Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 347

Archive 340

←

Archive 345

Archive 346

Archive 347

Archive 348

Archive 349

Archive 350

Citing a journal with a payment barrier

Hello Teashop hosts, I would like to cite an online journal pdf article but it is now only accessible to IEEE members or by payment. Is there a work around for this? I could cite it but I can’t produce an access date since I can no longer read it. Also other editors wouldn’t be able to verify the citation if they can’t access it?CV9933 (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You are allowed to cite non-free materials, such as subscription journals, even if most people cannot access it. An access date isn't strictly necessary anyway I believe, and you could always put an approximate date for last time you viewed it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: If you want to indicate to readers that the source is behind a paywall, the more common citation templates have a standard parameter you can use: |subscription=yes (there's also |registration=yes). Access dates are used to show that a source that is subject to change at the flick of a few electrons, actually contained the information when accessed. Because that's the reason, you don't need (and should not) even use access dates for paper sources that will not change, e.g., a scan of a paper source like a book or newspaper, where the image is actually a 'photo' of the paper object. For a pdf of a journal that's an electronic version, not just an image, the source will often be actually physically printed but it might not be so providing an access date is good, but it's far less likely to matter than when you're citing a webpage's content. As for the fact it's behind a paywall, as Joseph2302 said, sources do not need to be free (or online). See the section of the verifiability policy at the shortcut WP:PAYWALL and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much that seems to have worked out alright CV9933 (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Elements" parameter for roller coaster infoboxes

Whenever I look up a roller coaster on WP to see what it features, I generally have to scour a gigantic paragraph to find a tiny keyword, and this obviously isn't too convenient. What I'm simply suggesting is that a elements parameter be added to the roller coaster infobox template to make things a bit easier.

P.S. What does the process in which a new parameter is added to a template exactly involve? Do you just edit the template page? -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PotatoNinja123. New parameters are added by editing the template, yes. But making them have the desired effect can be tricky, particularly if the template is complex and has conditional code. If the template is widely used, errors could inadvertently cause problems on many pages, and therefore should be tested on a sandbox copy first. Very widely used templates are often protected so only particularly trusted users can edit them. I advise discussing proposed changes on the template's talk page unless they are quite simple. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Need upload assurances not covered by what I've read so far.

I have World War II photos that are not of my own making but are part of a parent's estate, parent now deceased, and earlier today without knowing too much about it attempted to edit the Gallery on the USS Hanover by adding the photos I have of the battleship, and with disastrous results for which I profusely apologize to Wikipedia for (((sorry!))) and then I come to this Teahouse after visiting Wikimedia about uploading photos and not finding information on the use of photos that are neither on the web elsewhere OR of my own work, with the parties whose work these were being deceased. Help, please? DSLevesqueDSLevesque (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello @DSLevesque:. Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia! If you are the sole inheritor of the copyrights, then the images are yours to do with what you please. WP:COPYRIGHT has some more information and the discussion board Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would be where the specifics of your situation can be discussed with people who know some of the ins and outs of copyright and how Wikipedia deals with them. ---- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi DSLevesque. Please advise the following: Did the parent you spoke of take the pictures themselves? If so, did that parent have a will? If not (he or she was intestate), was that parent survived by a spouse? Besides you, did that parent have any other children (either natural or adopted)?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of questions to answer and the amount of digging I'd have to do to answer some of them indicate that the issue is more trouble than it's worth. I have no idea who took the pics and there are no notations on the back of the photos either. I acquired them via one parent, not both, and there are others of her family members that might have prints of those pictures, too, so the fact of my siblings only muddy the waters further. They are historical photos that would be a shame not to share and I would think that their age, and the copyright law at the time, would necessarily put them in the public domain in this day and age rather than fall under current copyright law (it would be an ex post facto application of law, and that's unconstitutional). So--I guess the best thing for me to do is just keep 'em to myself. What a shame, though.

DSLevesque74.195.212.238 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, DSLevesque, under US copyright law, unpublished documents are protected for 70 years after the author (photographer for photos) dies, or for 120 years after creation if the author is unknown or the author's death date is unknown. So if the photographer died in 1945 or before, or the pictures were taken in 1895 or before, they would be in the public domain. Published photos have different rules, but any picture published before 1923 is in the public domain, and any picture published before 1964 might be. If pictures were taken in some country other than the US, or were published in some other country, other rules may apply. Copyright law is a bit complex, see this site for a good overview of when things go out of copyright. By the way, the prohibition on ex post facto laws only applies to criminal law, retroactive changes to non-criminal law are quite common. DES ^(talk) 23:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@DSLevesque: You have no idea how much I sympathize. It is painful how ridiculously overcomplicated and absurdly over-restrictive copyright law is. But we are very concerned here about providing actually and properly free content and must deal with the state of law as we find it. Since by the context of what you said I knew these pictures were not automatically free since from the 40s, it still could have been an easy case: if you knew your father took the picture and he had a will that was probated and left everything to you (or did not specifically bequest them and you were the residuary beneficiary), or did not and was unmarried or his wife predeceased him and you had no siblings, it would be easy: you would be the owner (not that I would have put it that way to you, I would have tried to solicit further information where needed if it looked like an easy case). But of course those dominoes didn't line up, and yes, it becomes more and more complicated as the state of ownership becomes less and less easy to determine.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What you describe is a case of current copyright law being ex post facto applied to photographs that should be regarded as being covered by the law that was in existence at the time the photos were taken, and therein lies the real problem. The photos are public domain under copyright law that was the law of the land at the time they were taken.

