Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 342

Archive 335

←

Archive 340

Archive 341

Archive 342

Archive 343

Archive 344

Archive 345

Can you please review my article?

Hello, how are you?

I created a sandbox article and I could really appreciate it if someone provided me with some feedback. Can someone help? Here is a link to my sandbox article.

Thank you!

Ana L. Cortez (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ana L. Cortez: I am about to take the liberty of submitting it on your behalf for review, since that is what I believe you are asking to happen. Fiddle Faddle 22:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so!

Ana L. Cortez (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ana L. Cortez: Had a quick look, if you could find some more reliable sources about the topic, that would be good. Also, the current backlog for reviewing drafts is about 2 weeks, because there's about 1000 in the queue. Feel free to continue editing it whilst waiting for a reply. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: & @Timtrent: Thank you for responding! I appreciate it. Ana L. Cortez (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving your article into the Article namespace, since it was still in Draft mode. Ormr2014 | Talk 

@User:Ormr2014 please do not take such liberties in future - the draft was submitted to AFC, which has specific criteria and procedures for reviewing drafts. By your moving it you have exposed the new unreviewed article to unneccessary risk of deletion, and also left it incomplete in respect of categories, wikiprojects and other finishing touches that are done by the AFC process. Please do not "sabotage" AFC submissions like that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67 With all due respect, the above exchange of statements between Ana L. Cortez and Joseph2302 clearly indicated the author wanted his/her article moved. Ormr2014 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not it didn't, it implied they wanted it reviewed. The AfC process is the best place for news articles. I'm going to try to return this to draftspace, since I'm only about 50% certain it'll stay. The AfC is a safe place to improve an article, publishing it makes it dangerous to deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The title of this section is "Can you please review my article?"- they wanted it reviewed i.e. through AfC. How is that not clear? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67 Articles for Review is the same thing as AFC and the process for submitting an article for review results in an AFC. Ormr2014 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and you bypassed that system by publishing their article without a review from an AFC reviewer. As an AfC reviewer, I firmly believe this article needed a review from someone with subject knowledge, since I believe it's 50/50 whether it's good enough in its current state. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ormr2014: You aren't an official AfC reviewer, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, therefore you shouldn't be accepting articles that have been submitted for review via AfC process. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)With all due respect User:Ormr2014 inexperienced newbies such as yourself should not be handling requests for help here. You been an editor for about a year but still have less than 500 mainspace edits. Several of your posts here, both replies to requests for help as well as your own requests for help, clearly demonstrate that you are not qualified. I've been here for almost eight years, have logged more than 50,000 edits, including the creation of about 50 articles from scratch, and also started a WikiProject. I've done more AFC reviews than you have total edits, so please do not presume to lecture me on how this place works. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67 My apology. Of course you're right and I shouldn't have made the decision to move the article without the expressed permission of the author. Ormr2014 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67Your sarcasm is both uncalled for and inappropriate. I apologized for my bad judgement call. You'd do well to simply leave it at that. Ormr2014 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel like this thread has run it's course. Ormr2014 has made a mistake and apologised, and I've moved the article back to the draftspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Ormr2014, I had several edit conflicts so did not see your previous post until after mine was saved. But it was not sarcasm, I seriously do believe you should step away from helping others here until you've gained more experience and knowlege of how Wikipedia works. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67Like many of the editors here, I still have much to learn and I'll be the first to admit that. But I have actually been editing on Wikipedia for around 5 years under a few different accounts. I've made many many bad judgement calls and I know I can come across as arrogant or hardheaded at times, though I try to keep it in check, and when I'm in the wrong, I try to admit it and learn from the mistake.

You're absolutely right, there are many much more qualified editors here. But read my comments in some of the User Talk Pages of authors I have tagged their content. I might not always get it right, but you will see I usually try to be encouraging and supportive and when there's confusion, I explain. I also often fix many of the problems myself (like typos, grammatical errors and the like) rather than slapping a tag on the content like most of the editors here. When I have reviewed content, I usually try to add information on how the author can improve the article, rather than simply using a generic tag and I have been thanked for this on several occasions.

