Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 643

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 640Archive 641Archive 642Archive 643Archive 644Archive 645→Archive 650

De-orphaning my article

My article Whiteplains British School has been accepted as an orphan. Can anyone help to de-orphan it? Or what can be done to de-orphan it, I mean the template to use since I have included related articles in the category section? Thanks.--Nwachinazo (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nwachinazo. An orphan is an article that has no other articles that link to it. To remedy that you would find other Wikipedia articles that mention the subject and then link that mention to the article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The Navbox effectively de-orphans it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dodger67: That's right, and that's why I added a link to the navbox. OTOH the navbox helps to create a clique only – a set of pages on similar subjects (international schools in Nigeria in this case) which refer to each other. However, it doesn't enforce creation of any links incoming from outside the clique. So a navbox formally de-orphans the set of pages, but the clique as a whole may actually still be a 'collective orphan', or a lonely archipelago, in the sense you may never come into it from any page which doesn't belong to it. --CiaPan (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
CiaPan notable schools are often discussed (or at least listed) on relevant city/place/region articles, that should help break the walled garden. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I've just checked; other than the schools in the navbox this article is linked from Abuja and List of schools in Nigeria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dodger67: Yes, I know. Both were linked today by OP, Nwachinazo. :) --CiaPan (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

我該問什麼問題

我不在意文字上的論述，給我答案 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.217.178.53 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

沒有答案，沒有釐清，沒有當事者，文字上說了我的論述處在於有異異的發表，試問文字回覆的方式是否有相當的正當性,我訴求就是知道真相，文字上所提及引用的，我所遭遇的如果是可以以文字的提及引用來恢復，那麼我的自身認知在矛盾混淆的情況該立於何處。— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.217.178.53 (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2017‎ (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and questions here should be asked in English. If you are looking for a Wikipedia in a different language, you can find a list at meta:List_of_Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
For the record, this was a pseudo-philosophical gibberish. Alex ShihTalk 07:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Google translate turns out something that looks like complaining about a new article being deleted for lack of (possibly good) sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

AmCheck article declined

Hello I created an article for a company and it was declined. Please help me.

Prwriter (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC) PrwriterPrwriter (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Link, for ease of use: Draft:AmCheck_Inc. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Prwriter. Find reliable sources (with a reputation for editorial integrity and fact checking) where people who have no connection with the company have chosen to write at some depth about the company. Not anything published by the company, or based on interviews or press releases: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the company says or wants to say about itself. Not brief mentions, even in lists of awards (these may be added in afterwards, but are not enough on their own to ground an article). Not anything on social media, wikis or blogs. If you can find several such sources, then you can write an article: if you can't, give up, as the article will not be accepted however it is written. To write the article, forget everything you know about the company, and ignore anything the company says, and write only from what the sources say (in your own words). When you have a substantial article, you may fill in a few uncontroversial facts (like places, dates, officers) from the company's own publications. Please read WP:42. --ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering how to see a history for a link that redirects. I looked at Copthorne Preparatory School which redirects to the Copthorne page about the village, but is otherwise not mentioned except on the Category:Preparatory_schools_in_Surrey page. Most schools there have a page. Does the fact its blue mean it used to have a page? If so, how can I find out why it doesn't any more? Thanks. Copperhazel (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Copperhazel, welcome to the Teahouse. Click "(Redirected from Copthorne Preparatory School)" at the top of Copthorne Preparatory School. Then you get to the redirect page and can click the "View history" tab. Redirects are made for different reasons and are all blue. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter Thankyou I see it now. It was boldly redirected in 2015 as non-notable and lacking valid sources. Comparing it to several of the 24 (out of 27) listed schools that do still have pages it seems decidedly more notable than some (and some of which still have the same lack of source notices from 2011 and 2015). Would it be controversial to resurrect it and seek out sources?

Also, a family member is a former pupil, I have read the COI page and don't see it as close enough to be an issue, but wanted to check. Thanks Copperhazel (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Copperhazel. I would suggest the other order: first seek the sources. Then if you find high-quality independent reliable sources from which you can write an article, you can do so. If the earlier version had no sources then it is unlikely that its content would be worth resurrecting, as it will have been written from somebody's personal knowledge, whereas an acceptable article should be written from what the sources say. In fact, I would advise you to treat this as creating a new article: read your first article and use the article wizard to create a draft. When you have written the draft, then look at the earlier version of the redirect to see if there is anything of value in there that you have missed (remembering that if something is not found in a published source, it shouldn't go in Wikipedia). When you submit your draft for review, the reviewer who accepts it will arrange for it to be moved over the redirect. As for the other schools: it is quite likely that those articles should be deleted or rewritten. Don't (in general) compare other articles unless you know that the other articles are of good quality. --ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ColinFine, I'll take that good advice. Copperhazel (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

