Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 79

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

→

birth and death dates unknown

I have created a page on the actor Krishnan Kutty Nair. However, I could not find any references to his date of birth or death. The page for one of his movies Ponmuttayidunna Tharavu has this line "..Late actor Krishnan Kutty Nair played the role .. " .

I know I cannot have another wikipedia page as a source of my information.

My reference [1] does say that he has passed away.

Out of my external links, the IMDB page has a date of death, but that has been reported wrongly. It was the death of a Kathakali artist.

What all should I correct in my page now?

Expertsleuth (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Expertsleuth! My best suggestion is--just leave it out! Adding improperly sourced or unsourced info on important things like DOB and DOD is just not a good idea. Reporting incorrect information is definitely worse than not reporting any at all. The nice thing about Wikipedia is it is always a work in progress. When better sourcing becomes clear, someone can add the info. That being said, have you tried looking for the town he lived in when he died and the local paper there? If you can find an obit, it will certainly have a DOD and maybe even a DOB.Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I am not able to get more details about him; but surely somebody else might be able to add to this, as you mentioned.

Another thing is that I am thinking of making this page redirect to a disambiguation page, once I am able to gather more details on the other artist with the same name, I mentioned earlier.. Is that the best way to do it? Expertsleuth (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

When there are only two articles which a search term might point to, we don't usually make a disambiguation page, but just insert a hatnote at the top of each one, pointing to the other. Once there are three articles, a disambiguation page is better. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Popstar's age changed continuously

The pop singer Tyler James seems to have been born in 1982, but his date is changed to 1985. I would imagine by his "team" to give him a better shot at radio play. In situations like this where it is a relatively minor issue likely to negatively prejudice a living person, is it better to let the issue slide? (talk) Fantini (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia,

And to answer your question - Absolutely not. Here at Wikipedia we strive to be absolutely accurate about anything, and if you can find any sources to say that he was born in 1982, change his age! Of course, those sources might be incorrect themselves, but if the true year is '82, you should make it '82.

P.S. Do use four tildes, not three to sign (like this) - ~~~~

Hope I answered your question,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of Wikipedia subpages?

Hello. I was just wondering where can I find a list of subpages, like WP:AFC and WP:AFD or special pages, like Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges. Thanks. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 21:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Special pages are listed at Special:SpecialPages. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in some of the navigation aids that you can add to your userpage at our userpage design center. Mono 00:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking in an article

How is a word highlighted so that it is clicked on to go to a link on the internet?108.45.60.103 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Good question. If you place brackets around a URL it will create a link to that web page. For example [www.teahouse999.org] However, be aware that such links are not permitted in the body of Wikipedia articles. The only time a direct link to a web page is allowed is inside a citation (ie. creating a link to a news article that you are citing) or in the External Links section at the bottom of an article. If a URL web link is inserted for promotional purposes it will be removed. The criteria for adding URL's to the External Links section is a bit complex and can be seen at WP:EL. I hope this is helpful and welcome to Wikipedia! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! To link to something on the internet, just type the following:

[URL title]

So, for example, typing:

[http://google.com Google]

produces...

Google

Take a look at Wikipedia:External links for more info. Happy editing! —Theopolisme (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Consistency in British vs. American spellings

In an article containing a lot of British spelling variations I changed a single instance where the American form was used: symbolized to symbolised.

This was in part because the author used "symbolises" later in the article.

Should an editor do this or did I overstep the boundary? Martinw1200 (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin. When changes such as this (as well as grammar) are proper and when not depends on circumstances. If the subject of the article is strongly associated with a particular nationality, then it usually should use the English of that nationality. So, for example, an article on the U.S. Constitution should use U.S. English, but an article on the British Parliament should use British English. When the topic has no such strong ties, we prefer no particular English variety and the article should consistently use whatever variety of English was put in place by the first person to write about the topic. This is a simplification of the detail you can find at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (a policy section often cited by the shortcut name, WP:ENGVAR). Here, barring the topic having strong ties with a particular English variety, since you state that the article already used British English predominantly, and included the very word you changed in an inconsistent way in another place, it sounds like your edit was fine. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit, for that very informative reply. You answered my question. Thank you especially for the link to the WP Manual of Style. For some reason I couldn't find it. I will study it thoroughly. Then I can get back to the grunt work that noob editors should all be doing. Martinw1200 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Hello,

How do I get a second sandbox?

I am currently collecting data and references for one page, but would also like to start work on a second and, of course, keep them separate. Unless I have gone blind, I can see no way to do this. HELP!!! Thank you. Kiltpin (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. You can create as many subpages of your userpage as you want by creating a page with the title User:Kiltpin/Whatever you want to call it. Does that help?^King Jakob _C2 13:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi King Jakob,

Sorry, that is the crucial step that I am missing. If I go to my user page, how do I create this new page? Kiltpin (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all I'm also welcoming you to the Teahouse. Now your answer is just search with the page title you want to create at the search box.(What I do) Then the search result will show nothing can be found with that title. But you get 3 options.

