Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 167

Archive 160

←

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

Tables

Hi,

I am currently working on a new page. One of the sections includes a pretty big table (4 columns, 62 rows) that I currently have set up to collapse because the table is so big. Is there anyway to change this table so that it divided in two sections of 4 columns, 31 rows each with a white column in between? Also, is there any way to set the color of each individual cell so that it's not the same color as the column header? Thanks. --Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding the coloring of the table, the header is actually a darker shade of gray than the body of the table. This is the standard coloring for tables in articles, and should usually be left alone. It may just be hard to see the difference on some screens. If you ever do want to change the color of a cell, you can see the details of doing that on our table help guide.

As for splitting the table up, I'm not sure if there's a standardized way that's preferred. The best way I can think of doing it is to divide your current table (4 columns, 62 rows) into two separate tables (4 columns, 31 rows each), and place those tables into another unformatted table side-by-side. Here's an example of the code:

{|
|-
|
<Insert table 1>
|
<Insert table 2>
|}

I took the table from your sandbox and split it, so you can see how it's done:

No. Year Winner Runner-up 1 1951 Yoshio Kimura Kozo Masuda 2 1952 Kozo Masuda Yuzo Maruta 3 1953 Masao Tsukada Motoji Hanamura 4 1954 Yasuharu Oyama Masao Tsukada 5 1955 Yasuharu Oyama Rensho Nada 6 1956 Yasuo Harada Rensho Nada 7 1957 Kozo Masuda Rensho Nada 8 1958 Rensho Nada Yasuharu Oyama 9 1959 Yuzo Maruta Genichi Ono 10 1960 Hifumi Kato Yasuharu Oyama 11 1961 Yasuharu Oyama Hiroji Kato 12 1962 Rensho Nada Kozo Masuda 13 1963 Kozo Masuda Hifumi Kato 14 1964 Yasuharu Oyama Masao Tsukada 15 1965 Yuzo Maruta Kozo Masuda 16 1966 Hifumi Kato Tatsuya Futagami 17 1967 Noboru Otomo Tatsuya Futagami 18 1968 Yuzo Maruta Michiyoshi Yamada 19 1969 Kunio Naito Shigeru Sekine 20 1970 Yasuharu Oyama Makoto Nakahara 21 1971 Hifumi Kato Nobuyuki Ouchi 22 1972 Yasuharu Oyama Kunio Yonenaga 23 1973 Hifumi Kato Kunio Naito 24 1974 Makoto Nakahara Kunio Naito 25 1975 Nobuyuki Ouchi Tatsuya Futagami 26 1976 Hifumi Kato Kunio Yonenaga 27 1977 Makoto Nakahara Hifumi Kato 28 1978 Kunio Yonenaga Kazuo Manabe 29 1979 Yasuharu Oyama Keiji Mori 30 1980 Michio Ariyoshi Makoto Nakahara 31 1981 Hifumi Kato Hatasu Ito

No. Year Winner Runner-up 32 1982 Makoto Nakahara Teruichi Aono 33 1983 Yasuharu Oyama Hifumi Kato 34 1984 Torahiko Tanaka Hifumi Kato 35 1985 Koji Tanigawa Kunio Naito 36 1986 Yuji Maeda Keiji Mori 37 1987 Makoto Nakahara Osamu Nakamura 38 1988 Yoshiharu Habu Makoto Nakahara 39 1989 Yoichi Kushida Akira Shima 40 1990 Manabu Senzaki Yoshikazu Minami 41 1991 Yoshiharu Habu Yasuaki Tsukada 42 1992 Makoto Nakahara Akira Shima 43 1993 Hifumi Kato Yasumitsu Sato 44 1994 Makoto Nakahara Kunio Yonenaga 45 1995 Yoshiharu Habu Daisuke Nakagawa 46 1996 Toshiyuki Moriuchi Nobuyuki Yashiki 47 1997 Yoshiharu Habu Satoshi Murayama 48 1998 Yoshiharu Habu Kazushiza Horiguchi 49 1999 Daisuke Suzuki Masataka Goda 50 2000 Yoshiharu Habu Toshiaki Kubo 51 2001 Toshiyuki Moriuchi Yasumitsu Sato 52 2002 Hiroyuki Miura Manabu Senzaki 53 2003 Toshiaki Kubo Yoshiharu Habu 54 2004 Takayuki Yamasaki Yoshiharu Habu 55 2005 Tadahisa Maruyama Akira Watanabe 56 2006 Yasumitsu Sato Toshiyuki Moriuchi 57 2007 Yasumitsu Sato Daisuke Suzuki 58 2008 Yoshiharu Habu Toshiyuki Moriuchi 59 2009 Yoshiharu Habu Tetsuro Itodani 60 2010 Yoshiharu Habu Tetsuro Itodani 61 2011 Yoshiharu Habu Akira Watanabe 62 2012 Akira Watanabe Yoshiharu Habu

