Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 229

Archive 225

←

Archive 227

Archive 228

Archive 229

Archive 230

Archive 231

→

Archive 235

Company Logos

Greetings,

How do I use an image of a company logo that is not free to share? I am a representative of the company but I can't seem to upload the image without allowing it to be used on the internet? Austinjbollinger (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Austinjbollinger: Welcome to the teahouse. On WP:File Upload Wizard, under step 3 click on "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and then fill in the fortm that appears, then upload the file. Then, when that's done, add it to the Wikipedia article on the company. --Jakob (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Using the File Upload Wizard, in step 3, select the second option: "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and follow the instructions. This will allow you to use the company's logo in the article under a claim of fair use, negating your obligation to release it under a free license. Note that since you are affiliated with the company, you may have what we call a conflict of interest, and editing the article of the company you represent may present some problems (for example, you may inadvertently write content that sounds too flattering). Adding your company's logo to the article should be okay, however. Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information on the way forward. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at this Teahouse! Best, Mz7 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec: Thanks! i tried that but it tells me that I need to be a user for 4 days and edit 10 articles. Is there any way around that?Austinjbollinger (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Austinjbollinger: Hi Austin. Unfortunately, the short answer is no. Your account needs to be autoconfirmed in order to upload files. Note that the requirement is you must wait 4 days and make 10 edits—not necessarily to the same article. Also, I had a look through your edit history and I noticed Draft:Element 74. Note that non-free content can only exist in the main article space, meaning if you want to add a non-free logo for Element 74, you will have wait until the draft becomes an article before you can add the logo. I'm really sorry for the inconveniences. Best, Mz7 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mz7: Hi Mz7, I'm completely new to Wikipedia and I didn't realize that there were conflict rules. I got your message regarding that. If I send a draft to you, can you review it and post it and then there is no conflict?Austin J Bollinger (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

List-defined references

In the doc for LDR, a Guidelines section says the following (among other things, and in the reverse order from that below):

• You can mix LDR and non-LDR in the same article
• "For the code to work, all references must be named"

I took this to mean that, if an article mixes LDR and non-LDR, all references must be named, including the non-LDR, even in the case of a non-LDR ref that is used only once in the article.

I decided to test this. I took an article that I recently converted to LDR and copied it to my sandbox. I then added a ref in the body without a refname. It appeared to work fine.

Would you agree, then, that the doc is misleading? I think it means, "for the code to work, all list-defined references must be named." If it's misleading, should I fix that myself? Mandruss (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct and I see that the section could be misread. The guidelines in that section refer to the references that are listed inside the reflist template, not those that are the usual inline citations. All the references after "ref=" in the template need to be named. Further down (but in the same bullet list, which can be confusing) it says you can mix the two types of references in an article. Feel free to change the wording. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Article I think is in the Wrong Category

I've been editing articles about AI and IT. When I linked to Knowledge acquisition I gave the article a quick look and was surprised that what was there was not what I expected. It's an article that purports to be about philosophy. The term knowledge acquisition is very well known in the AI community and has a very specific meaning. When I did a google search on knowledge acquisition most of the refs in the first 20 hits were for AI and expert system development. There were a couple on general learning. None that I saw were on philosophy or seemed to be very relevant to what is currently in the article. I thought about just editing the article which I may do anyway but it occurred to me that someone who wrote the original philosophy stuff might object. I guess I could create a new article something like "Knowledge acquisition (computer science)" although in my opinion the correct thing to do is to move the current content to "Knowledge acquisition (Philosophy)" and then write content relevant to the AI term in the main article. I don't have experience renaming articles, does that make sense? Other ideas? (Of course I will document my concerns on the current articles talk page) MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles that link to this article seem to be some philosophy and mostly AI articles. The article was originally an AI article but was replaced in 2009 with what we have here. The best thing to do at this point is move the article to "Knowledge acquisition (philosophy)", and make the resulting redirect into the new article name just "Knowledge acquisition". Put a disambiguation note at the top pointing to the philosophy version. I'll propose that on the article's talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

How to handle Denver being an unruly cancer?

OK, ok, so it's kind of a hyperbolic subject. And I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. But, it's the best I saw in a cursory glance.

I made the articles on Territorial evolution of the United States and Territorial evolution of Canada. I'm extending that to states now, by diagramming the changes in the external and county borders of states over time. I started with Colorado; simple, few counties, no external changes. But I've run into a bit of a pickle.

I intend my maps to be educational but not necessarily informational. ... What I mean is, I don't want them to be taken authoritatively. That's part of the reason I don't do them in SVG - I don't want the lines I create in the past to be taken as gospel. I'm not a professional; if you truly want to know exactly where a border was at a certain date, you need to go to my professional sources. All I'm doing is cataloging the data for easier presentation.

So, that brings us to Colorado. More specifically, Denver. See, before 1902, Denver was just a city, and it didn't show up on the map. But in 1902, Denver was turned into a consolidated city-county. And therefore Denver now appears on my maps. This wasn't an issue for a few decades, but in the 1940s, Denver realized that they could annex land. And they never stopped. Sometimes, it was a large annexation, like the one to grab the land for Denver International Airport. But most of the time, it was a small annexation, sometimes no more than a city block or even a single building.

