious a form. As I'm sure you know, a PDF created from a book will generally have somewhat different page numbers than its original. For instance, you may see

PDF page 1: the front cover

2: the inside front cover

3–4: a blank flyleaf (both sides)

5–6: title page and back title page

7: dedication

8: blank back of dedication page

9–12: table of contents

13–18: Preface (printed page numbers i-vi)

19: finally, page 1

The particular reference I'm trying to create, in Q code § All Services (QRA–QUZ), is a monstrosity: ITU Radio Regulations 1990, Appendix 13: Miscellaneous Abbreviations and Signals to Be Used in Radiotelegraphy Communications Except in the Maritime Mobile Service. It's on the Web in an 874-page PDF "scanned by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Library & Archives Service from an original paper document in the ITU Library & Archives collections". And most bizarrely, it's on pages 519–543 in print, and 543–565 in the PDF. How can I make it clear which I mean?

I've been looking through the help docs. Template:Cite web doesn't say anything about this; neither does Help:References and page numbers. All I can think of to do is to give one set of page numbers, say, the print ones, in the citation template and add the PDF page numbers at the end of the reference, like this. Is there a better solution?

References

--Thnidu (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thnidu. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I don't know of a policy or guideline on the subject, but if the pages in a PDF have printed page numbers, I always use those. PDF readers simply count the number of page breaks to assign page numbers. Books frequently have differently numbered pages for the introduction and table of contents and of course in a bound book, the cover and the flyleaves are not counted. So in a book with the introduction numbered in Roman numerals, you'd still use the number at the bottom of the page in a cite, right? Why not with a PDF? John from Idegon (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: The aim is to support the reader in finding the information, and I agree with John from Idegon that the page number as shown on the page is probably the most reliable. For example, the organization might re-scan the document with different front matter, so the physical page numbers might change but the printed numbers would stay the same. However, there is a technical ability to link to a specifc PDF page in the URL which might also be helpful - see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Linking to PDF files for details on how to do that. Using that technique, instead of "(PDF pp. 543–568)", you would use "url=http://www.itu.int/en/history/HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/regulations/1.9.48.en.100.pdf#page=543". --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thnidu, another option you may with to consider is to use Template:Rp, something like this. This allows you to specify the individual page-numbers when you attach to a specific sentence, AND keeps the Template:cite_book contents page-number-free (so there is no need to disambiguate therein).

References

It makes the visual appearance of the footnotes somewhat bulky, however, which might be a problem depending on how aesthetic you need them to look. You might be able to combine the advice given by Gronk_Oz with my own, and do something like this. And also like this.

References

Which is less bulky, but does involved having ELs in the body, which some wikipedians frown upon. Neat trick though. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Call me a citation geek. I just love these types of discussions. For my part I think your original citation, Thnidu, was quite good enough for transparent information and accessibility and very much went the right way with listing the page numbers of the paper source. Using the refined URL Gronk Oz advised makes it near perfect. IMO the page numbers you used are correct, though providing the pdf numbers in parentheses is good, but the opposite would be an error. While I don't want to minimize the importance of providing convenience links to online versions of sources, when an original reference is paper, something physical on the shelf of a library, that is The Source, and the link to the online version is "only" a convenience link, so listing the true source's details should always be placed at the fore, and matters regarding the place a scan can be accessed online should always take a secondary position. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit (talk)16:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon, Gronk Oz, 47.222.203.135, and Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you all, comrades, for your advice. While I like Gronk Oz's suggestion, I take to heart their caveat that "the organization might re-scan the document with different front matter, so the physical page numbers might change", and so I think I will leave the citation the way it is now, and continue that practice in the future, unless someone develops a template that will do it all within the template. --Thnidu (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My artical " Azeem Masjid " is not accepted yet plz help me

My artical is in my draft plz help me to publish it.Gurchani 03:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurchani (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reasons that Draft:Azeem Masjid has been declined (3 times there and twice previously at User:Gurchani/Azeem Masjid) are explained in the feedback boxes at the top of the drafts, and in the accompanying comments. The words in blue are wikilinks to further advice, so please read them. You have similarly been given the feedback at your user talk page. Please do not resubmit without having addressed the problems identified in the previous reviews; continuing to do so might be regarded as tendentious editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as reliable sources are concerned, Google results are not encouraging, so unless the subject has received significant coverage in books or newspapers it appears that the subject may not be notable in Wikipedia's terms. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Contribution Page Letters