Start the User:Kiltpin/Whatever you want to call it page
Search for "User:Kiltpin/Whatever you want to call it" in existing pages of namespace User.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Now click the first option and start editing. But remind this will not work for articles. You'll get search result then you'll need to click the redlink for creating. Hope this helps.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Just what I needed - so obvious when you know how! Thank you again. Kiltpin (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking within an article

Is it possible to have an internal link with an article, for example: if I briefly mention a topic in the introduction and talk at length about it in a section further down the page, can I link the two so that users can click the intro link and jump down to the detailed section?

Any help would be much appreciated! DanielleForrester1991 (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Danielle, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes it possible by using the syntax [[#section name|displayed text]] so to link to the question two below your I would put

 [[#Are articles really deleted as the result of a mere vote?|Are articles really deleted as the result of a mere vote?]]

to produce Are articles really deleted as the result of a mere vote?. There is more about this topic including a video screencast at Help:Link. NtheP (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And of course if you are happy for the displayed text to be the same as the section name you can leave out the pipe, as in #Are articles really deleted as the result of a mere vote?. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant - thank you for your help! DanielleForrester1991 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help

Can anybody help me on Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck? I followed the instructions but the Check button doesn't show. I noticed somewhere in the instructions there is this line "assuming you use the default preferences". So what, do I have to restore all my preferences to their default setting? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice question. See this. It says if you have a username then go to your skin.js. Add

importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool

to your skin.js. Then everybody knows about reloading. After you reload or bypass your browser's cache you need to go an article page. Then you'll see DYK check button on the left side of your screen. It appears at the last Toolbox section. Hop this helps--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 09:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I did bypass and reload, but can find no such button. Toolbox? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

See there's a logo of WP. Under that logo there's some links like Main Page, Contents etc. Under these there is a section Interaction. And under that the Toolbox section. Let me know if you can or can't find?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 10:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Easy table syntax generator?

Is there a easy table syntax generator? For the article Kushboo_filmography, I tried excel2wiki.net but I did not find the results satisfactory. Thank you Evano1van (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Evano1van, welcome to the Teahouse. I've not used any of the converters but there are various options listed at Commons:Convert tables and charts to wiki code or image files which might provide the results you want. NtheP (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep, the link points to a does not exist.Evano1van (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Found an editor that seems to be pushing a POV by replacing citations. What do I do?

I have found some instances where another editor has been replacing citations with those of the opposite POV. As someone who specializes in citations, this greatly upsets me. I do not question that the new citations may have a place in the article, but replacing existing citations with these new ones instead of adding the new ones strikes me as a clear violation of POV pushing. At first, I would like to discuss this discretely offline (email) with an administrator. Can someone suggest who I can converse with, or is there an administration familiar with these matters who would step forward? Peaceray (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly I commend you for asking for help and avoiding an edit war, which is almost never productive. Yes it seems like a weird practice but the editor could feel that they are replacing weak sources with stronger ones. They might see their actions differently than you do. Also, there is a lot I don't know. Is the article topic controversial? Are there other editors working on the article? Is there discussion on the talk page? Is the editor just changing the cites but leaving the text the same? I think the first thing is to politely inquire with the other editor(s) as to his reasoning for what he/she is doing. Tell him/her you just want to understand so you can collaborate and work together. If the other editor does not respond or is unwilling to discuss the matter on the talk page, then you could post at WP:BLPN if its a Bio of a living person. If not a bio, you could try the WP:NPOVN Neutral Point of View noticeboard or the WP:DRN which is the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Other options are outlined here. Dispute resolution can be complex and time consuming so try to work it out on the talk page first, if you can. Feel free to ask more questions here if you need to and you can also contact me on my talk page if you need someone to mentor you through the process. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I will work on gathering the info on Saturday (I am in HST). Peaceray (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons licensing

There is a first class radiology site, Radiopaedia, with excellent images. All of the images are stated to be licensed under Creative Commons. Does that mean I can upload one of their images with proper attribution? Thank you. Mdscottis (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mdscottis, welcome back to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, the content on the site is licensed under a slightly more restrictive CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 License. The NC in the license description means it is not permitted for commercial use. Wikipedia requires that all images be licensed CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. The page Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr provides a list of acceptable and unacceptable licenses if you want to bookmark it for the future. That said, I've looked at some of the images and they seem great. What you could consider doing is using {{External media}} to link to the images from the article. Ryan Vesey 03:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey is correct. Please see Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Deprecated for a list of Creative Commons licenses that don't make the grade on Wikipedia. Our images must be freely available for any legal use, including in a commercial, money-making venture. Radiopaedia explicitly forbids such uses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't insert an uploaded image into a Wiki entry.

