Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 380

Archive 375

←

Archive 378

Archive 379

Archive 380

Archive 381

Archive 382

→

Archive 385

rotating text characters

Is it possible to turn, rotate, reverse, or otherwise reorientate text characters on WP? For example, say I have a source that uses a rotated ψ as a character, s.t. they did by physically turning the die they used to print it. The nearest I can get in Unicode is ⋔, which doesn't have good font support, and may not be a close approximation in some fonts. Can I do on WP what the book-printer did, and put some code around ψ to rotate it 180°? (or flip it about the x-axis, etc.) I seem to have seen something like that somewhere (perhaps in a table), but don't remember where. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi kwami. I've moved you post to the top of the page as that's the convention of this project (unlike everywhere else on Wikipedia).
<span style="{{Transform-rotate|180}}">ψ</span>
produces ψ. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! (I clicked the ask-a-question button, and it put my question at the bottom. I noticed, but figured the software knew the conventions better than me.) — kwami (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's a weird error and not the first time someone has reported it. Nevertheless, I just tested and it did top post, so it's probably just gremlins.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see there's also a {{mirrorH}}, which is cool. Also a {{transform}}, but not enough doc for me to figure it out. Posting as a second question. — kwami (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Subpages

How do i delete my subpages? I created few subpages in order to create new articles and now that i'm done i'd like to get rid of them. Thank you.srini (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey srini. Just add {{db-u1}} at the top and click save. However, now that you've asked here, any admin that monitors this page (of which there's quite a few) can just do it. Do you want to delete all of the pages shown here?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit, but i don't want to get them all deleted, i'm still working on some. So i think i better mark them as you mentioned. srini (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Script error" messages everywhere

Has anyone else seen the message "Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table." all over Wikipedia? I first saw it on users' contributions pages (Special:Contributions), and now I'm seeing it in the Teahouse, too. CabbagePotato (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm seeing it on the Main Page, too. CabbagePotato (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I made a change to MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js earlier today. The change I made was working fine for hours. Seeing this error, I reverted my edits to see if I was the culprit. The fact you're saying you saw this elsewhere gives me hope I'm not to blame.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed now... CabbagePotato (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's probably an issue with the Lua interpreter. The Infobox root template is broken, but it has not changed in a while and neither has its module. So I'm guessing they pushed something on to the server(s) and it was broken. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Something that is being transcluded is broken. At first I thought that it had to do with arbitration cases. You seem to be reporting it in multiple other places. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

...Looks like it hasn't been completely fixed yet. A quick search for "Script error" shows that Spanish language has the same messages in the lead, probably where the pronounciation keys are supposed to be. Other articles also have this issue at the moment. CabbagePotato (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue seems to be resolved, or at least it seems to be fixed in most places. It doesn't look like there's any more "Script error" messages. CabbagePotato (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi All, I have script errors still, if I view my homepage while not logged in my user boxes appear fine, as soon as I log in the script errors appear en mass, not overly worried more an FYI for the team trying to resolve, good luck The Original Filfi (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Purging the page might help: usually, you can do this by adding ?action=purge to the end of the URL on pages where the script errors are visible, but look at WP:PURGE for a better description of what purging is and how you can do it. There is a discussion of the script issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Script error, but it looks like the problem is (or should be) fixed. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 12:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I add a signature to an info box?

I've uploaded the signature to Commons but I can't get it to display in the infobox. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Smooth Sailing (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Page in question is Bill Kenny (singer) which has the Template:infobox_musical_artist. Doesn't seem to have a signature-param, but there is some discussion on the talkpage which alludes to a trick for adding 'unsupported' additional information by doing some-kind-of-magic-infobox-trick that I didn't understand. Any infobox syntax ninjas here? (SmoothSailing asked for help on wikipedia-en-help , but I sent them here when nobody who was awake knew the answer.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

IMHO we should avoid adding signatures for all but the most important historical figures - there is scope for attempted ID theft and really what is the encyclopedic value? George Washington's signature, yes I see the value but Britney Spears' for example?--ukexpat (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think some musical artists signatures are "worth" displaying... especially artists (like Bill Kenny) who was also an author and poet. That's just my opinion and I know there has been much debate over the subject. I would still like to attempt to add a signature to the infobox and if an individual sees it and would like to challenge it then we could go from there. I don't see any harm in that.Smooth Sailing (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Then a discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist is the best place.--ukexpat (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you review my aricle content please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ponraj_Vellaichamy

Vijay.manivel (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Onel5969. There isn't enough information about his notability, in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. Just as notability is not inherited, it is not acquired by sharing with a co-author (inclduing a President) unless the book itself is notable. Please provide reviews or sales figures for his books or some other information about his notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Some administrators have a user-box "ready to provide copies of deleted articles". Sometimes deleted article is restored. Deleted images are restored. How long does a deleted article stays in Wikipedia's server, which only administrators can see? Aero Slicer 17:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No time limit. Stays on server indefinitely, though in certain extreme cases edits may be subject to oversight, which makes them invisible to most admins. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I respond to messages received from other wiki members?