I wasn't aware you had to be an approved AFC Reviewer to review new articles, so I was in the wrong when doing so before. I have since then read through the required content, added my name to the list of participants (as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants) and I will continue reviewing new articles. As I stated before, I'm far from perfect and I will make mistakes, but editing here is a lifelong endeavor at learning and I continue to learn. Ormr2014 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ormr2014: @Joseph2302: @Dodger67: @Timtrent: I am not sure what is going on, but I cannot find my article anywhere! It's not in my sandbox anymore, nor is it on Wikipedia main space. How can I get it back? Also, why does it state that it has been redirected, yet I cannot find it anymore? Can someone please help, I am very concerned about this. Thanks.Ana L. Cortez (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Relax, it is at Draft:Self system read the history as to who moved it and why - Arjayay (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. @Arjayay: Ana L. Cortez (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahem, am I the only one to notice that Ormr2014 say that they have edited "under a few different accounts" here? Are these accounts declared anywhere, or are we talking potential socks? The rule is: One account per editor. w.carter-Talk 15:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

W.carter You remember what they say about assumptions? I've never had more than one account at a time, thanks for asking. I have in the past edited under other usernames. Never for long, simply because I used to work construction and really didn't have the time, so accounts fell into disuse and login credentials got forgotten. It happens and it's really not a big deal. Many editors here have had other accounts in the past, so why you feel the need to make an issue out of it is beyond me. In any event, you can all just slide back because if there's one thing I can guarantee, IO won't be posting in the Teahouse again. Have a wonderful day... Ormr2014 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Necessity?

Please have a look at these two pages: Plane as well as Plain (disambiguation).
Now, why are 2 different pages? The first group in 2nd page is of locations, which could be placed in first one. They can be merged. Or is there a need to have them separately?
117.207.26.105 (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Why two pages? Because "plane" and "plain" are spelled differently...--ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It was sarcasm! Why is it in see also? It should be in Don't be confused with... which is the point I mean. Like the Way Neymar article has don't be confused with Nilmar.
117.207.26.105 (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Neymar is an article about a single subject so it has a hatnote at top to help readers who were looking for something else and shouldn't have to go to the bottom to find it. Plane and Plain (disambiguation) are both disambiguation pages with links to lots of pages the reader could be looking for. It wouldn't be logical to start out with the least likely possibilities: That the reader doesn't want one of the multiple things actually called that. It makes more sense to give these options at the end. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What do these do?

{{-}} and {{clear}}. I see them around and they don't appear to do anything. I have seen other things enclosed in the squiggly brackets that also don't seem to do anything (so if I was to remove it, it wouldn't change anything). —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}} is used to add blank lines until the entire page width is clear. It's hard to explain, but there is a good example at this article. {{-}} seems to have a similar function, there are examples at {{-}}. I wouldn't remove them unless there is obviously no need for them. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if an image sticks out below the end of a section you might want to make the next section start below the image rather than beside it. If so you would use {{clear}}. Note that whether this template makes a difference can depend of the width of the window being used and the font size. Different people will be seeing different layouts – someone might have included it not realising that most people did not require it. Also, later adding more text to a section can make the template redundant. See Template:clear for the template's description. Thincat (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem getting approval for Wiki entry.

I have made over five submissions to get approval for a wiki entry. My last two updated sumissions have not yet been addressed. I am not sure I have put them through correctly. The page I was working on in the Sandbox has been redirected. I created a new entry on that same page and re-sbumitted it twice but have not had any response. The dates of the last two submissions are 20 April and 11 May. Could you please help. thank you. Maplepond (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maplepond. Your draft is currently located at Draft:ClearView, ignore your sandbox for now. The reason it was declined is listed there, and the links to resubmit it are there too. Feel free to ask if there is anything else you need. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Maplepond, what is your connection to the company you are writing about? John from Idegon (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Santa Barbara 100 article

My name is Robert Gilcrest, i'm new to Wiki. I created a wiki article titled Santa Barbara 100, i was informed the other day that it might get deleted. I did an extensive edit this afternoon and am looking for help to speak with two persons who told me to fix the article or it could be deleted.....

Does the article appear to be better now

Robert GilcrestRobert Gilcrest (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robert Gilcrest. Your article is entirely unreferenced, and will most certainly be deleted unless you add references that show that this race has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The website of the race itself is not an independent source. When I first looked at your article, I assumed that a race like this must be notable. And when I searched for sources, I saw that the race used to be called the "Santa Barbara Century", but when I searched under both names, all I saw was some trivial, routine coverage in local Santa Barbara newspapers. Routine coverage in local newspapers generated by press releases is not enough to establish notability for a Wikipedia article. Are there better sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has already been deleted so I couldn't take a look at it, however Google tells me there are two races of that name - a running race and a mountain bike race. Whichever one your article was about, you should look for source articles in the sports sections of newspapers as well as relevant (running/cycling) magazines. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As you've been editing on David Zabriskie, I assume that means it was about the cycling event? In which case, as stated above good reliable sources would be newspapers (local/national/international), cycling magazine articles about it, or other web articles about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Where?

Where IP editors can draft an article?
117.222.91.37 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You should be able to use the Article wizard to create a new draft, even without an account. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the only way I believe is to use the Article wizard, and submit it for review using the articles for creation process. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Technically an IP doesn't need to use the wizard to create a page in the Draft space, but I'd definitely recommend it for new editors. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the names of minor children be mentioned or removed?