I have uploaded photos of my own and can't insert them into existing Wiki entries. I was successful the first time, but have failed at every other attempt. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. I have another photo of Lehigh Parkway, which I uploaded to Wikicommons and can't get the actual photo into the article. What appears is the file reference, not the photo. Please help. Thank you. Final4one (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain, but it appears to me that you attempted to sign your edit in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Signing your edits is reserved for talk pages such as this one. Try it without the signature. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You must use the exact title including capitalisation. In [1] you tried to add File:Lehigh Parkway.jpg but it doesn't exist. commons:Special:Contributions/Final4one shows that you uploaded File:Lehigh Parkway.JPG. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

PrimeHunter is correct about the capitalization issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Should a page have a long list of wikilinks?

Dear editors: I have been fixing up a page called bluegrass fiddle, and it has a long list of people who have pages in Wikipedia and who play bluegrass-style fiddle. Is this appropriate? I could put them on a separate page called "List of bluegrass fiddlers", or I could try to shorten up the list by using columns. Any advice? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome back! It's OK to have some lists within articles, like here, but really large and unwieldy lists like this should really not go in a parent article. Does that help?^King Jakob _C2 02:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work on this article. In my opinion, your idea of creating List of bluegrass fiddlers is an excellent one. It is good that all except Tommy Magness have articles. Do you consider him notable enough for an article? If so, that's another project to consider.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, welcome back to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't have any set policies for things like this, so decisions like this are best made at the local level. Personally, I think your second proposal is the best. Do you know how to create columns already? Your first proposal is good, but it is usually better to create list articles using tables so you can provide more information. For example, you might include in a row someone's name, a picture of them, their birth and/or death years, bands they played in, and notable songs (or anything else you could think of). An example of a list article that uses a table is List of Russian inventors. If you choose to do that, it would be best to start in your userspace. I can assist you with creating the table if you want. Ryan Vesey 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for the guidance. I am going to move the list of fiddlers to a separate page, and replace it with a short paragraph with three or four fiddlers who demonstrate representative styles or techniques. Ryan, I like your idea of the table, and know how to create one, but I don't have enough "fan" interest to put the work into it. I'll include it as a suggested future improvement on the talk page. What I really need to help with things like this is a Wikiproject for bluegrass music, but I don't see one on the list. It's surprising, because there are already about 400 articles that link to the bluegrass music page. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing and adding new information

Hello, My question is that how do I know that an image available in a particular website is suitable to put it on wikipedia. As of now,there are many pages that do not have proper images about that particular article. The image could be a movie actor or any scene of a film etc.

I really want to be a part of wikipedia and do something constructive. Please suggest me on this. Abhilash99101 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Abhilash99101. Adding images is an area that has a very steep learning curve because of the attendant copyright considerations, which are complex. Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. What we want ideally are images that are in the public domain (not copyright-protected at all), or if copyrighted, that bear a free copyright license that allow free reuse, even for commercial purposes, with very little restriction. This is what is provided for in the licenses for Wikipedia's content. This means that there are two types of images we seek:

Images which are in the public domain; and
Images which bear a free copyright license compatible with our free licenses.

However, we do allow use of certain media that are copyrighted in a manner more restrictive than our licenses – even use of fully copyrighted images. It's called Fair Use and is a doctrine which "permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders." However, all instances of fair use is considered not ideal; we do allow it but only under very strict standards that a media file must meet, and the things you need to do to show compliance are tricky. A fair use image must meet each of the requirements at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and, if an image does so, the image page, upon your upload, must state the reason it meets the criteria by a filled-out "fair use rationale". See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

Note that there are certain categories of images that often meet fair use, and others that almost never do. For example, images of living persons (such as living movie actors) can almost never meet fair use because the image is potentially replaceable with a free equivalent, so it fails the first criterion. By contrast, movie posters usually can meet fair use.

Please note that images are assumed fully- and non-freely copyrighted unless you can show how it entered the public domain or was freely-licensed. So, in general, you cannot just take a picture from the internet and upload it. This is the reason that we have many articles on incredibly famous people but with no photograph.

To boil this down, the answer to your question: "how do I know that an image available in a particular website is suitable to put it on wikipedia", is you look for a free copyright license on the page you find the image, and you study rules of public domain so you know what is inside and outside its ambit (for example, U.S. images published before 1923 are public domain, but you must know this to act on it). If you can't show an image meets the one or the other you can't use it except under a claim of fair use, with its complications. Unfortunately, this is the state of copyright—you must have and provide positive evidence of lack of copyright, and for a large number of images, since negative evidence is very difficult to come by, you are stuck. The ridiculously widened reach of copyright of the modern age, so much expanded from its roots, is a big part of the problem.