How do I respond to messages received from other wiki members? II see then come up in my message box, but cannot seem to contact "my name is not dave"? Yes, novice. (Chooser007 (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)) Chooser007 (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In his signature on your user talk page you will see a "talk" link, which will take you to User talk:My name is not dave. On there you can use the "New section" tab to start a new conversation. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello. Every user on Wikipedia has a talk page for messages. Mine is at User_talk:LukeSurl. My_name_is_not_dave has written you messages on your talk page. You can reply to him on his talk page by editing User_talk:My_name_is_not_dave.

Alternatively you can reply to his message directly on your own talk page, by writing your text underneath, and using the "Reply to" template: {{reply to|My_name_is_not_dave}}. If you include that anywhere in your message (I'd suggest the beginning), then My_name_is_not_dave will be given a notification alerting them to your message. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

... or, if you are replying to a message on your user talk page, just edit that section and add your reply below his message. Indent your reply by preceding it with a colon (or by one more colon than he used if his message was already indented). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Chooser007. Please respond to my message on your own page per the instructions above and not on mine, as it makes things a little fragmented. Thanks. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, I was looking at an archived help page and couldn't help there, but someone said the user being contacted had no user page and couldn't be contacted. A red link just means the user talk page hasn't been created yet, and you just click on the red link.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Outdated references?

Hi there, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I was on the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization page and I noticed that ref #4 isn't working anymore, it's an outdated version of the ACATAP website, which is now a self-hosted website with an independent domain name and can be found at http://www.acatap.org/ ... I updated the link to the website, but I'm not sure how to get it updated in the reference list. Can someone please help?

Thanks in advance. RubyALG (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RubyALG. References are defined, and can be edited, in the main text at the point where they are cited. The software then collects them and displays them in a list at the end. See Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ColinFine. Thank you for the information. Can you please double-check whether I've done it right on the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization page? I only edited the references for ALECSO and ACATAP, the rest of the references have yet to be verified by me. Also, there's a lot of content on those two websites in Arabic, such as prizes, awards, and other activities that aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia page. Is it worth it expanding on the content, or should I devote my time to other articles of higher importance - apparently this article is part of WikiProject Arab World which is currently inactive ... Thanks a lot for your help. RubyALG (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RubyALG some people discourage too much mention of prizes and awards, but if there has been press coverage, specifically respected newspapers and magazines, and the awards and prizes are known to be significant, they could be mentioned.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee I understand, but these seem to be quite significant prizes and awards, for example, one is an award for the best scientific research paper - written in Arabic -, and I think Wikipedia ought to cover such an award, especially since I'm quite sure similar awards by universities/organizations in the Western world are definitely covered by Wikipedia. For further clarification, these are awards and prizes that ALECSO hands out, not awards or prizes it has won :) Let me know what you think RubyALG (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unable to edit User/common.css

I'm logged in, but unable to edit this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chexni/common.css Am I overlooking something? Chexni (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That's strange. Are you sure you're logged into your account? ~Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm logged in and I can see the content I added previously, but I can't edit it.Chexni (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Chexni, this looks like something for WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vchimpanzee, trying again in WP:VPT. Thank you. Chexni (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

reliable source

Hi, someone posted the Utah newspaper (Deseret News) as a reliable source, in the talk page someone said it did not meet criteria, while the OP said it was "actually rather highly respected by journalistic standards". Earlier in my career another user helped me a lot by showing me the reliable sources noticeboard and linked me there...Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 170. Is there a way I can search the entire noticeboards (archives and all) and find if the Deseret News is listed there?--Cityside189 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cityside189, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you absolutely can search through the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard, and I would agree that it can be a useful resource to determine whether a source is reliable. To do so, go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and if you scroll down, directly to the right of the table of contents, there should be a box which has links to all of the archives to the noticeboard. At the top of that box, there should be a search box that allows you to search the entire noticeboard and its archives. It appears there was a discussion about Deseret News back in 2012 at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cityside189. The reliability of any source needs to be evaluated in context, and no source is reliable 100% of the time. So, the first step in determining whether a source is reliable for a given claim is to take a look at the specific claim and the relationship of the source to that claim. Deseret News is a respected daily newspaper which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1962. It is owned by a holding company affiliated with the Mormon Church, but it seems to have independent editorial control. I would consider it a reliable source for most news of Utah. It is probably an excellent source for routine Mormon Church matters - the deaths of senior church leaders, promotion of younger leaders, renovations of historic church buildings, and the like. On the other hand, academic sources would probably be preferred for in depth analysis of theological matters, for example. This is my general opinion, but you should seek a more specific opinion about specific matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you Cullen, that's good about the particular context as well. It makes a lot of sense. I was getting the impression that because of its ownership, the source was to be automatically distrusted and red flagged, but upon deeper review and at least some discussion here, it appears that the OP was not out of line in proposing it. Cityside189 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think for the link in your question you may have meant WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 170, rather than Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 170. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

yes I did David... Thanks. Sometimes the WP colon goes in front of the text and sometimes not...

