Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 217

Archive 210

←

Archive 215

Archive 216

Archive 217

Archive 218

Archive 219

Archive 220

article is an orphan issue

Hello Teahouse,

Thanks for the invite. So I have created this page and before I could finish it, it said the following "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related" So at this time the page is not an orphan i believe, being that after that I completed a number of additions and updates. So can i do next to have that "Orphan" article removed? or will it remove itself after a day or so?SusanBeir (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Maintenance templates such as that one are not removed automatically. If you think that the article has sufficient incoming links from other articles to meet the guidelines explained at WP:ORPHAN you can remove the template yourself, but please explain briefly in your edit summary why you are removing it. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello SusanBeir. I took a look and noticed that you added a link to The Mazeking to the article Mixed media. I have deleted that link, since we would need a reliable, independent source that indicated that this artist is among the most famous of this genre, or widely considered representative of this genre. The artist's website is promotional and not independent and not a reliable source for such a claim. The mixed media article is weak, and should be improved and expanded, mentioning the best known artists working in the genre. Adding a lesser known artist as the only example of a genre is not an improvement to either article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and your point is clear and well made and I completely get it. However, I must say that I find it very interesting and rather annoying that this article is less than 20 hours and has been seemingly wanted from the start. I think that is rather interesting, no matter how its presented. This artist is not at the level of Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin or Picasso. However, this artist has been around for over teen years, has done exhibits and auctioned, and now in the past two or three years this artist has done a form of art that is really interesting and which has gotten lots of attention for around the world. I did two searches myself and found over 200 images other people have taken of them with his work, and two videos and several media sites showing his work, including Oprah, NPR and a writer- editor of the WSJ. So with that said I find it rather interesting that you and maybe others feel that this artist is not worth including or at best giving me a crash course in Wiki writing, editing etc. However, I must say that I did some looking around at artist articles including some from music and photography as well being that I know some of those types and I must say that I found many articles just like this one. Even more so with fewer links, fewer public interest link or ref and even with seemingly no reason they are important or notable at all. I can cite them if you wish. I am just trying to get an understanding of how gets to pick who's in and who's not. SusanBeir (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of Non-free Image

Is there a talk page where I can ask questions about the use of images? Can I use a non-free content image of an album cover which is in a band's article to illustrate the article of the artist that created the art originally? How do I do that?CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Our non-free content criteria are pretty strict (more so than concepts of "fair use" under copyright laws). Generally speaking, copyright album cover images are only permitted in album articles (just as copyright screenshots of characters from movies and TV shows are not permitted in articles about the actors who portray them). If you have questions about non-free use, you can ask them at Wikipedia:Non-free content review.--ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou so much, ukexpat for your very helpful reply. I read the criteria first, and they seemed very strict; that's why I'm asking lots of questions, rather than plunging in.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Will someone please help fix it?

Hi Everyone, I just created a new article, and yes i am new to this, but someone please look at this article and help fix me? Now this appeared on the page, "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged...etc". SusanBeir (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is The Mazeking I added the tag because the article doesn't explain why they are notable.Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

its fixed I believe. SusanBeir (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi SusanBier. If you have any questions about what is considered notable, the notability guidelines for artists can be found here: WP:ARTIST, the basic criteria can be found here: WP:BASIC, and the general notability guideline can be found here: WP:GNG. I hope this helps. Paisarepa (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi SusanBeir. I'm afraid you still haven't established notability for this artist. Although you have added multiple references, these all point to the same website, which is self-published and therefore not independent as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Please see this guide, which will explain what you need to do to avoid deletion of the article. Until you have done that, the article needs to remain tagged for notability issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

these do not all point to the same website, and i had many others and someone removed them. SusanBeir (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

