Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 197

Archive 190

←

Archive 195

Archive 196

Archive 197

Archive 198

Archive 199

Archive 200

Uploading free images

If you take an image instead of copying it of google and you try to upload it will it be easier. Tylkrby767 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tylkrby767. If you take a photo yourself of any common thing that is not itself copyrighted, then that is your creative work and you own all the rights. You can upload that photo to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license. This does not apply to a photo of a painting, sculpture, album cover, movie poster or anything that is itself copyrighted. We have stricter rules for such images. But it would apply to photos of birds, flowers, mountains, cars, celebrities in public and so on. Any photo you find through a Google search is probably copyrighted, unless it was first published before 1923 or is labeled as copyright free or has an acceptable Creative Commons license. This is a complicated area and it is your responsibility to get it right. Feel free to ask a more specific question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

How about photos I take of artwork in public spaces? Napninja (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Napninja. In most cases, the artist retains copyright to artwork displayed in a public place. You can photograph it for your own personal use, but not for free use on Wikimedia projects. Unless you have specific information that the work of art is in the public domain, please do not assume that it is copyright free. Artwork created and exhibited before 1923 is now in the public domain. If the photo is to illustrate an article about the artwork and the article includes critical commentary, then please refer to our guideline on use of non-free images. Such non-free images should be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, not to Wikimedia Commons which is for freely licensed images. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am attempting to summarize and simplify a very complex area of the law, and I am not a lawyer. There are many exceptions and special situations. I made mistakes with images when I first started editing Wikipedia. Learn from your mistakes, ask specific questions, and please keep contributing. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

easy infobox

is there a easy way to make an infobox about me without size and height i just want it to be easier when i make an infobox. Only with my birth date. Any help thanks! Tylkrby767 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make an infobox to display on your user page, copy-paste the following code to the top of your user page:

Click "show" to view the code

{{Infobox user <!-- INFOBOX FORMATTING --------> | color = | fontcolor = | tablecolor = <!-- LEAD INFORMATION ----------> | title = <!-- optional, defaults to {{BASEPAGENAME}} --> | status = | image = | image_caption = | image_width = | name = | birthname = | real_name = | gender = | languages = | birthdate = | birthplace = | location = | country = | timezone = | current_time = <!-- example for San Francisco: {{current time|UTC-8}} --> | nationality = | ethnicity = | race = | height = | weight = | hair = | eyes = | handedness = | blood_type = | sexuality = | iq = | personality_type= | alignment = <!-- FAMILY & FRIENDS ----------> | marital status = | spouse = | girlfriend = | boyfriend = | children = | siblings = | pets = <!-- EDUCATION & EMPLOYMENT ----> | occupation = | employer = | education = | primaryschool = | intschool = | highschool = | college = | university = <!-- INTERESTS & BELIEFS -------> | hobbies = | religion = | politics = | aliases = | movies = | books = | interests = <!-- CONTACT INFO --------------> | website = <!-- {{URL|example.com}} --> | blog = <!-- {{URL|example.com}} --> | email = | icq = | aim = | gtalk = | jabber = | skype = | msn = | yahoo = | mac = | irc = | facebook = | google+ = | instagram = | linkedin = | pinterest = | twitter = | youtube = | flickr = <!-- SUBPAGES -----------------> | subpages = <!-- ACCOUNT STATISTICS -------> | joined_date = | first_edit = | reviewer = | rollbacker = | file_mover = | check_user = | account_creator = | admin = | bureaucrat = | overseer = | edit_count = | permissions = | signature = <!-- USERBOXES ----------------> | userboxes = <!-- CUSTOM FIELDS ------------> | custom_header = | custom_data = }}

All fields are optional, so you don't have to fill out the height field. You can delete the fields you don't need. If this doesn't answer your question, leave a follow-up below and I'll be happy to clarify anything. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How to create the summary information section box on the right side of the page

I have just recently added my personal information as a director and entrepreneur on wikipedia. I have seen that some other pages have their detail information such as place of birth, languages, date of birth etc along with their pictures appear on the right hand side in a form of a column. I was wondering how I can incorporate this in my page.

Moreover, since I am a director there a lot of videos that I can share and post in my section. What would be the best way of displaying them or linking to them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ali_okhovat

Many thanks Ali okhovat (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ali okhovat. Please note that the purpose of your user page is to describe yourself as a Wikipedia editor, to facilitate collaboration with other editors. It is not supposed to be a profile like a LinkedIn listing, although some autobiographical information is OK. It is also not a place to promote your videos. As for the boxes you mention, I think you are talking about infoboxes. They are for use in Wikipedia articles rather than on user pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read the sections on uses of User pages at: WP:USERPAGE the the guidelines against self promotion at: WP:PROMOTION.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I did not know the rules in wikipedia. Could you advise if such tone that I have currently used in the section is deemed appropriate according to the guidelines of wikipedia?