How to create user subpages

Could someone give me a run down on how to do this? Much appreciated LampGenie01 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi LampGenie01. You do this by typing a link that says User:LampGenie01/Pagetitle or whatever you want the title to be. Save it, then click on the redlink to create. I use this method to create new article drafts. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi LampGenie01. See also Wikipedia:How to create a page and Help:Userspace draft. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much guys :) LampGenie01 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Establishing notability

Hello! I have added new references to this page. I am open to suggestions as to how to get this published. Thank you in advance!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Melody_Diachun

Musicwest (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Musicwest. You might try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (shortcut: WP:RX) if anyone can do a search of Canadian Newsstream or similar text searchable newspaper database targeting Canadian newspapers for articles with substantive coverage of her. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license

Is this photo OK to upload on Wikipedia? Lisa Raitt, Canada I know the license is not allowed on Commons, but am unsure about Wikipedia. Thanks // sikander (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, found the answer I was looking for: NO! Wiki licenses. sikander (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you add and edit a userbox?

Hello! I'm Aidancuckoo, a new editor of Wikipedia articles in the English Wikipedia. I have just made my user page, and I can't add userboxes so visitors, help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidancuckoo (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Aidancuckoo. Have you tried Wikipedia:Userboxes ? Anyway, I've taken the liberty and added two for you based on your profile. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 03:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Where do I report a promotional Username

I was looking to paste Welcome template on talk pages oof new users(I do it all the time when I came across this nameUser: AventuraBrightSmiles which seemed to promote a company and has created a promotional userpage .Where do I report it?RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 06:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Forceradical The correct place to report it is Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Joseph2302I see an admin has already blocked the account. Will follow your advice next time .Another question that I have is:-

Can only Teahouse host send Teahouse invitations? RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 09:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Forceradical Anyone is able to send Teahouse Welcome templates. The code for it is at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Limits to tagging articles to be under WikiProjects?

Hello! Sometimes I see articles that don't have a WikiProject tag listed on their talk page, or are lacking an obvious, appropriate one (like an article on something related to Egypt with no WikiProject Egypt tag). Are only members within those projects allowed to place project tags on articles? Do WikiProject members care if some nobody is tagging bunches of pages to be within their scope? And in the end, does it matter? Is this something I should care about at all, or is it not very important? I'm sorry if any of this is clearly spelled out elsewhere; there is a ton of help content on Wikipedia and it's a bit difficult to sift through. Thanks :) --Undead Shambles (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Undead Shambles. The principle purpose of WikiProject templates are to organize articles, and make them conveniently available to interested editors, so that they can readily find the types of articles they are interested in working to improve. If an article easily falls into the purview of a particular WikiProject, you're actually doing them a favor by adding it to their list of things to do. TimothyJosephWood 21:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, good to know. Thank you for the response! —Undead Shambles (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Timothyjosephwood -- It's great that a new article is assigned to WikiProject categories so that it can be improved. An article I opened is now in twenty categories. It is frustrating, though, that those lists (when you look at the descriptions) are of articles with unsubstantial citations, they are of low importance, and so on. It's as if I went to the hospital to see my newborn, and the nurse sent me to the "ugly baby" nursery. Are there enough editors that we can afford to treat them like draftees, rather than the volunteers they are? Rhadow (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Rhadow. I'm not totally sure I understand the question. WikiProjects and categories are largely if not totally invisible to readers. Some categories are literally invisible. This page itself is in five "hidden" categories. They pretty much just exist to organize the project "under the hood" for the benefit of editors.
So... Maybe most of our editors aren't interested in lists, and maybe most of our editors aren't interested in cats. But if... in four or five years we get one that is really interested in both, they might find themselves one day on Category:Lists of cats, where they can find things to work on whenever they get the time and energy.
There is no deadline, and editing is never an obligation, but we do want our volunteers to be able to edit in areas that excite them, because that's where they're going to do their best work and get the most joy out of improving the encyclopedia. All these behind-the-scenes stuff is just a way to make that easier. TimothyJosephWood 13:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You are required here...

I am working on Draft:Pakistani share at Independence, I need your help in expanding, citing and writing it in encyclopediac manner, please help me in developing it. Sinner (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: I don't believe this isn't the forum to solicit assistance with articles. Perhaps the Pakistan WikiProject could help you. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

But once review if there is some mistake. Sinner (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, 331dot such request are made here fairly often, and sometimes responded to. There is also {{help me}}. "Required' is an unfortunate way to phrase a request, however, Nazim Hussain Pak. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: I apologize for my error. Thank you for correcting me. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hey Sinner . I'll say this much, that the draft currently relies very heavily on storyofpakistan.com, and while it's not totally clear how reliable the site is, it's usually preferable to base articles as broadly and diversely as possible on as many sources as are available. Regardless of the reliability really, basing an article large on a single source runs a substantial risk of uncritically accepting whatever subtle biases or small editorial oversights they may have. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sniping at new articles and new editors

I understand the goal of articles on notable topics, well documented, without stolen copyrighted content. It seems though, that new articles and new editors are the target of well aimed sniping. The techniques are manifold.

