Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 176

Archive 170

←

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

Archive 178

→

Archive 180

What to do if a good article has been largely deleted

Hi, I have been working with my history of psychology classes to improve Wikipedia articles related to psychology (tied to APS Wikipedia Initiative). One group last semester did a really good job on Monad (philosophy). I checked back today and someone restored a much earlier and inferior version. What can I do about this without starting a war? (I would like to restore the previous version.) James Council (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, James Council and welcome to The Teahouse. The place to start is Talk:Monad (philosophy). Click on "New section" and calmly and rationally state the details of what your group did and why you think it should be kept. The person you would most want to participate in the discussion would be User:Omnipaedista, so post on User talk:Omnipaedista to request that this person discuss the changes with you. Again, be nice. Good luck.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Change existing links

The company, Dyno Nobel recently upgraded their website and many of the links from Wikipedia are obsolete. Can I just change where the link points? Jaybird7of9 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jaybird7of9. Yes, this is a good practice. As you change information on Dyno Nobel to reflect the new situation, make sure to check whether the the references that are currently used verify the new information. If they don't, please change or replace them. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Note there are also broken links in other articles at Special:LinkSearch/www.dynonobel.com. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiEttiquette question

I sort of jumped into Wiki without really reading much about the "culture"... I know that if you delete an article someone's created, or even nominate it for deletion, to leave them a note. I heard this goes with templates as well (I'm a template editor).

But what about Blank and redirects? Is it necessary/polite to leave a note that their article/template/page is blanked and turned into a redirect, or is that something trivial enough it's understood? Blank and redirects are usually from stubs, so I'm guessing they're trivial enough you don't need to message them?

meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd play it safe and message it...remember, what's trivial to you may not be so to someone else. Also doing so shows the other user that you're trying to do something to work with them, and not simply bulldozing over them. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

1st draft editing

Hi, I have just completed my 1st draft of a new article about Rare Tumors, a scientific journal about Rare Cancers. I would like to upload journal cover picture to infobox and edit my page, but it seems not possible because my account is not confirmed. May I ask you how long does it take to be confirmed? and what about 10 edits? If I am not able to edit anything on Wiki, does it means that my account will never be confirmed? Ops... I just checked, and I can't find my saved page anymore. What happens? Thank you Publicationbasis (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your article is at User:Publicationbasis/Rare tumors Rojomoke (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Your account will be "autoconfirmed" 96 hours after it was created (at about 11am UTC, 26 January 2014), if it has made 10 or more edits by that time. If that time is reached and the account has not made 10 edits, the account will become "autoconfirmed" shortly after that 10th edit is made. If you are looking for useful things to do with those 10 edits, perhaps have a look at Wikipedia:Community_portal or Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure which is a gamified introduction to helping at Wikipedia. If you have expertise in the area of science related to Rare Tumors, the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology will know of several articles at which your expertise would be most welcome.

I assume the journal cover is licensed under the same CC BY-NC license as the contents? If so, this is not compatible with Wikipedia's general license (which allows commercial reuse). Therefore any journal cover image would only be legally permitted under a fair use license. For legal reasons, Wikipedia can only use fair use images in articles, not drafts - so an image is not something you need to worry about right now.

In short, keep working on the draft (which looks good by the way) and don't worry about the picture for now. By the time it is accepted as a full article you will probably be autoconfirmed and will be able to upload images. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

thank you, Rojomoke and LukeSurl. Really appreciated your help. And I accomplished missions in Wikipedia Adventure. Nice tutorial!Publicationbasis (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Restricting Edits

I would like to know if I can restrict users from adding information to a page. Some information being added is not correct. Thanks Rotich Giddie (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rotich, welcome to the teahouse. No, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Pages are not normally restricted unless there are serious problems. (There is some more information about this at Wikipedia:Protection policy.) The first step would normally be to discuss the situation with the other editors. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to African Leadership Network, I don't see any problems. There doesn't seem to have been one revert in the article's history, and nothing has been discussed on the talk page. Although you started that article, and have been the main contributor to date, you do not WP:OWN the article, and recent edits by others:- adding an infobox, removing redundant <br /> commands, correcting categories etc. all look very positive. Arjayay (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

.

Thanks a lot.

My concern was on some content added to the introductory part of the page. The content, including names of people was incorrect. Rotich Giddie (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit new Article

I have created and submitted new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayshukla2006/sandbox for review. I request experienced editors to review the same and provide suggestions for further improvement.

Thanking you.Jayshukla2006 (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kondh as that is the preferred location for these drafts.

This is a good draft article, and I am sure it will be promoted to a full article shortly.