Cityside189, I checkingfax was the OP of the Deseret News reference in the Planned Parenthood article under a new sub-sub-sub-heading I created titled "Protests". I never made any claims about the reference other than to say it was the best I could find at that particular moment. Another Editor made the comment you posted. I was happy when some hours passed and the RS feeds started posting fresh articles to use as RSs and yet another fellow Editor made us aware of ten of the reliable references. When I first sought references they were either too hyperlocal or they were Blogs, except for the Deseret News one. It's all moot now because the section has been blanked and the page has been locked. Checkingfax (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you user:Checkingfax. Sometimes I don't get the details right, so I appreciate your setting the record straight. Yes... the ProfessorJR was the one that said the Deseret News was a reliable and trustworthy source, but since the source was questioned and I didn't know a lot, I came to my friends here at the Tea House for advice and direction. I am the one that added the 10 mainstream references, so help clarify the notability question. I like talking with you and I would love to continue our dialog here, or on my talk page, or on your talk page, depending on what is appropriate (again I ask the Tea House volunteers for direction).--Cityside189 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189 you are too cordial. Thank you for the offer. If the convo is on topic let's keep it here. Otherwise we should take it to our Talk pages and Ping each other. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Problem with accessing citations in different browsers or systems

I have been editing the entry at Backwaters Press for which notability has become an issue to the point that an editor has asked the entry be deleted. It seems the notability for this press is to a degree dependent on two citations in the article (#2 and #4). The editor who has requested deletion claims that the references for these citations do not work. He is using a Mac, he says. I am using Firefox and Microsoft Edge in Windows 10 and the references are fine. The references clearly verify assertions made in the article. Can anyone give my any insight on what may be happening here and how I can ensure those citations are accessible to all? Thank you. Edward Dixon (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Edward Dixon and welcome to the Teahouse. I am also unable to access the links for the sources you mentioned above. I'm not sure why, but it's probably because the original links are no longer active for one reason or another. I was able, however, to find two archived versions of those sources: reference 2 and reference 4. You can added these archived links to the reference templates by following the examples given at Template:Cite news#Usage. For future reference, sources used to verify information in articles do not necessarily have to be available online. As long as they have been published, are accessible (i.e., the possibility of them being reviewed by the public exists) and otherwise satisfy WP:RS, they can be used. Having a version of the source online just makes the it easier to verify if it actually supports what is written in the article.

Regarding notability, some things to try and remember when it comes to Wikipedia is that subjects are not inherently notable and article content does not determine notability. It is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that makes something notable for Wikipedia. So, I don't think the reason Theroadislong nominated the article for deletion was because they couldn't access those two particular links. Rather, it was because they feel the sources cited in the article do not show that Backwaters Press has received the significant coverage it needs to satisfy the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). - Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly. You gave me a lot of good info. However, the archived links won't work for the purpose as they are references to earlier winners, not current ones. The link I need is active I am pretty sure and I am puzzled about why it cannot be accessed by all. I note that the url does not have a www. Could that be an issue? Are you also trying to access it with a MAC? By the way, thanks also for the comments on notability. Do you yourself believe that this topic is not notable? Isn't the quote from Project Muse good evidence of notability? Thanks again. Edward Dixon (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I was using a regular Windows laptop when I tried to access those link. I am not sure why I couldn't access the links and you are. The original link for the second reference is www.centerforthebook.nebraska.gov/awards/winners/nebook.html/ and the original link for the fourth reference is www.centerforthebook.nebraska.gov/awards/winners/geske.html/. Both urls don't seem to be missing any information, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The archived links I posted above are the earliest I could find. Often the same url is archived multiple times at different points in time, so perhaps there is another archived version of the same link that would contain the information you need. I found the above links using the Internet Wayback Machine, so you might try looking for some more. As for the notability of subject matter, I think we have to be careful to not confuse "trivial coverage" with "significant coverage" per WP:ORGDEPTH. Book reviews and author profile pages, etc. may be OK to support certain facts within the article or to even possibly to show the author or the book is notable enough for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, but they don't help establish the notability of "Backwaters Press". It's better to find things specifically written in independent sources about the BWP itself, especially stuff written in a neutral tone, where the main focus of the coverage is BWP. The bit in "Project Muse" about BWP seems a little promotional to me and might be considered a form of "advertising". In addition, the focus of the "Project Muse" piece is not really BWP itself, but a book it has published, so in my opinion more is still needed. Of course, that's just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Overstriking/superposing characters

I found out how to rotate (and flip) characters in an earlier question. (Thanks! That's handy.) I see there's also {{transform}}, which allows translation, but there's not enough documentation for me to figure it out. Can I translate one character on top another, say, overstrike an "x" with a "~"? (I mean ~ superimposed on x, s.t. like x̴, not ~ on top of x in the sense of x̃.)