The problem is, the vast majority of these annexations are much too small to appear on my map. Many would be sub-pixel. But I still have to diagram the larger ones, to keep the map vaguely accurate with history.

So I am presented with these options:

1. Have a frame for each change to Colorado, even if that change didn't actually change the map.
   • Pro: No bit of history gets left out.
   • Con: This could lead to dozens of frames identical to others except for the datestamp at the bottom.
2. My current solution: Only have frames where the borders of Denver changed enough to be seen on the map.
   • Pro: Already done, and the map is only updated for changes.
   • Con: Leaves out many dates when invisible changes occurred. (Note that these would still be listed in the article; this is purely about what map images to create, both individual and for an animated GIF). Also requires a certain amount of personal opinion over when a change is big enough to be visible, and this can create some strange borders.
3. Put a blank spot where Denver is between 1941 (when it began annexing) and 2008 (its last annexation).
   • Pro: Drastically simplifies the map.
   • Con: Blank spot where Denver is is kind of bad.
4. Show the changes to it in an inset.
   • Pro: Contains all history, leaving nothing out.
   • Cons:
     • Lots more effort.
     • Adds authority to the map that I don't want. Then again, I could likely accomplish this by using actual GIS data from the city and county of Denver so the authority would be genuine.
     • Unsure if this is necessary.

This is thankfully really the only state where this is an issue, so it's humorous I picked it first: All the other consolidated city counties seem generally content to stay within their borders.

So there are my thoughts. What are yours? --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

May I just say, first, WOW! What a huge amount of work and detail you have managed on this site. I think your current solution #2 is fine for most purposes, but would it be possible to create a separate page with the unruly Denver info displayed and separately linked to this site? You may be interested in Urban growth boundary issues that are addressed by law in many places. Maybe you could try Oregon next, as we have managed urban growth boundaries since 1978... Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. :) Well, the thing is, these are purely county maps, so when I do Oregon the municipalities won't enter into it. Unfortunately, Denver is both a city and a county, and it loves to annex. None of the other independent cities or consolidated city-counties have this issue. And it's not my job, really, to show every single minuscule change to the borders of Denver here... that's beyond my scope. I've decided to go with #3 - it's the least misleading, and if people want to really see how Denver changed over the years, there are other resources that will be amply linked. Nothing will be unclear to the reader. --Golbez (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Golbez: Could you make the Denver map huge so that even the small annexations would show at full size? Then you could use it in the article at regular size with some sort of footnote explaining that it is a special case and how to access it and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I could, but at that point I'm completely replicating what more professional outlets have done, and that's simply not my goal here. I've created a draft and maps which hide Denver for the majority of time and I think it works. Furthermore, without handling Denver there are 49 entries in the list/map; adding Denver's changes would balloon that to over 200. I guess my point is, I'm not averse to others doing it, but there are better uses of my time. :P Fortunately, as far as I can tell, this is a unique situation, as the other city-counties have the decency to stay in their own borders. --Golbez (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Javascript not working

Hello Teahouse ! I wanted to try some javascript on my my monobook.js page but it is not working. More precisely: while previewing, everything runs fine, but as soon as I save the changes, it disappears. Help please :( KaptainIgloo (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse - I suspect your problem relates to this discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical). On a technical issue like this, I think you should re-raise your question there. - Arjayay (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hello KaptainIgloo and welcome to the Teahouse! First, I'll mention your issue likely has nothing to do with this discussion which is just an announcement of an upcoming change (not even in the near future). Now on to your scripting issue. First, have you WP:BYPASSed after saving your change? Then, are you actually using the Monobook skin, the default is Vector and you would actually have to change your skin in your preferences for it to read your monobook.js. You can also use your common.js to avoid the skin specific issue IF you are sure it won't completely crash and lock you out of your account. If you does completely crash, you'll have to force you browser to disable javascript and fix it or request your last change undone as an anon IP editor or ask an administrator to do it from IRC/email. Anyways, good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your answers. I thought that "monobook" was the default design...I feel quite stupid now è_é Anyway, thanks a lot Technical 13 for your help ! Everything works perfectly fine now KaptainIgloo (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding Conflict of Interests in new article

Dear Teahouse,

I am an editor related to the company, Surescripts, and plan on writing an article on the company. My purpose here is to both introduce myself and to inquire about conflict of interest within the article that I plan on writing and publishing. If all the data represented is documented and published by independent sources, then will there still be an issue with creating and editing the page? I just want to make sure that I follow all the essential steps in order to create a clear, concise, and conflict free article for the company.

Thank you Surescripts (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Surescripts, and thanks for declaring your conflict of interest. If you submit your proposed article to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, it will be kept in a draft area until other editors agree that it is neutrally written and well supported by independent reliable sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Surescripts. I am sorry but your username violates our policy since it is unambiguously a company name. Please read WP:CORPNAME, and change your username. Please also familiarize yourself with our guideline on conflict of interest, and follow it carefully. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Surescripts: You may also like to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations as well. -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about my signature..

Hi! I've been looking to change my signature to the following, but I'm pretty nonsense with markup. Could someone identify the problem for me? It says it's an invalid "raw signature".