In an article of a famous person, it mentions the name and date of birth of that person's minor child. What is Wikipedia's stance on mentions of minor children? Should the names (and birth dates) of minor children be mentioned or should they be removed? For example, is it acceptable for an article to say: "In 2005, he married Jane Smith. They have two children, John and Mary"? Lupine453 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It depends on many things. Per WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME, these types of more detailed personal or familial details should ideally not be included, unless they are somehow important to the understanding of the subject and have been widely covered in multiple reliable sources (e.g, a member of a royal family or something like that). It's always preferable to include as little information as possible, since the article is not about those people. In all cases though, the information must be properly sourced or simply removed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you FreeRangeFrog Lupine453 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation syntax for a PDF report

Hi there,

I would like to edit the page Nicholas Montagu, which has a dead link as below:

...and took a particular interest in diversity, for which he became Civil Service Champion [1].

I would like to replace the text with "...and took a particular interest in diversity, for which he was appointed the Civil Service Diversity Champion.(followed by a ref tag)

The source I would like to cite in the reference is:

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2003/12/diversityreport2003.pdf#page=3

But I don't know the syntax :-(

I'd appreciate any help.

Paul Dublin (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You can use the cite web template, which is more of a beginner's tool for people who are new to the whole referencing thing. More info can be found here. Just make sure to enclose the cite web template with two reference tags (<ref> and </ref>, respectively). Here's an example:

<ref>{{cite web| url=http://something.com/something| title=something| last=Doe| first=John| work=something.com| page=3333333| date=March 15, 2015| accessdate=May 15, 2015}}</ref> (this is pretty basic; more parameters are available)

P.S. You can use the format he used, but the template is more accurate and cites the source properly

-PotatoNinja123 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The cite web template is far from a "beginner's tool" - it is a standardised and preferred method for creating references, to avoid link rot.--ukexpat (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? When I joined, someone told me that normal referencing (without the template) was the norm, and I do see this format quite often on "bigger" pages. He also told me that I should eventually move away from using the template... -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoever told you that was mistaken. Bare website references are bad as they are susceptible to link rot. The whole point of the cite web (and related templates) is to provide as much information about the reference as possible so that, in the case of a dead web page, attempts can be made to find an archived copy or its new location on the original website.--ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I was here for two years before I learned about cite templates. I was just using URLs for online information since I didn't know how to do them correctly, figuring someone who knew how would fix them. Then someone started reverting me until I did it correctly.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you both. I have used the template with title=, publisher= and format= (and even the #page= in the URL to show off!) Paul Dublin (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved, but just for future reference there's an even easier way - click on the Cite button at the top of the edit window and you'll get a drop-down list of {{cite}} templates to choose from, all of which give you an easy-to-use popup window of fields to fill in. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

English

If an article is about the US but what I'm writing about concerns Australia do I use US English or Australian English when it isn't a direct quote? AdvanceAustraliaFair20150516 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If the primary topic of the article is an American topic, with some secondary connection to Australia, then American English should be used. An example that comes to mind is a biography of an American politician who served as U.S. ambassador to Australia. The reverse applies, of course, to a primarily Australian topic. The English variety should be consistent within each individual article. See WP:ENGVAR for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK after approval

I have this DYK that has been approved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Highland_cattle) but now do not know what to dpo with it! Thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheMagikCow You don't do anything, just keep an eye on it, it will get a turn on the Main page soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition, if you want to follow it as it wends its way through the DYK prep areas and queues to an eventual appearance on the main page, you can use the "what links here" link from the DYK template page i.e., this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How to edit reference links?

Hello,can any one tell me how to edit refe links..

It is showing like this when i click on edit {{reflist|2}}

What's the format to add reference links any example ref link plz..

Suvarnaa.K (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Suvarnaa.KSuvarnaa.K (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Suvarnaa.K, the {{reflist|2}} is just a place-holder for the list - the actual references are in the text defined by <ref> ... </ref> tags. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Suvarnaa.K. This has confused many people many times. It really is counter intuitive. We have a template that explains this issue in some detail, which I am going to place just below as a supplement.

When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, normally what you will see is markup similar to this:

     ==References==

     {{reflist}} or <references />

The text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>...</ref> tags, which display as Footnotes (e.g.) when you are reading an article. The template code shown above in the references section collates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^{^} symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What are WP:GNG and WP:NFILM?

I had created an article by the name Jato mat tato path.Now one user has notified it for deletion by citing two names WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Can i know what exactly are these and how do they relate to the article i had created?RamakrishnaParamhansa (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:GNG is the general notability guideline. For anything to pass this, there needs to be evidence of significant, independent coverage of it from reliable sources- so you need reliable sources to show the film is notable enough.