DDSLevesque74.195.212.238 (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That may be, DSLevesque. US Copyright law is a series of compromises between groups people with different interests. Wikipedia, unlike some websites, is quite strict in applying the letter of the law, in part because we are a large target if someone should want to sue, but for a number of other reasons as well. In this case, however, it seems as if the photos' copyrights are probably held by you and your siblings jointly, or by one of you. If you all sent email to the permissions address if if you secured a written release from your siblings and notified the permissions address, I would think tht would be sufficient. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

When is an article overlinked?

How do you tell when an article is overlinked? When can it be said that American Bankers Association, for example, no longer has too many wikilinks? Rubbish computer 21:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. Generally it's overlinked if too many obvious, everyday words are being linked to, or the links aren't particularly relevant, like linking to 13 January, 1987. All the links there appear to be to other companies, which are relevant, and there don't appear to be many links anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, [[User::Rubbish computer|

Rubbish computer]]. There are currently four external links in the body of the article, which is improper. I suggest removing them, or if they are appropriate, formatting them as references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Rubbish computer 00:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The official overlink guideline is at WP:OVERLINKING. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer 17:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo uploads

Hi I have updated some photos with low resolution. Now I arranged high resolution photos also. Can I change them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virender Singh Narwal (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Virender Singh Narwal: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you visit the file you uploaded and scroll down to the "File history" section, you should see a link called "Upload a new version of this file". Click that and you'll be able to overwrite the original image with a new one. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How do i add some new information about myself to my wiki page?

How do i add some new information about myself to my wiki page?24.43.118.170 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your user contributions, I'm going to assume that you're Bruno Schiavi. The simple answer is that you shouldn't- Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, WP:COI, strongly discourages users from editing where they have a COI. It's recommended that you suggest edits on the article talkpage instead.

In addition, any text you add must be supported by reliable sources. Also, per WP:OWN, it's not your article, it's an article about you that anyone can edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also add that while Google search uses Wikipedia pages for some of its content, we have no control over which images they will match with which search strings or which of our articles they will draw from. DES ^(talk) 21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing Ajanta Neog web page

Hello Wikipedians, I am new to Wikipedia kindly help me edit Ajanta Neog web page if you see any information that has been edited unessarily please refer or edit otherwise the webpage created by me may be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav,Glt (talk • contribs) 12:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

All the information there seems fine (I've been following it for a time), but definitely needs expanding. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary box

Hi there - I'm sure this is answered elsewhere, but I'd like to know how to insert a summary box that often appears in the top right of articles. Not sure how these are referred to in wiki-terms, so I don't know what to search for. Thanks! Thulorongil (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Thulorongil, welcome to Wikipedia! That summary is called a infobox, and there are different ones for different articles. For the draft you're working on, you might want Template:Infobox museum. You can search for others by typing "Template:Infobox" into the search bar followed by what you're looking for. Hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome; thanks!Thulorongil (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thulorongil: A tricky thing about infoboxes (and other templates) is that they use parameters in different ways. So if you want to use a template, check the template page for which parameter names it supports and how those parameters are used. In particular, if you want to use an image, check the image parameter to see if it expects the full file syntax or just a file name. —teb728 t c 23:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I think the Museums template fit the information I needed to include; I'm just waiting to be a confirmed member before uploading images to use.Thulorongil (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Username

Some users have colorful usernames (literally), how can I make one? Paleocemoski (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paleocemoski, welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking about user's signatures on talk pages and forums, see Wikipedia:Signatures. —teb728 t c 23:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess you mean in signatures. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. You can click edit at somebody else's signature to see which code it uses. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about signatures. Thanks for the help. Paleocemoski (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Where do I safely move my article as I gather citations?

I have an article that was rejected and requires citations. It is being considered for deletion. Is there a place or template I might move it to while I gather the required citations?

Thank you. Ftomberlin (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ftomberlin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your article to draft space Draft:Edna Marie O'Dowd so you can continue to work on it and it won't get deleted. You can keep it there as long as you are interested in working on it. When you are done and ready for review you can add {{subst:submit}} to the page. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• So the draft has been moved to Draft:Edna Marie O'Dowd (it was at a weird location, so someone moved it), and it's up for deletion since no-one edited it for over 6 months. If you restart working on it, then hopefully people will support keeping it- I've added my support to keeping it, since you have returned. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The deletion nomination has been withdrawn, please continue working on the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot administrator

I want to know how these bots became administrators. Bots are not humans. User:DYKUpdateBot and User:TFA Protector Bot. C E (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

CosmicEmperor, after separate discussions at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval it was agreed that both bots needed administrator permissions to function correctly so a human administrator changed the user rights for the two accounts. Nthep (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Some bots have administrator accounts so that they can perform actions that they wouldn't otherwise be able to perform. TFA Protector Bot move-protects articles that are scheduled to become the featured article soon, so that the articles don't get accidentally (or intentionally) moved to some other title. A regular user can't apply page protections, so the bot has an administrator account to be able to do its job.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 13:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Such bots are highly restricted to the particular tasks for which they have been approved (deviation would result in a block).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

citing

What do i do if all of the information about my topic (the topic is a person) is from things that the person told me about themself? Does this mean i can't create the article because i only have word of mouth? Ehartmann999 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, Ehartmann999. Oral sources are not acceptable here. You could write up what was told to you and try to get it published somewheree other than Wikipdia, say some relevant magazine. If it is published by a reliable source it could then be used to help support an article, but it would in that case be best if someone other than you wrote it. And an interview, like an autobiography, is in any case sa primary source, so it wouldn't be enough on its own even if published. DES ^(talk) 14:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Where are the articles without lead sections?