Signature I want to change to: Flip^andFlopped ツ

Thanks a bunch! Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Flipandflopped and welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest replacing:

[[User:Flipandflopped|'''<font color="Teal">Flip</font>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Flipandflopped|<font color="purple">and]]</sup>[[User talk:Flipandflopped|'''<font color="lime">Flopped</font>]] [[Wikipedia:Civility|<font color="grey"> ツ]]

with:

[[User:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b>]][[Special:Contribs/Flipandflopped|<sup style="color:purple">and</sup>]][[User talk:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:lime">Flopped</b>]] [[Wikipedia:Civility|<b style="color:grey"> ツ</b>]]

which will result in a 240 character long signature (3 characters shorter) with an appearance of: Flip^andFlopped ツ

compared to your existing 243 character long signature of: Flip^andFlopped ツ

— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you very much for the help! I've taken your advice, and I'm already using my new sig. Have a good day! Flip^andFlopped ツ 19:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How to insert a link in the edit reason ?

Wanna know how to insert a link or citation (if possible) in an edit reason window, say when we edit an article! I just tried to do one in using the < ref > tags but that didn't properly go through See the topmost edit by my name to know what i am talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smriti_Irani&action=history

Also let me know is there any way we can edit the "reason for the edit", once again (wanna fix that to make the link visible properly) Thanks

P.S. Sorry if its a weird or common question.I was not able to find the info TRUTH can't be HIDDEN (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, RealTruthWiki. No, you can't go back and edit the edit summary. But you can make a new edit, not even changing anything, and then put the corrected reason in. Ref tags don't work in the reason, but you can just put the url in or, in your case of a link into Wikipedia, just wikilink it link as you would do in an article: User talk:Rsrikanth05#Message. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you have to change something or the edit won't show up in the history with the new edit summary. See Dummy edit. There could be all sorts of minor changes that could be made. Perhaps a comma shouldn't be there, or it should be a semicolon.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How to make a SVG file for logos

I want to make logos, but then they must be in SVG. Where can I make SVG files for free online? NO VECTORMAGIC. And do app icons need to be SVG-ed? Thanks, Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 08:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nahanah and welcome back to The Teahouse. I'm not sure where this question belongs. If you haven't gotten an answer here, you might get one at WP:VPT. Or perhaps Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nahanah, check out List_of_vector_graphics_editors. I use Inkscape which is free, and reasonably easy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

how do you upload pictures? also i don't have any information on the copyright state of my picture because I have been sent it by the person themself and would like to publish it to their page but i dont know how to justify that i own the picture and which boxes to tick.

Granola t (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Granola and welcome to The Teahouse.

If you did not take the picture, the photographer needs to give permission. The details on how to do this re at WP:PERMISSION. Essentially, this person must email permissions-en at wikimedia.org, following the directions at WP:DONATEIMAGE.

There may be fair use exceptions, which means you would upload to Wikipedia.

But if you solve the copyright problem, you upload to Wikimedia Commons. The link on how to do that can be found on the WP:DONATEIMAGE page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U and WP:ANI the only way to bring attention to editor conduct?

I'd just like to ask if there are any more options for dealing with editor conduct. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANEW if they're edit warring. WP:SPI if you have evidence of sockpuppetry. WP:RSN if you are concerned about their use of possibly unreliable sources (well that's not really an editor conduct noticeboard but, y'know). WP:COIN if their problematic conduct is specifically related to a conflict of interest.

Some WikiProjects raise discussions on their own talkpages about problematic behaviour from an individual editor that affects their WikiProject, for example there's one currently running at WT:MED that is also an RfC (but not an RfC/U).

WP:ARBCOM if there has already been a conclusive RfC/U and problems persist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, is there any like, 'lighter' options, similar to WP:3O in that regard? Tutelary (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you could find an approachable admin or experienced editor, and ask their opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about using images that are permited for non commercial use

I searched Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons for images of gerontological nursing without much success. There are images available from the Government of Canada (for noncommercial use http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/H88-3-30-2001/html/disc_s_e.htm) and from the Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing (for educational and non-profit purposes only). I'm assuming that these don't meet Wikipedia criteria but I'm having some trouble understanding the details on the page about use of images. Am I correct, that I can't use these images? LynnMcCleary (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi LynnMcCleary, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is "it depends". The terms on the website state that "Logos, symbols, photographs and any other graphic material found in the publications may not be used or reproduced without permission unless explicitly stated in the source document", so you would need to cite a specific image for its permissions to be determined.

The website you have linked has an overall policy that seems to indicate CC-By-SA, which would be the only acceptable licence for Wikimedia Commons images. The killer is that the attribution must include "© Minister of PWGSC, 2001", which is an outright statement of copyright ownership and thereby impermissible. Philg88 ^♦talk 21:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello LynnMcCleary. We do not allow images on Wikimedia Commons which have been released for "non-commercial use" only. Our free images can be freely used by anyone for any purpose whatsoever, as long as they are credited properly. So anyone can include them in commercial books, websites or magazines, or make posters, T-shirts or coffee mugs with these images. This is a core Wikimedia Foundation value. The very limited exceptions described at WP:NFCI do not seem to apply in this case. Anyone including you could visit a gerontological nursing facility and take free photos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing the name of an article,+opinion on the changes I've made

Hello Teahouse (I am really becoming a regular here :o)

I have been working on Education in Nepal (The article was a big mess in my opinion).