One thing I will mention, the "Religious Importance" section has only one reference, and that is to Wikimapia. Because Wikimapia, like Wikipedia, is user-created content, this cannot be considered a reliable source. If you can find a more reliable source for this information please cite it, otherwise the section should probably be removed. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, [1] is also unreliable user-generated content. It also seems that you have copied and pasted text from this source. This would be a copyright violation. I have therefore removed this text from the draft. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt suggestions. I will improve the article accordingly. Jayshukla2006 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of article for Deletion

The article African Leadership Network has been nominated for deletion. What could be the reason and how can it be improved to avoid deletion? thanks Rotich Giddie (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason is clearly stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Leadership Network

"[In]sufficient coverage in independent sources to warrant an article. Everything I've found in searching has either originated from the ALN itself, one of its officers, or an affiliated organisation such as the Omidyar Network - plus a few passing mentions in business books. I'm happy to withdraw this on the appearance of a couple of decent independent sources"

What can you do? - Provide citations from significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. These are the basic requirements of any article. Can I suggest you click on the various blue links in the header to the article, which links to the deletion nomination and will explain things further. Arjayay (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rotich, if you take a look at the nomination tag at the top of the article you will see a link to "this article's entry" at Articles for Deletion. If you follow that link you will find the discussion taking place by the editor who nominated it as well as the thoughts of other editors on whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia. In this case the issue is that there is a lack of independent reliable sources used as references in the article. This means the references cannot be affiliated with the article subject and must be found in reliable publications or websites. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

I am improving on citation of the article. How much time do I have? Rotich Giddie (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:CLOSEAFD "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven days." - Arjayay (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added more independent sources to the article. Kindly check and advice on correction and more improvement.

I would like to say that the article's title was moved from "Africa Awards for Entrepreneurship" to "African Leadership Network" because the former is hosted by the latter organisation. Africa Awards for Entrepreneurship has multiple independent references-The Guardian, Allafrica, Ventureburn among others. Currently, the page is showing "Africa Awards for Entrepreneurship" as an activity for "African Leadership Network" Rotich Giddie (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pending (talk • contribs)

Referencing probable cause affidavit

Is it possible to cite a probable cause affidavit without linking it to a website containing the item? I had done a citation that included an advocacy site that contained an image of the probable cause affidavit in question when writing an article about a court case. An editor told me it was frowned upon to use an advocacy site as a reference. Is there a way to cite the affidavit (or any court document for that matter) without including an internet link to the document? If not, is this an acceptable situation in which to reference an advocacy link? Bali88 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bali, and welcome to The Teahouse. There is no requirement that any source be online, but it does make it easier for us to verify information if it is. I can't really say what to do about using an advocacy site as a reference and hopefully someone else who can help will be along later. Any time you can find a source with a neutral point of view, that is better, but you may be able to use the advocacy site if you have another more neutral reference to further prove the statement.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm not referencing an opinion or even factual information stated by someone on the advocacy site, I'm just referencing the image they have posted of the probable cause affidavit. There are other articles that reference the affidavit, but that's the only site that contains a copy of it. Should I provide a newspaper article that references that contents of the affidavit to help prove that it is an authentic document? Bali88 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would just include the website under External Links, with a brief note explaining the purpose of the link. It's not a reference, since you wouldn't be referencing any article content to a court document. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Should I just cite the court document and not the website when I do the citation? Bali88 (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't cite the court document at all. At the moment you are using it as a reference for a statement that a currently living person "had a history of infidelity". You should not be doing that. If a reliable independent source states that as a fact, then cite that source instead.

Under your "External links" section at the end of the article, you would have:

• Copy of original probable cause affidavat at Example Advocacy Site

Incidentally, Bloodstain pattern analysis is not an external link. So you should put it under "See also" not under "External links"; or, just wikilink it in the main article body text. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The infidelity stuff was not being referenced by the affidavit. I would not include it otherwise, but it was a huge part of why he was convicted and it was the major reason why the case was overturned. I have other sources for that. That wasn't on the affidavit. All of the other information on the affidavit is what I am referencing. Having said that, do you have any advice? Bali88 (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it another way. Do not include any information in the article which comes from the affidavit. Instead, summarise what the other sources say about what was in the affidavit or what significance the affidavit had. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay, I can do that. The inconsistencies in the affidavit vs. what was actually true of the crime scene were kind of pivotal when it comes to overturning the case and explaining how the case got to where it was, and in explaining the misconduct in the case, which is why I included it. Is there any specific reason why I shouldn't include the affidavit? Bali88 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Or at least, I think so. If the inconsistencies were pivotal, then other independent reliable sources will have said so (and said why). Therefore, cite those sources saying so (and cite their reasons for why). If other independent reliable sources have not said so, then the statement that the inconsistencies were pivotal is your Wikipedia:Original research based on your personal analysis of the affidavit and the evidence. Wikipedia articles should not contain that type of original research. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay. I was assuming that the affidavit would be a more reputable source than someone reporting the content of the affidavit. It's been thoroughly discussed by the media, but I'll have to cite several articles to capture all of the content because any given article will likely only focus on one or two items on the affidavit. This will take some time... Bali88 (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia translate - metadata question. Is there something new?