On a article history or contribution page, there is a letter to the left of the article/page's name. Can someone please tell me what each letter means. Thanks much. Skipper1931 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Skipper1931: There's several you're probably seeing; m, b, N and D. m signifies that the editor has marked that edit as a minor edit, b indicates an edit made by a bot , N indicates that the edit created a new page and D indicates that an edit has been made to the Wikidata entry relating to the article. Nthep (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Explained at Help:Page history and Help:User contributions. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What about "r"? Skipper1931 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are seeing r then you have the m:ORES review tool enabled and the r indicates that the tool is suggesting that the labelled edit needs reviewing for some reason. Nthep (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Skipper1931 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC) @Nthep:

Apparently m:ORES review tool does not exist. Presumably mw:ORES review tool? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

yes, my typo. Nthep (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been using ORES review tool for about 6 weeks and I love it! John from Idegon (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a navbox

Hi there! I am wondering if a template is available to request that a category has a navbox built for the pages in it. (The category that needs one is Category:Home appliance brands). Thank you for your assistance!

Daylen (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Daylen. I started the navbox at Template:Home appliance brands. I started adding articles from the category, and got up to C, but at least one (Bedazzler) didn't look like it really belonged, and I didn't recognize a lot of others, so I thought maybe it would be best to let you add items to the list, since you seem to edit in this area, and might know better.

To add items just click edit on the template and continue adding internal links to the vertical bulleted list. Make sure everything you add is above the }}<noinclude> at the bottom, or it will mess it up. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any problems. TimothyJosephWood 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Timothyjosephwood: I will finish the navbox when next week. Where is a place I could request a navbox request template (similar to Template:Infobox requested)?

Daylen (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Daylen: See Wikipedia:Village pump. TimothyJosephWood 05:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ready to publish an article

hello, i was creating an article a month ago and only started and went to save the article but apparently hit "publish" and so it was declined for lack of info and support as i understand it. i'm a new editor and i am getting better but quite a bit confuses me. i have worked very hard and have a page i believe is ready to publish. it is showing as a draft for now. so how do i submit it for review for publication now? thank you, A Deville ADeville (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello ADeville and welcome to the Teahouse.

To submit your article again, follow the instructions at Articles for creation. Specifically, the line that says

To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page.

When you save the page, it will be placed on the review queue again. You can continue to work on improving the article while it is waiting. There are currently some citation errors showing in the edit view of Draft:James Bolton (film director) that need to be fixed. If you have more questions, the Teahouse is here to help.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason that you couldn't see how to resubmit the draft was that in this edit you deleted the previous review comments and feedback, and it was the latter that included the "resubmit" button. I have added these back again (so you've now got a resubmit button to use when you are ready, eliminating the need to add {{subst:submit}} ), as the routine is to leave previous feedback & comments to help both you and subsequent reviewers. If and when a later reviewer agrees to publish your draft to article space he will tidy things up, including deleting the old feedback & comments. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and Hello David Biddulph. Will I need to place the code at the beginning of any article I edit, even if it's not one created by me? if I simply make a minor edit or two? and then it is resubmitted? thank you.ADeville (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