My first question is about one of my change: The article was full of lists of universities/colleges. I have moved those lists to List of universities in Nepal. Problem: There are now lists of universities AND colleges in this article, so I'd like to change the name accordingly( "List of universities and colleges in Nepal")... but I don't know how to do that. Regarding the style: I have not done anything yet. I guess those lists have to be "bulleted" and the hyperlinks to offical websites to be deleted ?

My second question is "global": I have made lots of change on this article, changes I have described on the Talk page. Were those changes right ? Are some of them controversial ? I'd like some opinions. Regards ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You are free to move the page "List of universities in Nepal" to a new title. You can learn about page moving here: WP:MOVE. If you want to fix the style of the list article, you should follow this guideline: MOS:LIST. Your edits to the "Education in Nepal" article (those that you described here seem OK to me. Anyway, if someone has any objections, he will write them on the talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies and the tips:) I have moved the article. KaptainIgloo (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you make your user page amazing?

I see other peoples user pages and they look amazing. Are there any guides anywhere so I can do this? LesVegas (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, LesVegas, and welcome to the Treehouse! If you see a userpage you like, you can always open the Edit tab and take a look at the coding, even copying it to your own page so you can work on it and start making up your own. You can also ask the user on their talk page for advice on how they got that layout to work. You might get some helpful tips, and even make a new online friend! --McDoobAU93 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit dated, but you might find the Userpage design center a useful starting point; there are a few handy codes and tips there. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not able to publish my article

Hello, My article is about a reputable branch of Outward Bound USA. I have references, many parts of the article, photos, and citations but it will not be published. What am I doing wrong? Beckyfitz1 (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Becky, thanks for the e-mail. You are referring to Draft:Outward Bound Center for Peacebuilding? If so, that draft has not yet been submitted for review. To do so, please edit the article and add the text {{Subst:Submit}} to the top. I will add though that as currently drafted the tone is somewhat promotional in places and contact details are almost always inappropriate in an encyclopedia article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I also see that Outward bound center for peacebuilding was deleted for being too promotional in tone. --ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

All articles need to show that the subject has had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which your article does not do.
8 of the 9 references you have cited are to outwardboundpeace.org - the organization's own website - which is clearly not independent. The ninth is to Outward Bound Sri-Lanka's website - which doesn't seem to mention outwardboundpeace.org (or if it does it is well hidden) but again, that is not an independent source, as the two organizations are undertaking a joint project.
What you need are substantial articles in truly independent, reliable publications, such as well known international newspapers or magazines, which discuss outwardboundpeace at length, not just in passing.
If there have been no such publications, then it is WP:TOOSOON for your article, which will be refused until there are such sources.
It may help you understand our criteria, if you read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. - Arjayay (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

IMDB as a source

Hey,

I was just wondering why IMDB can't be used as a source for an article? Also if a page is made for a upcoming movie will it be deleted if the filming of the movie hasn't started?

Thanks

Kazmia92 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IMDB is built from user-generated content, so it is not a reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Kazmia92. Adding to what RudolfRed said, Regarding IMDB, the reason is:

MDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged. It should also be noted that its romanization of Chinese titles does not follow the standard. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally unacceptable...

You can see the total explanation here: Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb Regarding an upcoming movie, it all depends. For most movies the answer probably is an article before the movie is released would be deleted but if a movie is generating a lot of buzz before it is released then yes an article would be possible. It all comes down to wp:notability Essentially if there are good independent references to say things about the movie (whether it's been released or not). Actually, that is the important point, even after a movie has been released if no one writes about it except the film makers it's still not notable but if people are writing about it it can merit a Wikipedia article even if it hasn't been released or even in some cases if it's never been released, for example: It's_All_True_(film) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So if I wanted to wikilink the movie article to the articles of the cast members but someone keeps on deleting the link due to the shooting not starting is that a legit reason? Thanks!

Kazmia92 (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get in the middle of an edit dispute since I don't know the details. BTW, when you post here it's always a good idea to mention which article(s) you are talking about so we can look and give better answers. However, it all comes down to external references. So yes, if you have a good recognized reference to cite that talks about an actor's role in an upcoming movie (not IMDB but say an article in the NY Times) then the fact that the movie is not out yet shouldn't be prohibitive and you should be able to add it. Have you tried posting to the article's talk page or contacting the other editor on their talk page? That's the way to start trying to resolve a disagreement. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kazmia92. Although there are occasional exceptions as when a film project has received intense advance interest in the highest quality reliable sources (certainly not IMDb.com), the general rule of thumb is that we do not have articles about upcoming films until principle shooting has begun. There have been countless heavily hyped film projects that collapsed and never saw the light of day. When cameras roll, it is a real film project. By the way, I was the principle contributor to Lincoln (2012 film), and I began work on it the day filming began. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, thanks for that info I didn't realize that, I assumed it just came down to having good refs but as I think about it that makes sense, there must be a lot of interest from movie people to promote their product every way they can. I'll keep it in mind for the future. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The overall notability guideline for films is at WP:NFILMS and the subsection pertaining to unreleased future film projects is at WP:NFF. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again Cullen328. One more thing I thought of. I think this all started with Kazmia92 trying to make a change to an existing article about the actress Deepika_Padukone to add that she is currently working on a new unreleased film. Unless I'm still misunderstanding, the fact that the film hasn't actually been released and doesn't have (and is not yet notable enough for) it's own Wikipedia article doesn't mean that this fact can't be added to the article on Padukone, correct? If there is a good source (not IMDB) for that information it still can be added even though the movie itself isn't ready for an article, you can't link to it but you can still (I would think) mention it as a fact if you have a good reference. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If the source is solid and professionally edited, MadScientistX11, then I agree that the upcoming film can be mentioned in biographies of the director, producers and stars. We want to avoid speculation and rumors, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Submission Rejected