Ali okhovat (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability and full lists

I note the subject of any articles needs to have external references which makes sense but it also says subjects should be notable, I understand this but how does this fit into the Wikipedia aim of creating lists of items? eg. Ideally you have an article on each lake but some lakes are large and highly visible and others are small - do they get their own page? If not the list is incomplete, could someone please answer, thanks!

--Grapeman4 (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Grapeman4: There are often discussions on the need to reference lists. My personal view is that one should, but the Wikipedia consensus view seems to be that only lists where the membership is, for example, a WP:BLP issue absolutely require referencing. This is to avoid the potential uttering of libels among other reasons. Lakes feel unlikely to be contentious. This means a reference to confirm that each belongs in the list is useful, perhaps desirable, but not essential. When I create such a list nowadays I attempt referencing for my own private(!) peace of mind to show myself that I have done the right job, but Wikipedia does not require it. Fiddle Faddle 09:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Parametres

Could someone please try to fix the lead box in my userpage ? Zince34' 11:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC) And how can a display of the number of our edits change automatically according to our edit count Zince34' 11:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zince34. Set month=5 and not the name of the month. edits must be updated manually. The current edit count is not available in wikitext. If you don't want your user page history to show the manual updates then you can transclude it from a subpage similar to User:APerson/ManualEditCount. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You can use User:Technical 13/Scripts/Edit counter to make the updating of your edit count semi-automatic. Also, once you get on WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (the cutoff is currently around 5500 edits I think), a bot will update your editcount on the said list weekly. --Jakob (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Compass points in titles

Hi, I know we do not capitalise compass points in articles, does the same go for articles such as 2013 Eastern China smog, should it be at 2013 eastern China smog? Thanks, Matty.007 10:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

From reading the article, I think Eastern China is a synonym for East China, and so it should be capitalised (like Eastern Europe, East Indies etc.). Gandalf61 (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Matty.007 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Unclear how to take my Pediatric Bipolar Disorder Portfolio further

Hello friends!

Thanks so much for helping out in advance!

My article on assessments, diagnosis and treatments for pediatric bipolar disorder was recently declined. My page can be found here. The reason given was that my article should probably be combined into the bipolar disorder in children page.

The feedback that was given to me by the reviewer (found here) was to either: (a) collapse the information into an existing page bipolar disorder in children, or (b) revise the sources for primary sources and original research IF I plan to go ahead and create a new page anyway. I'm a little confused by (b), as I have supported my claims with original research and primary sources!

I'm really extremely lost here, and would appreciate feedback on how to take my article further! Ongmianli (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. It looks like interesting information. I'm curious to know why you feel it would or would not be a good thing to merge your information into the bipolar disorder in children article? That would make one article really good and save people looking in two places. The Tea House host will be here to help shortly but my suggestion would be to work through the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. The folks over there are really sharp about this sort of stuff. Good luck with it, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Myrtlegroggins - much appreciated! Right now, I'm hesitant to pursue either option, as it seems like my article might have issues with regards to original research/primary sources. I thought it would be a much better idea to work on improving the article in question before taking it live online (again, article can be found here). I want to make sure that my information is permissible by Wikipedia (would hate for my hard work to go to waste!). I'm sure you understand! Thanks for the ideas on consulting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine too! I'm working through the feedback by ColinFine and am definitely contemplating using that avenue! Hooray for good feedback! Ongmianli (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ongmianli. In regard to your question about primary sources and original research, I think you may be interpreting these criteria backwards, because Wikipedia is different from most publishing outlets. The restriction of original research original research is about what is put into the article, not about the nature of its sources. You should not put into a Wikipedia article any data, and especially any conclusions or argumentation, unless they are derived from reliable published sources. The guidelines on WP:primary sources allow you to use them in some cases but make it clear that secondary sources are strongly preferred. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Ongmianli I took a quick look at your article and it looked impressive, lots of good well referenced info. I just wanted to add to what others have said because, and I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds as if you may not have the right idea yet for how ownership in Wikipedia works. You talk about "your article" but keep in mind that no one owns any articles on Wikipedia. Once you publish an article it is no more or less your responsibility than any other Wikipedia editor. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia needs to consider end users in the way we organize information. Having two or more different articles on essentially the same topic is confusing to users and a maintenance problem for the future. For that reason it's really important to try and consolidate articles and to have one article and only one for a particular topic. So that was a long winded way of saying I also strongly think while what you wrote is great it should be merged in with the existing article. That process won't be as easy as writing the original probably because you need to engage with the community and build consensus for your point of view but in the long term IMO it's the right way to go. MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Subject of my article is...