This will be fixed and I spoke with someone who has done many many wiki articles and they said they will asst. I will say that it's rather interesting, because I looked around and many of other articles and found no reason at all for them to have a article page, non. So be care how and who you exclude. SusanBeir (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and your point is clear and well made and I completely get it. However, I must say that I find it very interesting and rather annoying that this article is less than 20 hours and has been seemingly unwanted from the start. I think that is rather interesting, no matter how its presented. This artist is not at the level of Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin or Picasso at this time. However, this artist has been around for over teen years, has done exhibits, auctions, and now in the past two or three years this artist has done a form of art, that is really interesting, which has gotten lots of attention for around the world. I did two searches myself and found over 200 images other people have taken of them with his work, and two videos and several media sites showing his work, including Oprah, NPR and a writer- editor of the WSJ. So with that said I find it rather interesting that maybe you and others feel that this artist is not worth including or at best giving me a crash course in Wiki writing, editing etc. However, I did some looking around at artist articles including some from music and photography being that I know some of those types myself and I must say that I found many articles just like this one. Even more so, with fewer links, fewer public interest link or ref and even with seemingly no reason they are important or notable at all. I can cite them if you wish. I am just trying to get an understanding of who gets to pick who's in and who's not. a few articles, Richard Phillips, Wyatt Gallery, Stonehoney. Anyway I asked for help and rather than help many article got tagged and that just does not seem like help. SusanBeir (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I upset anyone, I got annoying and felt it was unfair and not balanced, being that I saw other articles that seem to have very little in the way of real value or meaning for inclusion, but that's my perspective. I was simply trying to create a page that I thought was worth creating, about an artist and his work which I had seen a few time in NYC and then heard about on the radio, and later saw images of on many of my friends Facebook, Instagram, etc. So I guess I'm not really good at writing this type of thing, so I will leave it as it is and if someone wishes to continue it or if the wikipedia community wishes to keep or delete it, then okay. Yet I do feel that the reasons stated regarding "notability" is very weak, being that there are many Wikipedia articles that truly fail that test. Thank you. SusanBeir (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Susan, don't worry, you haven't upset anyone - most of the regulars have thick skin! One piece of advice, if I may - we look at each article and draft on its own merits, so while it is tempting to do so, don't worry about other articles, just concentrate on this one and continue to work on it.(For more on the thinking behind this see this page.) We realise that there are thousands of articles that should probably be deleted because their subjects don't meet the notability guidelines. That's just the nature of the Wikipedia beast - as an open project without an editor-in-chief or an editorial board, articles about non-notable subjects do sometimes linger longer than they should do - we will get to them eventually, there is no deadline.--ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

clock time display for uk

in preferences / gadgets, the clock on the toolbar displays the server time no matter what changes I make to the settings, tried them all and the clock is one hour behind the UK, what is the fix please Manc1894 08:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manc1894 (talk • contribs)

As preferences/gadgets says "Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC" - It does exactly what it says on the tin. This means it is the same as local time (GMT) during UK winters, but an hour behind BST in the summer. Wikipedia works on UTC - which can be far more confusing for people elsewhere in the world - at least it is the same as your local time for 50% of the year.- Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Rather than the clock in Preferences/Gadgets, I use User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-LiveClock.js, which shows the time in local time, UTC on mouseover, & also provides a purge link, see docuumentation at User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-LiveClock. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

so for displaying a correct time UK on the toolbar in the UK it's useless then? and the "correction" hours box in preferences is a waste of time [excuse the pun] as this does not correct the UTC time does it, so what's the point? I am a new user and the intuitive indexed help on a scale of 1-10 is say 2, designed by geeks for geeks, hv to get used to it I suppose, thx for the help to understand that it UTC display only? can anyone confirm what the correction box does or why there is a drop down box that also does not affect the toolbar clock? too much time wasted on this already! a useless gadget if ever there was one Manc1894 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manc1894 (talk • contribs)

Hello Manc1894 and welcome to the Teahouse. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a worldwide project with editors working in every country and time zone around the world. The project operates on UTC which is either identical to or one hour off your local time. I operate on Pacific Standard Time, used in Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles. I don't complain about a seven hour difference from UTC. To me, it is just a friendly reminder of where I am on the globe as compared to what used to be called "Greenwich Mean Time", which is a British thing, after all. I recognize it as a worldwide standard. Perhaps you should give that a try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The clock gadget and the time zone are on different pages and are two independent features which control different things. The time zone setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering controls times in automatically generated pages, for example user contributions like Special:Contributions/Manc1894 and page histories like [1]. The clock gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets says: "Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC". The whole point of that gadget is to display the UTC time. Discussion pages like this one have signatures with UTC time and UTC is also used in some other ways so it's often practical to be able to see the UTC time, for example to easily see how long ago a signed post was made. Many people already have a wristwatch or a clock with local time in their operating system and Wikipedia does not have a one-click gadget for it but there is a user script at User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-LiveClock.js. The green box links to the documentation which shows how to install it. Any registered user can make users scripts and there are thousands. A limited number of scripts have been selected to be gadgets at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

POLEMIC

Does POLEMIC apply to myself? I want to list my block log on my own user page, but apparently that is not in order ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bonkers The Clown: My advice would be to tread carefully here and listen to the admins. You don't want to get indeffed a third time, right? I've also seen people keep similar lists of admins who took action against them, and such lists were soon removed. --Jakob (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that advice. Such lists have no place in a collaborative project.--ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I get rid of a file I uploaded?