P.S. My question was posted at the bottom of this page again. Running FF on Win8.1. — kwami (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami hello and welcome (back?) to The Teahouse. Perhaps WP:VPT is the place to ask this if no one has answered.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I correct my submission's references to show the subject's notability?

My article for submission was deleted because of the submission's referencing. Can someone let me know what I need to do to fix the references for the article to become approved by Wikipedia.

Link to submission draft below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TodayTix

TodayTix (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Just to clarify, your article for submission was not deleted. It is still there at Draft:TodayTix. In the box at the top of your draft you will see a link to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and that is what you need to read. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I find the verdict surprising. Draft:TodayTix links to extended coverage in Business Insider, TechCrunch, Forbes, and Huffington Post, yet @SwisterTwister claims there is no evidence of notability? There is plenty of material that does not have inline citations, but that means the article needs improving, not that it shouldn't exist. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend you start by cleaning up those citations; bare urls are frowned on. I'll edit one to show you how this can be done. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought the article could simply use some more sources. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

agreed. while there are several links, one is just to a business listing, one is an interview with the subjects, and one is written by a guy who admits he was given free swank from the company. the Forbes would initially seem alright, but when you compare it to the tech crunch article, it is pretty clear they are both just warmed over versions of the same press release. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: The shortage of references is my fault. I removed several by mistake - I was confused by the bizarre formatting, and thought they were all cited in the body. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

IMHO it needs a complete rewrite - not surprisingly given that the OP appears to work for the company, it reads like an advertisement or PR piece. For example, executive bios and headshots aren't encyclopedic.--ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Good heavens! I didn't notice the username. @TodayTix: you should read Conflict of interest and declare an interest in this article. Note in particular the advice on shared accounts. Indeed, creating an article on your own organization is very iffy. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

One approach I would recommend is to ask for help at WikiProject Companies. See if someone not affiliated with your company is willing to work on the article, and then step back and let them do it. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

how do I insert links

ņņ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buschmom (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are linking an article on this site, you place the title between two square brackets like this: [[Article]]. If you are adding an external link (see WP:ELNO to make sure the link is appropriate), place the address and the link name in a single bracket like this: [http://www.website.com Link Title]. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Buschmon and welcome to the Teahouse. More detailed information about various types of links and how to create them can be found at Help:Links - Marchjuly (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of article - I believe in error

I'm just new and still learning, but I created an article for a notable deceased person on August 19th. I saw that an addition was added to an external link by an administrator and I believed it was fine. Just today, August 25 it got speedily deleted and I believe this is a dreadful error. How can I dispute this deletion? The link/article I created was for Robert Jaffray Christie - the only son of (existing page) William Mellis Christie. Please advise of any help or improvements I could make to have him reinstated on the site. Thank you.Anorr-christie (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anorr-christie. The articles was speedily deleted by FreeRangeFrog under justification "(WP:A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)". It may be that FreeRangeFrog would be willing to userfy the article, so that you can work on it. But please read your first article, and understand that 'notable' has a special meaning in Wikipedia: it doesn't mean famous, or important, or popular, or influential; it means 'has been substantially written about by people unconnected with the subject, published in a reliable place' - without such writing, there is essentially nothing which could be put in an article on the subject. If you want to try again, I suggest using the article wizard, to create the draft in Draft space, where it is not normally at risk of being deleted when it does not meet the required standards. --ColinFine (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The article did not make a credible claim of importance, it was just a CV essentially. I'm sure the person existed, but that's not enough. If Anorr-christie can provide a single example of why the subject is notable, I will restore to draft. @ColinFine: thanks for the ping. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The names involved — an article on Robert Jaffray Christie written by a user calling themself Anorr-christie — strongly suggest a conflict of interest, which would in turn strongly militate against the article's acceptability. --Thnidu (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting an article created, in accordance with COI guidelines

Hi! I'm looking to create an entry about the company I work at. I'm looking to get this entry made not for advertising, but because I believe that the company fits the notability guidelines and has earned a place in Wikipedia. I'm trying to do this as honestly and transparently as possible. (I've also made a COI disclosure on my user page.)