  • speedy delete by an admin who doesn't respond to subsequent posts
  • bots that look for certain characteristics and to whom you cannot respond
  • editors who make value judgments on the topic, not on the form, format, and citations "The company raised only $4700 on kickstarter? Not a player. Delete."
  • editors who quote obscure rules WP:aBcDe. When you read them, you discover the application was a stretch, like a prosecutor who wants an indictment.

The speedy delete is the worst. The admin using it gets to play detective, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. It seems a power trip in the Star Chamber. I don't think the admins even recognize what they are doing.

A comparison of new submissions with existing articles tells me that this emphasis on discipline is new. Giving the benefit of the doubt is oft repeated and seldom heeded.

"Thank you for submitting XXXXXXX. I am nominating it for speedy deletion." Watch your boilerplate. It may be hypocritical. Rhadow (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Arrivo, I can undelete it if you really want, but the likelihood of it being kept at a Articles for deletion discussion is close to zero. Because of our long-term problems with spammers the criteria for notability for corporations are intentionally high, and an article on a startup with no product is very unlikely to be accepted unless you can demonstrate coverage well above the usual reprinted press releases and "according to a spokesman" fluff. Just for the record, The admin using it gets to play detective, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is flat-out untrue—the process always involves at least two people (the tagger and the deleter) precisely to avoid this problem. ‑ Iridescent 21:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion says: " Administrators can delete such pages on sight." I interpret that to mean that admins can summarily delete any untagged page they believe meets a CSD, rather than tagging it and waiting for another admin to confirm. If true, that would seem to conflict with the latter part of your comment (though I've only recently begun studying deletion processes, and my interpretation may well be wrong). I'd agree that deletion should always involve at least two people (to prevent gaming of the system and some of the issues noted by Rhadow), but it seems like current policy doesn't require that.
Thanks in advance for any clarification. ʍw 18:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Hello and thanks. I understand that a marketing person can write some fiction, add some fanciful artists renderings, and send it to PRNewswire. The "magazine writer" rearranges the paragraphs and graphics and publishes. I get it. The rules we have to live by include "no primary sources." My choice as I build an initial article is whether to include balancing (i.e. negative) points. You brought up Arrivo. It's a much better subject than Hyper Chariot which will go eventually too. What I learned (what behavior the feedback reinforces) is to include a single citation from a relatively well known source and just let it be. Otherwise, the "high standards" for sources become a machete to hack at new articles and editors. I looked at the initial articles for Hyperloop One and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. Neither would have made the cut based on their initial articles.
As to Arrivo specifically, I have a sandbox copy stashed away with better and more recent citations. If I have to wait till the boss man is a keynote speaker at a conference, I will. Then I'll put it up again and take my chances.
I've also done some lawsuit articles. Some get an automatic tag from the WikiLaw Project. "Not rated ... yada yada Not important." I clicked through and found 5,000 articles similarly not rated. What admin or what bot put the notice there doesn't show up in history? How do I know when the second admin confirms a delete? When the article disappears.
I jumped into an article marked "controversial" on the talk page. You know the kind, lots of IP editors. The advice there is "Be bold but not reckless." Thanks again. Rhadow (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Rhadow on CSD's: For most criteria, most admins will not delete unless another editor (who need not be an admin, or even registered) has first tagged it for speedy deletion. Exceptions: attack pages, copyvios, and housekeeping, such as redirects holding up a move. However, technically admins have the authority to delete anything that fits any of the CSDs on sight, tagged or not. Most admins promise during their admin confirmation process not to do that, with narrow exceptions (I made that promise, many years ago, and i keep it), and most do not in fact do that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Hello and Thank You. I'm not looking for reversal of any past action, only understanding. Any editor, registered or IP, can place a CSD tag on an article. He or she can offer to answer questions, but is under no obligation to do so. When a like minded admin sees the article, away it goes?
I offer as a counter example this indie film. It got dinged for COI, notability, and orphan. It gets five days of discussion, not summary execution. Democracy is a messy thing. Inclusion takes time and work. A blackball system is efficient, but it's a hell of a way to treat volunteers. Rhadow (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello again Rhadow. I think I do understand your perspective, where you are coming from on this. Let me explain where the CSDs came from. I can speak with assurance, because I was involved in the process of creating some of hem. And I have been involved in debates over proposed additions to the set more recently -- often arguing against such additions, by the way. There is one such argument going on now, here. But to go back: we were getting lots and lots of people adding "articles" about their own garage bands. They all went through the 7-day discussion, and pretty much all of them were always deleted. The deletion discussions were getting so full that things where there was a need for real debate didn't get it. So there was a long debate, about a month, with lots and lots of people joining in. At the end there was an agreement that such article, if they met certain criteria, could be deleted without the 7-day discussion, that they had all had their 7 days at once, in advance. A little later, there was a similar flood of what we called "vanity" articles. Autobiographies, mostly, about people who hadn't done anything to have even a hope of a valid article, but people would create them (in those days you didn't even have to be registered to create an article, and there was no WP:AFC) and they would each have their 7 days, ans the creators would make the same arguments "But this is really me! People think well of me! I'm important!" and the result would be deletion, pretty much every time. Again there was a very large, long discussion, and the people articles that didn't show some reason for remaining, what we now call a credible claim of significance could be deleted by an admin without the 7-day discussion. There were some further discussions, and some additional categories of articles added that could be treated similarly, and the result is now called A7. Read it, it is fairly narrow. What happens now is, someone things an article fits A7. They place a tag on it saying so. That tag puts the article in a category. Anyone can look through the category, and remove the tag if they think it doesn't fit.Eventually an admin comea along, checking though what is in the category. often enough it is me -- i check that category pretty fully. And what do i do? I read the article all the way though. I look for anything that might barely be a "claim of significance". If there is a talk page, I read that. If the creator has given any reason not to delete, i read that. I look at past versions of the article and see if there was something in one of them that gave a reason not to delete. If I think there is a good chance that something will be added later that has a reasonable chance of building a decent article, i move it to draft space. If none of that works and i can't find a good reason not to delete, i delete the article. I estimate that I delete between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the articles tagged for A7 that i review. Yes, this does rely on trusting my judgement a little. But even after that, if the creator or anyone thinks i was wrong, there is a page known as WP:REFUND where any editor can ask to have such an article undeleted. Also, there is Deletion review where an editor can go if they think an admin handled a CSD incorrectly, or that one of the 7-dqay deletion discussions was closed incorrectly. And a further discussion will them be held. It is not quite a case of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all at once.
Wikipedia does not operate on "democracy", but on discussion and rough consensus. But we do understand that fiats are not a good idea. See Process is Important. But on some matters, the issue has been discussed and decided in advance. Even there, it is possible to raise objections and have them heard. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello again DESiegel -- You're right. A7 is a narrow definition "The criterion (CSD) does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." I will keep that line filed away. In the mean time, I will thank you for your time and care. I will retire from this topic and live by the results of rough consensus. Thanks again. Rhadow (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do when someone is over editing and undoing your edits on a page?