I uploaded but due to my dialect I pronounced it differently from the pronunciation it was intended to demonstrate on the Dutch phonology page, how do I get rid of the file? - Cilibinarii (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cilibinarii and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you sure that this is the correct filename as right now it doesn't exist. If you are the author/uploader of any file you can request Speedy Deletion. Just place {{Db-g7}} on the relevant page.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the correct file name. The deletion log reads as follows:

• 02:07, June 5, 2014 Little Mountain 5 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Nl-freule.ogg (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page).

--ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion tag

I tag a picture for deletion by mistake, can I remove the tag? Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 15:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the section below, and to the deletion nomination in Commons, not here in the English Wikipedia. No, you shouldn't remove the tag, but you have commented on the deletion nomination page, and in any case the grounds for nomination were invalid, so the file won't be deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks David, I appreciate your quick answer. But who will remove the tag? or this tag will remain forever?

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 15:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The tag will disappear within at most two weeks. No harm will come from this, don't worry. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps you haven't read the deletion process in Commons? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My first major edit, thoughts, advice?

Hey, I recently began my Wikipedia career and decided to rewrite the article about Spime, since I believe it's misguiding and somewhat outdated.

I have my version in my Sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Techfy/sandbox

I'm still in the middle of adding ref tags, they be marked by [XXXXXX].

Thanks in advance!

Techfy (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the existing article is better. Good grammar is key. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-writing an entire article in your sand-box is not prohibited, but may I suggest you introduce the changes incrementally, as this allows identification, isolation and discussion of any controversial issues; whereas, if you cut and paste the entire article from your sandbox, this leads to a "spot the difference" competition. If an editor objects to any part of a wholesale change, they are highly likely to revert the lot, whereas they may agree with 95% but cannot, easily, reverse, or isolate, your changes to the parts that they disagree with. - Arjayay (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Like Arjayay already said its better to do it in step. It would be a shame after all that all your work would be reverted whole sale. just because of a few errors you might have made in the re-write. NathanWubs (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have created an article of a notiable person but I have been rejected, can you help?

Keith Scramble Campbell is a very notable person with over 2300 artworks to his credit. There is an award winning documentary on him and his artwork, I have referenced all of this. He has worked on many national projects, and his artwork spans the globe in many collections. He is the Leroy Neiman of our times.

How is he not notable? Please help.RMJams (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome! I took a quick look at your article through your user page, and while I think you're on your way, I do agree that there's not much that establishes this artist's notability. What we're looking for, generally, is articles in third-party sources that comment on the artist, review their work, etc. In other words, if others feel he is worth writing a story about, then Wikipedia should, too. --McDoobAU93 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of wikipedia titles

How do I capitalize the first letter of a person's last name in the title of a wikipedia article? Wikipedia automatically turns it into a lower-case letter but it's a public person so it needs to be upper-case. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seda_egridere

Thanx for the help in advance.

(GavXX (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello GavXX. I see that Nthep has just moved the page to the correct title. This incidentally means that the former title (with lower case 'e') is still there, but just redirects to the new title).

Resolved

--ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help Nthep--92.36.177.227 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia editing

I've been using Wikipedia for years, have sometimes read talk pages, and have even made minor edits, but only recently created an editor account. I've read the policies page and the editing guidelines page, in addition to already being familiar with some things from my past experience. The few edits I've made already using my new account were easy; I was able to figure things out from the notes provided in appropriate places. Is there anything else I should know? Why is my personal page link red while most editors' are blue? (Is it just because there's nothing on it, or does it have something to do with my account being new?) Are there certain things I'm discouraged from doing as a new editor? DrSocPsych (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, DrSocPsych, any page that is linked with the double square brackets will show up red if the page hasn't been created yet, or has been deleted for some reason. As soon as you have made ten edits and had an account for four days, you will be an autoconfirmed user, and have the same general user rights as most editors. If there are specific things that you want to do, and are not sure if you should, or don't know how to do them, just ask here at the Teahouse. The friendly editors here will answer as many questions as you want to ask (I know from experience; for a while there when I was new I was their best customer). Welcome to the Wikipedia community! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, DrSocPsych, and welcome to Wikipedia and the teahouse. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that you cannot break it. There is nothing you can do that cannot be undone. That being said, what do you like? There are Wikprojects on virtually every subject under the sun. Perhaps joining one of them might help you find your niche here. Us folk who help others can always use help too. Once you get your feet under you, you may want to consider hosting here or helping at the help desk. John from Idegon (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

orphan pages

how to get a list of orphan pages ? Sorarara (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorarara, Category:Orphaned articles is a good place go start, there's over 117,000 articles for you there. Nthep (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How to submit a draft