Category:Articles with missing lead sections, Category:Articles without lead sections, Category:Articles with no lead sections all do not lead to this and I think more redirects need to be created to this category as it is hard to find. Thank you. Rubbish computer 14:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Category:Pages missing lead section - but agree some of the others could be made as redirects - Arjayay (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I just make the redirects now or is that a bit reckless? Rubbish computer 14:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You can be WP:BOLD but please see WP:R#CATEGORY and WP:CATRED - particularly the use of soft redirects - Arjayay (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer 15:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As an explanation for the archives, Category:Articles with missing lead sections, Category:Articles without lead sections, Category:Articles with no lead sections have now been made into soft redirects, but were not when the question was asked - Arjayay (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Repetitive citation template with page numbers

I see that some editors sometimes use a repetitive citation template that gives a second set of numbers after the ref number e.g. [24]:222

I've finally manged to figure out that the second set of numbers actually refer to different page numbers of a source previously cited. However, it occurs to me on the basis of my own experience that this may be confusing for unenlightened readers (as distinct from experienced editors) who don't necessarily have the time or inclination figure it out for themselves. Also, it just looks plain untidy or visually obtrusive on the page.

Far as I know, that somewhat esoteric style of referencing is not in the Harvard or other manuals of style. Does wikipedia in fact allow or encourage that particular style of referencing? 41.162.131.130 (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi IP 41.162.131.130
Yes it is specifically used in examples 2 and 3 at Help:References and page numbers, which explains the other alternatives as well. - Arjayay (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, as indicaed in WP:CITEVAR, Wikipedia does not require editors to use one of a specified list of reference styles. Any style may be used, as long as it is used consistantly in a given article, and as long as it provides sufficient information for a reader to verify that statements are supported by the cited sources. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello person editing from 41.162.131.130. We allow it. I don't know that we encourage its use outside of its intended function. The {{rp}} template was created as an ingenious fix by User:SMcCandlish, in response to a problem I was having, where one citation was being used so many times with different page numbers, that citing each one as a separate entry would have cluttered the reference section with a vast number of entries. See Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms/Archive 3#The page number problem. It has come to be used in situations where that original intent (many, many uses of one citation) is not present. I don't know that there's ever been any focused consensus on what (if anything) should be done or what attitude to take when the use strays from the original intended function (which its documentation discusses). My take is that we are much less focused here on bureaucracy and prescriptive citation correctness than we are on providing verifiability that strikes some balance between accessibility for our readers, ease of use for our editors, technical feasibility, and so on. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur. It's an adaptation of Harvard referencing's use of specific page numbers inline, so it can be used in all WP citation styles. Not every case that could use {{rp}} is an instance that should. It should be used when we need to cite a large number of different pages in the same source, for many different facts in the same WP article, where doing so the usual way would produce either a large number of redundant citations (a much worse effect for the reader), or a large number of page numbers cited in a single citation, making it virtually impossible to identify the precise location of the fact cited in that work (an even worse problem, for anyone trying to verify anything). It's perfectly fine to change use of this template to a another citation method when doing so won't result in either of these problems, it would be a misinterpretation to read WP:CITEVAR as preventing such cleanup.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Qite true, but I would reduce "large number" to "several". If I want to cite, say, four different pages of the same book or pubication for four different facts in four different places in an article, I might well use this method. But it is never required, nor is it forbidden. DES ^(talk) 20:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I improve the referencing on my draft?

I have a draft here Draft:The Naked Convos and I have submitted for review twice now but it has been rejected and recommended that I "add citations that are secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject." Problem is there aren't many sources for what I'm writing on and most of the sources I quoted were not really affiliated to the subject, in my opinion. Can someone have a look at the draft and tell me what I'm doing wrong and how else I can improve this draft? Thanks in advance. Seryxme (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Seryxme: and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure what you mean by 'affiliated to the subject.' Secondary sources 'provide an author's own thinking an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event', per WP:Secondary source. It is acceptable for a secondary source to 'interpret, analyse, or evaluate' the content of primary sources, rather than focusing exclusively on the subject. A reference does not have to exclusively focus on the subject but it is required to do more than simply mention it; a subject must be addressed directly and in detail; Notability#General notability guideline. Independent secondary sources are needed to establish notability, as having sourced information is not a sufficient reason for it to be kept. If you cannot find sufficient coverage of this article in secondary sources you may need to merge it into an existing article. However, sources do not have to be written in English or available online. I hope this helps. Rubbish computer 14:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing from my previous answer, some of your references, such as those numbered 13 and 18, appear to concern the article's subject without establishing its notability. The fact that a book affiliated to the subject is available on Amazon, as in 18, does not establish notability. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Rubbish computer 17:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the response. I actually thought 'secondary sources' meant the source must not in any way be related or connected to the subject. Most of the sources quoted I felt were independent websites reporting on the activities of the subject. I think I get a clearer picture of what the problem is. I have a few other questions. First, I hope there are no issues with referencing from the website itself. Then can you tell me which of the other references are actually okay? Is it that all references must establish notability? If not, how many more do I need to have a good article? Thanks again. Seryxme (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Do read WP:PRIMARY for more information on how primary sources should and should not be used. In general, you can cite the site itself, or other primary sources for uncontested facts, or for statemetns of their own opnion, but not for possibly conrovesial statments framed as statements of fact. For example, your draft sas that the site is "designed to create safe spaces where young Africans engage in open and honest conversations about anything and everything by publishing opinion pieces, short stories, polls, poetry, serialized fiction and other materials about their lives, community and society." That is presented as a statement of fact. it is also a direct quote from the site, which is referenced but not explicitly attributed. I just now changed it to read "is an online site founded by Olawale Adetula (known as Thetoolsman), which describes itself as "an interactive community, designed to create safe spaces where..." thus making it clear that this wordign is the sites own self-description.