Hello,

I had posted a Wikipedia entry on a company- containing only a sentence about the company and the names of the services they offered. It was rejected after editing it multiple times. I had followed the content structure of Toluna Wikipedia entry.

Can someone advice me on how to edit my submission properly so that it gets accepted?

Regards, Cindy Cindy Bowdan (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cindy Bowdan. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for companies. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this company. One of your sources simply mentions the company in passing, so this is not significant coverage. The other source was written by a senior executive of the company, so is not an independent source. It may be that the company is not yet notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cindy and welcome to the Teahouse from me too. I assume you are talking about Draft:Borderless Access. Using another company article like Toluna as a model is not a good idea. You'll notice that it has a large banner on it questioning its notability. Virtually every article about a company which was founded less than 15 years ago, is not publicly traded on a major stock exchange, and which has not received extensive in-depth coverage in the mainstream press or highly regarded financial publications, e.g. Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, was written either by a company employee or by a paid editor. There are so many of these that they tend to stay on Wikipedia for a long time before they're eventually deleted, but it doesn't mean they're acceptable articles. As Cullen said, your draft needs references to significant in-depth coverage of this company by high-quality sources which are completely independent of it and not press release based. Currently, the draft tells the reader nothing about the company's history or what others have written about it and instead focuses on its services and its alleged expansion. Sentences like:

"In 2008, the company decided to build on its expertise in emerging markets and created consumer panels in Brazil..."

are what led the reviewer to (rightly) characterise the draft as written like an advertorial. A neutral, non-advertorial sentence would be:

"In 2008, the company expanded in emerging markets and created consumer panels in Brazil..."

I think you'll find Wikipedia's FAQ for organizations (and editors writing about them) to be a helpful guide. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lao Air

Could somebody redirect Lao Air. t Lao Airlines but the regional airlines. I think it re-branded as Lao Skyway. Type in Lao Skyway and on images you will find a picture. I clicked on it and I realized the plane (I think it was and Xian MA60) had the same logo. I read the description and it said Lao Air has re-branded as Lao Skyway. Find its website. www.laoskyway.com

Salamat (Thank you in Tagalog), Ggghhj123. Ggghhj123 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest - and 'best practice' questions

Greetings,

I work at an art gallery dedicated to 20th century Chicago artist Tristan Meinecke, and am going to be working on an article about him. Later it's likely I will also create an article about his wife, Angel Casey, a Chicago TV and radio actress, and his business partner, architect Robert Bruce Tague. There is enough third-party documentation on each person for me to be able to write a sound article. I recognize my close involvement with the project will require additional review: this is a good thing!

This is an important step in preserving history and I want to do it properly. Wrestling with code in my sandbox is necessary but I also want to ask the experts for guidance. Independent sources such as articles in reputable newspapers provide the majority of factual information. Primary sources such as interviews with colleagues and family members (some posted on private websites, some even on YouTube) are to be used more sparingly. But between those, there is a documentary grey area.

Some of the materials I have go beyond the information that's currently publicly available. Meinecke's business partner in architectural design, Robert Bruce Tague, is noted on the Art Institute of Chicago's website but Meinecke is not referenced. Several newspaper articles refer to their firm and the properties they built, which is great, but the documentation on the full extent of their work is mostly in the family's private collection. His involvement with the Chicago Surrealist Group is also tough to reference. While I have copies of, say, issues of Arsenal with his poetry in them, or Franklin Rosemont's books or the program from the 1976 World Surrealism Exhibition, those are not commonly found in libraries or available to the general public. There are some materials such as the artist's unpublished novel which I know I can't use, but I want a clearer sense of where to draw the line. Zarathuddite (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Zarathuddite, and welcome to the Teahouse. I applaud your care in considering these questions, and asking here. Unfortunately, the answer on unpublished materials is No. Consider a reader, next week or next month, or in ten years time, who is reading your article, and gets interested in some of this information. How can they tell that it is correct (wasn't a mistake, hasn't been vandalised)? The answer is that there should be a reference to a reliable source that they, as a member of the public, can get access to. You're right that there is still a grey area: if the material is deposited in a collection at a library, then in principle people could visit that library to check it; but one of the places we generally draw the line is that the material has to have been published. --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zarathuddite. Because you have a conflict of interest, I encourage you to disclose this on your user page, or on relevant article talk pages, or in your edit summaries. I recommend that you use the Articles for Creation process, which is a good one for editors in your position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses!