I made a new article using my sandbox then moved it to a draft Draft:2006 ICC Awards. How do i submit it to be reviewed? I don't want the edit history to be removed. Please help me submit it to the articles for submission.Abhinav0908 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abhinav0908, and welcome to the Teahouse! To submit it for AFC, you first have to add the template that states the article is for AFC. I did that for you. Now you just have to press submit and away you go! Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TheQ EditorAbhinav0908 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

article help

If i were towant to create an article, and sent it in on my sandbox. And said it was declined, is there any way someone could help you fix it. Cincao03 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cincao03, and welcome to the Teahouse! When an Articles for creation article submission is declined, the editor who reviewed your submission will leave a note explaining why he or she declined your draft. They may also recommend how you can improve your draft to get it accepted. If their advice isn't clear, you could a question here—in this Teahouse, and a host will help you. You are also encouraged to ask a question at the Articles for creation help desk if the reviewer's advice is unclear, or you can ask the reviewer personally on their user talk page. To avoid your submission from being declined, make sure you follow the instruction of the Article Wizard and choose a notable topic. Remember, not all topics are suitable for an encyclopedia. If you ever need help, this Teahouse will always be open. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

problems adding a page to a book

the tutorial video for creating a book shows that if u hover your mouse over a highlighted article a quick link tag "add to book" appears. does not on mine - any help Manc1894 08:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manc1894 (talk • contribs)

Hi Manc1894, welcome to the Teahouse. Have you started the process by clicking "Create a book" under "Print/Export" in the left pane? I'm not sure what you mean by "hover your mouse over a highlighted article". You have to view an article to get "Add this page to your book" at top of the page. It doesn't appear when you hover over a link to an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

prime hunter - thx for the welcome, why not try what i said in the original txt?

run the video then make comments, thx Manc1894 22:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manc1894 (talk • contribs)

Help:Books displays File:Enwp screencast4.theora.ogv. It's a four minute video and I didn't know whether it was the one you referred to. I did play it before posting but given the length I started doing other things at the same time and didn't pay close attention to every second. At 01:27 I see "Add linked wiki page to your book". It's also mentioned at Help:Books#Step 2: Collect articles. It doesn't happen for me either. I don't know whether the feature has been removed or doesn't work. PrimeHunter2 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am new too. What I know so far is that you can add and edit the information on these pages. Also, be sure not to use unacceptable language or your account will be deleted for good. I hope you keep your account and you won't need to create a new account!!! Save4278Save4278 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Google Map streetview

I thought I had seen instructions for using Google Map streetview photos for articles about specific locations-- or maybe the instructions were NOT to use captured streetviews? Can you point me to the relevant policy, please? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Google owns copyright to the images that make up Street View, and so, that media is wp:non-free. Because those images are almost surely easily replaced (by being taken from public streets), those images fail point 1 of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. So, NO Google streetview screen captures. Chris857 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Chris857--Thanks for the clear, succinct answer. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Rejected Submisssion

Hello everyone. I recently submitted an article about the Smart Sex Movement but it was rejected and I am trying to understand why and what needs to be done to get it approved. Any advice would be much appreciated. ThanxMarcfu (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marcfu and welcome to the Teahouse! The reason your article has been rejected is that it does not cite any references that establish the notability of the subject. You might like to read WP:Referencing for Beginners or Yunshui's excellent guide to references. I have moved your article to Draft:The smart sex movement to give you time to work on it. Please feel free to ask further questions as and when they arise.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a question.

If I may... can I just say a big THANK YOU to all of you Teahouse hosts.:) I really like just hanging out at the TH and read all the Q&A. It is one of the best ways to learn how to Wiki. - W.carter (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, W.carter! It was an invaluable aid to me when I first started out as well. hope we can be of further assistance in the future. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I second @W.carter:'s comments! As a newbie myself, you have all been helpful, encouraging, and incredibly tolerant of answering the same questions over and over. Reading the Teahouse updates is a highlight of every day - thank you! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the support W.carter! Here at the Teahouse, you can be assured that we, the hosts, will dedicate our time to helping those who need it. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

hello

DarjanDRE (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)I just want to know how to make a new page: like a list of argentine slovenians?DarjanDRE (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the article wizard, an easy way to create new articles: right here. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 14:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Rejected article