What do you do with new articles that still say Subject of my article is... Alot of new articles show this still. For instance [2006 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season] and [Saxon Lutheran Immigration 1838-1839]. Should I remove this from them when I see it. Thanks, the reedman (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Reedman! Yep, you should remove those as you find them; they're leftovers from the page creation tutorial (or whatever it's called). That text is supposed to get replaced by the subject, but sometimes people just add it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedman72 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to remove a tag

I just used suggestbot to give me articles to edit and one article it suggested was Inference_engine As I look at that article it actually looks fairly decent to me. There is a tag at the very bottom for OR but IMO nothing in this article is OR, it is all fairly straight forward basic info about Inference Engines and it is supported by some classic books on the topic. I just want to remove the tag, I see no reason for it (I've also checked the Talk page and haven't found any major outstanding issue). But I can't see where the tag occurs, I tried editing the page and searching for "original research" and didn't find it. It looks as if the tag is associated with the box at the bottom on "Computable Knowledge" rather than with the article itself. Can someone explain what is going on here? MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11, Jarble: Hey MadScientistX11. That original research notice was inside a template that is transcluded into the page. This means that the notice wasn't actually on the page at all, but being displayed when the template's content was called to the page and seen. If you clicked edit and looked for that template, it was displayed by the code {{Computable knowledge}}. So to access it, you would have had to navigate to Template:Computable knowledge. I have removed the original research message from that template because AFAICT it had no place there, not being an "article", and anyway even if somehow a template's list of related article can be characterized as "original research" (maybe the person was thinking that some on the list were not actually computational knowledge subjects, so including them was OR) it's not appropriate for that to display inside the template and thus be seen on every page that it's transcluded in. I have pinged the person who posted the notice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Translations

Hello, I have an article in review but in the meantime I would like to translate it into other languages. How can I do it? Thank you for your kindnessAthenaathena07 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Athenaathena07. That's fine: each different language Wikipedia is a separate entity with its own rules and governance, so you can just create articles in other Wikipedias according to their own procedures: if they start as translations of an article from en.Wikipedia they should say so (though if you are the original author of both versions I guess that's not essential). Once written, the articles may of course diverge, as they will get edited by different sets of editors. For more information, please see Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem with creating articles

I created 7 articles, 4 of which got deleted, 1 of which got merged and one of which has been proposed for deletion but has not yet been deleted. I'm not sure I should be creating anymore articles that I don't know whether or not belong in Wikipedia. It's not because I'm afraid I might get offended if an article I created gets deleted but because I'm afraid I might be damaging Wikipedia by creating articles that don't belong. Is it true that I should not be creating anymore articles while I'm still inexperienced enough that more than half of them don't belong or do the ones that don't belong get deleted so quickly that if I keep on creating more of them, I will be benefitting Wikipedia more than I'm harming it from the few articles that do belong on Wikipedia even though 2 of them got speedy deleted from being promotional without me realizing they were promotional when I created them. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Blackbombchu: Please don't worry about damaging Wikipedia. Instead let's work on your toolkit . Read something like User:Timtrent/A good article and gain additional skills and you will be just fine. Fiddle Faddle 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Blackbombchu. You aren't harming Wikipedia, but it may be advisable to learn more about what notability means on Wikipedia, since we should only be writing articles about notable topics, as Wikipedia defines that term. I like an information page called A Primer for newcomers, which is an introduction to writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I already know how the policies, verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and notability work quite well. The problem is that when I created TORI, I knew the existence of the one source for it was not enough to make it notable but figured there were a lot of other independent reliable sources out there that I couldn't find that other people would find later, rendering it notable. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you need to revisit your understanding of WP:N Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Correcting WIKI titles and links.

The MINI brand of cars has it's name improperly stylized on its title and model pages. Instead of being spelled Mini, it needs to be fixed to MINI. PLEASE FIX THESE ERRORS — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurboChargedChiliPepper (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, capitalisation etc of trademarks like this is covered by MOS:TMRULES and the rule is we don't capitalise just because the manufacturer does. That's why all uses of the word Mini in the articles you've been working on are Mini and not MINI and why they should stay that way. Nthep (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting help with article

Hey there, so the article on Overwolf got published and was rated a C. I was wondering what I could do now to get it to be better and how I get my article noticed by the WikiProject Video Games group since that is the area it has to do with for more assistance.

Raif1989 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome back to the Teahouse! A first step is to add the WikiProject notice ("banner") to the talk page (Talk:Overwolf in this case); I've gone ahead with that already. That will categorize it under the project. In each of the WikiProject notices it reads "This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale"; "quality scale" should be a link. Follow the link to to the grading scheme for the articles. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Does reference matter?