Hiya- about a week ago, I asked a question here about adding translation metadata on the talk pages with respect to math wiki pages ... Two days ago (while working intensely on something completely unrelated) I saw a little circle with wiki translate in the top right corner of some article, clicked, saw something (I think) with wikimania and (I thought) metadata. Now having time, I cannot find this. Is there anything new with respect to where and how to contribute metadata to individual pages (i.e. data about translation/notation problems, possible reading and math level of page user in different sections, good categories, possible see-also links, etc.).Thanks. Lfahlberg (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Also, I am thinking perhaps data on how views with mobile devices, tablets, ... (this is rather important in maths). Lfahlberg (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

New WikiProject Proposal

I would like to propose a new Wikiproject, but I am terrible at creating one.( I have tried) I hope that posting this here will help someone take action and do it themselves. The WikiProject is called the AFC Prep Team. The WikiProject would be devoted to looking at articles that are waiting to be reviewed by the AFC team, and work on making them more presentable to increase the likeliness of them making the cut. It would require all of the knowledge currently needed to join the AFC team. The team will also pre-decline submissions that are obvious vandalism or blank templates. The goal of this proposal would be to make the work of the AFC team easier and more productive. Please let me know what you think. If I should have not posted it here, I am very sorry. If you would please let me know where to go I will be delighted. Thank you. -Pending^{(tell me I screwed up} 14:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pending (talk • contribs)

Hi Pending. You're keen to help Wikipedia? Great! This is exactly the sort of question we like at the Teahouse!

I'm one of the people who does AFC reviews. I believe this sort of work would be compatible within the existing framework of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. AfC drafts can be edited and improved by anyone, and a presentation touch-up would certainly help many of the submissions - but the big issue at AfC is notability. We get about a hundred submissions a day regarding businesses and organisations, probably written by their employees. The majority of them are simply not notable and no amount of editing is going to make up for that. I would recommend being a valiant AfC reviewer (and encouraging others to do the same!), and then spending time improving presentation etc. after sorting the notable entities from the non-notable. The more AfC reviewers we have, the more time we can spend nurturing the "almost there" submissions into decent articles. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I will take your advice. I have read Wikipedias Notability guidelines, and do believe I can tell the distinction between notable and non-notable articles. Thank you for your time. Pending^{(tell me I screwed up} 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pending (talk • contribs)

People needed to edit an article

Hi. I just wrote my first article and before I move it to the main space I would like to have some people review it and offer suggestions or edits. How do I do this?

MusiccampingMusiccamping (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you are referring to User:Musiccamping/Somerset Amphitheater. Posting a request here is a good start already to getting people to suggest improvements. If you think you have a good amount of content, you can submit it to articles for creation by putting the code {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} at the top clicking the "Submit the page!" link. There others can comment on the article. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've put some issues on your talk. Thanks, Matty.007 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Anon 126, that was the page I was referencing. Thank you Matty.007 for your input. When can I add an image? Or should I wait to see what types of improvements others will suggest before I add that?

MusiccampingMusiccamping (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You can add a picture anytime. I would suggest keeping it down to one so that the pictures don't clutter the article. Pending^{Tell me I screwed up!} 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

How to get a page entry deleted because it is duplicate

Hi, there seems to be two pages for Mounira Solh, one with both names starting in capital letters and one with the family name starting with a small letter. The latter is redirected to the first. Can we get the second one of them deleted since it is obviously a wrong entry, and anyway redirects to the first? thanks a lot (Wikialma 05:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialma (talk • contribs)

Hey Wikialma. Redirects are not a duplicate entries but assure that a person searching for a topic by one name will reach the same topic by another name. In the case of redirects from other capitalizations, this is not an issue (though if I remember correctly, it used to be), but they can be useful. For one, while any capitalization will find the existing article in a search, any links to the other capitalization will be red-linked. For a proper name like this I'm not sure that's so useful either but redirects are cheap and I'm not sure what purpose would be served by deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Where are edit summaries needed?

Edit summaries were designed for articles to explain what's changed between revisions. I know that.

I also know that edits to the sandbox should be marked with "sandbox" or some variant (Wikipedia:Edit summary legend#Sandbox) so Wikipedians looking at recent changes know they can ignore this and focus on other things (trolls or newbie mistakes, I'm guessing).

Does this apply to my userpage or its subpages? If so, what should I put?