What to do when someone is over editing and undoing your edits on a page? Despite the statements being cited and factual Gustie6 (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Gustie6 (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Gustie6 (talk)

@Gustie6: As Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, you should discuss the concerns of the other editors involved(they have asked you to visit the article talk page). You have already begun to do this by responding to a post there; please allow the discussion to take its course before further edits. Continually reverting edits is called edit warring and not permitted by anyone, even if they are correct. There are other avenues of dispute resolution if you don't find the end result of the discussion satisfactory. I haven't yet studied the dispute in depth but merely being "factual" isn't reason enough to keep an edit. It can't have promotional language or puffery(as has been stated to you).
As an aside, are you affiliated with the college you are editing about?(your username is similar to it). If so, it could be a conflict of interest for you to edit directly about it. That doesn't mean your concerns cannot be addressed, but you should engage in discussion about them first. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Please do not add the disputed information unless you reach a consensus. Take note of the three-revert rule and know that breaking it can lead to a block. —MRD2014 17:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Image license

What license are recommendend for:

  • my private photos,
  • my scaned photos, and
  • public documentation?

Bogy 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogumilo (talk • contribs)

Hi Bogumilo, welcome to the Teahouse. We accept a variety of licenses, but the most popular one is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. In summary, this license allows others to use, modify, and distribute the work freely and for any purpose, provided that they credit you as the author and release modified works under the same license as the original. If you are interested in submitting your media to Wikipedia, I recommend checking out our sister project, the Wikimedia Commons, which is a central repository for free media that Wikipedia and all its sister projects use. The Wikimedia Commons has a page called Commons:Licensing, which explains acceptable free licenses in further detail. If you are confused, or have any further questions, please feel free to ask here at the Teahouse. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Bogumilo. This is a... complicated question, and you probably want to check out the article on the Creative Commons license to get a more in depth analysis.
My Private Photos - The best thing for... humanity is to either release them into the public domain outright, or license them under something similar, like the CC BY-SA license that all textual content on Wikipedia is licensed under. It means that you will lose legal control over the photos, but it also means that they are available legally for use on all of Wikipedia in every language, as well as... well... the entire rest of the species for any purpose.
My Scanned Photos - If these are photos you yourself have taken, then the above applies. If they are photos you have physical possession of, but did not take, then you can do very little with them legally, because the copyright defaults to the person who took them (in most circumstances, with exceptions for things that were h published before 1923, works by the US government, and other nuances).
Public Documentation - It's not totally clear what you mean by this, because "public", in the sense of publicly available online or in public archives, doesn't really mean the same thing as "public" in the sense of copyright. If you can be more specific, maybe we can offer better advice. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to public statistics and public documents, such as student papers, official maps and so one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogumilo (talk • contribs) 08:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Can the same image be edited on Commons and more wikis?
Bogumilo, some language Wikipedias might have different rules, because they're hosted in different countries, and those countries have different copyright laws. Commons happens to be hosted in the US, and really only accepts images that are usable by anyone in the universe, which means they are public domain or a similar license in both the country where the image was taken and in the US. TimothyJosephWood 23:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Two minor nitpicks. (1) the only Creative Commons license that is a "similar license" as public domain (technically not a license BTW) is the CC0, the others put some form of restriction on the distribution of material (they are all free as in free beer, but not as free speech - for instance CC-NC licenses are not free enough for Wikipedia). (2) Some material on Commons may be unusable in some countries; for instance, a photograph may be public domain in the US and in country X where it was taken, making it uploadable to Commons, but not in country Y because of a quirk of copyright laws. (Granted, this will concern very few cases.) TigraanClick here to contact me 17:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Issues with a low-priority page- persistence or patience?