I just want to know the reasons why my article submission has been rejected. I cited several sites for references and put in all the necessary information in the article, is there something wrong with it? Rg allstar (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rg allstar and welcome to the Teahouse! Your submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kristine Cecille Isidro was declined because you didn't cite the references you used in the article itself. For help on referencing, see Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. Especially information about living persons. While it's good you did research, you didn't cite the sites you used in the content of the article. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We need a policy clearly discouraging addition of red links

Not sure if this is the place to post this. I guess since I'm looking for input on how to change Wikipedia then it is. I was recently involved in a debate on an article that I watch and consider myself an expert on. Here is the talk section Talk:Expert_system#Write_the_Article_First While the issue was resolved as I think it should have been I think the fact that so much discussion was required is an example of why adding ANY red link is never something we should encourage. Indeed I would go so far as to say red links should just be considered errors that are flagged the way a reference that doesn't parse is flagged. There are no professional web sites that consider links that don't exist to be anything but errors. One of my areas of expertise is User Interface design and a link that goes nowhere but instead suddenly shifts you from being a user/reader to an expected editor is terrible design. I understand how it was a cool idea in the cowboy days of the Internet, but I think now it encourages people to make unconstructive edits. It's not that hard to create a stub article. It's even less hard to add an article to a queue of one of the appropriate work groups. Simple math shows that if we want exponential wiki growth than red links will eventually drown us. It's an order of magnitude easier to create a link than an article. Things like red links provide fodder for the people like Steven Coulbert who like to mock Wikipedia rather than acknowledge it as one of the best sources to start doing research. Sorry for the long rant, is there a place I can advocate for an official change to the red link policy? MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:RED and let me know if this answers your questions on the topic of redlinks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey MadScientistX11. You could of course go directly to the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Red link, but I think a better venue would be Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I personally disagree with you on this, but this is not the forum for the discussion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MadScientistX11: Our guideline on redlinks exists at Wikipedia:Red link. It has a section on when one should avoid the creation of redlinks. In a nutshell, you shouldn't create a redlink to a title if an article at that title is not likely to be created. However, the inherent nature of Wikipedia makes the project forever incomplete—there will always be new topics to write about. If a topic mentioned in an article is notable and suitable for Wikipedia, but doesn't yet have an article, then a redlink should be created for it to promote its creation in the future. Red links help Wikipedia grow. If you would like to change the red link guidelines, you may do so at Wikipedia talk:Red link, but if you want to propose the complete elimination of red links, my gut feeling says that the community will not support you. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I use red links sparingly, and dislike creation of list articles crammed with them. But red links are useful when dealing with topics where there is widespread consensus that a certain type of topic can be considered pretty much inherently notable. Examples include accredited degree awarding secondary schools, colleges and universities; state and provincial legislators; Olympic athletes; populated towns and villages and the like. This encyclopedia is far from complete, and a red link to a notable topic is a signal to any editor who wants to write a new article that another editor believes that an article is needed. I will oppose any attempt to restrict red links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Boy, do I feel targeted by this discussion! I expand articles about Sweden marked as stubs by The Swedish Portal, by translating from SweWiki. When I translated Ljugarn I also translated the Template:Gotland County. In SweWiki it is all "blue" but once in English most of it (not unexpectedly) turned "red". I asked other editors about how I should deal with this, and got the advice that I should keep them "red" for now. But since I made the mess I think I should also try to clean it up, and I doing so I discovered that some of the articles (not "red") listed in the template were disambiguation pages, some lacked important information and some were plain wrong. I have made it my pet project to fix this little corner of Wiki, but if it were not for the "reds" I would never have noticed the rest. So sometimes red links can be good. - W.carter (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My article was not approved but not sure if my edits are being reviewed

Hi, I wrote an article and it was rejected because it did not contain cited references. I edited my article in sandbox but am not sure it is back in the review process. How can I find out? Thanks Roxannequintl (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Roxanne, your sandbox draft isn't in the review queue at the moment but I've reinserted the notice after the last review. a) it comtains the button for you to resubmit the article for review, and b) having the previous notice there gives the reviewer some information about what happened before and work out if the draft has improved since the last review. Nthep (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But, don't start yet. I think you still have insufficient references. ASnd for your WP:REDLINK iPhone page, please tag it to [[iPhone]] instead of [[iphone]]. Please read this page and WP:CITE. --NN4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Roxannequintl: Just to let you know, I have moved your sandbox draft to Draft:LEEDIR, which is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Feel free to keep working on it there. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a follow-up question at this Teahouse. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding A picture