Also, I edit a lot in the template namespace and was wondering if they show up at all? Most revisions of mine are extremely trivial tweaks to code subpages (e.g., Template:Buzzword/testcases). If I don't need to specify what I changed code-wise, should I write something like "template editing"? I don't want to be a nuisance and cloud the Recent Changes thing, which I'm not too familiar with.

Thanks, meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Meteor sandwich yum. I use an edit summary for every single edit I make. For example, on my userpage, I list a lot of articles I've worked on, so a common edit summary might be "add article". I list my age, so a couple days after my birthday each year, you might see an edit summary saying "update age". Common edit summaries on my talk page might be "reply" or "thanks". For substantive edits to to articles, I tend to explain in a bit more detail, but a common one word summary there is "typo". I don't edit templates, but my hunch is that explanations in edit summaries are especially important when coding, so that other people watching understand your intentions clearly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, cool. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Meteor sandwich yum: Seconding that, you really can be terse when there's little to say: "comment", "reply", "copyedit", "dab", etc., though edit summaries can be used to great effect. It is considered good practice to always leave something. In fact, though I don't think it was ever a deciding factor, people applying for adminship have been criticized because they didn't have a perfect record of always leaving an ES. Note that there is an option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Good to know :) meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Insight Into Editing Process

Hello and thank you to SarahStierch for inviting me to visit the Teahouse! I have a question that I am hoping to get some assistance with. Disclosure: I work for Manulife Financial in a communications role, and as you can see from my profile, I engage from time to time with the Wikipedia community to discuss edits to pages that are related to my employer (I do not make direct edits to any articles). That said, my question is, how does the Wikipedia editing community distinguish between what is unequivocally a fact, and what would be considered trivia? The reason I ask is because through Manulife Financial’s Talk page, I have requested a number of additions and updates to the History section of the article – most (if not all) of which, to my mind, are facts about the company’s history that I think would help strengthen and improve the article. For example, when and where a new office location was opened, or that Manulife was the first Canadian insurer to receive approval to expand its license in China. If you look at my latest edits requested via the Manulife Financial Talk page, you’ll see that an editor has provided some feedback to advise that what I’ve requested are “trivia” and does not seem willing to add them for this reason. I would be interested to know the community’s consensus on this, and whether or not there is collective agreement with this assessment? Any insight you could provide would be helpful – and please note, I am open to feedback, so welcome second, third (etc.) opinions on this! Many thanks. Jnuwame (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of times, things like this are subjective...what's trivial to some, may not be so to others. A way to show something is notable is to see if it's been reported on in other independent sources. If something like your sales or new office has been talked about in something like say a newspaper/magazine/on TV, then that gives the information more teeth. Hope that helps. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jnuwame and thank you for following our recommendations and not editing the article about your employer yourself. Feel free to edit any articles about any topic where you don't have a financial conflict of interest, though.

Please be aware that "facts" and "trivia" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Actually, "trivia" usually refers to "facts" that are considered minor and of little significance, except to fans of a topic. We are here to build a free encyclopedia, an information resource for all people everywhere. Think of it this way: perhaps the men's room on the executive floor of your headquarter's building has green tile on the walls. If so, that is a fact. But it is trivia. Why do our readers need to know that? Why do they need to know that your company is the first Canadian insurer to be licensed in China? Was your company also the second Canadian insurer to establish an office in Honduras? If so, who cares and why? Did a major Toronto newspaper write about the China license? Did a London (UK not Ontario) TV station send reporters and a camera crew to document the historic occasion? I suggest that you allow uninterested editors to decide what is trivial and what is notable regarding your employer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation

I have made some edits on the reference section of the "African Leadership Network" page. Kindly help me check if the edits are correct. ThanksRotich Giddie (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Newbie

Hello, I am new in Wikipedia. I want to submit an article. How can I do that? Please teach me the steps. Silentwell (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Silentwell. I would gladly teach you how to create an article and submit it. If you would, please send leave a message on my talk page, here to get started. -Pending^{Tell me I screwed up!} 22:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Silentwell. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Your first article, and please feel free to ask any followup questions here at the Teahouse. Thank you for trying to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Silentwell. Creating new articles isn't the only way to help Wikipedia. All 4 million+ of the existing articles can be improved by anyone. For some help getting started on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Getting Started, or have a go at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a gameified introduction to the wiki.