WP:NFILM is some specific criteria that makes films notable enough for a Wikipedia article. They include films with full-length reviews from national film critics, won a major award, in a national archive- the complete list is at WP:NFILM. If a film doesn't meet either of these requirements, the article may be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

basically, the article needs more reliable sources to show it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You haven't provided any references about the movie. Wikipedia has relatively strict rules demanding references to reliable independent coverage. Please read the guidelines GNG and NFILM for information on what sorts of references, such as a full-length review, will establish notability. It is true that the rules about references and notability can be difficult for newcoming editors to learn. Good luck in understanding them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi RamakrishnaParamhansa, welcome to the Teahouse. Blue text like in "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM" at User talk:RamakrishnaParamhansa#Proposed deletion of Jato mat tato path is links. You can click the blue text to learn more. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted if it was phohibited to promote a another website or account on that website? Example: My twitter account

JrolesGuy (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JrolesGuy. The answer to your question is clear. Promotional, advertising or spam activity of any type is not allowed on Wikipedia. Promotional edits are reverted on sight, and editors who persist are frequently blocked from editing. This is a neutral, free encyclopedia, and you are welcome to contribute on that basis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thx so ill take that as a no. thank you tho i have just submented my first article can you review it for me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JrolesGuy/Sandbox

JrolesGuy (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

JrolesGuy you have a long way to go. You have references but do not say what specific information in the article they verify. Also, there is very little actual information in the article. Lyrics are not allowed because in most cases they are copyrighted. You would have to provide some justification for using brief excerpts of lyrics.

You have a link to an album by Vic Damone but it is external, and we almost never use those in the text of an article. However, if we had a Wikipedia article on that album, you could link to that.

The article fails to establish notability. You have not explained why the song deserves a Wikipedia article. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Requesting information about resubmitting drafts

Hello Teahouse Editors,

I would greatly appreciate if someone could please tell me how long it takes after editing and resubmitting an article for it to be reviewed? I posted an edit on the 27 April and have yet to hear back. I realise that this is a volunteer run organisation and do not wish to be critical, I just would like to know a bit more about the process and what to expect.

This is the article: Draft:The_Garden

Thank you. Jeannierebecca (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeannierebecca. The draft isn't currently submitted for review - you need to click on the blue Resubmit button (or add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page) before it wil go back into the queue. As for how long it will take when it does... Yunshui ^雲_水 11:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Jeannierebecca (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Jeannierebecca, just to note the backlog is quite large at the moment, so the wait time even after resubmitting could be as much as a month or more. Though it could also be less. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that the user who reviewed the article on 7 April stated that the references do not meet the minimum requirements for wikipedia, and I agree. All of the references you added were simply links enclosed in ref tags. You would have been better off without the square brackets as this would've stated the link in the reflist, rather than those pesky little numbers. Same goes for the external links (have a look at the cats page for an example). But since I know it would probably take forever for you to redo edo all of this, I will help you change the citations. Have a look at this for some help with referencing.

P.S. Just make sure you don't use wikipedia as a source for you references... -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Arthur goes shopping and @PotatoNinja123

I'm a bit baffled by the referencing process and by the Wikipedia names for things. I will try and catch up quickly!

Referencing help... I found the Citation Template page helpful - I leave it open in the background, and copy-paste the templates into my article when I need to add a citation. Note - you see different ones there to choose from... Web, Report, News, etc. If you don't know which, post a question on that talk page (I found a prior answer there had what I needed). Justapersona (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeannierebecca (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved response to where it belongs.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox for a full article?

I want to write a 1st article (~4, actually) somewhere for review & suggestions.

I've read there is a "sandbox" but is this a different Wikimedia project, or just a box to put on my personal page (which wouldn't really work for a big article, dozen citations, etc).

Suggestions?

Justapersona (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Justapersona: Welcome to the Teahouse. A sandbox refers to any page where you can test edits. Wikipedia:Sandbox serves as a sandbox for all of Wikipedia. Obviously I don't recommend working on an article there though, as many editors test there every hour. You can create a personal sandbox at User:Justapersona/sandbox (and if you need more, you can create more, such as User:Justapersona/sandbox2, User:Justapersona/sandbox3, etc.)

Another option (which I recommend) is creating a draft at Draft:ARTICLE NAME (replacing ARTICLE NAME with the name of your article). You can also use the Article Wizard to guide you through the process of setting up a draft.