How do I add a picture from my computer to an article?Zuriah7 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zuriah7 and welcome to the Teahouse! To upload an image, make sure that it is free to use. You must have the correct copyright tag on it. If you took it yourself, you can use it. Go to Wikimedia Commons and upload the file. (top toolbar). If it is not free but believe it is fair use (cover of a book), you may use the File Upload Wizard. If you still have a question regarding the copyright tag, you can always reply. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to upload a picture of a little bit popular bandZuriah7 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless you took it, you most likely cannot use it, assuming the band is still around. If the picture is of Pillar, almost certainly not unless you yourself took it. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How then, should I go about adding a nice profile picture to the main page for Pillar?Zuriah7 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Short answer is that you don't, unless you can persuade someone who owns the copyright of an image of the band to release it as explained here.--ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

userbox help

i made this userbox

TylerThis user's real name is Tyler .

and i want to make it a userbox with the code. And i am having trouble with the code making it. Could someone just make a code or tell me how to do it. Cincao03 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Cincao03 and welcome back to The Teahouse. I don't know how to do what you are asking, but for some reason your userbox is appearing two questions below. I have Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 9.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Now it's appearing in the next question.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've fixed the issue of the userbox showing up in the wrong section. Cincao03, what do you mean by "Code"? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Userbox}} Technical 13 This is what i am talking about the code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cincao03 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• If I understand you right, all you want is {{User:Cincao03/userboxes/Tyler}} (which I've already created) that contains your above code. Is that correct? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee and Technical 13: The userbox was appearing too far down because its upper edge was unable to position itself above the upper edge of {{Teahouse questions navbox}}. This is normal behaviour for floating boxes in HTML. As further threads are added at the top, this one will be pushed down and so the userbox will gradually work its way to the intended place. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Article

Hello fellow Wikipedians! On this page I appear to have put in the following parameter:|class=B, but when I preview/edit it, it pops up as "C Class." How do I fix this? Thanks! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@BrandonWu: Hi WooHoo! The class will not be accepted unless you fill out the form stating that you have checked the article against b1 through b6, i.e., you would have to add |b1=yes|b2=yes and so on through b6 to the template code. Please go back the that talk page and click [show] next to where it says "This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:" Here's the thing though: I don't believe you should do so, because I don't believe this article has achieved B status. Its lead does not adequately summarize its content; the content appears to be short of broad coverage; it has unsourced content, and it has some sources that look questionable. That is from only a very short look. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

in sandbox need some one to say if content is encyclopedic.

need help can you read my sandbox and critique.Arnlodg (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arnlodg: Hi Arnlodg. My critique is that it is not for a number of reasons. First and foremost, reading the draft, I really have no idea what the intended article is actually about. Oh, I have a few sentences stating some concepts but there's nothing there to sink one's teeth into to understand the thrust of any of it. Even my assessment – that it *looks* like the start of an original research piece to advocate for a personal theory based on synthesis of [possibly] existing concepts but put together to advance ideas that no reliable source actually says – is suspect because I have so little to go on. Here's a test: can you point me to any published, reliable source that explains what exactly "Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self" is, directly and without any interpretation? If not, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it based on some of the concepts, policies and guidelines I've linked to, as well as Wikipedia's verifiability policy and notability guidelines. By the way, discussion pages like this one are where you should sign, but your signature should never appear in the body of an article, or proposed article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am advocating for a theory based on synthesizing existing concepts...to your test: "can you point me to any published, reliable source that explains what exactly 'Observation Cosmos Self' is, directly and without any interpretation?" I have resubmitted trying for more clarity as you've pointed out to me, please read again, thanks...this is an experiment by me to see if those of us that practice 'ways' can influence the world through wikipedia, its looking doubtful based on what you here are saying, thanks again.Arnlodg (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Arnlodg. It seems that another word for trying to "influence the world through wikipedia" is promotion, an activity which is specifically forbidden on Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Back for another round of "do I have it yet?"