Does your sources have to be from the so called "scholarly articles"? Or is it okay if I post using articles of newspaper articles? ie. NY Times. Is it also bad if I'm doing a company's article in wiki and the source I use is from their official website?

Also, someone told me I shouldn't copy-paste in Wikipedia. Does that include copy-pasting content from my sandbox?

Candicedelacruz (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

NY Times is considered ok, as are most large newspapers. You may copy from your sandbox. The prohibition/recommendation is not against the act of copying as such, just against mindless copying directly from sources. Please use your own phrases instead. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify copy-pasting. You mustn't copy-paste from one article to another as you lose all the other contributors history of editing in the act of copy-paste. Creating a draft in your own sandbox and then copying that to a new article in mainspace is fine as long as you were the only contributor in your sandbox. Nthep (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks. About using a company's official web page as a source, would this be okay or no?

Candicedelacruz (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for non-controversial information only. If you can find other sources which are independent, use them.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to make bulk link corrections?

The AFI seems to have reorganised their website, so links of the form connect.afi.com no longer work. A search with Linksearch shows 210 references. Is there a way to request a single bulk update, or do I need to visit each page individually?

(Caution, I haven't checked ALL of these, but, for example, http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/100Movies.pdf?docID=281 becomes http://www.afi.com/Docs/100Years/movies100.pdf)

Manolan1 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Manolan and welcome to The Teahouse. I would suggest asking at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like exactly the right place Manolan1 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What could it be the problem

I just created my first article using the editing sandbox. I submitted the draft and it got rejected... but the article is about a notable organization, it provides a specialised service and is the first Canadian franchise to offer this service and is also a technology innovator on the industry . I am a bit curious why was rejected, I read the guidelines and my opinion it follow the guidelines. the article was not intended or written with a promo tone and provides information about the specialize d service this organization provides the article was called "Chiquicuts"Fernandomartinez1966 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your current sandbox and I can not see any sources for the information. You need to add inline references (see WP:IC) to each statement. The citations need to be from reliable sources (see WP:RS). Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Fernandomartinez1966. Your draft was rejected because it was blank. If you are satisfied that you have corrected the issue, you need to click on the resubmit button and save the page. However, Before you do that I suggest you read WP:Notable, WP:42, and WP:REFBEGIN and add some reliable sources to your draft. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at User:Fernandomartinez1966/sandbox which I assume is the article. There is no credible assertion of notability and there is no referencing. A thing is not notable because you know it is. It is notable because people in reliable sources say it is. Do not be discouraged. SImply learn your trade, document sources, and resubmit the article when it is better written and sourced. Everyone has this type of problem with their first ever article. Fiddle Faddle 21:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reworking an existing article from the ground up

I am looking to "refresh" an article. It has become a mess and needs a new structure. I have some major changes I want to make and have announced my intentions on the article talk page but am skeptical because of my lack of experience. I don't have all the info yet that needs to go into the new structure. Should I hold off and make one massive change or slowly add sections in as I go? ForrestLyle (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello ForrestLyle. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress (even ones that are highly rated), so if you feel that you can improve an article, by all means do so. Just make sure any new information you add is properly referenced, and adheres to Wiki guidelines. And it doesn't all have to be done in one shot...in fact (just from personal experience), sometimes doing it piecemeal works better. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks user:Vjmlhds , I will take a stab at it!

ForrestLyle (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing username

I know you can change your password. On other sites you can change both i have looked through all the settings and i cant change my username. Tylkrby767 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome back to the Teahouse. Changing your username on Wikipedia is trickier than on other websites. You will have to make a request at changing username. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Source Language/Article Language

Hello,can a source be in a different language than the article's language (ex. A source in french for a english wikipedia article)? Thank you Tsikuris (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tsikuris: Hey Tsikuris. Absolutely, yes. While all things being equal, between two equally reliable sources we prefer the English language source, foreign language sources are fine. For more, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources (WP:NONENG). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Rick James Page needs a lot of work

People have even posted it on the talk page, this page needs work. On the talk page there is an unsigned comment, with no user ID and no way to see who posted it using bad language. Under the article links are not found, when clicked and it says he need a pace maker to help him breathe, which is completely illogical, as a pace maker involves the heart. So, if someone is bored, they could fix this up in a small ways that would not involve too much effort. Apriv40dj (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is always possible to see who posted a comment. You should click the "history" tab (see: HELP:PH). There is also WP:BLAME function which helps to find out who wrote what. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