What is the best way for me to go about this? Should I write the article (using a NPOV and a full set of legitimate sources) and submit it for review at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation, compile said legitimate sources and make a request in Wikipedia:Requested Articles, or something else? I'm happy to take the effort to write the article, but I want to make sure it doesn't come off as biased or as an advertising attempt. Christine Elena (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Christine Elena. You have made a good start by disclosing your conflict of interest and I commend you for that. In your situation, I recommend the Articles for Creation process. Please feel free to ask additional questions here at the Teahouse as you develop your draft article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, Cullen328. I'll get on writing that article. Christine Elena (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ZAAFAROON

At the outset, Thank you for the assistance offered. I would like to add a page on "ZAAFAROON" Authentic South Indian Food Restaurant serving ethinic and very traditional food from the southern states of India. "Zaafaroon " is registered under TRADE MARK and it has its URL. www.zaafaroon.com I would like to know how to get it edited for Wikipedia.(117.207.47.20 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The first question is whether the restaurant is notable or not. When I look at the website, it appears to be a South Indian fast food restaurant with a single location. Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of every single pizza parlor, noodle soup shop, and hamburger joint on Planet Earth. We do have articles about restaurants which have received significant, non-local coverage, and restaurants which have received major awards like Michelin stars, for example. Or large chain restaurants with hundreds or thousands of locations. If this particular restaurant has received widespread significant coverage in reliable sources, over and above routine local coverage, then perhaps it may be eligible for an article. I suggest that you open a Wikipedia account, disclose any possible conflict of interest, and use the Articles for Creation process to draft the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How to contest the deletion of article

Pls help me to improve this draft article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Inspector_Chandra_Prakash True.indian.raj (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

hello... pls help me.. True.indian.raj (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Inspector_Chandra_Prakash isn't going to be deleted. However it will not be moved to the main section of the encyclopaedia in its current state. See the guidance at Wikipedia:Your_first_article for help with developing it. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please also read the words alongside the resubmit button: "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again." To resubmit without having addressed the issues was a waste of your time, and that of the reviewers. Note that the feedback messages, both on the draft and on your user talk page, include a number of words in blue. These are wikilinks to pages which give you more information on the issues which you need to address. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rules regarding foreign language sources

I am contemplating creating an article, but I am curious as to the rules regarding foreign language sources. It seems as though they are allowed, but in an English language based article / section, how can one be assured that the source articles actually state what the English language author/editor claims it states?73scooty (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

English sources are preferred but non-English sources are perfectly OK. If verification is the issue, then maybe leave a message at WP:RSN asking for help from someone who speaks the relevant language?--ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We initially assume good faith and if we want to check (and don't speak the language; there are plenty of bilingual people here), then we use Google Translate, or ask for help at the language section of the reference desk or at a Wikiproject and so on. For example, besides the ref desk, I've asked for help with translation for this purpose at Wikiproject India and Wikiproject Japan. I've also taken sources that are not directly translatable by Google because they are book images (i.e., not renderable text), taken screenshots, OCR'ed them, and then run that through Google translate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Patrolled? What does it mean?

Hi. I was part way through the Wikipedia Adventure and I was "patrolled". What does that mean? 6thgeneration 17:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eric. You'll see information at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages and at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, Thanks for the information.

I thought the Wikipedia Adventure was a place to practice editing. As such, the edits are not part of the main Encyclopedia, but are just for personal development. Do I have that correct? If so, why would it be subject to a patrol? Eric 6thgeneration 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

Almost all pages on Wikipedia are subjects to being patrolled, and patrolling is just a way to let others know that your userpage was approved and does not contain any unallowed content (advertising, etc.). ~Liance^{talk/contribs} 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liance! 6thgeneration 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

What is this

What is the wikipedia teahouse?Subsistence (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion of first article

My article "Iain Lachlan McGarvie-Munn" has been marked for speedy deletion, please help me to make the corrections necessary for it to be acceptable on Wikipedia.RoberFfitzwilliam (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's all explained in the messages on your talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I upload a non-free JPEG file to Wikipedia?

Help! I am a Autoconfirmed user, 'Peter B Lloyd', and I have now spent a day trying without success to upload a 2 MB non-free JPEG to an article that I have been editing.

I started with Tools / Upload file, then selected the column 'Wikipedia' rather than 'Commons' (although the difference is unexplained on the page). This gives three choices: (a) 'Files for upload wizard' / (b) 'Plain form for local uploads' / (c) 'Old guided form'. On my first iteration, I went into the 'Wizard'. It said, "If you are registered and autoconfirmed please upload the image yourself." So, I clicked on this link, and it took me right back to the Wizard front page.