This is already a lengthy response I know, but bear with me for one second longer and note the following:

There is a Free Image Search Tool (FIST) that might help you find a suitable free image for upload.
If you do find free images, they should actually be uploaded to our sister site, the Wikimedia Commons rather than to Wikipedia, and can be used immediately here, once uploaded there.
Though your question was specifically about uploading images, you expressed a desire to help out generally. There are many ways to help Wikipedia which are far easier to master at the start. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction, consider starting with the Wikipedia:Tutorial and then take a look at Wikipedia:Community portal.

Hope all this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How to find out why an article is in dispute

Dear editors: I saw a page called bluegrass fiddle, and since I am a bluegrass fiddler myself, I began to read with interest. It seemed to me that some of the material was about bluegrass music in general (there's an article about that) rather than about the bluegrass fiddling style. I looked at the talk page to see what was being said about the topic, and it had a banner indicating that the page was controversial. I was surprised (everyone likes bluegrass fiddling, don't they?), so I read further, but there is not one comment on the talk page that indicates any controversy; in fact there wasn't much there at all. How do I find out what the problem is so that I don't step into something messy? —Anne Delong (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, a controversial page is one that is frequently open to edit wars and re-editing in a circular manner due to differing viewpoints between articles. It also depends on the sensetivity of the topic. E. g. Gay rights, Gun politics. Personally I don't see what can be so controversial about bluegrass fiddling. Osama bin Laden maybe, but bluegrass fiddling? See also: Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I took another look, and the same user has created a number of pages about various styles of fiddling. Most of them have been created with the "in dispute" tag immediately on the talk page before anyone else even contributes to the page. Is this proper use of the tag? I presume it's meant to scare off other editors. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything on the talk page or in the edit history of the page that would indicate why the article would be controversial or disputed, so I've gone ahead and removed the tag. I agree with you that without an obvious reason for a page to be controversial there is no reason for such a tag to be placed on a talk page. I would normally drop the creating editor a note asking him why he had tagged the page as well, but he indicates on his user page that he is retired, and he hasn't edited the English Wikipedia for the better part of a year. If you see the same tag on other pages that don't appear to be controversial, I would imagine you could safely remove it from them as well. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, be bold and remove the tags. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I realised that too. Maybe you're right. If there's no "controversy", the tag should be promptly removed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been editing the page with no dispute so far....

—Anne Delong (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Noob under attack by an Old Pro - Need Help

I have spotted an article with a problem (a "journalist" - Candace Dempsey - with only one book with modest sales to her credit, an amateur blog and a smattering of freelance articles over a 3 decade period is being passed off as "notable" via references to her own personal webpage rather than to suitable secondary sources).

However,"SlimVirgin" undoes each of my edits - usually with no explanation and/or a supporting argument based on factually incorrect information (e.g., that Dempsey has a "column" at the Seattle P.I. rather than an amateur "readers blog" in which readers of the P.I. write for other readers and the Seattle P.I. expressly disavows any responsibility for the content).

How is this situation to be handled?

"SlimVirgin" does not have his/her facts straight and is ignoring the rule against citing primary sources. MalibuSurfKing (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Malibu, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:SPS allows us to cite self-published information for non-controversial information, and sometimes this is necessary. The article Ratna Sarumpaet, for example, has some information from her official website that I've yet to find in any secondary sources. Slim has contacted you on your talk page and suggested nominating the Dempsey article for deletion if you want, which you can certainly do. I'll help if you want, as the nomination process can be bewildering if you do it manually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help, Cisco1492, thank you! For starters can you explain what you mean by "necessary": when is "self-published" information "necessary"? It seems to me this open the floodgates for every amateur blogger who has published one book with modest sales and/or a handful of freelance articles to post their c.v. on wiki and pass themselves off as Truman Capote.

"Notable" will become a meaningless designation if articles like the one I've spotted are allowed to stand. MalibuSurfKing (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

PS Cisco: "SlimVirgin" has, once again undone (without any explanation) my efforts to edit the article in order to comply with the requirement for secondary sources and, for reasons I do not understand, seems to have accused me of "harassment" and is planning to contact an "admin"! Please help! I do not understand why "SlimVirgin" is doing this! What did I do wrong? Can you tell me how to contact an "admin"?

Hi, Malibu. I'm new here too and I had my first WP culture shock episode about 12 hours ago. In my case I was shocked that someone who is regularly on the news and on television in Italy and who is considered by a large percentage if not the majority of Italians to be a menace to society, is possibly about to be deleted from WP by a mob of people unhappy with his political and religious views.