Creating a new article from scatch is quite a complicated task and I would advise spending a little time editing before getting to know the ropes. This will help you create a better article in the long run. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

second photo

Is it possible to add a second photo of the artist as a young man into the summary box for a painter? Perhaps I just add a second box?Doloresbbw (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes generally work with a single image. I would suggest adding the second photo as a thumbnail at the appropriate point (chronologically) of the artist's biography. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright for 1965 photo

I do not know how to specify the copyright for a photo of my grandmother, who died in 1973, with some of her paintings. The photo was taken by my grandfather who died in the 1980's. The photo is File:Alice Wilmarth Busing and works circa 1965.pdf. Please advise. Doloresbbw (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If the photo was never published and you have inherited your grandfather's archive, it is now you who owns the rights to the image. You are free to upload and release it under a free license if you so wish. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Article Name

While writing the article i made a slight mistake writing the Article/Page name. I hereby wish to edit the article/page name again is it possible.114.143.108.101 (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Article names cannot simply be edited in the normal way. To change an article name, the article must be moved. What article would this be, though? Is it Krrish 3, or a different article? --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, being able to move pages yourself is one of the many benefits of creating an account :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright specification for existing uploaded file

How do I specify the Copyright for an existing file? I tried reuploading it already. Doloresbbw (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest forgetting about File:Alice Wilmarth Busing and works circa 1965.pdf and upload a duplicate on Wikimedia Commons with a free license (use a slightly different filename to distinguish the two). One of the benefits of doing this is that the file can be then used in all language Wikipedias, not just English. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

1st article

Hi everyone, Need help in making my 1st draft worthy article,Can someone help me further updating it like re writing the sentences. The topic is about Crucifixion in the Philippines this is annual show of devotion to Jesus Christ, at least 16 people in the Philippines have been nailed to crosses during a Good Friday last 2013

Here is the link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kixzer/Crucifixion_in_the_Philippines

Thanks in advance Kixzer Franz710 ^(talk) 20:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! I have made a change and will bring it up on the talk page. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Anon126 for the recent change, I really appreciate it,Kixzer Franz710 ^(talk) 23:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kixzer and welcome to the Teahouse. The topic is already covered in Crucifixion#As a devotional practice. I do not think that the profiles of many individuals who engage in this act of religious devotion serves an encyclopedic purpose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kixzer. What's important to know in a case like this, is that it's the event itself which is the notable aspect...not necessarily those who engage in it. Thanks for visiting the Teahouse. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Mabuhay Vjmlhds and Cullen328 , Thanks for the feedback. I working on improving the said article be focus on the locations rather than the individuals , thought still gathering the if the sources are citation worth. any more suggestions are very much welcome. Kixzer Franz710 ^(talk) 13:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

An edit to the article on Jayapala

I made an edit to the article on Jayapala, but it has been reverted. If I use a different source for my reference, will it be acceptable (I had used http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html )?—Khabboos (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Most likely. Make sure you read about what are reliable sources and what are not. -Pending^{Tell me I screwed up!} 16:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

why does my article waiting for review keeps on getting delayed on the wait list?

Hii, I wish to know that i created an article and saved it(Afc) on jan 3rd, since then i have noticed several times that Wikipedia said that we have (eg)1200 articles waiting for review and at some later time it says that we have 1300 articles waiting for review. how is it possible if i have submitted my article fist?? does Wikipedia not review article on a first come first serve basis?? secondly i can see a message which says that "an article with the same name you are trying to create already exists, please verify they are not the same articles" so how do i do that??? Thirdly i posted the same questions some time earlier and received a mail saying that my questions have been answered but i was unable to locate the answer so where and how do i find the articles in the archives??? Ayush Khaitan (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It always helps us, to help you, if you tell us which article you are talking about; is it Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin Paul?
The numbers mentioned are not your place in the queue, but how long the total queue is - "we have 1300 articles waiting for review".
If this is the article then if you check the name, you would find we already have an article called Justin Paul, about a composer. This question is to be sure that you are not trying to create an article about someone which already exists. In these circumstances, if your article is accepted, the reviewer will allocate a disambiguating qualifier and the article will become "Justin Paul (management consultant)" or a similar name.
This was explained to you when you first asked the question on 10 January - and can be found here - to find things like this, go into your "contributions" list (very top line RH side) which will allow you to click on your old edits, (hit the date and time) then move forward a few pages using the "Newer revision" button in the pink bar until you can see the reply. Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that it says that there are 1179 articles awaiting review doesn't mean that there are 1179 ahead of you in the queue. It is likely that drafts which have been waiting for longest will be reviewed before more recent ones, but some reviewers may choose to review drafts on topics with which they are more familiar. I assume that your draft is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin Paul, and to find out about another article with the same name you need only to put Justin Paul into the search box and that will get you to Justin Paul. It looks as if the subjects are different, so if your draft is approved they will probably end up with titles something like Justin Paul (composer) and Justin Paul (professor). As for finding your previous answer, if you type either the thread title "My Afc article waiting for review keeps on getting delayed as i can see my wait no. keep on increasing." or your user name "Ayush Khaitan" into the archive search at the top of this page it will get you to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 172#My Afc article waiting for review keeps on getting delayed as i can see my wait no. keep on increasing.. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Featured portals