For an edit to an existing "article", all you need to do (after using "Show preview" to check that the effects of your edit are as you intended) is to hit "Save changes". As far as a "draft" is concerned, edits can be saved (using "Save changes") until the new version is ready for review again, at which case you can use the "Resubmit" button to submit it for review. You would only need to use the {{subst:submit}} code if you didn't have a "Resubmit" button. You should not resubmit if you have made only minor edits without addressing the problems which caused the submission to be declined at the previous review; repeated submission without addressing the problems can in extreme cases be regarded as tendentious editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David Biddulph. Your kind assistance is very much appreciated. I actually resubmitted my article and it was rejected saying that basically my citations were not notable enough or the person wasn't notable enough. I have long wanted to post some things to wikipedia and decided to start with the page for the film director whose work I've seen and admire and noticed there was not a page when i wanted to find more information for them so i sought it out to create it. i understand about bias and such but i think everyone edits things they like or have some interest in. i don't know the person. i know the work and noticed lesser known directors and artists with lesser pages and citations i created. in short, i am really proud of my work and feel i'm adding value to the community and to wikipedia. Ive listed citations from variety and new york times, for example, the most respected news paper in the world. So if they are writing about the films of Bolton i really have to respectfully disagree with the person who declined publication of the article. in fact i can point to other articles that are much shorter with lesser citations that are out there and really worked hard to make my first article appropriate. i don't want to keep submitting and almost feel like giving up on wikipedia as i had several other articles and subjects I wanted to do which i think add real value to wikipedia. but rather than give up, or just resubmit the article again and risk being seen as a problem rather than a credible member of the community. can i ask your advice on if there is any system in place when you happen to disagree with the member who declines and on the grounds they list? in fact i have shown the article just yesterday to a member of the community who is no longer active who happened to visit my home yesterday and they though it looked totally appropriate for publication. so i'm really thrown. what do you suggest as my next step? new york times, variety, imdb, the man is a well respected film director who worked with rooney mara from the girl with the dragon tattoo and rickie lee jones a rock and roll icon and it seems the community member is suggesting the person isn't notable enough and that my sources are not appropriate. they are not interviews, they are not press releases, i really don't get it. i would like to put up pages for another film director who has is also absolutely notable, well knowns and respected, as well as an artist who is being called the modern monet by the NY Times, but if the NY Times review of their work and that paper isn't an appropriate or notable enough citation, i feel like giving up. again if you like i can point to other pages with less reputable sources and that are not in alignment with the type of content that should be published. can you assist me in any way? i just respectfully disagree with the editor who deemed the page not ready or appropriate for the reasons they suggest. thank you. ADeville (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ADeville. Note that the review states that "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability", which is not the same as saying that the subject is not notable. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that the subject is notable in the sense that that term is used here - it's just a case of demonstrating that. To demonstrate notability, we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The NYT is certainly a good source, but I think the issue might be that none of the sources go into much depth about Bolton (as opposed to his films). That's why SwisterTwister comments "Still needs all additional major independent news about him; focus with genuine news, and no press releases, trivial passing mentions, interviews or similar". Have there been any profile articles about him in major newspapers? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, it's worth mentioning that arguing that "other stuff exists" isn't really a good argument on Wikipedia. Lots of articles were created before the draft review system was set up, and lots of them are very poor. Eventually, the community will hopefully get around to improving or deleting them, but in the meantime let's focus on ensuring new articles are written to a better standard. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Cordless Larry and for clarifying things. what an interesting predicament. I do know there were feature stories in several magazines, including Filmmaker Magazine, HoBo Magazine and others, even Out magazine, where he was voted one of the 100 most influential people in media and art with people like Marc Jacobs and others, but I cannot find them on the web. These were actual print magazines, and it brings up an interesting situation when back issues of respected periodicals are not archived. I actually found one of these periodical articles at my local library when I was looking to rent one of Bolton's movies, and actually learned about the guy and his work from Vice Magazine (when they were a print magazine) and HoBo, a New York arts magazine when I was a young hipster. I found a few interviews with Bolton, but chose not to include anything from them because I felt the New York Times was a better source. I still feel the movies are well known, the filmmaker is known, and warrants a page, but maybe can't adhere exactly to the new draft review system which probably should have a little flexibility to be as efficient as it should be, but I am sure I won't change anything. Maybe I just cannot locate the exact type of coverage necessary but someone else could, but since they cannot access the article or it's not out there, no one will try. Truly, I'm a bit discouraged, and not sure how to proceed. I'd planned next to tackle a page for a notable painter, and possibly also a writer I see does not have a page, but I'm finding myself at a bit of a crossroads.ADeville (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ADeville: citations do not necessarily have to be web accessible to be used in articles. If you can give the proper citation to a paper magazine that, in principle, another editor could go look up in a library, then you have a valid reference for WP purposes.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Detroit Lions, Michael Stafford

SOMEONE HAS FALSIFIED THE STATS ON MICHAEL STAFFORD.

Matthew Stafford leading the Detroit Lions to an obliteration of the Seattle Seahawks on January 7th, 2017 in the NFC wildcard game before continuing on to win Super Bowl LI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.40.110 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2017‎ (UTC)

Hello. This page is for questions about Wikipedia works. You should raise this on the talk page of Michael Stafford so editors of that article can address it. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Or even Matthew Stafford. To the original poster if you see vandalism like this, you can edit the article to remove the incorrect information yourself and if you think it is persistent and the person responsible is going to carry on in that way you can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Nthep (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

creating articles

i was wondering if there was a way to create articles like the way you can edit them. there is on option when you edit to make it kind of like a picture veiw. the way you read in. Can you do that for creating them?thanksRbh794 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rbh794. Yes, you can create an article the same way you edit them, simply by visiting a page that does not yet exist. (For example, if you click this red link: Rbh794, you can create a user page for yourself). However, the recommended way to create new articles, at least for your first few, is using the article wizard. – Joe (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Rbh794. I think the "picture view" you are speaking of, is what we call the VisualEditor ("VE"); Wikipedia's attempt at providing a WYSIWYG ("What You See Is What You Get") editing interface. It is still under development. If you enable the VisualEditor as your default at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, then when you click on a red link, or otherwise seek to create a page in the article mainspace (VE is disabled in most other namespaces), the very first edit will start in the VisualEditor. I hope I understood what you meant. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was't sure of the name. This is very helpful. Rbh794 (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