Not every citation need go towards establishign notability, and normally no one citation is enough to establish notability. There must usually be several cites to independant reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail, more than a passing mention or a directory listing. At least some of these should be in publications of regional, national, or international scope, if possible. If the coverage is relativly brief in any given citation, then more cites are wanted. There is no hard and fast number needed, the quality of the source and the specifics of the mention are weighed in. But once notabvility seems clearly established, additional sources can and should be cited for any non-obvious or controversial facts, within reason. (See You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.) Purely local sources might be used in such cases, or sources of lower reputation, but not outright unreliable sources.

As to your draft, I don't know many of the sources cited and can't redily evaluate their quality or reputation. You should ask yourself, "Do they have some sort of editrial process to try to insure accuracy? Do they have a positive reputation? Or are they just one person or small number of people posting whatever they think with no oversight? Are they crowdsourced or depend on user-supplied content?" or ask another editor or at the reliable source noticeboard. Aards are particualrly tricky. These days, many online awards are not very significant and don't indicate much about reputation or reliability. Others are very important indeed. You should be less inclined to mention or cite the former kind. Good luck, I hope this helps a bit. DES ^(talk) 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Appearance of Wikipedia articles in Internet Explorer vs. Google Chrome

I just installed Google Chrome on my computer. I looked at the same Wikipedia article on Internet Explorer and Google Chrome. The fonts look different. Also, lines end at different points, meaning some words wrap in Chrome but not in IE. I like the Internet Explorer appearance better. Is there any way to replicate it in Google Chrome? TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings TobiisNOTmadara1291, Last month, my old faithful browser Comodo IceDragon was crashing so I upgraded to their newest "Chromodo" browser. It might be a cousin of GChrome (which I had to use at work). Here's what I did to solve issues like yours:

1. Settings / Show advanced / Font size = Medium, then
2. click on Customize fonts / Standard font = Bookman Old Style; 16 / Serif font = Bookman Old Style; 16 / sans-serif font = Calibri 16 / Fixed-width font = Consolas / Minimum font size = 16 / Click on Done
3. In Win7, at Color and Appearance panel (right-click on a desktop open space, Personalize, click on 'Window Color') / Change Message Box to Font = MS Sans Serif, Size = 10, Bold / Click 'OK'.

This may or may not work for you, and you may want to adjust sizes to what you like better, but for me these settings are close enough to the previous appearance. Other editors may have a different solution, or perhaps a GC extension. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Needed to locate the earlier versions of deleted articles

Hi, I seem to recall that Sylvia Wald and Po Kim Art Gallery used to have an entry that I don't see now. How do I find it? Who do I contact? A21sauce (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi A21sauce, perhaps you saw the red link to Sylvia Wald and Po Kim Art Gallery in Ivo Ringe. But apparently there was never an article of that title, for if an article had been deleted, a deletion log entry would show when you click the red link. —teb728 t c 18:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The gallery is also mentioned at Nina Berman, A21sauce. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Communication

How do i talk to other contribute ers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiddeleh (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse.

You just did, Yiddeleh. However, there are ways to communicate with more specific contributors. Each editor has a "User talk" page. Yours is User talk:Yiddeleh. If you leave a message on such a page, it is understood to be a message for that user. So to leave a message for User:Example you would edit User talk:Example.

If what you want to talk about is an article and how to improve it, you should usually use the article talk page. To discuss the article on Gizmos you post to Talk:Gizmos.

Generally on all these talk pages(this page is an exception) new comments go at the bottom, and new topics go in a new section. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Licences

Hi I was wondering if could images off google street view for use without asking for a licence? Dovikap : Talk 22:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunatlely, no. There is a little copyright symbol on the bottom, so the images are copyrighted. Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dovikap: But, you can ask some of your friends (or fellow Wikipedians) who live there, for the photo of it and release it under the appropriate license. That can be an alternative!
117.222.91.105 (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Finished first Wikipedia copyedit

I just finished copyediting my first article. I think I've found all of the errors, so should I go back in again and remove the copyedit template? Or do I wait to have someone approve what I did? Thanks. Book Marker (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Book Marker. Any editor should remove a maintenance tag from an article after resolving the issue. You do not need permission from anyone else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Book Marker! I think the page needs extensive dose of links to other articles, I can gladly help! You don't need approval by the way. CryOceD (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses! I'll go ahead and remove the copyedit template. I agree that the article needs a lot of links. I haven't learned how to do those yet so feel free to work on them if you'd like. Book Marker (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I just inserted the links in the article I mentioned I've been editing. Should I now go back in and remove the tag that says the links are needed, or do I wait for someone to approve the links? (I'm guessing you'll tell me the same thing you told me about removing the copyedit tag, but I just wanted to be sure.) Thanks. Book Marker (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, there are very few things that require someone else's express approval at Wikipedia—things like becoming an administrator, for example. Don't be afraid to boldly edit where no editor has edited before. The worst thing that could happen is that someone else disagrees with your changes and reverts them, which is actually the perfect starting point for a discussion about what to do next. Once you feel you've fixed an issue, feel free to remove its tag. By the same token, if you see an article with issues, feel free to tag it yourself if you can't or don't feel like fixing it yourself for whatever reason.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 06:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What happened to my submit button?