Once you think your draft is ready and you want a review, simply place {{subst:submit}} at the top of a page, and an editor will swing by. They'll either approve it as an article, or provide input as to what needs to be improved. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Justapersona. Expanding on what SuperHamster said, you can use a personal sandbox page to draft an article of any length, easily including dozens of citations. I have written about sixty new articles that way, and it works very well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on User Page

If we get involved in edit war on our own user page or talk page with 2 other users, then it is obvious that I will break 3RR, then I will get blocked or not? (Just asking for general knowledge) Human3015 talk • 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Human3015: The answer depends. You can see the list of 3RR exemptions at WP:3RRNO. The second one is "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." As long as your reverts are within those guidelines, you wouldn't be violating 3RR. Of course, repeatedly reverting is rarely the best solution, so I'd always recommend trying to resolve any dispute through discussion if possible. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Searching for category intersections, and hidden categories

I'm trying to search for articles with the following parameters:

1. In category "X" (for example, "Companies based in San Francisco")
2. Has an infobox already
3. Either has a blank "logo" parameter in that infobox, or does not have the "logo" parameter at all.

I've been stumbling through the hidden categories page, and can't find anything for #2 or #3. Thanks for any help. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External link problem

On John Moran Auctioneers#References, ref 3 says it leads to a different website to the one it leads to when I click on it, which is www.manta.com. What should be done about this? Rubbish computer 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rubbish computer. Simply edit the reference to correct the error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer 08:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Help need on Verifying an article

Hello all! I have recently created an article dedicated to a renowned Jazz festival in Sardinia, Italy (Draft:At_the_Borders_Between_Sardinia_and_Jazz) The article already existed on Wikipedia.it (it:Ai_confini_tra_Sardegna_e_Jazz), but had never been written in English.

The article got turned down, and I'd like to know how I can improve it to be accepted. I took other Italian Jazz festival (Umbria_Jazz_Festival) as references on how to do it, and I wouldn't know how to do it better.

Could anyone help ? Thanx guys! Ivan Tanda (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ivan Tanda, unfortunately you picked a poor article to model yours on. The problem with both articles is a lack of references. The only reference you have in your draft is to the events own website, what is needed are reports, reviews etc from others who are not connected with the event. Good examples would be the music press, sources can be on-line or paper, in English or Italian, as long as the writers can be considered reliable and independent of the festival. Poor examples would be blogs or social media postings. Different wikis have different policies about the level of referencing required so I can't speak for the Italian wiki but here there is a reasonable degree of references required before articles will be accepted. There are a lot of old articles that need to be improved on and Umbria Jazz Festival is one of them. Nthep (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If i find a bad citation on someone elses article...Can I delete it?

If i find a bad citation on someone elses article...Can I delete the bad citation? the citation goes to a corporate website offering no information on the subject. Bobmodikiw (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobmodikiw Yes, remove or tag it with {{failed verification}}. There is no such thing as "someone else's article", per WP:OWN all articles belong to the whole community of editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobmodikiw: Your case is reference 6 in [2] which just said [3]. A HTTP 404 is not a {{failed verification}} but a {{dead link}}. Don't remove citations to dead links unless you replace them with a working link. Others may know how to fix it. It was easy for me to find [4] with a Google search. See more at Wikipedia:Link rot. I have changed the url and formatted the citation.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As A Self-Published Author How Am I Supposed To Be Able To Be "Verified"?

Seriously. I wrote the largest collection of private poetry ever published in the history of modern literature and I'm getting shot down by Wiki editors because the claim can't be "independently verified". Thing is, how am I supposed to do that? I've written the books, they exist, people buy them, hold them, own them, review them. I thought Wiki was a place for TRUE information. Well, my information is true, so why is it getting flagged? Please advise. AaronLA2012 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi AaronLA2012 You cite the reviews, provided they are written and published by independent reliable sources such as mainstream media, literary magazines, etc. BTW, take a look at WP:TRUTH, verification trumps "the truth" every time, because "truth" is often a matter of opinion. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But reviewers often want money to write reviews... Which is frustrating because that seems biased in itself. The books exist. And a simple bit of Google work shows that there is no larger private collection of poetry out there... This is my conundrum...

Anyways, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to my inquiries, and thanks for being patient with me, as I am new to this. I just want to get my works out there. It truly is an epic compilation.

Thanks!

AaronLA2012 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And that, AaronLA2012, is the point, I'm afraid. "Getting my works out there" is a form of promotion, which is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. Once several people unconnected with you have been interested enough to write about you and publish their writing in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers), then Wikipedia can take an interest. Until then, irrespective of the worth of your work, it won't. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to that, any reviewer who wants money to review your work, would not be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Reviewers can expect you to send them a copy of the work to be reviewed, but that's all. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Colin. That was about as clear as it cold be I guess, and as much as I may disagree with the morality of the policy, it is what it is. So be it :-)

Thank you for your understanding, Aaron. I wish you best of luck in your career. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 14:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Asking for feedback for my first article: Should I create a draft for the article? How?