I therefore inferred that the Wizard was not the right method. So, I clicked on "Plain form for local uploads". This had a button for selecting and uploading files. I used this to select and upload the file from my computer. The upload process started but never finished: the 'buffer wheel' kept on revolving for hours. I tried it in Google Chrome v44 and Internet Explorer v11 several times. There was no error message displayed. I right-clicked the page and got the diagnostic console. Still no error messages. I reported this in Help Chat, and someone recommended that I use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard because the method I was using was "deprecated" (even though it was signposted from the Wikipedia main page). I successfully uploaded the file and filled in all the details, but apparently this method uploads files only to Commmons, which is not appropriate as my file is non-free. Accordingly it has been slapped with notice saying it will be deleted in seven days.

So ... I went back to the upload page. This time, I went back into the Wizard and ignored the link for Autoconfirmed Users, and instead clicked on 'Submit a request' (which actually looks like a heading, not a link). This took me to 'Files for upload/Wizard', which gave me seven options, and I selected the one relevant to me, "Upload a file that's non-free, and I am an autoconfirmed registered user". This took me back to the Wizard front page. Next iteration, I pretended to be non-autoconfirmed, and clicked "Upoad a file that's non-free, and I am a non-autoconfirmed registered user", which took me to "Files_for_upload/Wizard/Search", where I followed the link "The image I want uploaded doesn't exist on Wikipedia"; this took me to "Files_for_upload/Wizard/License" where I clicked the link "The image is copyrighted"; this took me to "Files_for_upload/Wizard/License-Copyrighted", which at first seems to be a dead-end, stating: "Unfortunately we can't upload images that are copyrighted or don't have a compatible license", but this is contradicted in the same paragraph where it says "If your image constitutes fair use and you can provide a suitable rationale for the image then please click 'Go back' below and click 'The image is suitable for Wikipedia for another reason'."

I did so, and filled in all the details very fully, including Fair Use tags and Rationale for Use, and then clicked Save. This saved all the textual details but offered no means for uploading the file. If I understand correctly, this has submitted a request for my image to be reviewed and uploaded. But I cannot see how that is going to work, as the image is sitting on my hard disk, and has no URL (other than the misloaded one in Commons, which will be deleted in a few days). So, my question is still: HOW DO I UPLOAD A NON-FREE JPEG TO WIKIPEDIA?

Peter B Lloyd (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Screenshot of the "Upload file" landing page (Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard)

Peter B Lloyd, welcome to the Teahouse. Oh man. Firstly, it sounds like you spent a lot of time trying to figure this out, and I'm really sorry for the inconvenience. Let's go back to the very beginning. In the left sidebar, under "Tools", you click "Upload file". This should take you to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard page. If you have javascript enabled on your web browser, right above the box that has the "Wikipedia" and "Commons" columns, there should be a large link that says "Click here to start the Upload Wizard". If you click that, it should take you to a place that allows you to upload your file and fill in the licensing information correctly. Make sure you are filling in all the required fields for the upload process (name, description, licensing, etc.).

With regards to the "Plain form for local uploads" method, I am willing to bet that the "buffer wheel" you mentioned was really the software trying to produce a preview of your file—that method actually doesn't have a buffer wheel when it is uploading the file, the buffer wheel is the software generating a preview prior to uploading. If you try that method again, this time ignoring the buffer wheel, filling out the title, description, and licensing fields, and at the bottom of the page hit the "Upload file" button, it will successfully upload the file. I want to mention that Wikipedia has a very strict policy regarding non-free images—they are only to be used minimally when there is no free alternative. Make sure you have read Wikipedia:Non-free content and can confirm the image you want to upload is in line with our non-free content policy. If you are still stuck after trying the above, please follow-up here so we can clarify. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

One other point: a 2MB image file probably doesn't comply with 3b of the non-free content criteria which requires that an image be of low resolution.--ukexpat (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mz7, Many thanks for your answer. I have now succeeded in uploading the file using the steps you gave. Sorry I didn't discover this method by myself! The last snag was that the upload button remained greyed-out because of a comma in the title. All fixed now. Thanks again.

195.38.120.78 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ukexpat, Thanks for your comment. In fact, the 2 MB file is much lower resolution than the 10 MB file it was derived from, which in turn was coarser than the original vector graphics file. The reason for having such a large file, even as a low-res copy, is that it is a map of the complete New York Subway system, with 486 stations, and the image has to be large enough to see the original designer's method of showing multiple routes on one track.

195.38.120.78 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assuming File:Map of New York City Subway, by Reka Komoli 2015 reconstructed from handdrawn map by Raleigh DAdamo 1964 for NYCTA Subway Map Competition.jpg is the image in question, I'm afraid 1,994 × 2,745 is far too high-resolution for a legitimate fair-use claim, and it will almost certainly have to be deleted for legal reasons. As a rule of thumb, no fair-use upload should be larger than around 300–400 pixels wide, which is usually the largest size at which images are ever used in articles. If the purpose is to display a colour scheme rather than to reproduce the map, the best thing to do would be to just reproduce a small section of the map. I know this is frustrating, but because content on Wikipedia can be (and is) reproduced by anyone, including commercial publications, we need to make fair-use images effectively unusable by print publications and other websites as much as possible. (The very fact that I can read a lengthy copyright notice on this image without straining my eyes a giveaway that we can't really use it.) I appreciate the frustration, but we need to take copyright very seriously. (For comparison, see Wikipedia's current treatment of the London Tube map, which is intentionally at a resolution which still shows the colour scheme, but renders it commercially useless.) ‑ iridescent 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

im not vandalizing any article.