I've finished an article in my sandbox and am ready to submit it but I see that the submit button has disappeared. Can someone explain that? How can I get it back? Zozoulia (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Is Draft:Philip L. Rabinowitz the page you are working on? Or is it User:Zozoulia/sandbox? The latter was a redirect to the former at one time, as you made it so in this edit, but then changed it back in this edit. Anyway, any page you wish to submit to Articles for Creation, you can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Arthur goes shopping. It's not the Rabinowitz article but a different one on an unrelated person. I'll add the notation at the top of the page. Zozoulia (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing tags

I just inserted links in the article I've been copyediting. Should I now go back in and remove the tag that says the links are needed, or do I wait for someone to approve the links? And along with the links tag, do I also go ahead and remove the "This article has multiple issues" tag since the links were the last thing I think needed to be done? (I'm guessing you'll tell me the same thing you told me about removing the copyedit tag, but I just wanted to be sure.) Thanks. Book Marker (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Book Marker: Generally, anyone is allowed to remove maintenance tags, if they believe them to be no longer appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Book Marker: Adding on to what Joseph says, a core part of Wikipedia is being bold. If there is any change you can make that you think would improve Wikipedia, go ahead and do it! If someone disagrees you can always have a discussion with them about the merits of the edit(s) as per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You seem to be under the impression that you need to ask permission from someone in charge, but on Wikipedia everyone is in charge! Go for it!Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

But if you do remove the templates, please explain in your edit summary (or on the article's talk page) why you are doing so. This will help users understand what you did. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How to delete an article

Please advise me on how to delete an article completely. The article in question is the redirect page for "Aldonza del Toboso", which is meaningless. No one would ever look for that name. If you can check for hits on that page, there should be none, other than me today. If you can delete it for me, please do so. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect is a weird combination of the "real" "in-universe" name of a fictional character and the "attributed" name of a fictional character. My own opinion is that weird redirects are harmless if there is no way that anyone could be looking for anyone else. However, if you think that the redirect should be deleted, then nominate it for redirects for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the last 90 days, Aldonza del Toboso has been viewed 20 times - so it seems to be serving a useful purpose - Arjayay (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Overlinked

The (very very short) section on overlinking doesn't explain this so I'm asking it here. I recently reduced overlinking on an article only to have my edits reverted because wikilinks relative to the context apparently *cannot* be overlinking. I was then asked to look at the overlinking page, which doesn't mention this, as if I had never edited Wikipedia before or thought to look at any of its guidelines. The user who reverted me doesn't appear to have done anything else to 'improve' the page and it appears they would prefer for the maintenance template to remain there for eternity, along with the problem, because apparently it's not a problem. I haven't given them much time to reply but I would just like an answer straight away. The page is Patron saints of occupations and activities. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, it's meant to be a question explaining this. Rubbish computer 14:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry you went through that. The reverter was right that wikilinks that give context are not overlinking. The original tagger was wrong, if you ask me. The nature of the article is such that linking most of the words in it is appropriate. Overlinking (from what I have seen), seems to mostly refer to linking unrelated things (like dates, "born" in a BLP etc.). The basic test is "Would anyone sane ever click that link?" In this case, both the articles about the Saints, and the professions are relevant and should be linked. I have removed the overlink tag. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also when lots of ordinary words are linked it is overlinking. If an article included the sentence "In this novel, critics have said that John's affection for his dog is allegorical." and linked dog that would be overlinking. Yes it might give context to someone who doesn't know what a dog is, but it adds nothing for most readers. Date links are usually overlinking, and multoiple links to the same page in the same section of an article are pretty much always overlinking. But in 1258 war between X and Y links to X and Y are pretty much required. At least those are my views on the matter. DES ^(talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess. Rubbish computer 15:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Splitting out new articles from main articles

How can you tell when an article is getting too long and a section needs to be split out to a new article. And how do you do that? 16:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Council (talk • contribs)

There's a sizeguide at WP:SIZERULE- if the text is over 60kB then it probably needs splitting. The guide on splitting is at Wikipedia:Splitting. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! J.R. Council (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating a Seperate Article from a List

The video game The Legend of the River King does not have its own unique page, it is only referenced in a list of games in its series. Can I make a seperate page for it and if I can, am I able to use some of the sources given in the original article list? This is also the first time I'm really making an article.Cedric the Awesome (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cedric the Awesome. please read My First Article. You can surely reuse sources from the list or from other articles, provided that they include relevant content for the new article you plan and that they are reliable sources. Be sure there is enough sourced content and good sources to establish notability. I urge you to use articles for creation or else draft this in a sandbox and get a more experienced article creator to look your draft over before going live.DES ^(talk) 19:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Cedric the Awesome: and welcome to the Teahouse. In order for an article to be created, it has to, first of all, have notability. This concerns whether or not the topic needs its own Wikipedia article; it needs to have gained sufficient attention from the world for a sufficient period of time, and this needs to be verifiable through sources entirely separate from the subject. For example, a website for promoting this game would not be a third-party source, whereas a reporter mentioning it only in their capacity as a reporter would be. The third-party sources must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the game in question does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines concerning notability I'm afraid it doesn't need to be created; although Wikipedia contains several million articles, it does not have or need articles on everything mentioned in it lists. You could possibly expand upon what is mentioned about it in an existing article but if it's only in a list this may not be necessary. If it does, WP:Your first article contains more general information and you can use the Article wizard to teach you more about creating articles and to guide you through the process; you can ask here again if you feel the game is notable enough for a Wikipedia article and learn more about other important points, such as maintaining a neutral point of view, avoiding defamatory content when writing about living people or about stuff to do with living people, and respecting copyright law. Feel free to ask here if you have any further enquiries. Happy editing! Rubbish computer 19:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

query to see my prior Teahouse questions? :-)

Any chance someone's created a way for me to see all my prior questions/responses?

E.g.... wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/[username]/

I guess one could use Google... (example: "[username] site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions ).

Justapersona (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Justapersona: I would personally use this... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @EoRdE6:. Justapersona (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

how do I alert a user?

How do I alert a user? E.g.... add something to their name tag. something like... [[ALERT:username|user name]]

Thanks, Justapersona (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Justapersona: Hello, you can use {{u|example}} or {{ping|example}} which look like example and @Example: respectively. Both of these will inform a user that they have been mentioned. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Perfect! (Aha, and curly brackets). Thanks. Justapersona (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Justapersona, just remember that you have to write the 'ping' or 'mention' and sign with the four squiggles during the same edit/save, otherwise the system will not be activated. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 20:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Where do the pros find vandalism?