Howdy there,

I created an account here because I noticed a very large error with the page for Akhlut, the creature from Inuit mythology. I'm not authorised to make the necessary edits needed to amend the issue, so I made my case on the talk page for the article in question. However this page hasn't been edited in a long while, so I'm wondering if this is just an unfortunate matter of having to wait or if there is some further action I should take to bring attention to the article.

Hopefully this is the right place to ask this, like I said this is my first time doing something like this!

Thanks for your time.

Chillikiss (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Chillikiss, I am not sure what you cannot make the necessary edits yourself; the page Akhlut is not under any kind of protection, so anyone should be able to edit it. If you encounter an error message, could you post it here so that we know what is wrong?
Anyways, barring page edition editing, the next best thing to do is exactly what you did. Unfortunately, there are probably few if any editors capable of evaluation the message you left at the talk page and acting on it (I for sure am not). You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology if someone familiar with the subject could have a look.
You are welcome to ask here (the Teahouse) or at Wikipedia:Help Desk any question relative to Wikipedia edition, that is what the pages are for. Next time, please try to put the page name between brackets to make it appear as a link. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I understood the above usage of "edition", but I think it is now obsolete. Modern English just uses "editing". Dbfirs 20:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the correction. Please do not denounce me to the Category:User en-4 police, it is my third violation this month. TigraanClick here to contact me 21:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use images found in a free online e-book whose copyright has long since expired for a Wikipedia article? The images in question are largely original (maps created by the author), but a few are pictures that must have come from someplace else. If it is allowed by Wikipedia, how exactly should I go about uploading them?

Thanks, Washoe the Wise (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Washoe the Wise, and welcome to the Teahouse. When you say the book's "copyright has long since expired", do you mean it was first published prior to 1923? That is the key date (at the moment) for US copyright law, although there are quirks and nuances. If so, it must not have originally been an e-book. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm for more detail (a very useful page).
If you really meant that the ebook was "out of print for many years" then it may well still be protected by copyright.
If the book really is in the public domain as specified by the chart, images from it could be uploaded to commons, giving the proper source and publication date (for the original version), and then used in an article. Start at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard, log in (with the same username and pw as you use here), and follow the prompts. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you improve the tone and neutral point of view of an article?

I would like some advice on how to improve the formality of my article Draft:Professor Valentine Joseph and to maintain a neutral tone.

Thank you,

Anish Mariathasan (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anish Mariathasan. You would start by writing this in your own words, rather than copying the content from an existing source, and then ruthlessly make yourself write just the facts, avoiding all evaluative content, flowery language, superlatives; most adjectives, and anything that could be described as "gushing" content. You might peruse Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

The methodology to write a successful Wikipedia article is to gather all the sources first, that you will cite in the article to demonstrate the person's notability and to only cover verifiable details. Then, digest the sources and write in your own words while citing them.

Of course, if that search does not reveal that the subject is notable (by the existence of substantive coverage about the topic in published, reliable, secondary, entirely independent sources) don't write anything.

But you must not violate copyright and engage in plagiarism, as you appear to have done here. I will be posting a message about this at your talk page momentarily. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Hi again Anish Mariathasan. Did this page exist in some prior form at Wikipedia, before you posted this draft? I ask because while the document I deleted it as a copyright violation of, though it says nothing in its text about originating here, and which pre-dates your draft according to its URL "2016/06", also has as part of its URL: "wp-content", which reads to me as translating possibly to "Wikipedia content". But if so, the date indicates it had to arise from a prior page. If it is a prior version of content originally from here (which wasn't itself a copyvio) then this is what we call a "backwards copyvio". If located, and everything checks out, I will undelete and do a history merge. However, I haven't found any prior deletion under the titles I would expect a prior version to have been hosted under. Please advise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. The article did not exist in any previous wikipedia form, I wrote it completely from scratch. Please could you undelete it as I have not violated any copyrights. I have written similar on your talk page. Thank you. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Heptanitrocubane. When you write a document it is automatically considered non-free fully copyrighted unless there is evidence to the contrary. No copyright symbol or claim of copyright ownership in the document is needed. So when you published this document before posting the content here, whether you meant to or not, the result was a notice to the world of this content's non-free copyrighted status.