But, the comment is on the talk page and they got away with posting it and leaving no mark there at all. I don't how they did that. No user name no date no nothing, strange. I think I would like to remove it, without trying to find that person. Apriv40dj (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I just watched Behind the music remastered with Rick James and they seem to conclude it was drugs that killed him rather then health issues, as they updated his story. But, his heath issues may be related to years of cocaine abuse. I would go in there and start changing text, but I am very poor writer as I mentioned and I have a learning disability. I am not sure about the pace maker at all, as it was not mentioned on the show. I can't therefore, either conclude or disprove he has a pace maker at all, I just know that is not for breathing. He would need an oxygen tank and a tube in his nose for that. Yes, I am a fan of Rick James, I would like the page to be improved. I am seeing bad font on my end of the computer, but it may be ok, on yours. I tried to fix the bad font, as sometimes it can be fixed by resigning, but it is not fixed yet. Apriv40dj (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC) I went to fix where it says he died due to "overweight" when they meant to say obesity, and someone had cleaned up what I was complaining about, but I could not see on March 30, it said something about changing the personal life section, not the death section. I am all confused, it looks a bit better. Apriv40dj (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Ok, I clicked and someone removed the whole thing "After his 1998 stroke, James needed a pacemaker to help him breathe and by his death was dealing with overweight problems, which also affected his health." That whole sentence did not make any sense. Good, at least it no longer an embarrassment. Apriv40dj (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

delete account

How do I delete my Wikipedia account?Nimel15 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is: You can't. All edits must be attributed to an account or an IP address (for editors without accounts). You have some alternatives, though:

• Abandonment: The easiest way to leave Wikipedia is to simply stop editing. You can come back at any time in the future.
• Vanishing: This is a technical process by which your account is renamed to a generic name ("Vanished user 1", for example) and certain pages associated with your account are deleted.
• Renaming: If you simply want to rename your account, you can request a change in username. (Or, just create a new one. Be sure to only use one account, though.)

Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi I am a new writer, How can I create a article for a company ?

I tried to create a company article for 2-3 times but it always got deleted. I just try to tell that there is a company and some of magazines show that as well Hansonl18 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hansonl18/sandboxHansonl18 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! You need to show the company is notable - through citations in major publications. See WP:CORP and WP:N. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How can we stop publicity-seeking organizations adding superfluous references to articles?

I have noticed that several particular examples of this, perpetrated in behalf of a certain religious organization, have been removed or pared back to within reason. Is there a policy directing how editors should handle such cases? I'd like to be on a solid footing, understanding the rules, before pointing out particular examples. Bernardalone (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bernardalone. WP:SOAP is always a good place to start, and I use WP:SPAM a lot too. I am happy to help you out anytime if you leave a message on my talk page. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 04:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

how to upload images or pictures in wikipidia

how to upload images or pictures in wikipidiaMAYURESH PRAKASHAN (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a "tools" section at the bar on the left side of your screen. You will find a "Upload file" option there. Click this and follow the steps. That's all! Zince34 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Module

What is meant by the Module Namespace ? Zince34 (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to start looking is Wikipedia:Module namespace. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes question

How often do you need to add a footnote? does it have to be in every sentence?Candicedelacruz (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Candicedelacruz and welcome. The minimum is once per paragraph at the end, if it is all from one source. Otherwise a citation is needed each time the source being used changes.--Charles (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have multiple accounts?

I recently came across a user that I believe has at least 4 accounts. It seems unlikely that the same four users would all only edit the same 3-4 pages. They voted multiple times on an AFD to keep it (everyone else voted to delete). I gave them the benefit of the doubt and told them it was okay to have multiple accounts, but you could only vote once (I have no idea if this is true, but I felt like a kind confrontation was perhaps more useful and would fix the problem). They didn't dispute that all accounts were them and I thought that was the end of it, but then another account popped up voting to keep. Again, this user only edits those same articles.

How are we to handle this? If the guy wants to have 70 accounts, it's not really my business, but they voted on an AFD, so it definitely seems to have violated policies. Is there a set way to handle this? Is there anything wrong with having multiple accounts in and of itself? Bali88 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking at the Teahouse. You should see WP:SOCK and report your suspicions as detailed there. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, which article are you referring to??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Rattray and I have lodged an SPI. Flat Out let's discuss it

For new editors SPI means Sock puppet investigation and AFD is Articles for deletion.--Charles (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cinara

Which family does Cinara belong to? It shows in both Aphididae and Lachnidae.--淺藍雪^❉ 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The purpose of the Teahouse is for asking questions specifically pertaining to Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. My best advice to you is to google Cinara and go from there. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi 淺藍雪, and thanks for your question. We actually do have resources to address these sorts of matters! The Reference desk for science-related questions is a great place to check out for questions like yours. Thanks for coming by! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Main page

Can somebody fix the did you knows on the main page? it says Biden is a pink dwarf. the reedman (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Reedman72: That's intentional. Click on the link and you'll see. :-) --Jakob (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I know what is meant by it but its a really weird way to say it being its an unofficial name, also why does it say that canadas money "features too much pornography'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedman72 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On April 1st articles which look like hoaxes but are actually true are used in DYK.--Charles (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL the reedman (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is is OK to summarize portions of a book my college prof (now deceased)wrote?