Finally, if you want, you may place the table into a collapsible box so that both tables can be collapsed at the same time:

Other users might have another way to do this, but I hope this helps! Feel free to follow up with any more questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for taking the time to do all of that. You've been a big help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: I have been trying to insert my tables into a collapsible box using the code you provided above, but have not been successful. For some reason, "Table 2" keep showing up outside the box, i.e., both tables "hide" fine, but "Table 2" seems to be outside the box when "show" is clicked. Any idea as to what I might be doing wrong? Also, is it possible to make the "break" between the two tables a little wider? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem! There are several ways to add spacing, but here's one way:

{|
|-
| style="padding-right: 2em" |
<Insert table 1>
| style="padding-left: 2em" |
<Insert table 2>
|}

What that code does is it adds "padding" to the right side of the first cell, and padding to the left side of the second cell. Increasing "2em" will also increase the padding. I've gone ahead and added the padding to the example I made above so you can take a look at what it looks like.

As for the table showing up outside of the box...I experimented around, but I'm not sure why you might be having problems. I've gone ahead and placed both tables into the box above, so you can take a look at the code. Hopefully it won't have the same problem and you can pinpoint what went wrong :) Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Status of my article

Hello,

Am trying to get this article up on Wikipedia since a while now.

Can someone help me please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/

Shrikant Narayan (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the last part of the filename in your question, and there are no AFCs listed under your contributions. If you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shrikant Narayan, you have received plenty of feedback there, and on your user talk page (or at User talk:Smitha Satpute, which is where your user talk page redirects); have you read the links there? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Note also that having changed your user name from User:Shrikant Narayan to User:Smitha Satpute, you have now confused the issue by logging in under your old user name instead of the new one. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply.

I got an input from another reviewer that I should change the user name from Shrikant Narayan. I am not Shrikant Narayan. The subject is a very popular singer, and am trying to get his article. Can you please suggest specifically how do I reduce the confusion?!

Smitha Satpute (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing your username was a good idea; it's confusing when someone uses the name of a different person. The change may cause a little confusion at first, but it will be better in the long run to have your own identity, and your willingness to make the change shows that you respect Wikipedia policies. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I know the status of my article now? Have added more references and inline citations. Am keen to get this up before the year ends! Can you please guide on next steps.

Smitha Satpute (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Embedding video content & ownership issue

Is there a way to embed videos that are not uploaded to wikimedia commons? It seems not possible according to the page but I thought to ask. I just saw this NatGeo video on Rosslyn Chapel (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/laser-archaeology/rosslyn-chapel-video) and thought it would make a great addition to the page. Is it acceptable and sufficient from an ownership standpoint (from our rules perspective) if I obtain their acceptance to use on Wikipedia? Alma (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Alma and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not possible to add any file to the article that is not uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. This is mostly because of Copyrights issues, but there are other reasons. Wikipedia is "free" encyclopedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is that anyone can use its contents for any purpose (including commercial use), providing that the authors are properly attributed. This includes both text and files found in the articles. So, for example, if you embed a NatGeo video into the article, it would violate NG's copyrights, since Wikipedia users would assume that they may use the video for any purpose, which is not the case. The proper (and only possible) way would be to ask NatGeo to give permission for the video to be used for any purpose, and then to upload the copy of the video to Wikimedia Commons. But, remember: It is not enough if they give permission to use the video in Wikipedia. Wikipedia and Commons only accepts content that is given permission to be used by anyone for any purpose, and I don't really think that NG would give such a permission. Read more about copyrights here: WP:Copyrights. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that clarifies it! Alma (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: the video in question has: "© 2013 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved". However, you could put a link to the NatGeo page in the 'External links' section. ~'Eric: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Eric! Alma (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD bias

Aaand, another one: what do I do if I suspect AfD bias? There's an article that was proposed for deletion because it is claimed (yes, claimed) to be uncategorizable (there is a very clear category under which it falls, but the editor seems to be unaware of it - no problem as I pointed it out), unsourced (but there are notable references on the page) and original research (again, the references are good). The nominator seems to not have a good grasp on the subject of the article (I can tell because I do) and most 'delete' votes have 'as per user..., couldn't have said it better myself' justifications, which fall under the no justification or follow the leader categories. Admittedly the article features a controversial subject (implications of quantum mechanics) however this controversy was between some of the most famous people in the world. I am assuming good faith, still I don't understand why the editors evaluate a subject they obviously don't know in detail. Please help me with input that does not overlap the areas I have already researched as per links. Thank you! Alma (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC) And can the article be edited (as in clarified and improved) during the AfD debate? I can't find this information. Thank you! Alma (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Almaionescu, and welcome to the teahouse! First of all, yes you certainly can continue to edit and further refine the article during the AfD. (Though you're not supposed to blank it, rename/move it, or remove the AfD notice.)