Hi, I appreciate that it is still a long way off a featured portal, but I have a few questions about featured portals: if there are no GAs (well, there is now one), FAs, or featured pictures, is it still possible for the portal to be featured? Also, how do I change the portal colour scheme? Thanks, Matty.007 18:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now found out how to change the colour. Thanks, Matty.007 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What topic is it? Best to use the best quality possible, maybe just stick to B-class? — Cirt (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Geography, some good pictures, but none are FPs. The portal is Portal:Channel Islands. Thanks for the help Cirt, Matty.007 19:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So is it still possible for it to be a featured portal? Thanks, Matty.007 20:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems the featured portal criteria do not make any demands as to the ratings of the content the portal is meant to provide a gateway to. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Usually it helps for the topic to also have an associated active WikiProject. — Cirt (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So basically any portal which is good can be featured? Also, WikiProjects seem to tend to become inactive quickly, so I basically know a few people on wiki who edit similar articles. Thanks, Matty.007 21:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

linking to other established wikipedia pages

Hello all and thanks in advance for your help! I'm hoping that someone can show me how to link to other pages. I'm working on my first page and some of the artists that have worked with the nonprofit I am writing about have their own wikipedia pages. Any tips would be much appreciated. Thanks! CrobSea (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

To link to other Wikipedia pages, you need to put brackets around the article name. To link to the page Benjamin Franklin, I would type this. [[Benjamin Franklin]]. When the page is saved, it will appear as this -Benjamin Franklin. -Pending^{(tell me I screwed up} 16:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!! CrobSea (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Add a link to de.wikipedia.org

I would like to create a link to "List of Latin translations of modern literature" in de.wikipedia.org. Unfortunately, mein deutsch is not good enough as yet. Would it be too much to ask for someone to create that link for me (and the world)?162.237.218.20 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. You'll have to explain us what kind of link you want to create? Where do you want to place the link? What for? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Referencing inside the article

Just a couple of easy and short questions. I'd like to refere to other sections of the article I am contibuting to but I have not found the way. Can someone spare me searching around? Second question concerns the quality of my contribution, because I am new. I'd like that someone would like volountarily read the contribution and feedback if it is understandable or correct enough. Thanks for the attention

Best regards Volk the (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Volk the and welcome! For example, if you want to make a link to the section "History" of the article "Nepal", you can do it like this: [[Nepal#History|History of Nepal]]. You can read more about this here: WP:ANCHOR. I am not sure if this answers your question. This is how to make a link to the section of the article. References are something else. Wikipedia only accepts external reliable references (see: wp:Citing sources). Other Wikipedia articles or sections of articles may not be used as references per this policy: WP:CIRCULAR. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije is exactly what I need.

Volk_the

Volk the (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

How to create a new wiki page?

Is it possible to have help in creating new page?72.160.57.9 (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Start by reading Your first article, and consider registering an account. Please ask any questions here after you have read that link. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Should I create this page...?

Okay, I was on this account flipping through WP pages and I noticed there was not one for the Percy Jackson series character Clarisse La Rue, and I seriously love this character, so I immediately wanted to create an article for her, but after reading through Wikipedia's out creating guidelines about articles, I wasn't sure if she was mentioned enough, but they made pages for the other characters! I at least want a more detailed summary of her on that page. So, I don't know. That persassy dam (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TPd. Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest that you write a section in the List of Camp Half-Blood characters. Use your sandbox to create the draft. Use the sections on the other characters as a sample. When you're satisfied with your contribution, be bold and cut-and-paste it into the list. On the list's talk page, discuss whether there should be a separate article. Some of the lesser characters only have a section in the list. Others have a section plus a link to a separate article. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 21:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Link to a Commons image in a Reference

I would like to upload the images of some letters to Commons so that when the reader clicks on a Reference the image of the letter will appear. I am confused as to how to specify these letters in the text. Please advise. Doloresbbw (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dolores. Without some more specifics, I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what you mean by "how to specify these letters in the text"; it's open to a number of different interpretations. For example, do you mean how to discuss the letters themselves in the narrative of the article? How to compose the citation to place in the text? Can you provide some more detail in the issue? Meanwhile, I wrote an article in which I used an image I had uploaded in the text, referred to it in the text, and cited it in the text. Possibly looking at that might give you some ideas. Please see the treatment of the U.S. Census at Kelly pool#Origins (second paragraph in that section). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Doloresbbw. The first issue that you will have to deal with is the copyright status of the letters. The author of a letter, or their heirs if the person has died, own the copyright to the letter, whether or not it has been published, at least according to the 1978 copyright law in the United States. Publication is not necessary for copyright to cover the work. So, you can't upload an image of the letters to Commons unless you are the copyright owner and release the material under an appropriate Creative Commons license. Copyright law is complex, and I am giving you just a very basic overview.