Hello! I am working in my sandbox User:EVDiam/sandbox, on an article under the title "Experimental Television Center" and any comment, recommendation or feedback is more than welcome! Should I create a draft for this article? Where am I going to create a draft? Thank you very much in advance. EVDiam (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

For all new/newish I would strongly recommend getting it reviewed. If you add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your sandbox page, then this submits it for review, under the articles for creation process. This allows you to get feedback and make improvements is necessary before it goes into article space. You don't need to move it anywhere, a reviewer can do it for you.

At a quick glance, it looks quite good though. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply Joseph2302! As soon as I finish it, I will submitted. Thnks!EVDiam (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@EVDiam: If it's almost finished, I'd recommend submitting it now, but continuing to work on it. It can take up to a week (sometimes longer) to get feedback from articles for creation, and you continue working on it after you've submitted it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Great! Thank you very much Joseph2302. EVDiam (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppets

How to check and provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. KunalForYou^☎️📝 15:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kunalforyou. Read the instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and present your evidence there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I put photos or art on my page??

How do I add photos and art on to my page??Donovan delaney (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Donovan delaney. The hard part is finding photos and art that have been licensed by the photographer or artist for use by anyone for anything. Then you upload the file to Commons (or Wikipedia) as described at Help:Files#Uploading files (if they have not already uploaded). Then you use them on your page as described at Help:Files#Using files. —teb728 t c 08:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the above answer, Donovan delaney, you can find tens of millions of freely licensed images at Wikimedia Commons, and can use any of them on your user page. You can also upload your own photos there under a free license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I remove [citation needed]

In the article Water stagnation there are plenty of internal links which in turn have citations, for readability can I remove extranious-unwarrented [citation needed]? Thanks for my previous answer. Bobmodikiw (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You may be right that the information in question is cited in other Wikipedia articles, but that is not enough. Each article needs its own list of references to substantiate its content. If the same info occurs in other articles, though, that does make things easier, because you can just copy and paste the references. Formerip (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

How can I link my articles to the same articles on different language Wiki's?

Hello! :) I just as of recently created two articles that are present as well in the Russian Wikipedia (and one of them in the Azerbaijani language Wikipedia). However, I have no clue how to link them together so that on the side, when one clicks on the Russian or Azerbaiajni language Wiki, they will get ported to the same article in those languages.

Could anyone help me with this?

The articles I would like to have this solved for are;

• Amanullah Mirza Qajar, which exists on the Russian Wiki as [[6]], and on the Azerbaijani Wiki as [[7]].

• And for this article; Storming of Lankaran, which exists on the Russian Wiki as [[8]], but atm it has been wrongly linked to [[9]] (!)

I would appreciate it alot if someone here could aid me with this! :)

Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: We do this through WP:Wikidata. I have done it for you examples, d:Q4207237 for the first one. You can access this by using the Add links button on the very bottom of the left toolbar and adding links in the page that loads. Hope this helps! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

EoRdE6, thanks for your response! I see that the Amanullah Mirza Qajar page correctly links to the Azerbaijani Wiki, but for the Russian Wiki it links to a totally different article.

Its the same for the Storming of Lankaran which is supposed to link to [[10]], but atm it has been wrongly linked to [[11]], but links to several totally different articles in different languages atm.

unfortunately, I didn't manage to fix this myself as when I open the Add links section on my pc it shows that they're already correctly linked?!.

Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Yeah I noticed that. I think it may be a bug/glitch. I'll find out and tell you if I find anything. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Just to let you know, I got it figured out. Someone had left one of the old versions of the interwiki links at the bottom, which I removed. Nice article by the way! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

EoRdE6, hey! Thanks alot for the heads up! Good to know that it's solved now. Thanks as well about the article! Appreciate it :) -LouisAragon (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

2 questions

How many Questions can I ask in a day?

When I post an internal link its dark blue, but other links in an article are light blue ... How do I get light blue links? Bobmodikiw (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Bobmodikiw, there is no specific limit to the number of questions, so as long as they are real questions you have just ask away. The two blues of the wiki links show the difference between links you have visited or not (as stored by your browser history). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Bobmodikiw: To expand on Kylie's answer, Help:Link color describes all the different link colors you'll see on Wikipedia. You may also be referring to internal vs. external links (blue links being Wikipedia articles, and light blue links being links to other websites). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