I already have relaxed and decided to let the processes put in place on WP handle the situation. Yes, I have gotten the author to do an extensive rewrite of the article and he did a great job. And I am debating the deletion request on the deletion request discussion page.

But I am quite comfortable with how things ultimately work out on WP. I suggest you keep plugging away and wait as patiently as possible for the situation to play out. And it will. It will. Martinw1200 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Martinw1200, if you are referring to the proposed deletion of an article on Italian Wikipedia, then this is probably not the best place to discuss it, in my opinion. Each language version of Wikipedia has its own governance and its own deletion procedures. The purpose of The Teahouse is to discuss editing the English Wikipedia. I suggest that this issue should instead be discussed on the Italian Wikipedia, and I very much hope that you will find some helpful editors there who will explain their policies and procedures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Malibu, WP:SPS explicitly disallows notability based only on self-published sources. Articles built entirely on self-published sources, like the CVs you mention above, should rightfully be deleted if secondary sources are available. However, using self-published sources in addition to secondary sources, for supplementary material or other information related to the author of that work (remember, usually acceptable SPSes are either by the subjects themselves or notable persons in a field) is fine. The featured article on Frank's Cock, for example, cites information from the director's website in addition to numerous secondary sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Are articles really deleted as the result of a mere vote?

I am watching, to my horror, an attempt to delete an article about a counter-culture figure in Italy. The deletion request was launched immediately after he became a political candidate. Blatantly fueled by political and religious beliefs.

But if such deletions are done by vote, wouldn't minority opinions be more likely to be censored?

Please explain this to me. My trust in Wikipedia as a reliable source of information rides on it. Martinw1200 (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martinw1200, welcome to the teahouse! Don't worry, deletion discussions are not decided by vote, but by consensus. Simple number of comments does not decide the issue, but rather the arguments used and whether they are supported by Wikipedia policy. There's some more information about this at Wikipedia:Consensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin1200! Just to expand a bit on what Demiurge1000 said above, (we seem to have both written our replies at the same time!), yes, it all comes down to consensus rather than voting. :) Whenever we have complex decisions to make, such as deletion discussions, you'll hear the phrase "this is not a vote" - what we're looking for is consensus, where consensus is calculated by looking at the respective strengths of the arguments. People who just say "delete" or "keep" are pretty much completely discounted in the final decision, as are people who express an opinion that is against Wikipedia's policies or which otherwise is unable to be given much weight.

What the closer is looking for isn't so much how many people expressed an opinion, but what the strongest overall argument was. So I've watched discussions where a large number of people voted to keep the article, but in the end it was deleted because it was felt that those voting to delete had presented the strongest argument (often based on the biographies of living people policy, which is very important in many of these debates). I've also seen cases where a well made keep argument has won the day, in spite of a more people calling for deletion. There's also a general rule that in borderline cases, where it is clear that there isn't a consensus forming, that the default decision should be to keep the article.

All that said, it should be expected that if a lot of people vote one way, and present good arguments, then they have the upper hand. But it isn't a foregone conclusion. Of course, the best solution is to address the concerns being raised by those voting to delete the article through improvements to the article, which is my preferred response where I can do it. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 and Bilby: Very good explanations. Thank you both.

The author did, as Bilby mentioned, add better references and improve the article in other ways.

Still, I'm bothered by the hostile presence of people who are using their familiarity with Wikipedia policy and procedure to hide what are obviously political motives.

My inability to use Wikipedia jargon effectively seems to be a handicap. It shouldn't be that way. But I'm probably getting ahead of myself. The decision is a ways off. What constitutes a consensus might be open to interpretation and that bothers me.

The article is being held to much higher standards than most Wikipedia articles. The result could be that it is deleted for "the right reasons" but in an unfair way. There would be no way to prove that the motive was political in that case. The whole thing seems way too open to abuse. Martinw1200 (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Martinw1200. Welcome to the Teahouse. As you haven't shared with us the specific article you have questions about, all we will be able to offer is general information. Articles for deletion are subjected to a week, or longer, debate, during which people offer their opinion and, yes, offer a vote. However, the votes are not simply tabulated and a decision determined by the vote count. Editors who weigh in at an AfD are required not only to offer a vote, but also a rationale for their vote. The criteria for actually deleting an article are actually fairly narrow. Basically, an article can be on Wikipedia unless it is a copyright violation, a blatant, unreferenced attack on an individual or company or it does not reach our standards for inclusion. The first two are generally handled without debate through a process called "speedy deletion" (see WP:CSD). An AfD discussion is for the third reason. Sound arguments at an AfD discussion are either based on whether the article meets the policy requirements or whether there exist references that can improve the article to where it can. The moderators that close the discussion will weigh the arguments and discard any that don't address the issues at hand. (examples of that might include an argument that comes down to I disagree with the subjects politics, or I don't like the subject of the article.) They then weigh the strength of the various valid arguments and then finally tabulate the votes, weighting them to the quality of the argument that goes with them. So, in short, no it isn't done on just a simple vote. Hope that mollifies your concerns! Come back anytime we can help you, Martinw1200! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried to add the address of his political party's website and it was blocked as "spam." What is going on here? Martinw1200 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia, not a directory or a phone book, we do not include physical addresses, phone numbers, email addresses or similar information in our articles. For information on our project scope, you can see WP:NOT - that page lists a few of the things that "Wikipedia is not" as a means of resolving any misconceptions an editor may have had. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are addressing here. (There's that word "address" again.) I was referring to the blocking of a website that was needed as a reference. It had nothing to do with directories or phone books. Martinw1200 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Guess I misunderstood your comment, sorry. I don't normally think of a URL as an "address", I guess. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There are dozens of political party website links in this article for example: Democratic Party (United States)