The next problem that you face is that the letters are primary sources, and I am assuming that they have not been reliably published previously. Because if published, you would simply reference that publication. In general, secondary sources are preferred, and primary sources should be used only with great caution. But such primary sources need to be published in a reliable source, so that an expert in the area has evaluated the primary source documents, sorting the wheat from the chaff, and determined that the published documents are useful and worthy of study. This is an important component of our policy called No original research.

There may be unusual factors in your specific situation that lead to a different conclusion, so feel free to provide more details for a more specific assessment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeking a mentor for my first coupN-S streets are named after stars, the E-W streets after constellations. I le of weeks

Yes, I'm overwhelmed. I have in mind some small edits (example below) that can be easily verified. I'd feel comfortable being able to have someone give me feedback on my work.

I have read the articles that "this is a community" and "just jump in", and know those attitudes from many other BBS and internet forums. Still and all, this IS Wikipedia, right? I'd feel better if there was some way for one person to praise/chide/correct me on my first few steps.

I had in mind to edit an article on "Southern Cross, Yilgarn" which states that the streets of the Western Australian town are named after stars. I used to live there (50 years ago!), and the N-S streets are named after stars, the E-W streets after constellations. I see this as a simple edit and easily verifiable (Google Maps).

I guess I am somewhat scared of screwing up tags and formatting, too, and having someone to step in and implement a quick fix would be a lifesaver.

ChrisGreaves (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I would not recommend making this change, since this may constitute original research and thus may not be "verifiable" in the Wikipedia sense. A source already cited that states that all the streets are named after constellations, and this source agrees. I have updated the article to reflect these sources for now. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: If you want to get started editing without breaking formatting, you can check out the editing tutorial. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding a mentor, you should check out: Wikipedia: Adopt-a-user ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

From a look at the Google map, it appears that there are both star and constellation names running each way. In addition to star names such as Sirius and Spica, the NW–SE streets include at least one constellation name (Taurus); and in addition to constellation names, the SW–NE streets include several star names (Achernar, Canopus, Rigel, others). So the situation seems more complex than either ChrisGreaves or the sources state. (Note that the second source cited by Anon126 says "constellations" but then gives several star names among the examples.) The "named after constellations and stars" currently in the article seems to be as accurate as one can get. Deor (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Deor that the phrase "named after constellations and stars" is the best solution in this case. While it is certain that we are obligated to build this encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say, we also have to keep in mind that not every single thing that an apparently reliable source says is always 100% accurate. That is why the best sources have a track record of publishing corrections. It would be wrong, in my view, to keep demonstrably false information in an article just because a usually reliable source has published it. Better to leave out a statement entirely than to leave in a known false statement, even if seemingly well cited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Help editing article

I've had my article edit on my old high school deleted twice and I just want to know where I can get some feedback/critique on it so that it doesn't happen a third time. I've tried revising it myself, no dice. Thanks in advance. (Marinabacus (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marinabacus. Without seeing the article, I've got to ask, were there any references in the article to verify the information? Vjmlhds (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Found it...It looks like you did go overboard a bit about the art department, plus there were no references to verify any of the info. The best thing to do would be to find some references to verify the awards and accolades the art department received, and when adding it in, try to keep it as brief as possible. The article is about the school as a whole, not just the art department. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! (Marinabacus (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC))

Add Translation from English to French

Hello, Page for "Jason Kouchak", I have french translation, but don't have experience posting in French.

Any Guidance? I only read english. I have the translation ready.

Cheers - Denny

Dkalaf (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! If you feel your translation is not ready for the French Wikipedia, you can post it as a subpage of your user page, such as User:Dkalaf/Jason Kouchak, and contact users in Category:Translators en-fr for help. Thank you for your contributions! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'm still now clear on how I can post the translation. Any other ideas? I'm largely unfamiliar with the practices here on Wikipedia and how categories and sub pages work. I don't speak French, surprised translations don't happen automatically.

Thanks for any more help.

Dkalaf (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A subpage is a page that is "within" another page, and is noted with a slash: Main Page/Subpage. You can create subpages of your user page (User:Dkalaf) for a variety of purposes, including to post drafts of articles. If you have some French translation of the article Jason Kouchak, you can place it in a subpage. (If you're still unclear about how to create a subpage, I can create one for you and then you can edit it.)

You don't need to about categories at this point. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 04:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating a self-biography, or PR enhancement of a corporate article

I understand that Wikipedia has strong guidelines against an editor just writing an article directly about themselves, or about their employer. I also understand that there are policies that strongly discourage a public relations firm from directly editing an article about their client. Right? Why, then, when cases of this happening are pointed out, is the person reporting them sort of mocked and told it is pointless to make these evidence-based discoveries? Most recently, I see this has happened (again) on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I get the sense that there really is a separate set of guidelines and policies for Mr. Wales than apply to the "rest of us". - Checking the checkers (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The person who posted that on Jimbo's Talk page is a known troll and should be ignored. See Jimbo's reply. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Change a clients business details

Hi,

I work in PR and we have a client who wishes to change details on their page, Blueface.