How to upload an image to WIkimedia Commons

I am new to Wikipedia and actually started out by creating an article about a person who I thought was notable. The page is good and I got some help from other editors to get it going however I can't seem to add an image to the page. I am using images that have no copyright however I am still not able to add images. Not sure what I am doing wrong. This is the page I am referring to: Michael Palance. Any help is appreciated. Thank you tea house!!! Kingoptimizer (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Kingoptimizer. If the images are truly "copyright free", then yes, you should upload them to the Wikimedia commons so that all Wikimedia projects can use them. Once uploaded there they can be used natively here using simple markup. (Later note: I see EoRdE6 has posted the direct link to the upload form below (I didn't 'forget-:-) but rather failed to read the section title; same result) But are they truly free? Photographs and other images are automatically copyrighted upon creation. There is no need for them to display a copyright symbol. The only way we can know an image is not copyrighted, or is but nevertheless can be used, is if A) there is some attendant condition that means it is not or is no longer copyrighted under law (e.g., it was published in the U.S. before 1923, or it is a work of a U.S. federal employee created in their employment capacity); or B) the copyright owner expressly releases the copyright, either into the public domain, or under a free copyright license that is compatible with the free license of our content.

In other words, if you find an image out on the Internet, it is assumed non-free copyrighted and cannot be used. There is an exception. We do allow certain images under the legal copyright exception doctrine called fair use. We have strict standards to meet that exception. I won't go into the details because what's important here is that photographs of living persons (except under certain rare circumstances not applicable here) cannot be claimed as fair use.

All this is to say that unless you find an image of him that's in the public domain or bears a free copyright license – which you know because that release is verifiably posted by the copyright owner – no image can be uploaded and used in the article. That is why we have so many articles on quite famous people with no photographs, or crappy photographs, because a professional image was unavailable and the only one that could be used was some candid on the street at a book signing or what have you, snapped by a Wikipedia/Wikimedia contributor who was willing to release it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah... since Fuhghettaboutit forgot to answer your question, Kingoptimizer you upload files to Commons over at c:Special:UploadWizard. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both Fuhghettaboutit & User:EoRdE6. Fuhghettaboutit I really appreciate your answer - it is very helpful indeed. Explains a lot why some of my previous images got removed! I have a few more questions for you based on your response below. Thanks again for your help - TEA House is awesome!!

Regarding one of your suggestions, specifically "B) the copyright owner expressly releases the copyright, either into the public domain, or under a free copyright license that is compatible with the free license of our content." How would someone do that? Do I have to contact the actual person, in this case "Michael Palance" and ask him to do that? That seems very time consuming for me to do.

You also mention: "unless you find an image of him that's in the public domain or bears a free copyright license – which you know because that release is verifiably posted by the copyright owner – no image can be uploaded and used in the article." Can you provide an example of an image? What if he has a picture on his blog that he has copyright for - does that count?

Thank you in advance and hope someone else will learn from this as well. Kingoptimizer (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Kingoptimizer. Copyright can be tricky, and there are many variations and exceptions, so please take my comments as a basic but incomplete overview. As explained above, copyright has expired on photos first published before 1923, and official photos by employees of the U.S. Federal government are also copyright free. And so on with other minor exceptions.

But let's talk about the vast majority of contemporary photos. Whenever a photo is published anywhere, a copyright is created by the act of publication. Registration is not required. A copyright is a thing of value, even if the practical value is tiny. We cannot infringe on that copyright, except in very limited cases described at WP:NFCI. In most cases, the photographer, whether amateur or professional, owns the copyright to any photo they take. If the photographer is hired by someone else to take the photos with an explicit agreement that the customer owns the copyright, then so be it. But in most cases, the photographer owns the copyright. Lacking solid evidence to the contrary, we assume that the photo is copyrighted and owned by the photographer.

If a famous person appears in public, and someone takes a photo, the photographer owns the copyright, not the famous person. The celebrity owns personality rights, but that is a different thing.

The copyright holder (no one else) can sell or license their copyright as they see fit. A common commercial license is one time publication (in a book or magazine), with future rights reverting to the copyright holder. If and only if the copyright holder freely chooses to license their work under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then the photo can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for free use by anyone, including here on Wikipedia. You can find several hundred of my photos there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As Cullen indicated above, it is the photographer that generally owns the rights. Sometimes celebrities will purchase rights fully for publicity photos, but even in that scenario, it is doubtful they would release them under a CC license ad they lose all control over the image. Some unscrupulous soul could download a photo released under CC, edit it into pornography, and the person portrayed would be without recourse. The only sure way to be able to upload an image of a living person is to take it yourself. John from Idegon (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 & John from Idegon ! That clarifies some things, however - to your point John from Idegon; images are always manipulated even when they are under copyright - as you can see on most social media sites these days ;-) so I am not sure celebrities are worried about that anymore. I would really like to get an answer to the below - I think that will clarify things even more. I feel the page I created will have more value with an image (talk about this page in specific: Michael Palance which is why I am adamant to add one and this topic just keeps on getting more interesting. Love it!