90% of the vandalism I bust is by using my Watchlist. I usually bust at least 3 per day that way. I see some users who revert vandalism like 30 times in a row on a huge range of subjects. Where do they find it all? What are they using? I know of the recent changes page but it's not fun for me. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Automated tools - Huggle, STiki and igloo are the most popular - allow you to filter recent changes in various ways and revert at the click of a mouse. Back when I was igloo-ing regularly, I'd rack up 100 reverts or more in a single session.

Of course, ClueBotNG does nost of the work for us, nowadays - but if you want high-volume vandal-whacking, automation's the way to do it. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Besides ClueBot and similar automated programs, there is also the Edit Filter, which revolutionized the blocking of vandalism. Between the bots and the edit filters, only a small fraction of potential vandalism ever needs actual human intervention. Most of the reports at WP:AIV end up not being vandalism anyways, because there is so little anymore for the recent changes patrol people to do, they end up with too many false positives. 5-6 years ago, it was a LOT worse and required more vigilance. The proliferation of automated software-based tools to deal with vandalism in that time has really improved things. While 5-6 years ago, we used to deal with a lot more vandalism directly, now we deal mostly with behavioral conflicts between good-faith editors; things like edit warring or refusing to follow established Wikipedia rules; not vandalism per se but more complex problems than simply high schoolers goofing on articles for the lulz. That sort of stuff is cleaned up very efficiently by the bots and edit filter. --Jayron32 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: And of course, there is the old fashioned way of WP:RTRC that I use. I reccomend it, it takes speed of reading though. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating a page for myself, a published author

My name is Rohit Chakraborty. I am an Indian author. My debut novel has been published by Tara, an imprint of India Research Press. The name of my novel is The Mug of Melancholy. I am represented by the Red Ink Literary Agency. I would like to know if it is possible for me to have a page for myself and my book created by me or someone else. RohitChakraborty1995 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@RohitChakraborty1995: welcome! The writing of autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, because it is essentially impossibly to write neutrally about oneself. Please also note that most people who have written a book are not notable enough to merit an article. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@RohitChakraborty1995: And, if you are notable enough, others will make an article about you. Wikipedia has no firm rules, but, one must not overlook these set of rules.
117.222.91.105 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RohitChakraborty1995. Lest VQuakr's answer offends or confuses you, please note that "notable" is used in a special way on Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with merit, importance, quality, worthiness, significance or popularity. It is simply a matter of whether people unconnected with you have written about you, and had their writing published in a place with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, such as major newspapers. If they have, then there can be an article about you (though as VQuakr says, you are discouraged from writing it yourself); if they haven't, then there is literally nothing which can go into an article about you at the moment, so such an article is not allowe. Please also note that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion, no matter how worthy the subject. VQuakr: I have found it helpful to avoid using any word which might be taken to suggest a value judgment in talking about notability: "important" is a word people quite often use unhelpfully, but I believe your use of "merit" comes into this category too. It could be used purely objectively, but I think it is likely to be misread as saying that the subject lacks merit. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a great reminder! RohitChakraborty1995, my goal certainly was not to offend or to use "merit" in a disparaging way but rather to point out the encyclopedia's criteria for determining if an article should be written about a subject. VQuakr (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Whats the meaning of notability?

Hello all, this is my first time here to summit article, but am not getting why my article get deleted, whats the meaning of notability? I didn't know very much about submitting in wikis, so if any one suggests me then I will be very thankful for that AmendaRay (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi - Wikipedia has a whole load of what it calls Policies, one of which is Notability: each page should be about something Notable. The definition can be found at the Notability page, sometimes referred to as WP:N. WP:xxx generally refers to a Policy; if you type WP:N into the Wiki search box, one of the options is Notability. ghytred talk 13:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

One minor point. Ghytred wrote "WP:xxx generally refers to a Policy". Not quite. WP:XXX is usually a shortcut to a pae or a section of a page abour how to do thins on wikipeda. This include policies like Verifibility, guidelines like Corporate notability, and essays like You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. It includes soem other sorts of things as well. A policy is a fairly basic rule that everyone on Wikipedia is expected to follow. A guideline is a very strong sugestion that editors are expected to generally follow, unless there are very good reasons in a particular case. An essay is someone's opnion, nd maybe no one but the witer follows it, or maybe most editors do. DES ^(talk) 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse, AmendaRay. On Wikipedia, notability means primarily the degree to which othes have written about a subject. A subject is notable if independent, published, reliable sources have written about it in some detail. In part, this is because Wkipedia depends largely on secondary sources, and if sources haven't written about it, we have nothing to say. In part this is because we take subjects that reliable sources have writen about to be significant. There are more complexities, as you will see if you read the page I linked above, but that is the heart of it.

In the case of your draft User:AmendaRay/Sagenext Infotech LLc, it appears thwat the only sources you cited come from the company itself. As anyone can say anything about themselves, these primary sources cannot be used here to estqblish notability. For the draft to be accepted, you will need to find and cite independant sources that discuss the subject in some detail. These could be news reports, maazine articles, books, or other forms of published writing from sources with some reputation for gettign things right. This excludes press releases or "news stories" that merely rework press releases. This excludes blogs and personal or fan web sites. This excludes anything from or strongly influenced by the subject. You will need to find such sources, use them for facts about the subject, and cite them in the draft. I hope that helps. DES ^(talk) 13:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AmendaRay:: Wikipedia articles can only contain verifiable text: that is, every statement made in a Wikipedia article must first have been made in a reliable source which is independent from the subject of the article. We want good articles where people can track the initial scholarship for all of our text. If an article cannot have any meaningful text, because we have no good independent, reliable source text to work from, the subject of that article is not notable enough for an article. Wikipedia:Notability contains the in-depth explanation of the concept, while WP:42 is the "quick-and-dirty" version. I hope what I said makes sense. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask! --Jayron32 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all suggestion but i still confused. YOU mean to say in citation I need to submit some other kind of quality contents related to mine such as press release, blog post and all. Can You suggest me an example site for this???103.231.33.95 (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AmendaRay I'm not sure what you're asking (if this is you) but I think you want to know what is reliable. If you have a question about reliability, WP:RSN is a place to ask. Press releases won't work until notability has been established because they are not independent (I had to learn this). They could probably be used for non-controversial information. Blog posts are unlikely to be reliable. If a respected journalist is writing the blog, it might be.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation of English page to various languages