Second, if the AfD discussion is as you say, then the closing administrator should act accordingly. Without seeing the AfD, it's impossible for me to say whether it will be apparent to the closing administrator that your characterisation of the AfD is correct. (Certainly "I can't think what category to put this topic in" is not a valid reason to delete an article.) Third, on the subject of "between some of the most famous people in the world"; I once had an argument (also about the implications of quantum mechanics) with Roger Penrose in a pub, but his being very famous doesn't make our argument notable, because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED (amongst other reasons). That may or may not be relevant here, but it's one way of looking at the problem.

Others may be able to comment in more detail, especially if they go through your contributions to find which AfD you're actually talking about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am really grateful for your reply, especially because since my last post one of the deleters used the "in my opinion" argument. If you wish to see the current status you are my guests here. My main concern is that I'm not sure if I'm actually right. For your information, I just finished reworking the 'background and history' in the hope to make it actually encyclopedic. Of course you can see the history for what was there before. Thank you so much! Alma (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of bias in the debate, and one need not be a topic expert to participate in an AfD debate. There is nothing wrong with an editor stating that they are in agreement with another editor, and that opinion is taken into consideration by the closing administrator if the other editor's argument is compelling and on point. This seems to be a high level debate, though some of the comments seem more appropriate for the article's talk page. Debate should focus on the notability of the topic, whether any synthesis or original research are present in the article, the reliability of the current sources and specific additional sources that can be used to improve the article, and so on. As a participant in a couple of thousand AfD debates, the best advice I can give is to sit back once you've made your best points, and let the debate play out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, I would like to say that the essay called Follow the leader is not widely cited in deletion debates and as I see it, contains a mixture of good and bad advice. It seems to be arguing that the original writer of an article, or substantive contributors to the article, are better able to evaluate the notability of the topic than uninvolved editors. My educated guess is that few experienced AfD participants would accept that view. It is very common to see article authors arguing stubbornly to keep an article on a clearly non-notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen! I asked precisely because I took in consideration that I may not be right. Regarding the "follow the leader", I was referring specifically to the definition "Follow the leader occurs during a deletion discussion (such as an AfD), when the first editor to comment on the board, or in some cases, the nominator, gives his/her opinion, and then most editors who give their opinions thereafter are strongly influenced by that first comment", this seems to be a logical argumentation and also the case due to the comments "delete as per nominator/user..."; . I very much agree that one doesn't have to be an expert to vote, however I, as a non-expert in, say, paleontology, would have real difficulty making and sustaining compelling arguments about the non-notability of a related topic (arguments which are explicitly required by the procedure to close an AfD). The debate was open as for "original research", but I'm not sure I follow how can one who is not familiar with a field can spot original research. Not being familiar with a topic and yet being able to emit heavy arguments on it seems a bit inconsistent. Alma (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Font on page enlarged & not accessible.

Help. while adding wikilnks to Hebei Institute of Architecture and Civil Engineering ,The font size of headings and paragraphs increased. I don't know why the problem was (my pc?) so unsure where to advise / seek help.Andrea edits (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Andrea edits. That article appears normal on my monitor. Therefore, I can only assume that it is a problem with your computer, but can't be sure. Try hitting "ctrl" and "-" at the same time to reduce font size, though you may have a different problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen for the quick response. I tried your suggestion, but no luck. It must be my computer. Sorry to trouble you.Andrea edits (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrea, part of the problem might be that instead of using section headings, someone has used the html markup <big> </big> instead. Changing that might sort things out for you. NtheP (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I will look for the html markup, thank you.--Andrea edits (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Spacing in section headings

When I write section headings am I supposed to put spaces between the words and the equal signs on either side? I've seen it both ways. Is there a preferred standard on Wikipedia? Transphasic (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Transphasic. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings says: "Spaces between the equal signs and the heading text are optional, and will not affect the way the heading is displayed." PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeking reason for rejection of proposed article

My proposed article on HERMAN C. KOENIG, friend of H. P. Lovecraft's and author of the Introduction to THE HOUSE ON THE BORDERLAND AND OTHER NOVELS by William Hope Hodgson [Arkham House, 1946] has been rejected. I received four [4] emails from Northamerica1000, but don't know the reason for the rejection. Help? GeneBi (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, GeneBi, and welcome. As I can see, your proposed article is here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Herman Charles Koenig. It was mistakenly declined by User:Northamerica1000, but he realized his mistake ([1]), and the article is now tagged as "Review waiting." It is still waiting for the new review.