duplicate references in an article

Folks, I've found 2 references to the same primary source in 2 different sections of the same wp article. Those references were numbered automatically. How does one go about "merging" those 2, so that the reference only appears once? I don't know if I've made myself clear. The same primary source is listed as references 26 AND 47. How can the article be changed so that there is only 1 reference, say 26, while changing the superscripted 47 to 26 in the text? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DennisPietras. The technique is called "named references". Simply put, you give a reference a name, and when you want to use the same reference multiple times, you invoke the name. Please see Help:Footnotes, specifically the section called "Footnotes: using a source more than once". Be careful of the syntax, as it needs to be precise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A regular citation would be something like this; <ref>{{cite book|author=|title=|url=|date=|publisher=|isbn=}}</ref> but by naming the citation itself, it can be used mulitple times in an article and only takes one line, alphabetized in the reference section. That looks something like this; <ref name="">{{cite book|author=|title=|url=|date=|publisher=|isbn=}}</ref>.

That only works for the same pages listed in that citation. If you wish to cite the same author and publication with multiple pages that might mean a reformatting of references to be inline with Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing where the author date and page number is listed and linked to the full reference in the bibliography section.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: sometimes I find it helps to look at a real example. If that also works for you, then you might look at the article Butterfly. Reference number 1 is used 5 times throughout the article (a through e). The first time it is defined, it is given a name "<ref name=BugsBritannica>{{cite...". Each subsequent time the same reference is used, it is done with just the short "<ref name=BugsBritannica/>". Note especially that the subsequent uses have a "/" at the end - missing that causes more questions than I can count. Anyway, feel free to open the Edit window for that article if you want to see a real, live example. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all, but especially @Gronk Oz: for leading me to the butterfly article. I actually was involved in research with butterflies, and happen to know that butterflies have photorecptors on their genitalia, believe it or not, and will add that to the butterflies page! see https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/51/3/219/256195/Hindsight-of-ButterfliesThe-Papilio-butterfly-has DennisPietras (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there rules and controls against misleading linking?

Are there? I have seen several user talk pages where one of the welcomes, feature linkage to inappropriate pages instead of what it state.IlyaSedion (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi IlyaSedion. Of course it depends on what one considers inappropriate, and the specifics of the situation. It is almost always better if you tell us those specifics in posts here, because advice then be tailored and without the specifics, it often requires us to be hypothetical in our answers, and cover much more for a complete answer, if possible. Anyway, we are not a bureaucracy governed by statutes. If those specifics are not in a gray area, then you might discuss with the user, warn them (there may be no template that is tailored here and so you might write your own), post to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism after a final warning; post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if appropriate (making absolutely certain to provide diffs and notify the user when you post there); look to WP:SMI by analogy (or it could even be direct depending on the specifics of what prompted your post, and so forth. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IlyaSedion, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you have encountered is a so-called piped link. These can be helpful where an editor wants to link to, say, Henry II of England, but the context already makes it obvious that the king being discussed is of England, and so they want it to display as just Henry II. There's nothing wrong with that. However, as it states at MOS:EGG, readers should know what to expect when clicking on a link, so if the displayed text misrepresents what the linked article will be about (e.g. Henry V), then that is probably inappropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

IlyaSedion, I assume this is what you're referring to? If so, this is just a straightforward case of vandalism; as long as Wikipedia pages remain open for anyone to edit (as they always will be), things like this will occasionally happen. ‑ Iridescent 17:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that's what they meant. IlyaSedion, that was not me, and to answer your question, yes, that sort of trolling is against policy and not allowed. The impersonator has been blocked. I promise you the vast majority of contributors here are not trolls. Sro23 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Signature

Is there any tutorial for how to make a good signature? I currently have the default one, and would like to change it. 1618033golden (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1618033golden, See Wikipedia:Signature for some help and guidelines, and then go to Special:Preferences to customize yours. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Chicken Charlie Island, or 18 mile Island.

This Island is located in-between Hood River Oregon and Mosier Oregon closer to Mosier Oregon. My husband has told me before the Dam was built there use to be a road that went to it, I can't find any history on it. Can you answer this for me Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.17.242 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@76.2.17.242: This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia, not for general questions. You'll do better asking at WikiProject Oregon. Also, your work and questions at Wikipedia will go a lot better if you just register with a username, and log in with your username whenever you come here (I mean Wikipedia, not just the Teahouse). --Thnidu (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)