Hello again, Teahouse. I've been working on my resubmitted article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews and would appreciate someone letting me know if it seems okay. I will admit to not understanding why some of the references aren't reliable, but I need to take others' word for it. I have tried to encompass the suggestions from at least four Wikipedians. Is it ready for primetime? Thanks and regards, Oldbeeg (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome (back?) Oldbeeg. You're references seem find to me. The only problem that I can think of is the sections labeled: FICTION and NONFICTION. On Wikipedia, we use this policy which does not allow you to use all caps on section headings or even prose! I also recommend using other articles such as this one which you could use as a reference. To add with that, on the bottom you have a redlinked category you should remove. I may/may not give you comments on the talk page and I'm assuming that other Wikipedians will give you tips on your article. That was a long reply :). Cheers! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, WooHoo, and thanks for the notes and article to reference. I didn't realize about the all caps. That's fixed. My understanding is that the categories (and redlink) at the bottom have been commented out, so they aren't "live". The redfont link isn't a category, but indicates the subject name's sort order. If the page is accepted, they will all be un-commented and then go live. Oldbeeg (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The DEFAULTSORT isn't a category, the preceding colon didn't belong there. I've removed it. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and clarification, David Biddulph! I didn't understand commenting things out when that was done several weeks ago. Oldbeeg (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What are the wikipedia policies on photos of artwork?

I uploaded a photo for the Willow Tree (figurines) article and it was tagged for possible deletion. I am having a hard time finding the policies regarding photos of artwork to review. Bali88 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bali88. Copyright issues can be complex, but I will try to simplify. A work of art is copyrighted when it is displayed or published. Registration is no longer required. A photograph of a work of art is a derivitive work, and is subject to the same copyright restrictions as the original work of art. It can be difficult to determine if a specific work is copyrighted, or if copyright has expired. Here's a rough guideline: If the work was first published or exhibited before 1923 in the U.S., it is no longer covered by copyright. Artists of more recent works can relinquish copyright or issue a Creative Commons license. You need evidence of that. If it is more recent, then you should assume that is is copyrighted unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. Example: there are a group of Ansel Adams photos, called the "Mural Project" photos, that are copyright-free because he was a contract employee of the U.S. Federal government when he made them. Federal government works are not copyrighted. Adams' earliest published photos are also copyright free, because they were published before 1923. Other than that, all Ansel Adams works are copyrighted, and his heirs own the rights. Bottom line: When in doubt, leave it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What if I own the artwork? I don't know if this is how it works, but it seems like I would have the right to take a photograph and allow others to use that photograph. Bali88 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bali88: If you own the copyright to the work in question, you can donate it to Wikipedia by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. You will have to license your work under an acceptable free license. Note that most licenses allow anyone (not just Wikipedia) to use your work for any purpose, as long as they say that you are the author of the work. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I found your image (File:Willow Tree Nativity.jpg). It has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because someone doesn't think you actually took the picture. Personally, since the image looks like it was taken in a house or apartment, I don't see any reason to doubt you. If you want, you could try sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the text at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. This will allow the Wikimedia Foundation to have an archive of your permission and declaration that the file is yours. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. As Cullen328 says above, the photograph is a derivative work of an original creation, which is automatically copyrighted. Who took the photo is immaterial and use of the photo is a copyright violation for which permission to use cannot be granted except by the creator (or copyright owner) of the work. The only possibility is that if the nativity scene was created more than 100 years ago (or 70 years after the creator's death), then under US copyright law, it is now in the public domain. Proof will be needed for such an assertion.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Philg88. In this case, you own figurines which are copies of the original art work. When you buy figurines, you buy the physical object not the copyright. If you commission an original painting and there is a written legal agreement that you acquire all rights to the artist's work, that would be another matter. But normally, artists sell works of art, not copyright to those works of art, which the artist retains. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Philg88 and Cullen328 for your follow up responses. I misunderstood the situation. Bali88, to answer your original question, Wikipedia's policy on image use is readable at Wikipedia:Image use policy. Best, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't Go and Cross the White Tile

Hello, I just created a page some weeks (or months) ago called "Don't Tap the White Tile". I figured out its real name is Piano Tiles and that is only for Android.I created that page and all I need is an admin to move the page. NahNah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 10:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the tea-house - with 992 edits over 6 months, you shouldn't need an Admin - you should be able to move the page yourself - see Wikipedia:Moving a page for instructions. If you get stuck - please come back- NahNah4 (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@NahNah4 and Arjayay: The title Piano Tiles is currently a redirect to Don't Tap the White Tile. This is preventing non-admins from moving the page themselves, since a user would have to delete the "Piano Tiles" page to make way for the move. To request an admin do it for you, place the following code at the top of this page: {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Meh, I just moved this myself, and I'm not an admin... Any autoconfirmed user should have been capable of preforming that Move Over Redirect. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks Technical 13 for the follow-up. Mz7 (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see what I'm doing wrong that it cannot be published . Going crossed eyed looking for the errors.