Hi, My college American History professor, after he retired, translated German memoirs of one of the school's founders into English.

At our school's 150th anniversary, I bought a copy, and thought to include facts & short summary into my first article.

The German edition was done in early 1900's & the Eng. translation I believe (c) about 2006. The book may have been "self-published" as it looks like a small local business.

Please advise if this is acceptable. JoeHebda (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JoeHebda. Please be aware that memoirs are a primary source that should be used carefully. If your professor was fluent in German, then you can use and cite the translation. You may want to cite the German original in a "further reading" section. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sourced info hateful guy

I recently made a post that was unsourced so then it was takin off and later i put sources and put it back up and this guy took it off he said that sources in books are not reliable and im pretty sure they are especially 1st person experience books i was doing pre-columbian Native Populations i got a total of 76 million population from North America to South America so im not sure if that guy is racist and thinks that their population was 20 million or if hes really obsessed and think its 100 million so is he wrong about the books thing? NativePride98 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, not to be rude, but it is really hard to tell what you are asking. Could you possibly try asking again and break your question down into coherent sentences? John from Idegon (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The first editor who undid your edits said in the edit summary that he didn't think the sources were reliable and that you should discuss them (on the article talk page) first. That's not racism but a simple request that you discuss and gain consensus about the figures before adding them to the article. The objections appeared to be that a travel company's blurb isn't really expert enough and the book you were referring to was from 1895 so the information in it may be very out of date. You need to start a discussion at Talk:Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas about why you think the figures you are using are reliable sources and should be included. You should also assume good faith and drop any ideas that disagreement with your opinion means that the others are racist. Nthep (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NativePride98 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability question --

I just created my first article after having edited here and there for years, and it was rejected within seconds <g> for lack of subject notability. But the subject is a S&P 600 company with 4000 employees at 20 locations and 2 billion in revenues that is traded on the NYSE, and it OWNS several other companies or brands that =do= have wikipedia entries. How can this not be notable? valereee (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Valereee: Perhaps you should re-read the message at the head of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Treehouse Foods, assuming this is the article you speak of. Address the comment as written by editing the article and I foresee no problems. Fiddle Faddle 15:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Valereee: I did the first review and I'd just like to say it looks much better now. I would have probably accepted it now but I won't be reviewing it again as we prefer to have various opinions. If the same reviewer keeps coming back an article may become distorted by that reviewer's personal preferences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks, Fiddle Faddle!

@Dodger67: Thanks, Roger! I'd been advised in the help room that I might as well go ahead and submit while I was still working, as I'd have plenty of time to keep working on it as there was a long backlog! :D Totally understand on wanting various opinions! And there's no particular urgency -- I'd just been researching something else and ran across the name of this company I'd never heard of, and when I googled them I couldn't believe they were so big and had no wikipedia article. I'd never actually started an article, so I thought I'd give it a try. valereee (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Valereee:@Dodger67: I was just scrolling through the Teahouse when I saw this post. I have Accepted the submission. Good job. Your updates have definitely addressed the initial notability concerns. The subject appears to pass WP:CORPDEPTH per most of the sources you added, particularly the ones from third party newspaper articles. Keep working on it! It is definitely a good start! Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I create a userbox subpage?

See heading. I've got several userboxes and would like to make them available to others, but to do that I have to post them on the userbox talk page, but to do that they have to have a subpage on my page...right? So how would I go about that? Eman235^(talk) 04:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Eman and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm not clear on why you feel you have to have a subpage, but you could click on this link: User:Eman235/userboxes.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Eman and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm guessing you want a page something like User:Technical 13/Userboxes and if that is the case, I suggest creating User:Eman235/userboxes as Vchimpanzee suggests above with the content of:

{{User:Technical 13/SandBox/DraftHeader|content=Userboxes}}

{{Usbktop}}
{{Usbk| ... }}
{{Usbk| All of your userboxes }}
{{Usbk| ... }}
{{Usbkbottom}}

If you need some help setting this up, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I would be happy to help you with it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You said you "would like to make them available to others". The previous answers assumed you want others to see them. I suspect you want others to be able to use them on their own userpage. If that's the case then each of them should indeed have their own page. For example, if you copy the code of one of them to User:Eman235/userboxes/Verne then everybody can use it with {{User:Eman235/userboxes/Verne}}. Note however that Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Books#Miscellaneous authors already lists User:The Dark Side/Original userboxes/Verne. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't see the Verne userbox. Anyway, yeah. That's what I want to do, and will do, as soon as I get the chance. :)

Eman235^(talk) 03:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Error in Title

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have tried to create a page about my company 'Boston Analytics'. However, the title shows 'User:Shenji019/Boston Analytics'. How can I remove User:Shenji019? I want only 'Boston Analytics' as the title

BostonAnalytics (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change a title, you need to move a page. But I see that you have a conflict of interest as you seem to be related to the organisation in some way, so you might not be directly allowed to edit to page, but might suggest changes on the talk page of the concerned article.