Hello,

I am working for an international student association and I would like to publish a translation of a summary of our page in the languages of our members. First of all is this possible and how? Secondly, can I also change the outdated already existing translated pages? As I don't know who wrote them and I would like to keep them updated.

Thanks in advance

AneAK (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi AneAK and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have been working on European Pharmaceutical Students' Association. By summary of the page do you mean to create another article or add bits of other languages to this article? Articles in the English Wikipedia are in English. The links to articles on other language Wikipedias are listed at the left of the page, and readers can go there.

To change articles in other languages, click on the language and you will be there and already logged in. Articles are not owned by anyone and can be changed by anyone. Since you work for the organization, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before doing more editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma, thanks for your response. What I meant was creating articles in different languages linked to the English one. I would like to know how I can created those. Thanks!

AneAK (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi AneAK, the guide for translating English articles to other languages is at WP:Translate us. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I search for infobox templates?

When I want to find Wikipedia (community) help content (like templates), how should I search for that?

E.g., this "template for infobox" or "Infobox template" just gets me wikipedia articles.

Is there a way to refine my results to exclude articles?

Meanwhile... where would I find templates for infoboxes, like {{Infobox university...  ? :-)

Thank you, Justapersona^{(Come talk!)} 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Justapersona! Search for infoboxes by typing Template:infobox first, with the : between Template and Infobox. That will turn up only results in the Template Namespace. Similarly, search for User pages by starting with User:, Wikipedia pages by starting with Wikipedia:, and so on. Also, you may want to browse Category:Infobox templates. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Justapersona, another approach you could take is to click on the little magnifying lens to the right in the search box. This should bring up a more advanced search page. Click on Advanced and you can check what type of page you are searching for, whether it is a category, article, user page or template. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

How to upload a logo?

How does one upload a logo like this? (This one is from the ForgeRock infobox.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForgeRock#/media/File:ForgeRock_Logo.png

And, I assume company logos do not have the same GNU concerns? Correct?

Thanks, Justapersona^{(Come talk!)} 20:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I found this page: Special:Upload, leading to this page: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. Thanks, Justapersona^{(Come talk!)} 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

...Actually, I'm still not finding something addressing this (surely, common) scenario. If anyone has experience with it, feel free to direct/re-direct me. Thanks Justapersona^{(Come talk!)} 21:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, here's a good tip: in the site search box, type "Wikipedia:" (with colon) then type a word, and wait for the auto-suggests. If I type "Wikipedia:Logo" all sorts of good things pop up. Cool. :-) Justapersona^{(Come talk!)} 21:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Justapersona. To upload a logo, you upload it to Wikipedia, not Commons. Logos are copyrighted, but to use it once as a means of visual identification on an article about the organization that is represented by the logo is allowed under the "fair-use" exception to the copyright laws. You will find a link to the upload wizzard on the left side of every Wikipedia page. Pay close attention to the wording on the documentation of the example you gave, and copy it word for word in the appropriate blanks on the upload form. Keep in mind you can only use a fair-use exception image on exactly one article in Wikipedia. Example: You can use the logo for A&M Records on the article of that title, but you cannot use it on the articles for any of the recordings they have published. If you have any further questions, feel free to drop back here or leave me a note on my talk page. I'll try to help. Copyright is one of the most confusing things about editing Wikipedia. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Justapersona, it is not correct that "you can only use a fair-use exception image on exactly one article in Wikipedia". What is true is that you can only use it in places where "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." See WP:NFCC for the full list of rules. This is usually interpreted to mean that a logo should not be used on articles about the company's products, but it might be on a page about the history of the logo itself, or if the prsence of the logo was significant in the history of a particular product. There is a one-article minimum, meaning that if a logo or other fair-use image is not used in ANY article, it will be deleted after a short time. DES ^(talk) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

title for article

how do i add the title for the biography i want to publish (Aileen27 (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aileen27! Welcome to the teahouse. If you use the Articles for Creation process, adding the title is part of the process. Writing your first Wikipedia article is not easy. A biography is even harder, as our rules for biographical articles are much tougher than for articles about rocks and ships. Rocks and ships don't sue for libel! I would thougoughly suggest using the AfC process, as that will give you the chance to perfect your article according to our policies before it is published. You are allowed to publish straight to the encyclopedia, but to do so risks having your work deleted in short order if it doesn't fall within policy. I know that doesn't answer your question, but is sound advice nonetheless. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Aileen27. In addition to the advice given above I would recommend you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, in which the guidelines for this are set out. This can be summarised by saying they must be written with the 'greatest care and attention to verifiabilty, neutrality and avoidance of original research.' If you have further questions about this you can ask here or use the link to ask for help on your talk page here. Rubbish computer 13:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Including uploaded image file in article

I uploaded a JPEG file using Wikimedia Commons. It is the album cover for a new article I have created, my first, called Careless (album). The image should appear in the album infobox. I have included the name of the uploaded file in the Infobox Album template but it does not appear in the article. What have I done wrong? Keesling (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard the above. I found my mistake. Keesling (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Keesling. The image you uploaded has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons. That site is for freely licensed and copyright free material only. Copyrighted images of album covers, movie posters, book covers and the like should be uploaded here on Wikipedia, in low resolution, for use normally in a single article. Please read WP:NFCI for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Easiest way to archive my talk page?