In order to overcome that, you have to explicitly release the content, irrevocably, to the world (not just for use here), under a suitably-free copyright license or into the public domain. This cannot be done by your anonymous assertion here that you are the owner and want to do so. Rather, you will have to demonstrate you are the owner in a verifiable way – unfortunately, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Methods to do so include:

  • posting a suitable free copyright notice release into the PDF document itself. That is, add a suitable copyleft release notice directly to the document, then replace the PDF at that link with it. A recommended form for the release (make sure the links are working) is:
The text of this document is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
...and then advise me you've done so and I will immediately undelete. You could also:
See more at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Correction: I see at my talk page you indicate you are not the author but have his or her permission to use this content. This means everything above still applies, except that the author will need to do this, rather than you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Where to discuss a contribution?

Hello, I've been working very hard to gather information on listing products for Beats Electronics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beats_Electronics), information lacking elsewhere on the internet, especially when coming to purchasing a model and not knowing how old it is. However, another contributor just deleted about 24h of work claiming this is promotional. How to politely discuss this with him? Even if he may be not open to discussion since he seems to have a tendency to delete everything he doesn't like without notice...

Thanh-Quy (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@MercadieN: Hello. I must say that I agree with the removal, Wikipedia is not for listing a company's products and their prices. However, the proper forum to discuss a dispute is the article talk page (click 'Talk' at the top of the page). 331dot (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
How is this any different from Macbooks listing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook

Should it be deleted as well?

Thanh-Quy (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between comparing technical specifications of products and listing prices and features of products. Wikipedia is not a guide to products, but an encyclopedia. My intention was not to debate your edits here, only to point you to the article talk page, where you can make your case to the other editors at that page. Best wishes 331dot (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@331dot : Hello, same question about the Microsoft Surface is you think this is biased... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface

Prices can be removed is necessary, but this is a good indicator to specify what if low or high-end product in my opinion. Anyway, I won't contribute ever if people just get to delete whatever they want without further discussions. Thanks for your help.

Thanh-Quy (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

While sometimes they can be disheartening, reversions are a common practice and should not be taken personally. As the person seeking a change it is up to you to engage in discussion with the others involved(who gave reasons for their reversion in the edit summary). There are also other ways to resolve disputes if needed. Your contributions are welcome, but this is a collaborative effort requiring all of us to work together and achieve consensus for article content. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Vandalism & new pages check

Hi all, I have been recently tagging several new pages under CSD & undoing some vandalism here & there after about a month after joining here. From what I have seen, it looks like folks who are involved in this area often pass out warnings I don't have access to. Are these warnings restricted to the admins around here? If not, is there such thing as a complete list of warnings for both CSD & vandalism? Also, if I wish to continue this task, what are some practices & guidelines I should be aware of? Thanks in advance. TesLiszt (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi TesLiszt the WP:Twinkle "toolbox" makes many such maintenance tasks easy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi TesLiszt. See WP:WARN. Everything there is a template. If you're not familiar with templates in general, see Help:Template. Once you get used to them it becomes pretty much second nature. At a broad level, most templates are placed either by being substituted, or not (just as a matter of jargon, in which case they're transcluded). Most of the templates at WP:WARN need to be substituted, which means always placing subst: just inside the opening curly braces. You will also find that most templates, once clicked on, have documentation, describing specifics of their use.

Once you've given a series of warnings about an issue, if the individual persists, you can report for a block at WP:AIV (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism). Placing a warning series is a condition precedent to doing so generally, though the extremity of the vandalism counts; you don't always need to start with a first level warning. See also Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. Of course, Wikipedia:Vandalism has a lot of general information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between Twinkle & Huggle & what are some pros & cons to keep in mind when using them? Thanks in advance. TesLiszt (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Indonesian tribe

I have just read about an Indonesian tribe which converts its dead to mummies. They bath them every year and dignify them. Is there any article about them in wikipedia? Please, inform me. I couldn't find them by using wikipedia search engine. Sinner (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nazim Hussain Pak: Perhaps Toraja?
Questions like this more appropriately asked at WP:Reference desk, since they are dedicated to helping to find answers to general questions. The Teahouse is devoted to questions relating to learning how to edit Wikipedia. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Margot Fonteyn/ Margaret Hookham

I read somewhere that Dame Margot Fonteyn had polio as a child but cannot find any reference to it now. Can anyone confirm that she did or did not have polio as a child? 210.10.178.57 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You may wish to ask this at the talk page for that article, Talk:Margot Fonteyn, where editors who follow that page may know more. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Need help in dealing with spam article