But, the article indeed has some issued and I'm afraid it will be declined again if you do not improve it. It has only two sources. You should add more reliable sources to prove that the person is indeed notable. And, the article has no footnotes which are needed to have verifability. You should work on improving the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:GeneBi#Sorry about mistaken declination of AfC submission, where I've explained the error that occurred and provided advice about improving the AfC submission. This user apparently receives automatic emails when messages are left on their talk page, so they received them when the AfC template for the mistakenly-declined submission was sent by the AfC helper script, when I removed the template, when I addended the teabox template notice to be the standard welcome (rather than one for declined submissions) and when I added my general welcoming template to their page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Preview

I am clicking show preview of my page in the sandbox however it is not showing me anything, its just blank. I have saved my page, however it keeps saying this is only a preview, this page has not been saved LOPC (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi LOPC, see my change to the article, you'd added an extra ! in your formatting which was causing the whole page to be hidden :) Samwalton9 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing the name on a Wiki Page

I created a page Zomaron merchant services, but the second and third word of the company name did not capitalize. I can't seem to find a way to get the first letters capital. Help if you know how!

(Slebert18 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slebert18. To rename a page, you move it to the new name using the Move button in the top right (in the drop down menu to the right of View History). Samwalton9 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Samwalton9!

{Slebert18 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the "publish" button on a Wikipedia entry ready for publication or review?

Hi, I'd like to know where the "publish" button is for a Wikipedia entry? I've completed my entry for now and would just like to publish it. Thanks. Spidertech (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, when your draft is ready just look at the bottom left of the screen and then click save page. All should be fine then. Valenciano (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Welcome to the tea-house. The short answer is that articles are not "published", but are "moved" to main space, using the Move command.
However, I note that all of your edits to date, except the question above, have been to your user page. If you are intending to "publish" the text that is currently at User:Spidertech can I suggest you don't, as it will almost certainly be deleted, almost immediately.
In order to justify an article, you need to show that the company and/or product is "notable" in Wikipedia's use of the word, i.e. that it has received extensive coverage in reliable, third party, publications. One link, to the company's own web-site, is totally inadequate.
Unfortunately, there is further bad news, in that your user-name appears to contravene Wikipedia's user name policy specifically the section WP:CORPNAME which precludes user names that "consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product".
Assuming you are related to the company, you should read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest, before proceeding any further. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello and many thanks to all of you for your help. I am new to Wikipedia and creating an entry on behalf of the company I work for. This is totally new to me and I am finding it very confusing, so much appreciated. Spidertech (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on first article?

Hi,

I am working on an article in the sandbox of a friend and I wanted some feedback as to how it would fare under Wikipedia's guidelines? Any suggestions welcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ruair%C3%AD_Donnelly/sandbox

Max Carpendale (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Max. Welcome to the Teahouse! Right now the article reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Phrases like:

...discussed in the context of theodicies as an example of the large amount of evil in the world. In this context, it is also an example of evil that humans are not responsible for causing and that is inflicted on animals which are not usually considered able to be morally responsible or able to deserve punishment.

Are not neutral, and have to be removed. In a nutshell, the article must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. I hope this helps. Thanks for contributing to the encyclopedia. -- Ross Hill (Talk) 20:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Two Questions-- one re Image Rights and one re the Infobox

1. I've added-to the biography of John Hall Wheelock, which was little more than his birth/death dates and the fact that he was a poet, and I took off the banner saying there needed to be more said about him. I will eventually add some chapters to his life, with more references etc. (I didn't know this man but discovered him while working on The Harvard Monthly article.) My idea in regard to articles in general is that they need to invite the reader, and breaking up the text with images is important. A portrait is important on a biography, and I have found a nice one of this man listed on eBay, which was once the property of a newspaper that ran an article on him. Here is my question: If I buy the picture, is it then "mine", and can I upload it with all the attributions-- name of photographer, when and where it was published originally, etc.? If it is "mine", should I upload to the Commons? I realize it wouldn't be "mine" in the sense that I created it, but perhaps "mine" to share.

2. I've seen some discussion re the use of the Infobox. It seems some editors don't like them and want a picture without all the description. I've liked them, as I can get an immediate sense of who the person is-- although visually it seems "cleaner" when the picture is without all the words. My "vote" would be that the "lesser-known" individuals be given an Infobox, and those who are "household names" don't need one (i.e. we know what Christopher Columbus did-- and you couldn't fit all the genocide and other controversies into an Infobox anyway). So... if I can purchase and upload a picture of Mr. Wheelock, I will give him an Infobox. They can be tedious to create... so if it seems they aren't desired and some bot will come along eventually and eat them, I could skip doing this. Kathrynklos (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and it looks to me you've improved the John Hall Wheelock article greatly. If this is your start in Wikipedia, we'll be hoping you stay around! In reply to your first question, if this is the photo, it looks as if it was published in 1936 (but might have been published earlier). If it was published with a copyright notice and the copyright was renewed, it will stay in copyright until 2031. Otherwise it has fallen out of copyright.[2] Buying it will make no difference to whether you can upload a scan. You would own the photo but not the copyright. If it is out of copyright you could legally just copy the image from eBay. You could ask at WP:Media copyright questions and someone may be able to tell you if copyright was renewed. I personally don't know how to find out. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And regarding infoboxes. There is no policy dictating whether or not an article has an infobox and in my experience in an article like this there will be no trouble either way. You can do whatever you think is best. Someone might remove one but that is pretty unlikely to happen. Slightly more likely would be that someone else might add one. No bot has got (or would get) approval for automatically removing infoboxes. Thincat (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback and suggestions. Yes, you found the image I like of this fellow. I'll follow-up as you suggest and if I can't use this one, perhaps will find another. Happy Holidays! Kathrynklos (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Kathrynklos. You do not need to purchase a copy of the photo. Since the person is dead, the "fair use" exception to copyright allows use of a low resolution version only to illustrate that biography. Please read Non-free content, paying special attention to section 4.1.3, item #10 on that list. Upload to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons which is for freely licensed work only), and credit the original source plus the website where you found it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I belatedly realised that. However, there may be a snag if it turns out that the photo has never been published. I continued the discussion at User talk:Kathrynklos#Photo of John Hall Wheelock. Thincat (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to make an alternate article name auto-redirect to the article itself, not a suggestion list