That's the thing. The Surrealist books and periodicals are indeed published, they're just rare and hard to find. I've found places, for example, where you can buy the catalog of the 1976 Surrealist exhibition. I've found references to the existence and publication of the Arsenal magazine in other locations, even Wikipedia. But locating reviewable copies is problematic. I suppose it's fortunate these are more in the way of supplementary information. If it turns out I can't quote something because it's not reasonably available to the public, I can still make a note of its existence if it's mentioned in another, more verifiable source, right? Zarathuddite (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Zarathuddite. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse. Try searching at Google Books. Much ends up there, with links to where to find it in a library. See for example http://books.google.com/books?id=8pTWAAAAMAAJ&q=Tristan+Meinecke&dq=Tristan+Meinecke&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JIm9U4X9D4ntoASwj4LYAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw . Also museum libraries have interesting collections, often including files on individual artists with contents that aren't necessarily cataloged. Hope this helps.

Do you mean "quote" as use as a source or "quote" as take a direct quotation from? StarryGrandma (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, awesome! Thank you, I had not thought to look on Google books- it may save me a few trips to the library. An obscure journal like Arsenal I would simply list as a place where his poetry was published: this fact is also noted in "Revolution in the Service of the Marvelous" by Franklin Rosemont, a better & more accessible source.

Zarathuddite (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I nominated Star Alliance a few months ago for GA, and it seems to me that a user (Airplane54), has given me a short sentence about how the article's "statistics were outdated.". He seems to just have joined Wikipedia, and should I assume good faith and tell him on his talk, or is there a certain set of instructions for reviewers who are "inexperienced." Page is located here. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 16:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo: Welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the brevity of this review and its failure to address the good article criteria, I'd recommend asking at WT:GAN for someone else to take over the review. There is no official prerequisite for reviewing GAs other than having an account, but reviewers really should know the good article criteria. --Jakob (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

trailer hits

For an article on a film can you mention the youtube hits it got in a specific time if you have a reliable source for it?

Kazmia92 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kazmia92. This is only my opinion, but it is difficult for me to see how it adds to encyclopedic coverage of a film to mention how many people viewed the trailer of the film on YouTube or anywhere else. Actual ticket sales is vastly more relevant. That being said, if several highly reliable sources make a point of reporting an unusually high level of interest in a trailer, then perhaps a brief mention of that fact might be warranted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Age on wikipedia and what accompanies it

As stated on my user page, I am under the age of 18 (16 at the moment), but researching and writing is something I enjoy doing. As of now, my edits to wikipedia over the last 4-5 months have mostly been behind the scenes as I accompany myself to how wikipedia works and what is expected of me here.

Soon, now that the business of my personal life is fanning down, I want to actually begin creating real articles of my own and becoming more involved, but something that has just recently come to mind is what wikipedia's actual policy is on my age. Before I start major editing, I would like to know how my age will effect my wikipedia experience (hopefully it won't).

What will my age prohibit me from doing on wikipedia, if anything? All I've found related to age-based restrictions on wikipedia is connected to requests for adminship, which is self-explicably not too relevant to me, being new.

Thanks in advance, and sorry I'm still around here after months, haha. Flip^andFlopped ツ 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Flip, and welcome back! There really isn't an age requirement for editing or content generation. Ultimately, Wikipedia editors review competence to edit if an editor's work becomes problematic. While it does have something to do with age, it really has more to do with being able to write clearly and properly cite information as needed. There are probably editors younger than yourself here, and probably some older who aren't as competent. Hope this helps! --McDoobAU93 21:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Flipandflopped. Here's an essay that may be helpful, if you haven't read it already: Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Also, it's best not to reveal personal information that may lead others to identify you. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You have to be 18 to be a CheckUser, Oversighter, Steward, or have a seat on ARBCOM, and some people don't like minors becoming admins. Other than that, there are no limits. Just don't reveal too much personal information. --Jakob (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you everyone for clearing that up, and thanks Anne Delong for the reference! Access to check user, or status on any of the other positions Jakob listed don't really concern me at the moment (maybe some day, haha), so it's good to know that things are open. Although my age isn't something I'm worried about people knowing about me, that leads to an interesting question: is there some sort of restriction on younger editors identifying themselves or interacting more personally, like others do on wiki, such as editors who use their real names as usernames? Flip^andFlopped ツ 21:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well I'm blind, I didn't even read the top line of Anne's reference. I had no plans to give out my name, nor will I ever, even as an adult, but I was just curious. The policy makes perfect sense, anyway. Thanks for the help! Flip^andFlopped ツ 21:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Flipandflopped. I am 62, so feel free to tell me when you think I am too old to edit Wikipedia. Since I am going strong, I suspect that you will have a few grey hairs of your own before that day comes. Your contributions here will be judged on their merits, and how collaborative you are in working with other editors toward our common goal of building a better free encyclopedia. That is all that counts here, and your school obligations are in the end no different from my work obligations. Presumably, you are getting a bit more mature each day, and in my opinion, contributing constructively to an encyclopedia is better evidence of maturity than vegging out in front of a TV or a game console. So, conduct yourself as a responsible young adult, and in less than two years, you will be an adult legally. I wish you the very best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Coords missing questions

Hi, I'm working on a cat of "missing geocoordinates" articles. I have an article about a public library system consisting of 10 libraries in central Oklahoma, apparently administered from Norman. Would you suggest:

• Attempting to identify the building where the administration happens, and using those coordinates?
• Using Norman's coordinates?
• Approximating the geographical center of the 10 libraries?