Berenice-Mulubah, a recreation of BereniceMulubah and BereniceMulubah1 (which were deleted as spam), was tagged for speedy deletion as G11 by me (after an A7 was declined). The author removed the speedy deletion tag twice. I reverted the removal once. I already filed a sockpuppet investigation regarding the group of editors creating the article. Is there a way to stop the CSD removals without edit warring with the author? I also think that I am failing to stay cool when editing because of the ongoing issue. Thank you. (Note: Yesterday, when editing from a different IP, I also dealt with the situation, and I am becoming somewhat tired.) 211.100.57.166 (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You can talk to one of the wikipedia admins directly on their talk pages for this.I know about this user that he is an admin here User:Miniapolis . you may try contacting him on his talk page. have a nice day. Red Pen (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah User:Vr parashar, in this sort of case, it's probably quicker to go directly to the admin who made the original calls. In this case, I have left There'sNoTime a message regarding this on their talk page. So needn't have pinged them, but. — fortunavelut luna 10:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you FIM, and thank you `211.100` for bringing this to our attention. I've deleted the article per G11 and blocked the editor as an obvious sockpuppet -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you User:There'sNoTime for completing this work. 211.100.57.166 (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources for ediiting

Hi, I want to know what are the most reliable sources for editing on Wikipedia. Thanks Niel.Kalyan (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this may help you Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Have a nice day. :) Red Pen (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The noticeboard is actually for discussing the reliability of a specific source. Niel.Kalyan you should start by reading the Identifying reliable sources guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

First Wiki Article "Roxie Munro" getting declined

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to start by writing about a well-known author/illustrator Roxie Munro. It seems to be declined despite following the Wiki rules. Is there something I can do to improve it? This is my first article on Wiki so is that the concern? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatyaSzewczuk (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse KatyaSzewczuk We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources say about a topic, your draft article has three sources which are primary and not independent of the subject. You also appear to have a conflict of interest which you need to declare on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I need a help to detailed review for article.

i wrote an article and submitted it and they reviewed it but it got rejected. i want to know what's exactly wrong with it. cuz worked on it and met with the requirements.Anagheem (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Anagheem: if this is about Mohamed Mahmoud Abd Al-Wahhab, I doubt it meets with the requirement to show that the subject is notable. To do that it would need to cite several reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject. If you can't find such sources in English, Arabic sources would be acceptable. Maproom (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been away for over 4 years.

I last wrote an article for Wikipedia in 2012 - four and a half years ago. One of the articles has been threatened several times with deletion. The person I wrote about is still alive but I've had no contact in 2 or 3 years. Can the article still stand for posterity? Novak123 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This must be about Barbara Grace Tucker. Novak123: the article has evidently survived the deletion discussions, so I wouldn't be too worried about its long-term prospects. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Maproom.Novak123 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Barbara Grace Tucker has never been nominated for deletion, Novak123. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbara Grace Tucker was deleted, but I'm not sure why that existed, as it seems to date from after the article. The subject being alive has no real bearing on whether we keep an article, as notability is not temporary. Usually, editors are not in contact with the subjects of articles (and being so might suggest the possibility of a conflict of interest). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Submitting an article for quality reassessment (Adam Spencer) - advice please

Hello,

I have added a lot of article sources to the Wikipedia page on scientific communicator Adam Spencer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Spencer

Would it be considered eligible for reassessment, as it is still in the Start-Class category? I understand that submitting an article is a separate process but I'm not sure if I need the support of other editors to do so?

I am just checking for the future - I know that some areas of the article still need improvement such as the table of television shows.

Thank you for your time, I appreciate your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

SunnyBoi start by doing the improvements you think are neccessary then put the article through the Good article nomination process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Archiving talkpage

While archiving my talkpage, I copied { { U s e r : M i s z a B o t / c o n f i g | a l g o = o l d ( 3 0 d ) | a r c h i v e = { { S U B S T : F U L L P A G E N AM E } } / A r c h i v e % ( c o u n t e r ) d | c o u n t e r = 1 | ma x a r c h i v e s i z e = 1 5 0 K | a r c h i v e h e a d e r = { { A u t oma t i c a r c h i v e n a v i g a t o r } } | m i n t h r e a d s t o a r c h i v e = 1 | m i n t h r e a d s l e f t = 4 } } to my talkpage but it is malformed and is not working. What should be done now? Sinner (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Try removing all the spaces between the characters, Nazim Hussain Pak. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry: Nazim has inserted the spaces on this page, so as to stop the template from being active here. (Using <nowiki></nowiki> tags would have worked better.) Maproom (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Nazim added the spaced version to User talk:Nazim Hussain Pak before posting it here. I have fixed this and other things. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep - I was going by the spaced version on his talk page, not the one here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Question from Srinidhivadirajbm