I've copied similar templates and everything seems in order. What are the changes I need to make to get it approved?

Any help is greatly appreciated! Flowervr (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Flowervr and welcome to The Teahouse. The problem I see is that there are no sources listed in the text. Ideally, we want to see an independent reliable source for each fact in the article. After each section of text that you have taken from a single source, you should type <ref>Information about source</ref>. You can learn more at WP:CITE and there are templates you can use, but you don't have to.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Flowervr. Your draft article is an entirely unreferenced biography of a living person. That is completely contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and the draft article has no chance of being accepted until it is properly referenced. Follow the procedures described in Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Usage question about the word "the"

2 examples(from 2 articles) where, to my ear, the word "the" is missing:

1. After two years at UMass Lowell he moved to Boston where he worked in a silk screen shop and joined proto-synth/punk band The Girls with abstract painter Mark Dagley, avant garde musician Daved Hild and Robin Amos, founding member of Cul de Sac. (No "the" after the word "joined"??)...This is from the article George Condo.

2. His family house is preserved at 816 South Hennepin Avenue, and authorized by Congress to become Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site.[4] (No "the after the word "become"?? -- I have added the word "the" in the actual article)...This is from the article Dixon, Illinois.

Sorry my question is formatted/ worded oddly. The page keeps reverting to the main help page every time I type. My question is...is omitting the word "the" in these examples above conforming to a Wikipedia/ encyclopedia writing style? These are only 2 examples; I have come across more of them. My ear can stand no "the" in the first example, possibly because the name of the band contains the word "the." However, in the second example, I have a hard time reading the sentence aloud minus the "the" and accepting that it sounds correct.

Thanks for any responses.

Badgernation777 (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Badgernation777, and welcome to the teahouse, although I cannot guarantee that we can accommodate an entire nation of badgers here. (Do badgers drink tea anyway?) I totally agree that the second sentence sounds utterly weird without a pronoun of some sort in there. The first one is, I think, less clear-cut. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question Badgernation 777 and here's my two RMBs worth. 1) I don't think you need "the" before "proto-synth" because it's acting an adjective to the following noun, "The Girls" (which should be in quotes I think). 2. Definately needs "the" for the following noun. I cannot comment as to whether badgers drink tea, but if they do it must be when they are taking a break from digging up gardens ...grrr...  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

hi all! I would like to submit a draft for review, of bio in the academia, just before

hi all! I would like to submit a draft for review, of bio in the academia, just before the final decision to publicize it, Is it possible? it is also a stub... Histoire2020 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, Histoire2020, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to the article in your sandbox, it's not really ready to go, because it has no references to reliable, independent sources to verify the information. You may want to read Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:Referencing for beginners. The process for submitting a draft for review is to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Haloo Anne Delong

as you may realize , I am new to all these,,, thank you fpr you response and help if you have a moment I would appreciate it... I intended to write a stub with only biography section , at this phase, as you can see (how can you see my sandbox?!) I have a longer version of bio with many references... what would you suggest to do then? thank you in advance Best wishes Histoire2020 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft

As the submission problem is now solved i would like someone to review or address me the changes the article needs. Or can someone take a look and tell if its good enough to be accepted. Draft:2006 ICC Awards Abhinav0908 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That can sometimes take a couple weeks. Review is done by volunteers just like you and me and they more or less go in order received. I don't know enough about cricket to attempt review myself, but it seems good to go. John from Idegon (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will wait for someone to review it.Abhinav0908 (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Need help moving a page please!

Hi, I am interning at this organization who recently rebranded and would like their page renamed accordingly. The current page is European Committee for Children of Imprisoned Parents, however the new name is Children of Prisoners Europe. As I do not meet the criteria to be an autoconfirmed account and thus cannot move the page myself, I was wondering if someone could move the page for me? Thank you! Cabowitz (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Cabowitz, welcome to the Teahouse. I have  moved the page on your request. To improve the article, add references to reliable secondary sources, such as books, newspapers, and websites that are independent of the organization. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cabowitz, welcome to not only the Teahouse, but also to Wikipedia. Since you are interning at the organization in question, you probably should read WP:COI (particularly the part "Writing about yourself and your work") for reference. Although it is not expressly prohibited, editing, etc. articles that you have more than just a casual association with (e.g., the company you work for) may lead other editors to question your neutrality. In such cases, it might be a better idea to post on the article's talk page first when you notice changes that you believe should be made (other than obvious non-controversial ones), explaining both your reasoning and your vested interest, and then waiting a bit to see if another editor comes along to discuss or help. Just a suggestion. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)