Any way the article may not meet the current guidelines, so do not move it right away as it might be deleted. See manual of style and words not to include in an article. You may also read why the article was previously deleted on the talk page of the creator.

But as explained above, you are not recommended to edit directly as you have a conflict of interest.-- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 06:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Title

I'm just wondering which I'm supposed to use. The wikipedia title is 'Frost French' but the actual company name is FrostFrench. Which should I use?Candicedelacruz (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Candicedelacruz, it seems FrostFrench is the actual name of the company so I would go with that. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 01:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Candicedelacruz. The Wikipedia policy is clear that articles should use the name that is used in the preponderance of reliable sources. If the sources call it "Frost French", than that should be the title of the article, whether or not that is the official company name. Both the Vogue and Guardian references say "FrostFrench", so the article should be moved to that title. (Incidentally, if you wish to improve the article converting the bare URL's to formatted references according to Referencing for beginners would be a big improvement.) --ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Image

I uploaded File:Salyut4prelaunch.jpg but had a mistake. I uploaded another version but still the old version is coming. Please look at it. Zince34' 12:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing the new version. If you're seeing the old one you may need to refresh your cache. Note also that you need to complete the non-free use rationale for the article on which it is used, & if it is not used it will get deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My Article

I am writing an article about a company called Recycling Lives. This is my first one. The company is a one off and has influenced policy in the UK with regard to Recycling and reuse as well as being a charity which helps the homeless and vulnerable. Could someone explain where I am going wrong I have written a factual account of the company which is featured in many papers and news articles, however it is deleted as advertising when I submit.

Carl

Carl Poxon (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carl Poxon: I don't have access to the deleted text, but it was judged to be promotional. May I suggest you ask the deleting admin to userfy it and then for you to work on it in your userspace? Reading an essay such as User:Timtrent/A good article will help you to realign your words with Wikipedia's needs. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carl Poxon: Hi Carl, and welcome to the teahouse. As suggested by WP:BFAQ, Wikipedia tries to prevent organizations from advertising material. However it has no idea whether you are advertising or not unless you keep a neutral point of view.

At WP:AFC, draft copies of articles are sent for submission so that experienced users might review it and decide whether to create it or not. Zince34' 09:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Guys. I believe it is neutral and not promotional which is why I am confused. The article is well referenced but obviously is about a comppany / charity

Carl Poxon (talk)

@Carl Poxon: The issue is not whether it is a charity or a corporation, Carl. Again, I have not seen the original text, so this is general advice. The issue is whether the tone is promotional and the links in the article can be seen as promotional. Any hint of marketing puffery, for example, renders the article to be promotional in WIkipedia's view.

Thus you need to be especially careful to report in a neutral, bland manner the facts of the organisation, and to cite each fact with a reference in a reliable source. It's a very different writing skill from almost any other skill, and it takes practice. Work out how to report in the dullest manner and you will be well on the way to getting it right. Fiddle Faddle 10:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there somewhere I can create it so that I can gain advice on what is wrong with the text Carl Poxon (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carl Poxon: Yes, there is. What I suggest you do, though, is to ask the deleting admin yourself to place the deleted text in such a place for you. I've seen that you have asked on their page for some advice. Go the extra mile and ask them to userfy the article for you. It will save your needing to re-create it. Use the word userfy. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page to tell me when it is done and I will try to make time to have a look at it with you. Fiddle Faddle 10:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Did that, the draft is at User:Carl Poxon/Recycling lives. Thanks Timtrent! NawlinWiki (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carl Poxon: It's now at Draft:Recycling lives. I will take a look at it shortly and knock it into shape where needed - give me an hour or two. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the technicalities, the language needs to be adjusted a bit - the tone still is a bit promotional in places. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carl Poxon (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to English pages

Some countries eg Denmark obviously don't have the same breadth and depth of articles but the a lot of the population understands English (generally) If an article in Danish is a stub does it make sense to link to the same Wikipedia article in English (probably as an external link at the foot of the page) I appreciate the spirit of Wikipedia would be to try to grow the local language contribution but thought the english page maybe a useful reference to go for more information?! (I know you can toggle language from Danish to English etc also) Thanks Garymonk (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gary. Where there is a one-to-one correspondence betwen articles in different languages, the equivalent articles can be found through the "Languages" menu item at the foot of the left-hand toolbar. Hence, for example, there are links between Social media marketing and da:Social media marketing. See Help:Interlanguage links. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks David-good to know! Garymonk (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User Sub-Page