How can I make the result for the search Whisper (app) be the same article I get when I also search: Whisperapp, Whisper app, Whisper application, WhisperText, Whisper text, and Whisper.sh? I submitted these, but all I see is that I now get the suggestions page instead of the article itself. I want all those searches to go straight to the article. How can I do that? InternetUser25 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If you go to each of those articles, you can add #REDIRECT [[Whisper (app)]] to make them redirect pages :) Samwalton9 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So I have to actually create articles for each? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetUser25 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but each only needs to contain '#REDIRECT Whisper (app)' Samwalton9 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Two Tom Petch's

Hi I'm 'moving' my bio page - my great grandfather has same name; Tom Petch, any suggestions ? at present it's on a sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Petch_(Film_Director)&oldid=587429196 redirected. I can't seem to get it off the sandbox anyhow, a separate issue. And don't really want to post it with the director title in brackets anyway. Thanks, Tom Ptc113 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi ptc113. I'm currently a little confused so I have a few questions first of all. You're writing your own article it seems, and you also want to write one for your grandfather? You seem to have done many moves and have ended up with your sandbox article in article space (Tom Petch), did you mean to do this? Samwalton9 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the sandbox article is now in Wikipedia space (not article space), at Wikipedia:Tom Petch, but in any case it seems to be a candidate for speedy deletion as there are no references to show notability. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

LeSean McCoy

I currently revamped the LeSean McCoy. Right now the page is under the GA review process, and looks like it will pass. I was curious if there was anywhere I could go to find people interested in helping correct the citations I made. Most of them are considered bare url's, as I was unaware of the code at the time. Thanks PhillySportsGuru25PhillySportsGuru25 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the bare URLs and removed the bare URL tag. It still needs a little cleanup in the Reference section. Checkingfax (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

detect and delete hackers

I'm having a issue with people hacking into my phone and they refuse to stop. How can I detect there IP's address to put a stop to it for good without Them knowing. Could I please get some advice on how to go about this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.182.91 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a page for asking for help with editing Wikipedia, so you've come to the wrong place. You might find somebody who can advise you at the computing section of the Wikipedia Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you are referring to people editing Wikipedia from the same IP address as you, note that the bottom of IP talk pages display MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext. They are probably not hackers but just had the IP address at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to link to pay-per-view articles?

Hi everyone. I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I recently created a page that was accepted, published, and then immediately tagged by an editor with "Does not appear to be a notable advocacy organization. A lawsuit they filed got press, but not the group." The editor was correct in noting that there was a lot of press for the organization's judicial work, which I have referenced, but since the organization's main legislative work was done in the state's capital, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the majority of press it received was printed in the capital's newspaper of record, The Baton Rouge Advocate. My conundrum here is that the Baton Rouge Advocate charges for access to the articles within its archives, and the articles that would show that this organization received press are primarily within the archives. My question is this: I'd like to show that this organization did indeed get press, but how should I show this if the articles are only accessible through purchase? Thanks for anyone's help on this. oBTBrianThibodeaux (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, BrianThibodeaux, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is OK to use reliable sources that are hidden behind paywalls. It is OK to use paper sources that aren't even available online. I suggest including a germane one or two sentence quotation from the source in the reference. If you have an abundance of good sources, use accessible ones. If the sources are fewer, use the best ones you can find. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The definition of something or of someone is not where this something or someone ends but where our ignorance of them begins. f.g.46.246.202.55 (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Related to Taylor Swift discography#Music videos

Hello! URGENT!!! I had been editing Taylor Swift discography and I had added in a new music video from Taylor Swift at the music videos section, and it is "The Last Time. I had a reliable source for the director, but my edit was always deleted and I don't know why! If you go to YouTube, go to this website, you can see the music video! Please, someone help me to let them STOP deleting the edit I made. Thanks. --Nahnah4 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nahnah4. It looks to me as if your edits were accidentally deleted by Status in this edit. The thing to do is not to panic about people DELETING your edits, but to ask Status on their talk page why they deleted them. Incidentally: it is not urgent. There is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Accidental log out while editing.