Bgwhite said i was vandalizing an article but i was adding more info on, can anyone help.DalexB (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite's reasons for undoing your changes have been explained at User talk:DalexB#August 2015, and in their edit summaries. If you wish to discuss this with them, you can either respond on the section on your talk page, using the code {{Ping|Bgwhite}} to send an automatic notification to them, or you can use their talk page.

Your edit here is not constructive because the page is clearly titled I See Red (Clannad song). You were removing valid information about Clannad's song, and inserting information about the song of the same name by Frida. If that song is notable, then it needs its own page, not one with an inaccurate title.

Additionally, in this edit, you removed three tags from the article without fixing the issues they stated. If you wish to remove the tags, you must first fix the issues: the article needs references to reliable sources to provide evidence of notability. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bilorv, it does appear that the song is actually the same song, and Clannad's performance was actually a cover of the song originally performed by Frida. That may mean that the page is actually mis-titled. @DalexB and Bgwhite: DES ^(talk) 12:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

They are they same song. Clannad and Frida recorded it a few months apart and Clannad's version is the one the charted (as far as I can tell). The songwriter also recorded the song in 1992. I See Red is a disambig page. To call it "I See Red (Frida song)" is clearly wrong. Not sure what to call it. "I see Red (song)"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DalexB (talk • contribs)

Different recordings of the same song should, assuming they are both notable, have separate articles. So IMHO I See Red (Frida song) would be the appropriate title and if created it can be added to I See Red.--ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ukexpat, I've never seen this done. All versions of the same song are in that song's article, and if there was an exception to this rule I don't recall it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks everyone for explaining what was going on. I believe Vchimpanzee is correct in that covers of a song are usually included in the same article under a different heading. But references (e.g. to charts / reviews of the song) are needed for either version of the song if they're to be included in an article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Bilorv I think you are mistaken there. Once the topic is notable, in this case the song itself, relevant information does not need to separately pass notability tests, see WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. A primary reference to show that a version exists would be sufficient. Now not all covers of a much recorded song should be included, but I think the original version of a song would always be relevant, even when it was a later cover that charted. And with a song that has only been covered a few times, all covers should probably be included, given that the song itself is notable. Ukexpat, I have only seen separate articles for different versions of a song when lyrics and music have been changed enough that it is essentially a different but related song, and not always then. I have frequently seen articles listing multiple covers of a song. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a newbie please suggest help submitting a page for acceptance

I've become interested in a group called Feral Five and have made some contributions to a draft page about them. I've also been honing my skills making minor amendments to other pages to improve them which has been fun. I want to try and find an image of them to upload but am not sure if I can just take something that seems like it is publicly available (i.e. on the web) and simply upload it to wikicommons. Also, another question regards what I need to do to suggest the page is (almost) ready for approval. I think they seem to be a bit more 'notable' as they've released more stuff and done some interesting things and got played by a few people on BBC etc. I also noted that had got written about by some 3D print gurus in the states. Chantelle Cooper (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Feral Five

Hello, Chantelle and welcome top the Teahouse. If there are more reliable sources available (that discuss the group in some detail), adding them wouldn't hurt, but I think this is ready to go live, by being moved to the main article space.

As to an image, it is rare that an online image of a person or group is acceptable on Wikipedia. Such images are almost never released under a free license, and to qualify for fair use on Wikipedia, they have to pass ALL the conditions at WP:NFCC. Images of living people are normally replaceable unless they are of a historic moment or soem other special reason applies. One couls writ to the band and ask for an image to be released under a free license, but since this would mean that anyone could use the image commercially without paying the band anything, they might well not agree. If you or another fan took a pic at a performance, and were willing to release under a free license, that would be ok, but a pic from the web, no. DES ^(talk) 22:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I think I will practice a bit more and search for a bio or something more about them but then move it to the main space. Is moving simple? Oh and thanks for the points about images etc. I will leave that alone. Chantelle Cooper (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving is easy, Chantelle see WP:MOVE. There is a link "move page" under Page in the menu on most skins. Or if you don't feel comfortable, ask me or any experienced editor or ask here. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What if I can't find unbiased references?