Many WP articles contain political party website links. But for some reason, [Democrazia Atea] is blocked on [Wikipedia Italy] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinw1200 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 February 2013‎

I'm certain that the deletion request violates this principle: WP:CENSOR

The article is being attacked for its association with a controversial issue. The ease with which this can occur is what is troubling me. Martinw1200 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It is inevitable that articles put up for deletion will be held to a higher standard than thousands of other articles which exist below the radar because experienced editors are too busy to look at every page in detail. On the other hand WP editors tend to be hostile to any attempt to introduce political or religious bias into the encyclopedia and the deletion process is not going to be biased.--Charles (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that input. I can understand how controversial subject matter would end up being held to a higher standard. Some of the " articles needing copy edit" have amazed me! One was a huge single sentence block. I had no idea how to edit it because I couldn't figure out what it meant. But the article being attacked is pretty good as far as style and content. The subject of the article is well-known in Italy. Anyway I was glad to read that WP editors don't like bias. I hope that proves true in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinw1200 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 February 2013‎

Are you referring to an article in the Italian Wikipedia, specifically it:Marco Dimitri? If so, you will have to discuss that at the Italian Wikipedia. Wikipedia languages can have their own policies and procedures. I don't know how deletions are determined at the Italian Wikipedia. This Teahouse is at the English Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Can a company logo be used in a userbox?

Dear editors: I want to make a userbox for my user page indicating my favourite computer. If I create a small, low resolution of the computer model's logo, can I upload it and include it in the userbox under fair use? Can I contribute it to the pool of userboxes, or would each person who used the userbox have to fill out a fair use form? I have been trying to read through the policies about this, but I haven't been able to answer this myself one way or the other. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nopers, no copyrighted material can be used in the userspace, Fair use rationale goes out the window if the logos and such are copyrighted. Here's the relevent policy, NFCC policy Sorry, >.< — - dain- talk 05:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area but my understanding is that there are some WP guidelines that allow the use of a low resolution version of the company's published logo. However, if the "computer model's logo" that you want to use is something different than the company logo than Dainomite's response to you is fully correct, to the best of my knowledge. I hope my comment is helpful and has not created further confusion. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Keith, I think you are referring to the non-free content criteria, but they permit the use of non-free content only in main/article space. Of course if a logo does not qualify for copyright protection such as File:DuPont.svg, then it can theoretically be used in any space.--ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thinking how to resolve this brings up another question: if you use a pic of your own computer, with the brand logo visible, will that bite you? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, I will take a picture of my computer, and when the picture is reduced to 43px, the logo will be indiscernible. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Does content on your sandbox stay permanently until deleted.

I am confused as to wether sandbox content automatically deletes or not TomFirth19 (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse, Tom! You delete sandbox content yourself. Nothing "automatically" deletes. If you have any further questions, feel free to e-mail me or talk me. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 12:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To expand slightly, edits made to Wikipedia:Sandbox (the general test page for Wikipedia) are routinely cleared by an automated script. However, sandbox pages in your userspace (such as User:TomFirth19/sandbox) will retain their content pretty much indefinitely. If a draft remains untouched in an editor's sandbox and that editor then vanishes or ignores it for a long time, it may be deleted as a stale draft, and content which is patently unsuitable (such as blatant advertising or copyright violations) is tagged and deleted just as though it was in article space. As a rule though, your sandbox is likely to remain largely unmolested by others. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good clarification. I think JHUbal27 assumed Tom was talking about a self-created sandbox. Good catch Yunshui! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response everyone, Very helpful --TomFirth19 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How to use Account Creator Permissions

Hello! I am an Education Program Instructor with Account Creator rights, which I need to utilize to make accounts for my students, but I have no idea how to do this; help! How do I make multiple accounts? Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jackson! You just can't escape me