Also, in the rare case where coordinates wouldn't make sense for an article, and I have removed the {{coord missing}}, is there something I can add to prevent the bot from re-inserting it later? Mandruss (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: There are two main possibilities with regard to the Pioneer Library System: You could add {{coord|35.2156|-97.4905|type:landmark_region:US-OK|display=title}} at the bottom of the page (before the categories), giving the coordinates of the "home branch" at 300 Norman Center Court as the only coordinates in the article; or you could add inline coordinates in parentheses after each branch listed in the "Locations" section—using "inline,title" as the display parameter only for the first entry and making appropriate use of the coord template's "name" parameter—and also add the {{GeoGroup}} template at the top of the "External links" section. I've done it both ways in similar situations (universities with multiple campuses, etc.) at various times; it mainly depends on how energetic you're feeling at the time. Your second and third bulleted suggestions aren't, I think, good ways to deal with the situation.

With regard to your other question, The Anomebot2 is programmed to add {{coord missing}} only once to an article, so (unless the article is moved to a different title) it shouldn't readd the template to an article from which it has been removed. Deor (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Simple Enterprise Agile and removal of User:Betchplus/ from User:Betchplus/Scaled agile framework

Hello Everyone,

I really do have to say Wikipedia is a great contribution to society. However, the issues I have been having with the editors has been very trying. They seem to delete quite readily while giving ambiguous and rude answers. I just spent some valuable time on Simple Enterprise Agile to have it deleted in the middle of my editing. Any help would be very appreciated. Thank you in Advance!Betchplus (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Betchplus. This article has been deleted from article space, but a copy still exists at User:Betchplus/Scaled agile framework. You can work on it there in relative peace (sandboxes don't usually get deleted unless one is doing something truly terrible there) and add {{subst:submit}} onto the page when you're ready. Someone experienced will review it and either move it back into article space or leave some tips for you to improve it. Good luck. --Jakob (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Response, Simple Enterprise Agile (SeA) was deleted. That was one issue. The second issue is the User:Betchplus/Scaled agile framework. I wanted to know what needs to be done to remove User:Betchplus from User:Betchplus/Scaled agile framework. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in Adviance! Betchplus (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