Hi,

While I was editing, I accidentally log out of Wikipedia before save my edits. They were saved, but instead of my id, my IP address was recorded. Is it possible to remove this edit so that my IP is not visible on the "View History" page? Thanks. Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Marchjuly. I have revision deleted, hiding the IP address. One way to avoid this problem is to make the Save Page button a different color. Mine's green when logged in. You can do this too by adding to Special:MyPage/skin.css the following:

/* Turn the "Save page" button green when logged in */
INPUT#wpSave {
    background-color:#88ff88;
}

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Neat idea about the CSS skin. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that Fuhghettaboutit. That sounds like a good idea, but I'm not exactly sure how to do it. Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you fix the same problem on this page too? Thanks in advance.Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

When you are editing your skin.css, instead of copying & pasting the source from above, with the <syntaxhighlight lang="">...</syntaxhighlight>, you ought to copy & paste what you can see displayed in the box above. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: You're welcome! Thanks David for explaining the css issue. Glad you like that Andy. Note that this nifty ability was thought up by User:Gadget850.

I've done same revision deletion to the other page but now that I've seen both and what you're doing between them, I hope you'll bear with me as I explain a bit about page moves, page histories and copyright attribution. A page move is not a duplication of two pages in two places. It's properly done by using the software's move function, which takes the entire page history--where all the edits to a page can be tracked, seeing who did what--and actually moves it to a new title (hence why we call it a move rather than a retitling or similar). When you take an existing pages content, copy it, and then paste it to a new location that's called a "cut and paste move" and it's undesirable because it splits the page history, which is required for copyright attribution (each contributor to Wikipedia owns the copyright of their contributions).

This can be no big deal if the only person who has edited the page is the same person who does the cut'n'paste. But as soon as another person contributes to the page, and then you cut and paste it, copyright attribution is is a problem. Cut and paste moves can be repaired if there aren't overlapping page histories. If there is an overlap, we have to resort to less clean fixes. Anyway, the first page I fixed was cut and pasted to the second page, and you seem to be going back and forth between them making them match each other (they cannot be spliced because of overlapping histories). Since the first page only has edits by you (but for one typo fix by me), it should probably just be deleted, so that no one else edits it and thus creates a copyright problem (and there's no reason ever to have two pages with the same content [Note: alternate titles are taken care of through redirects]). I didn't want to just go ahead and delete it without talking to you about it first though. Should I go ahead?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me try and explain how this happened (aka "how I may have screwed up"). I saw that there was no existing page for NHK Cup (Shogi). I am quite familiar with the subject matter so I'd thought I make that the first page I tried to create. I started doing that in my sandbox; However, I already had something else in my sandbox so I wasn't sure how if it was ok to have multiple ongoing projects in the same sandbox. I looked at "3 ways to create an article" and "Consider creating the article on your user page first", so I thought I messed up by trying to do it in my sandbox. That's when the copy and paste madness began. I deleted all of it from my sandbox and pasted it all into a new user page. Not completely understanding what I did, I thought that I would be the only person able to edit that page. However, somebody who checks pages came along and added some "This section is empty" notifications. This caught me off guard. So, I reversed panicked and started doing everything again in my sandbox and then transferring it over to my user page when it was ready. Here's what I'd like to do: I'd like to work on this page and then when I feel it's ready, make it available for other's to edit. I kinda felt having essentially two versions of the same page was probably not a good idea, but I wasn't sure how to dig myself out of that hole. If there's a way to do it so that I don't lose everything I've done up until now then I'm all for it. Sorry for the long-winded explanation. Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not develop this CSS, I just documented it. --  Gadget850 ^talk 02:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

@Marchjuly: There's no harm done at all and no reason you would lose what you've done up to now. It's just that you should choose one sandbox or the other, not both. Since User/Marchjuly/sandbox/NHK Cup (Shogi) has some edits by others, keep working on it there and stop duplicating it at your other sandbox (which should be deleted to give yourself a blank slate to reuse it, or be blanked content-wise at the least). You can pretty much work on it at your complete leisure until you're ready to 'go live' (there's no rush), at which time just move it to the mainspace (or if you'd like you could submit to through AfC by adding at the top {{subst:submit}} and it will be reviewed). And if you need any help, feel free to drop me a message directly. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: OK, that's what I'll do. What is the best way to get rid of my sandbox? Just delete everything I have added there and click "Save Page"? Or is there a better way? Thanks for the help -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, I've deleted it. You can request deletion of a page in your own userspace under the criteria for speedy deletion by adding to it {{db-u1}} or {{db-userreq}}. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks. Now is it OK if I use my sandbox for practice tables, etc. before moving them to my user page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The issue here was duplicate articles with content ultimately intended for the mainspace where different users could make edits to that content in two places. There's no such concern for anything like you describe:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Cool. So when I'm done with the tables and ready to move them, I can just cut and paste them into the main page? Do I have to leave a record of them in the sandbox? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you can paste and there's no need for any other record. The issue only comes up when someone else has edited the content in a sandbox, and then their copyright attribution residing in the sandbox's page history is severed when you paste it to a new page. If you are the sole author and move it, its all you -- you're listed as the author at the place where you paste it so there's no issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding a picture

I would like to replace an existing picture a person on their Wikipedia page with a more recent one. The photo I am thinking of adding is from their public website. What should I do in order to do that? Do I need their permission to do so?