Is it possible for us to do this or do we need your authorisation? I can send on the change details.

Regards

LisaWarrenlisa2001 (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! Thanks for asking, there are many PR companies who would just go ahead and edit, get reverted, and not understand why :) Per the Conflict of Interest guidelines, the best idea is to request the change on the talk page of the article, in this case at Talk:BlueFace. Start a new section there and ask if some information can be changed. Your requested changes will need to be backed up by reliable sources though! Samwalton9 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

- that is, reliable source independent of you or your clients. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Noticed a mistake

I noticed that multle numbers don't calculate with the percentages in the following table.

page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews table: Ethnic Makeup of Jewish Population of Israel

I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'd rather not modify it myself. 89.99.195.169 (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(This "question" was asked by me)

MicMokum (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MicMokum. I see your point. Some of the percentages, especially of some of the smaller groups, have what appear to be errors in calculation. I suggest that you make a more detailed comment on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

my submission keeps getting declined

so my submission keeps getting declined and it seems to be done by reviewers that doesn't understand or have knowledge about the music industry, i've tried to get help but no luck so far i dont understand whats not correct about my submission? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_Creation/Fredrik_%22Fredro%22_Ödesjö Jawsclaws (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated at the top of the refusal, the reason is the lack of reliable sources. All articles require significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The very basic guide to this is at WP:42
Looking at your references, the 1-3 are to his employers, or people promoting him, so are not independent, 4, 8, 9 + 13 don't appear to mention him at all (although "find" sometimes doesn't work), 5, 6 + 10 are broken, 7 is a list - useful if "Artists Direct" is a reliable source, but not "extensive coverage", 11, 12, 15, 16 + 17 mention him in passing, 14 is a blog, which is not a reliable source.
There is, therefore, no significant, reliable, independent coverage, and until several articles have been written about him, by reputable journalists, the article will continue to be rejected. - Arjayay (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

if i write that the album sold platinum (8) and link a source for that why would you need the producers name to be mention there, its merely showing that it in fact sold platinum?

when linking to his publishers wiki is not a reliable source?

i can show you a huuuuge amount of wiki pages for songwriters and producers with less sources that been accepted with no problems…Jawsclaws (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There are three criteria, all of which must be met, and his publisher's wiki is clearly not an independent source. As for other articles WP:Otherstuffexists is not an acceptable argument here. Arjayay (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

ok i understand, just took away the links you didn't accepted, hope this works for you now, or is there anything else? Jawsclaws (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just the same, fundamental, problem:- you haven't get any references that show significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I said above "until several articles have been written about him, by reputable journalists, the article will continue to be rejected." If there is no such significant coverage, the only thing you can do is wait until there is. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this conversation and i'm curious exactly what is missing from this submission, I know about this songwriters work and I don't see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed, unless this is something personal from Arjayay, is he/she the only one who can approved this?

GeorgeEzz50.74.34.190 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Asking for feedback on a draft article

Hello, I am considering requesting article creation for a draft that I have been written and I would like to get some feedback to improve it before doing so. The draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nick_Savoy. Any comments are appreciated.GambHerno (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been recommended for deletion twice here [2] Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know it, it seems that previous versions were self promotional and not well sourced. I would like to get objective feedback from the current version.GambHerno (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

View a submitted article

Hello, I just submitted my first article (title: Gainor Roberts) and cannot figure out how to view it. I'd also like to upload a couple graphic files.

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding Wikipedia's technical environment. As in...I've visited the pages for editors several times and can't figure out what to do next.

Is it possible for someone to give me simple instructions on how to view, and to direct me to simpler instructions on what next steps to follow? Thank you, Evelyn4414 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) evelyn4414 Evelyn4414 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Evelyn4414: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your submission is located here. By the way, if there are pages you are interested in keeping track of, you can click the white star next to the edit and view history buttons, which will add it to your watchlist. You can keep track of your watchlist by clicking the "Watchlist" button on the top right corner of the screen. As for a simpler editing environment...there is this thing called VisualEditor which you can enable here. It should make editing simpler although it's far slower to load. Hope this helps, --Jakob (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you delete a template?

A template I created was asked to be 'speedily deleted.' How do I do so?King sorks (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to do anything. Deletion is done by administrators. Template:=Kao= has already been deleted, which is why it is displayed as a redlink here and in the notice on your user talk page. I have tagged Template:Kao for deletion too, as again it was presumably a test that you conducted when you were trying to find how Wikipedia works; it will be deleted soon, unless a satisfactory reason is given as to why it should not be deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)