. Perhaps this is what you're looking for? Go Phightins! 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jackson - you'll be able to create accounts here, even while you are logged in. There's normally a limit of six account creations per IP address per day, but +accountcreator gets rid of that, so you'll be able to create as many as you need. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed "limit of five account creations per IP address per day" --> "limit of six account creations per IP address per day" -- Cheers, Riley 05:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thank you both! Much appreciated, the combination of both answers perfectly answered my question! Go Phigtins!, I really can't escape you

but thank you so much for your hard work on the Adoption, and I noticed that you already graded half of the exam! Fast work! Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just graded the other half. One follow up. Go Phightins! 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If these two awesome helpers are busy, you can also give me a shout if you need help with account creation or the education program! Other pages that can help you is this and WP:ACCPERM. :) -- Cheers, Riley 05:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's position on using Facebook (and other social media pages) as external links?

I am aware that they are generally frowned upon as sources, but is it ok for them to be used as external links? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't use them as sources, but generally (please correct me if I'm wrong) they can be external links if they are somewhat relevant. — nerd fighter 01:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Skamecrazy123; welcome to the Teahouse! You are correct in assuming that they are generally frowned upon as references, unless the links are used to verify a specific statement. In regard to external links, though, Wikipedia is a bit more lenient. Links to social media sites that help extend upon the article are generally okay, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of links...so try to minimize the number of external links in any given article, unless absolutely needed. Hope this helps, and happy editing! —Theopolisme (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided says:

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

...

Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.

PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Another reason not to link to social media is that not everyone who reads Wikipedia has or wants accounts on all of these sites. If an openly available source will do, why limit your readers? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Like ...sorry I had to — nerd fighter 02:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation- how do I change my host profile?

Ironic, I know. I was Rosscoolguy, now I am Nerdfighter — nerd fighter 00:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've updated it, see [2]. Happy editing! —Theopolisme (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — nerd fighter 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How Can I Restore A Previous Version of an Article

Hello!

I wrote the article entitled, "Stephen (Steve) K. Ray," and it was published in July of last year. Since then, the article has undergone some revisions by other persons that now may cause it to be deleted. I would like to restore it to the original version that I wrote, but it seems that I do not have permission to do so. Can you help me?

The version I would like restored is the one with the time/date stamp of 24 July 2012 01:27.

Thank you very much for you help.

Respectfully,

FireWriter154 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Firewriter154. That sort of defeats the entire purpose of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and could also be the start of an edit war if you simply revert to a version you prefer. At this time there is no danger of the article being deleted as there is no AFD tag, just a tag stating what are the issues needing to be addressed. I suggest communicating with the editor that placed the tag and attempt to address the concerns. Never just revert back to your another version without specific reasons. Always remember that the work of other editors deserves as much respect as your own.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question! Amadscientist is right, you should not revert other people's work, just because it is not your own. The good thing about Wikipedia is that you can still edit it! If you think that you can somehow fix that article, feel free to change it. Unless their revisions are clearly vandalism, it would be against policy to get revert it. Thanks — nerd fighter 00:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The way to revert to an earlier version is to go to the page history of the article in question and click on the timestamp of the version you want to revert to. You should see a pinkish banner at the top of the page you come to, saying that it's an old revision. What you then do is hit the edit button (you'll see a notice saying you're editing an old revision of the page), and hit save page. But Amadscientist and Nerdfighter are right, you shouldn't usually remove other people's contributions because you like a certain version of a page better. The relevant policy for this is WP:OWN (the humor version of the policy is WP:WikiKing). ^King Jakob _C2 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably Normal - but would like to be reassured!

Had a submission declined on 13 December 2012 The particular article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ballynagran, needed "a clean up and a copy edit and …. removal of google maps and Facebook references" entirely valid . The corrections, i believe were completed the following day. and the article was resubmitted for approval (or nay) with a communication from the reviewer on Dec 18th that, while extremely busy, he would eventually get around to it.

Now, though there are millions of articles, i find the interface a little daunting, and may very well have done something incorrectly. Or it just may well be that at this point in time the system is overloaded. Would this delay, presuming that i have not messed up, be just normal ? Though reading the articles below would lead me to believe that i have messed up somewhere. If anyone has the time to help or to suggest a remedy I'd be thrilled! Valuser (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The draft is not in the queue for review. To add it, put {{Subst:Submit}} at the top and click "save". --ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You can also simply click "When you are ready to resubmit, click here" (it doesn't matter which box says that), and then press "Save page" as instructed. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I found the Dec 18th post you refer to: [3]. It said "I or another editor will look at it soon enough. I am sad to say I have a bit of a full plate right now." It could have been clearer but I guess it was under the assumption that the article was resubmitted, which it wasn't at the time. Maybe the editor was too busy to discover that it had not been resubmitted. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability.