When you are ready to put it in article space, you can move it. You should see a little arrow beside the "Edit" and "view history" tabs (alternatively, it may be a tab that says "More"). Once you've opened the move window, click on the drop down tab where it currently says "User" and set that to "Article". Then remove "Betchplus/" from the start of the name and click "Move page". G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GS. I appreciate the help.Betchplus (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Betchplus and welcome to the Teahouse from a fellow Agile Methods practitioner! I think you may be misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. (BTW, it's so easy to misunderstand people when not communicating face to face I apologize in advance if I'm the one who didn't understand your comment) There are two kinds of work spaces on Wikipedia. Your own private workspace which your sandbox is a part of and the public published Wikipedia where everyone collaborates. As Jakec described as long as you don't violate copyright or other fundamental Wikipedia policies you can work as long as you want in your sandbox and people won't delete things. But when you make a change to a published article and especially when you try to publish a new article there will be other editors who review it and may further edit or delete your work. It's not a perfect analogy but I often think it's similar to pair programming in Agile. We all look over each other's shoulders. So it's not possible to remove the "User:Betchplus" from the article when you work on it in your sandbox. That is a requirement so if someone stumbles on that page they know it's not yet an official part of the published Wikipedia site. To remove that what you need to do is to get the article published, to move it from your sandbox to the published article space. It sounds like you tried to do that but the article was rejected. That is very common for a first article. In fact my first bit of advise to all new editors is to forget about creating new articles. There is a TON of work that needs to be done on existing Wikipedia articles and especially for a technical person like you. Take a look at some of the OO articles for example, some of them are in terrible shape. Here are two articles that need work but there are many others: Object-Oriented_Modeling, Metamodeling Doing some editing on existing articles will get you familiar with how Wikipedia works and will make creating your first article much more straight forward. However, I realize people often have an article they really want to see published ASAP so if that's the case you need to familiarize yourself with Wiki standards for wp:notability and wp:verifiability I can also give you some help if you need it feel free to reply here are on my talk page Good luck! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually Betchplus, you can't move pages yet, as you have only had an account for 2 days, so it is not Autoconfirmed - you can either wait another 2 days, or request a move at requested moves - however, I don't think the article is ready for article-space yet, as the single reference is to criticism of the subject, it needs references to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources - please see WP:42 for a summary. - Arjayay (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that tip Mad Scientist, I appreciate the input. Hopefully, we can get it undeleted shortly. I have not received a response for the Editor as of yet, so maybe they will post something shortly. Glad that you are involved in Agile and I will be very interested in your perspective on Simple Enterprise Agile (SeA). Betchplus (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I want to think everyone for the help, but how do I get this Article undeleted, so I can complete it? I couldn't get 3 words typed before it was deleted each time that I was checking the formatting. I have contacted the deletion editor, but have not had any luck. Any help would be very appreciated. Thanks in Advance! Betchplus (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Betchplus Sorry, I was confused a bit another editor just pointed out to me that you have two articles you are working on. One other thing I thought you might find useful is to check out wp:User_pages Your sandbox is just one example of a user page and a default user page that all users have but you can have as many user pages as you want. My advise actually would be to just focus on one new article at a time but if you want to work on multiple articles at the same time you can store/edit them all as user pages and then not worry if a draft article gets deleted. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Peridon, who deleted the mainspace article, has replied on his/her talk page that the article is too promotional to be restored. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Anne Delong am I understanding this correctly? A user did some work, submitted an article, it was rejected. They want to rework the article but Peridon is telling them "no sorry it was so bad you need to start from scratch and we won't help you recover the work that was deleted" I've been editing for a while and that seems fairly unprecedented to me. No matter how bad the article was it seems to me the user still has a right to recover the work they did. If nothing else perhaps they will decide to repost it on a blog or somewhere outside of Wikipedia. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding something here but this doesn't seem fair to me. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the deleted text, I agree wholeheartedly with Peridon - there's no way that would ever be suitable for a Wikipedia article, not without being completely deleted and rewritten from scratch. I'd be happy to email the text to User:Betchplus (@Betchplus:, you'll need to enable email on your account if you want me to do this; you can do so in your preferences) but I'd back Peridon up in saying that it should not be restored to Wikipedia, in any namespace. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten???? Really? That was a draft that took a substantial amount of time. Why not restore it to my Sandbox? Then I will request submission. Please I need individuals to help, not delete a lot of hard work. Thank youBetchplus (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason that we won't restore it to your sandbox is that Wikipedia is not a webhost or means of promotion. Whilst I'm happy to send you the text for your own personal use, you would never be able to use it on Wikipedia - if you submitted it in anything like the state it was in when it was deleted, it would promptly be rejected (assuming it even got as far as being reviewed before being deleted again). As such, there is no reason for Wikipedia to host the content - in a sandbox or anywhere else. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, MadScientistX11, I was just reporting and making sure that Peridon was pinged about the discussion. I wrote a reply, but I am a slow typist and I see that Yunshui has stepped in and said substantially what I had written, so I won't post it. Betchplus, you should take Yunshui up on the offer to have the text mailed to you. Your username indicates that you may have a conflict of interest here; if so, please read WP:COI. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer Yunshi. Please let me know how we email one another. I would post an address here, but I have a distinct feeling that there is a policy against it. Betchplus (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Betchplus: Go to your preferences and add your email address to the User profile tab (near the bottom). Save changes and you're done; other Wikipedia users can now email you via the "Email this user" tool in the right-hand menu (although they can't see your email address). Let me know when you've done so and I'll send you the deleted content. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Yunshi. I do have the article. Please understand that I am very interested in making sure that this will meet Wiki Standards. I will be working diligently this week and next to hone this article correctly. Please do not hold Ron responsible, he has been extremely understanding and considerate to me through out the process, much like yourself and others in this tea room. I think individuals like Ron and yourself should be rewarded for caring enough to help someone, who is quite apparently, struggling with the process. Thank you all who went the extra mile to not insult me or maliciously attack while I learn this sophisticated process! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betchplus (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Should I clear my sandbox to start a new article.

Within the past year I've made several additions/changes to existing articles and have used my sandbox to create and submit a biography article which is included in WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class).

Should I clear my sandbox to start a new article or will that destroy the Biography article I wrote earlier? Kllwiki (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind everyone; I think I understand it now. I had a redirect in my sandbox, so I kept seeing my old article. Kllwiki (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now your sandbox is merely a redirect to the article you created and the special page, "What links here" shows no links to the article depend on that link. Therefore, absolutely nothing is in any form of peril by clearing the sandbox and using it for some other purpose. In fact it seems that as I was appending this comment, you have in fact cleared the sandbox. One thing I do suggest however is that you use your sandbox for testing all forms of editing curiosity, but that you create articles as either a user subpage, for example: User:Kllwiki/Article title, where "Article title" is the title you intend for the article, or use Wikipedia's Draft namespace , where the article would be created in the form: Draft:Article title. That way your sandbox is always free to use at your discretion, and the history of the article's creation is maintained pristine. Another important thing, which thankfully you did exactly right, is to always ensure the article is moved to Article space, and never simply copy pasted, which causes a loss of its history. I hope this answer has been helpful for you, and perhaps another who may glean value for reading it as well. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear John Cline. Thank you very much for your help. I'm new at this but beginning to understand some of the in's and out's. Many thanks Kent Lawrence. Kllwiki (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Kilwiki, one more thing I would like to add to the excellent info that John gave you, here is an article that explains what a wp:user page is. Your sandbox is just one example of a user page that everyone has and is always there but you can create more if you want as described in that article. User pages are somewhat analogous to word processing files you can create and store on your desktop computer, they are your private workspace and you can pretty much do as you please there. Cheers! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)