How do I create User sub-pages. Such as User:*/*sub*? ForrestLyle (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Either type it in the search box:- User:ForrestLyle/subpage title - then press go-to - and follow the instructions, or create a link on your user or talk page e.g. type [[User:ForrestLyle/subpage title]] then preview it, click on the red-link and follow the instructions. For full details please see WP:USERSUBPAGE - Arjayay (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How to create an article

One thing i have figured out is you can do this [[]] for example marty the dog and it will be red and they say that means if you click on it, it says you can create that page is that the right way. Or is there another way. Because when you click on the red it asks you to make an article. Tylkrby767 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tylkrby767: Hey Tylkrby767. Yep , that's one of the ways to create a page. You can also type such a link and then click Show preview and create the page, without having to actually save the link first. Another way is to type a title into the search field, click enter and then you will see text like "The page "RED NAME" does not exist..." and click on that link. There is also a forum called articles for creation that provides a guided facility for creating an article with a review process. See more at Wikipedia:Starting an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Or have a look at the article wizard which talks you through criteria for articles. Thanks, Matty.007 12:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My personal suggestion would be to use the article wizard, especially if it is your first article. Zell Faze (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits and submission for review

I've submitted my sandbox page on the Root Microbiome for review and am waiting for a decision. However, I've made several edits to the page since submission. Should I resubmit the new version, or will my changes be available to reviewers from my original submission? Garlicscape (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Garlicscape. Reviewers will see the version that currently exists and they will still be able to look up earlier versions if they wish.--Charles (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. At first glance I can't see any sign of your having submitted it for review. If you did so you must have subsequently deleted the submission template; when do you think you submitted it for review? I have added a {{userpage draft}} template which gives you a submit button to allow you to submit for review. Having submitted you can make further amendments & you don't need to resubmit, as it will stay in the queue for review for long as the submission template remains in place. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking again at your contributions I see that you seem to have been working on two pages in parallel: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Root Microbiome was submitted for review, but User:Garlicscape/sandbox was not. If the AFC draft is not the current version you may want to request its deletion by adding {{Db-g7}} to the top of it, and then submit your sandbox page for review, or alternatively as you seem to have been the only substantive contributor to either page you can probably get away with copying the current content of the sandbox in place of the AFC draft & then submitting it for review at the AFC location (and you could then blank your sandbox page to avoid confusing yourself again). --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I went ahead and just moved the userspace draft to article space; no need to clog AfC further since the article looks ready for mainspace. @Garlicscape: thanks for the hard work! VQuakr (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh, when I go to the Articles for creation, there is a box at the top telling me that version is not currently submitted for review.

I have updated it, and clicked on the green box that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" It then shows me a mostly blank window with text that says not to change anything in the window, and to just hit the "save page" button at the bottom. My text is not a part of that window, though. I hit the save page button and it brings up my Article for creation again, still with the notice that it has not yet been submitted... What am I doing wrong? I think I still don't really understand how to submit Garlicscape (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll figure out how to submit for the next article :)

Garlicscape (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You did submit the AfC article as well, actually. That mostly blank screen appends a template to the bottom of the page that lists it for review. VQuakr (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a bug in the submission process. That is why it says, in the grey box at the top of the AFC page: "Note: the submission-received box appears at the bottom of the page at first. If it's there, your draft has been submitted correctly, even if this message is still shown." All this tangle gets sorted out when your submission is reviewed, but does cause confusion to many of those submitting AFC drafts. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Format of History section

I'm writing a history section for a stub and I'm just wondering how the proper format should be. I saw some articles that has a small paragraph for each year mentioned and another that has a full large chunk of paragraph that combines all the years involved.

Candicedelacruz (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Candicedelacruz and welcome to The Teahouse. I don't think there's a clear rule on how to format a history section. If it gets really long, it should be divided into sections, but if you're expanding a stub it doesn't sound like it will be time for that yet.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee:I've been observing other wiki pages and I still feel confuse.(using years 2000, 2001, and 2002 as an example) some wiki pages have 2000, 2001, and 2002 in one paragraph but other wiki pages have 2000, 2001, 2002 in separate paragraphs (some aren't even "paragraph-sizes" because some only have 2 lines in a paragraph. Candicedelacruz (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I didn't get this notification. I'm going to assume these other articles are cases of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They are there but they're probably not following policies. I was hoping someone else would respond, because I don't know.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)