"unless you find an image of him that's in the public domain or bears a free copyright license – which you know because that release is verifiably posted by the copyright owner – no image can be uploaded and used in the article." Can you provide an example of an image? What if he has a picture on his blog that he has copyright for - does that count? Kingoptimizer (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be having an issue understanding this, so let me put it as simply as it can be put. Unless the image itself is clearly labeled with a release or the web page you are getting it from is clearly labeled with a release, the image is assumed to be copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, you can't use it. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

To provide an example, @Kingoptimizer: Here is a picture from Flickr. If you look under the date, you'll see a link that says "Some rights reserved", and that it has been freely licensed under the CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. Since this license allows for anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use and the creation of derivatives, it would be appropriate to upload to the Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia.

Here is another picture from Flickr. You'll notice that the licensing is "All rights reserved" - the copyright owner retains their copyright and you cannot upload it to the Commons. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Kingoptimizer, at Wikipedia Tip of the day, there is How to find legal photographs and graphics which may be helpful. I have only tried a few times so I am not certain of its usefulness. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

To one part of your follow-up that wasn't covered, yes, you can ask a copyright owner for a release. Knowing who the copyright owner itself can be thorny, but let's put that aside and say you actually know who owns the copyright to an image. In that case you might model your request on the forms forms found at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. However, I debated whether to tell you this, because after reading the examples, I think almost all are deficient. Most the them lack a key piece of information: what the recipient has to do to provide the release to us in a manner that would let us use the image. So let me point you to one in particular which does contain that information. See the one at this section of the page. You can use any model, but should incorporate what it says about "please copy the form at ... , an ending with that they should email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Thank you all. Fuhghettaboutit, JoeHebda, User talk:SuperHamster and John from Idegon. Really appreciate all the time and effort you put into answering this question. I have a clear picture on how to get image on Wikimedia now!

To your point JoeHebda about using Google Search to find images. Would using the Google Images Advanced Search option found here: Google Images Advanced Search with the option usage rights set on "free to use, share or modify, even commercially" work for that? After finding an image using the option I mentioned above, I could then contact the owner of the image (through the website its placed on) and ask them to provide permission to Wikipedia as Fuhghettaboutit mentioned in his latest reply. Kingoptimizer (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingoptimizer: If the image is marked as "free to use, share or modify, even commercially," then there's no need to get permission, because you already have it - the image is free for you to use, share or modify, even commercially! Just be sure to double check to make sure the image is actually licensed that way if you find it through Google Search. What Fuhghettaboutit refers to is getting permission for an image that is not licensed in a way acceptable on the Wikimedia Commons. You would ask the copyright owner of the image if they'd be willing to freely license their photo in a way that allows for sharing, modification, and commercial use. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:SuperHamster. I think I have everything I need to start uploading images correctly now. Much appreciated!! :-)Kingoptimizer (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What should be added to this article

I recently created an article, Policeman (Eva Simons song) with a paragraph of some information, a simple infobox and of course a reference list. But I am currently struggling to add any more information as the sources are limited and I am running out of ideas. Other song pages aren't being of much help at the moment. Any help would be greatly appreciated -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello @PotatoNinja123: It seems at the moment the article is a {{stub}} meaning it is very short and has limited references, you have said you are struggling to add anymore information, maybe visit another users talk page and see if they can find anymore information that isnt already in the article, I'm going to have a look as well, to add thanks for your contribution. TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What to do about biased tendentious editors?

Hi, I don't know how to proceed. I have edited several articles putting much time and effort into following policy and no editors have fought my edits until the controversial topic Zeitgeist (film series).

Editors of this topic appear to fall into 3 categories:

1. Biased in favor of the topic
2. Biased against the topic
3. Neutral editors who just want to characterize the topic

I've noticed the type 2 editors seem to be the dominant majority, reverting nearly everything, assuming bad faith, and pushing away editors of both types 1 and 3. This seems bad for Wikipedia. What steps can be taken to change this to a type 3 editor dominance? As a community, how do we ensure that this article and other articles are not dominated by a majority of biased editors?

Thanks for listening. OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 02:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, OnlyInYourMind. Wasn't your first edit to the talk page of that article? Because the Zeitgeist film series advances a variety of conspiracy theories, it is a fringe topic. Therefore, editing contoversies are highly likely and not surprising. WP:FRINGE offers useful guidance: "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." The key point here is that the article should be built by summarizing reliable sources that are independent of the Zeitgeist films and movement. That is the path to building a high quality Wikipedia article. As long as all editors of the three types you describe follow that principle, then conflict should be reduced. If not, we have various forms of dispute resolution available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)