In addition, the same person is involved in various business activities. I would like to add the logo for one of these to the section on their business activities. This will also come from their public website.

Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. I'm afraid it is unlikely that you can do this: unless the copyright holder (who may or may not be the subject) has explicitly released the picture into the public domain, or licensed it under one of the CC licences which Wikipedia requires, then it may not be used in Wikipedia (it's not enough for them to give permission to use it on Wikipedia: they must give permission for it to be used by anybody for any purpose, subject to proper attribution: that is the point of the CC-BY-SA licence. See Donating copyright materials for how they would go about releasing it for use in Wikipedia.) It is sometimes possible to use copyright pictures in Wikipedia, subject to some very stringent restrictions, which are listed at Non-free content criteria: but it is usually not possible to meet these for a picture of a living person, because one of the criteria is that there is no reasonable chance of being able to obtain a free picture instead.

The logo is a different matter: there are many company logos used in Wikipedia under the non-free criteria. Have a look at WP:LOGOS. --ColinFine (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Company logos can be used only in an article about the company, or more rarely, in an article about the logo itself if the logo is famous and discussed extensively by reliable sources. Logos can't be added to an article about a person associated with a company. That may well be a violation of copyright and/or trademark. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both ColinFine and Cullen328 for the information. @Cullen328: The page is a biography of a living person and one of the subsections is about a podacasting network this person started. I'm not sure if there's really enough information for a stand-alone page on this subject matter, so I thought I tried to add a little more info on the person's main page. One of my ideas was to add the podcast network's logo. Haven' added anything yet because I wanted to check here first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

My new created pages are redirected to the main page

I created new pages for the musician Bleu:

Bleu (musician)

For several records of him I created new pages:

A Watched Pot

Four (Bleu album)

To Hell With You

All three were revisioned and by this deleted. They now just are redirected to the main page. All the content of these sites is gone. Why? Powerpopsquare (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The strange thing is, all his other records have its own pages - which look similar to the ones I created. So it's a bit confusing for me why the new ones were refused.

Powerpopsquare (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with each of these records is that they simply do not demonstrate that the musical work meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who turned them into a WP:REDIRECT to the article about the musician actually did you a favor. The other alternative was to nominate all three articles for outright deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. Had the community decided to delete the articles - which is very likely in all 3 cases - two things would have happened that do not happen when an article is simply redirected without a discussion: 1) the edit history of the page is typically deleted, and 2) any future editor who creates a new version of the page without addressing the reason why it was deleted in the first place (that is, without clearly demonstrating that these records meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines) will find his creation summarily deleted under Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G4, which allows for "speedy" deletion of material re-created after a deletion discussion. I suggest that you read WP:MUSIC and wait until these records clearly meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines before trying to change the existing redirects back into articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Clueless As to What to Do

Today I uploaded three images and put them in The Harvard Monthly. I received the images from Harvard University and had their permission to upload as long as I included a certain specified credit, which I did. The images were taken over 100 years ago and all parties are dead.

I have received the following message on my "talk page"(three times):

"Thanks for uploading File:Staff of the Harvard Monthly, 1888.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)"

I am entirely clueless as to what to do next. I went where the message suggests, and nothing seems to fit. Perhaps I've had too much Holiday Eggnog, but I am also an older person who can write (and actually read cursive, which I have learned is an impossible feat for those who spell "you" with one letter), but I am rather lame when it comes to knowing what it is that ImageTaggingBot is talking about.

I like the look of the article with some human faces on it (they are saying "carpe diem" as in "Dead Poets Society") and don't want them to be deleted simply because I don't know how to get across the fact that I have permission to put them there.