Thank you for the invite.. I'm new user.. recently i wrote an article about the person who is doing social services.. it's been verified. It's showing it have multiple​ issues. But I've given enough references to my article... How can I fix this issues.. here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_V_Rajeeva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinidhivadirajbm (talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Srinidhivadirajbm: Hi thanks for posting here ! I have observe your article it has many references cited you are free to remove additional references tag, as the editor may have added the tag when you article may not have enough reliable sources. And other issues I noticed is that your article lacks lead, lead means a general introduction in any article. If you are writing about a living person you have to first write intoduction about them like who are they ? from which country they belong ? And why they are not able and what are their achievements. These are known as fact then you have to write Early Life and Career, Accolades which means awards and nomination if they have ! Other things what I noticed is that you have excessively bolded almost all words which appears to be a valid reason of placing WP:Copyedit tag

I would strongly recommend you to read WP:MOS(its a guide for helping editors to write great article) and you may read notability policies so that it may help you to understand which subject should be added in Wikipedia and what not. Have a lovely day. If you want some more help then please feel free to drop a message at my talk page, if I am active I would surely respond Anoptimistix Let's Talk 18:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Create a page to redirect to another

Hello, I'm new to editing wikipedia. I'm an academic researcher in the field of medical rhetoric and I'm trying to clean up the page "rhetoric of health and medicine." I'm wondering if I can create a page called "medical rhetoric" to redirect to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_of_health_and_medicine

How would I do that? Scott.mogull (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scott.mogull, welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a page at Medical rhetoric with this code:
#REDIRECT [[Rhetoric of health and medicine]]
{{R from alternative name}}
See more at Help:Redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Scott. Here's a little "trick". Almost anything you see in the interface and much lingo you hear bandied about will have a page at whatever the word/phrase is, appended after "Wikipedia:" "WP:" works the same as "Wikipedia" to make it easier to type. Here, Wikipedia:redirect (WP:redirect) is all about redirects, and provides links to the help page in the post above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Category Box

Hello friends, I'm unable to create the Category box at the end of an article. Category:Something does not work. Even copy/paste a similar Category Box from another artikle didn't do. Please help me because my article "Leivithra" is uncategorized yet.Juergen-Olymp (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Juergen-Olymp. I'm not sure I understand what you attempted when you say you tried to add a "Category Box" from another article (I looked at diffs and didn't see any edit like that, so I assume you only previewed the edit) but I suspect you are simply unfamiliar with how categories are added. They are done like this: Find categories you think the article should be in → add this code to the bottom of the article to place it in those categories:

[[Category:Name of Category 1]]

[[Category:Name of Category 2]]

[[Category:Name of Category 3]] → Save changes

The display of the categories you add will appear be in a rectangular box at the bottom of the article, which may be what you tried to copy and paste. To find categories to place, I think a good method is to navigate to relatively similar articles, and look at what categories they are in to emulate. See also Help:Category#Putting pages in categories. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they are thinking of navboxes? White Arabian Filly Neigh 18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It works! Juergen-Olymp (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You're most welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Juergen-Olymp, you managed to put the Teahouse in the non-existent Category:Something, so I have fixed this in your comment (by adding a colon in front of Category, which is how to link to a category without placing a page in it). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft Article about currently broadcast TV Show

Can someone give me feedback on if this article is ready to submit for publication? Any helpful feedback is welcome. I created the draft article for the TV show here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ancient_Healing I used whatever available credible references I could find, and followed format for other similar TV shows listed on Wikipedia, like these two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaag_Bakool_Bhaag and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasam_Tere_Pyaar_Ki Is there anything else I need to do before submitting it for publication? --DrNewYork (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your page. Some of the links are dead links which you may either remove or fix them (those which appear in Red color). The article is nice and yes you should give it for publication. ensure that same article is not present by any other name. good luck :) Red Pen (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Red Pen (talk)! Very helpful. If you (or anyone else) has any feedback, please let me know. It is much appreciated. --DrNewYork (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the process for proposing that a previously deleted article be recreated?

Hi everyone. I'm a new editor, and I've come across a few articles that were deleted a while ago but that I think either just didn't have someone championing them, or that have since deletion become more significant and therefore potentially notable enough for recreation. Is there forum for proposing these sorts of recreations? SomewhatSpurious (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SomewhatSpurious, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless the article has been salted by an admin after several failed attempts, there isn't a formal process: you are free to create a new article. But I would always advise new editors to use the article wizard to create a new article in draft space, where they can work on it comparatively securely, and then submit it for review. Have you read your first article? --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SomewhatSpurious. If you want the original text restored and moved to draft space, you can ask at WP:REFUND or ask anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles (such as myself). If the original was deleted by AfD, Once you have an improved draft ready for mainspace, you can ask at deletion review for it to be moved back to mainspace. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_643&oldid=1142564326"