We have received the following statement twice. Any advice on how to move forward would be greatly appreciated. Maybe it's not that we don't have enough references but that we are submitting them in the wrong format? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Chalda_Maloff

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

ChaldaMaloff (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As it currently stands the article is not formatted correctly for references and there appears to be a number of links in the body of the article. That is not allowed. Please review Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. Bare urls are not the best way to cite your sources but others can always change the formatting later, but you must not format the source to link in the body of the article. It appears that, from the references used and cited, there is no reasoning that the figure meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, so I would review Wikipedia:Notability as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers at AfC (me included) can be a bit twitchy when the sources are not available online. It's just we need to be reasonably convinced the sources talk in some depth about the subject and/or their work, rather than just brief mentions (or a different topic entirely). However, because your article cited two offline reviews of Maloff's book, in my view she (just about) meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for authors. All the same, others may disagree so it will help to add some more inline citations pointing out which facts are cited to the offline sources. Sionk (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate fact, but is not at all what should be happening. Online sources are not required and if that has become an issue there is an actual problem. I have never used the AFC process. I just create my articles directly and have on occassion used my sandbox to begin. The issue with offline references has been mentioned before but I will be sure to explain this directly. If you have been told your sources need to be checked....that is not an issue for the person providing the source but for the editor who questions the source. The best practice is to discuss the offline references and provide quotes from the sources to show how you are making the claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Dear Teahouse members, I would like to draw attention to a possible edit warring case. As I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself, I thought I ask for advice here. Please take a look at Irving Singer. Is there anything that can be done about 'deletionist' wikipedians? Thanks a lot. Anthrophilos (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dont edit war. There is nothing that can be done about the "label" you have placed on the other editor. Try working together and not making assumptions. This is also not the proper venue to bring this up. Use the Administrator Noticboards if you feel that intervention is required or the 3RR board if there has been more than 3 reverts within a 24 hr period.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am new here too and I have made up my mind not to watch articles I have edited nor to redo something of mine that has been undone. :There are thousands of articles needing editing. Time is limited. If a deletion is malicious, reacting to it would only feed the malice. :I'm not being philosophical, just practical. Keep editing and move on. Martinw1200 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal Of Proposed Deletion

A proposed deletion was put on a page siting reference requirements. I believe those requirements are now in place. How do we 1) know things are satisfactory and 2) remove the proposed deletion request? Cleantripletech (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cleantripletech. Anybody can remove a Prod tag if they think it is not justified, or in fact they can remove it anyway, and it can never be replaced. Articles for Deletion must then be used instead. It is polite to give a reason for removal in the edit summary.--Charles (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct. Tags must not be removed unless the issue is addressed. It is not a matter of whether you feel the tag is justified. In fact you should NEVER remove an AFD tag until the article has been through the AFD process. If you have addressed the issue, but other editors feel the references are not an improvement the article may still be deleted. Tags are content like anything else. Removing them without addressing the issue can cause edit warring. Consensus determines if the tags should be removed like all content.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong redirection of links

is there any way to correct the wrong links? i have seen links to Jigme Dorji who is Shabdrung Redirected to Jigme Palden Dorji (who was actually a prime Minister) how to correct the misinterpreting links ?

Tgyeltshen (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tgyeltshen; welcome to the Teahouse. You can fix such links in the following manner: First find the exact title of the page you want the link to go to; in this case, the article doesn't yet exist (it would be Jigme Dorji, Shabdrung Rinpoche, according to the link at Shabdrung). Then, at the place where the incorrect link exists, replace it with [[Jigme Dorji, Shabdrung Rinpoche|Jigme Dorji]]. This will create a link like this: Jigme Dorji; when someone (you?) eventually creates the article Jigme Dorji, Shabdrung Rinpoche, the link will turn blue. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

another problem/issue with reference section

I am still working on a bio for Michael Caruso and would like a second ref section for just the discography below it (or a combined one at the bottom for everything would be ok). However, when I try to add another one it duplicates all the refs from below the bio and when I try to add refs in the discography, it gives a error message. thanks so much for your help/suggestions as in the past. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mary, welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look at your personal sandbox where you are working on the article in question (I presume). Here on Wikipedia we always put the references at the end of the article (see here WP:FNNR for a litte more information). So, if I were to restructure your article it would be Biography, Discography, References.

While I assume there is a technical way of achieving what you are suggesting it isn't really the way articles like this are formatted here on Wikipedia. There's plenty more information on the Manual of Style which shows how almost everything here on Wikipedia is generally formatted. Hope that helps, Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

thank you so much! I was afraid to move it but was able to add another ref once i moved to the bottom and it worked!(Paulhus15 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad to be of assistance. Keep on contributing! Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)