Thanks, and back to the eggnog... Kathrynklos (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Kathrynklos and welcome back to the Teahouse. You have uploaded these photos directly to English Wikipedia. Images uploaded to Wikipedia should be low resolution copyrighted images used in very limited "fair use" circumstances. Examples include a company logo used only in an article about that company, or a movie poster used only in an article about that movie. These photos of yours appear to have been published before 1923 and therefore, copyright has expired. These images should instead be uploaded at the highest available resolution to Wikimedia Commons. The wizard there will ask you some questions, and when you say that the photos were published before 1923, and fill in all the boxes, all will be well. The images will then be available for free use by anyone, anywhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. I was confused. I have always uploaded to the Commons, but it seemed to me that since I had to ask permission of Harvard University to use the images, they fell into another category. I mean, when I first received them via email, I was told they were for my personal use and they could not be redistributed or published anywhere, and I had to ask pretty-please, and was able to get permission, as long as I gave them credit. This didn't seem to be the same thing as something published before 1923, so I thought I had to take a different route. Now I need to know the next step. Do I simply leave that alone... and what I uploaded will disappear... or do I need to un-do that upload and how would I accomplish that? Also, I can't get better images without paying Harvard $35.00 per picture, and I'm living on nothing but Social Security and tend to run out of money before the end of the month, so that would be a huge expense for me. Thanks again. I appreciate the fast replies I get here. Kathrynklos (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You are not required to spend any money, Kathrynklos. Upload the highest resolution you have available to Commons. You did not have to ask permission of Harvard if these photos were published before 1923, but bureaucrats may ask you to do things you aren't required to do. Don't worry about the existing uploads. If someone deletes them, so be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! I've actually gotten the images in a little better shape (the two smaller ones are larger). Yeah, I know I'm not required to spend money on Wikipedia projects, but I want things to look nice and feel I owe it to these dead poets. Thanks. Kathrynklos (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop for a minute. If these photographs were published in the United States prior to 1923, you are off the hook. Otherwise things get murkey and depend on when, where, and if they were published prior to your uploading them to Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas -- and Please Help Keep my blood pressure under control

Merry Christmas. There is a user:Softzen who has merged the topic Object-oriented modeling with Object-oriented analysis and design I think it's debatable if these two topics should be merged. I can see the case for merging them but also I can see a strong case for keeping them separate. But Softzen did the merge with no merge proposal, without saying anything before hand on the Talk page of either article, etc. What is more the changes he made with the merge IMO really disrupt the flow of the article Object-oriented analysis and design The merged text more or less says the same thing (general discussion about benefits of OO, why we do analysis, etc.) So the Object-oriented analysis and design article which IMO was reading fairly well seems confusing now. But mostly I object to someone doing a merge like this without discussing it first. I left a message on User_talk:Softzen after I reverted his merge the first time explaining how merges are supposed to be done. He thanked me for that and said he would create a merge proposal and then he went ahead and redid the merge again. I'm verging on an edit war but I find it hard to let go of the issue that these kinds of issues should be discussed before a change. MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification. As it now stands Object-oriented modeling and Object-oriented analysis and design now point to the same article. That didn't use to be the case Object-oriented modeling was an article of it's own. I thought I had reverted the change but either I did something wrong, or just reverting that change didn't undo the delete of the article, or someone else changed it back, I notice someone else has made edits since my last revert. In any case I'm not going to make any more changes unless I get some feedback from others. I could go into why I think OO Modeling rates an article of it's own but I don't think this is the place for that discussion, the place for that discussion should have been on one of the article talk pages before the merge, which is my main point. MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Pricing Data (specifically for cell phone plans)

I am shopping for a new cell phone plan and would like to save someone else the same effort / collaborate with existing work. This could very well apply to web hosting plans or gas pricing, etc. Is this appropriate for a Wiki* site (I was thinking Wikidata)? Is there a project already underway for storing the raw data for these sorts of time-varying data-driven optimization problems? Thanks for any help! Nhergert (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nhergert. This data is certainly not appropriate for Wikipedia (I think you realise this, but you are asking at the Wikipedia Teahouse). You'd have to ask the other Wikimedia projects, or perhaps there is somewhere in meta to ask. FWIW, I don't think this is appropriate for Wikidata, and I can't think of another project it would fit in. I'm not familiar with all the projects though. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I think I'll use a code-hosting website for now. Looking forward to hanging out more on WP too. Nhergert (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP images question

Is there any guidelines about images for BLPs other than they can't be disparaging? I've seen a tread of using single-subject images for leads and infoboxes, but can't find anything in the guidelines which stipulates it. Just thought I'd ask. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello EvergreenFir, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't point to a specific guideline, but I can offer an informed opinion as an experienced editor. The most prominent image in a biography ought to be one that represents the subject "at the top of their game". In other words, the first image should show the subject at or near the point in their career when they were receiving the greatest public attention, and in a context that best represents their public image at that time. Even if the person is perceived as "evil", such as Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin, (though not BLPs) we don't select images for the lead showing the person as a raving lunatic, but instead an image representing how they presented themselves to the world, and the way they were perceived when they were best known. That's the neutral point of view, which should apply to images as well as text. If by "single subject", you mean that the image should be of only the BLP subject, as opposed to a group photo, then yes, that is ideal. Group photos can often be cropped sucessfully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen! Perhaps we might set some general guidelines like what you mentioned. Where would I even bring up such a proposal? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)