The set and forget way where a bot does it. I know you just put the code at the top of your talk page and that's it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

DangerousJXD, there are a number of bots that will do this for you. I use the MiszaBot configuration instructions (User:MiszaBot/config) but as this bot is no longer active the actual work gets done by lowercase sigmabot III. Nthep (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Did I set it up right? —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Anybody? —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks right to me. Just wait a day and come back if it didn't archive. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's all fine. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I make an article about someone if there are no written sources in English?

Hi,

I would like to write an article about a famous Kyrgyz artist, Theodor Herzen. He is well-known and has an article on the Kyrgyz wikipedia, but there are no sources AFAIK about him in English, only in Russian, German and Kyrgyz. Is it possible or will it not be allowed? LuckyTime154 (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, provided these are reliable sources. Different Wikipedias will have different inclusion criteria and I've noticed that some of the smaller Wikipedias take a more relaxed view towards notability. However, on searching, I found that there *are* sources in English. This one for example gives some biographical info. Valenciano (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Somehow Ecosia did not show that result to me. LuckyTime154 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Where to find editors to critique an article?

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome article is currently related to two articles, Historical development of the doctrine of papal primacy and Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy, which were copied from it a few years ago. The topic "primacy of the Bishop of Rome" is a current concept in the Catholic Church (both in a constitution and in canon law) but the article does not reflect that; it contains mostly duplicate history and criticism of the concept found in the other articles, i.e. what others think about it. I improved the references, and I read about past editing conflicts which involved an editor who has been globally banned in its talk page and archives. Where do I find editors to critique the article before I do further editing? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant WikiProject Noticeboard is a good place. In this case that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. By the way, I have looked at your changes and they look good. I am just concerned about the number of things you have unlinked from the article. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think I unlinked anything, you may be seeing my splitting |quote= from cites into {{efn}} and removing those quotes as I link to the cited external sources. The article looks like a quote farm that needs trimming to me. Or you may be looking at my combining instances of <reference> and adding {{rp}} to those <reference name="foo"/>. No information is lost in my opinion. Even the issues I brought up on the talk page were not removed but marked with {{discuss}}. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings BoBoMisiu, for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome talk page, I updated the WP Christianity, and added WP Catholicism including the Class-B assessment. These changes may raise awareness of the article for other editors to improve. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. My concern is for wikilinks. For example, you removed the link to Ireneaus of Lyons and some other Saints. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated to others comments, you may be interested in a peer review or a Good Article nomination which are some of the more formal review processes on Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion pages - argument resolved

If a topic in a discussion page (where I was the driving force...?) has been resolved, do I do anything with it? Do I write "resolved" behind that, delete it, or just ignore it (with the "problem" still up there, even if its not)?

Also, if I have just begun to write in wikipedia, and have written under an IP instead of a Username, and this IP has a talkpage, do I have to delete it, so no one else gets bothered by a soon defunct talk page?

88.71.31.229 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, The talk page guidelines are here Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Closing_discussions. Essentially, for article talk pages you can just leave the discussions - unless it is a busy page where multiple open discussions get confusing - then you can box it with an archive if the editors have achieved a consensus and are moving on to other items. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the second part of the question: if you have a username, I wouldn't worry about the old talk page you had had as an IP address. You are not required to blank it, and we rarely delete user talk pages. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Changing shared ressources in wikipedia in nonenglish speaking wikipedia versions

Just recently, I made a contribution on the discussion page in the wikipedia article in my language, that a "fact" in a ressource used by multiple wikipedia-language-versions wasn't factual, that stood there for 5 years.

It was changed to the "true" value thereafter without apparent reason, so i inquired. I found out that the "real" discussion was on the english discussion page, where the discussion JUST ended after 5 years (it changeed 2 times to the "true" value, but got changed back from an english speaking editor to his truth in that 5 years).

So my question are:

1. If a ressource is used over multi-language versions, do I have to ask on the english page, or not at all?

2. Is english the "governing" language of wikipedia?

3. My point ist: the majority of wikipedia users don't speak english, or not well enough to discuss a topic, are they left out, or is there a mechanism I am unaware of? 88.71.31.229 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Every language Wikipedia is a separate site, with different rules, so the correct place to ask is that language's Wikipedia- English Wikipedia definitely isn't the governing Wikipedia, as they are all separate sites, and "We should do this, because another language does it that way" is considered a bad argument (at least on the English Wikipedia). Seems odd that people were discussing how to edit another language's Wiki using the English wiki article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source to consider. If the item under discussion isn't supported by reliable sources and the only arguement is that it is used by another language wikipedia then it shouldn't be used. Nthep (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a ressource shared at least (!) by the page in my language AND the english version. To be precise, a map with informations coded in it. 88.71.31.229 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I didnt see the urge "to throw the map out, just because someone else had another sense of what was right", because, if right, it would have been a nice illustrating map. Also, in hindsight, if i find "an error", isnt it right to tell that everybody, in contrast of just making e new one (or none at all) just for my native version? Also, I didn't knew it was used over multiple language versions. 88.71.31.229 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If I understand it right, does it mean "everybody fends for himself first", therefore, if I want my native language version "to be right", I have to make my own ressources, instead of using available ones? 88.71.31.229 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to start from scratch, though, provided you provide attribution, you can copy the content and make your changes in a local version. But yes, each language Wikipedia has a lot of independence. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)