There's a disambiguation page "KVS" with a reference to "Kitchen Video System", but no article, so I'm creating one (my first article). The problem is that any online source telling about KVS features and setup seems to be trying to sell THEIR system. Should I submit the article without references? I'm guessing that I'm not the first person to encounter this. Any ideas? Hudsondunn (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A draft/article without references will be rejected/deleted. Wikipedia articles must cite reliable, third party references that demonstrate that the subject meets our notability guidelines. If there are no such references available, then the subject may not be notable, as Wikipedia uses that term (WP:CORP for companies) and would therefore not qualify for an article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In articles sources connected to the subjects of articles can be used, but with caution and judgement. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources for a detailed discussion on this. However, as Ukexpat explains, such sources do not carry any weight with regards to demonstrating that the subject of a draft is notable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Hudsondunn. It sounds like you've done the research to determine that Kitchen Video Systems does not merit an article (and therefore you should not write one on it). The essential test for whether a topic warrants an article is whether sufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources exist that have published about a topic in detail, such that an unbiased article with all verifiable content, and no need to include original research, can be written. If those source don't exist, Wikipedia should not have any article. See the notability guideline. I've just taken a look myself through Google Books, News and Scholar (which tend to concentrate reliable sources, unlike a Google web search) and found precious little.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...In theory, an article about the Kitchen Video System should be just as notable as articles about other technologies used in the restaurant, such as the point of sale.

I will keep looking for good references before I submit. Thanks for the feedback! Hudsondunn (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hudsondunn. Your use of the phrase "in theory" suggests to me that you haven't yet understood the concept of notability as we use it in Wikipedia. There is no relevant "theory": notability is a practical test: have several people unconnected with the subject written about it in reliable sources? Two subjects can appear to you to be equally famous (or important, or popular, or influential, or notorious) but if nobody happens to have written about one of them yet, then it is not notable, and there is no way other than looking for sources to determine whether it is. --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Article declined

Hi There

I have had my article for WallsandFloors declined twice and I need to understand what to do to achieve publication.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisK10000 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ChrisK10000. I think the main thing you need to do is to stop thinking about "achieving publication", and think instead of writing an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia has no deadlines, does not promote anything (commercial or uncommercial), and has very little interest in what anybody - or any company or organisation - wants to say about itself. If you want to write an article about WallsandFloors, you need to find some places where people unconnected with the company have written substantial material about it, and been published in reliable places.

Of the four references in your current draft, three are mere listings; the fourth (Northants Telegraph) is probably not regarded as a very reliable source (local papers tend not to have a reputation for fact-checking) but the piece is in any case is clearly based on a press release, and so is not independent of the company.

Since a Wikipedia article should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have said about it, it is impossible to write an acceptable article without such sources: that is what is meant by the Wikipedia jargon word "notable" - until you exhibit some substantial independent sources about the company, no article about it will ever be acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Problem uploading image to Commons

I maintain a website for a band named “The Nightowls”. I’m trying to upload a photo using the wizard – which is named “the Nightowls.jpg” - but I get the message “there was another file already on the site with the same content but has been deleted”. This is the standard pic they use – which is used for their website photo & it’s in a section with several photos for people to use, but this one is that most people use when writing articles, stories, interviews etc. about the band etc. I tried renaming the photo – but I assume it’s looking at the imbedded info from the pic. Not sure if there’s a way to still upload this? Thanks David R AustinTx David R AustinTx (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David R AustinTx. Did you take the photo, and do you own the copyright as an individual? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then you can release it under a Creative Commons license, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Please be aware that this type of license allows anyone to reuse your photo anywhere for any purpose, without permission. This includes commercial purposes without payment to you. You may need the help of a Commons administrator because it was previously deleted. That is a separate project.

If you are not the copyright holder, then you cannot upload that photo. Either take a new photo of the band yourself, or ask the copyright holder to upload it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On mobile how do you make a thumbnail of a photo show up on a wiki page?

I've noticed alot of wiki pages don't have any photos on mobile at the top of the page. Is there a code you need to put in on the page or is it when a photo is first uplaoded. Here is an example of a photo at the top of an article. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:VisualEditor_%26_Mobile_Update,_WMF_Metrics_Meeting_March_2015.pdf&page=43 Snagle77 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Snagle77, do those pages have any photos in the first place? The Wikipedia app should use images appearing in the article in the banner. If you find an article missing images in general you can remedy that by following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Opencooper (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have a beginning and am starting to catch the beat...

I have various tags. I'm think I understand them and am addressing them. I have multiple editors who've weighed in. I think I grasp what's wanted of the article I've initiated (Alberto Gómez Gómez) and I'm quite certain I can ameliorate its deficiencies. All that being said, must I alert each editor that I've provided what was lacking in this form of this article in order to have the dreaded "multiple issues" tag removed? Understand, please, that I don't mean "please check this out right now," I will be fixing the bugs (so to speak) over the next two days. I'm just looking ahead and asking: "Then what?" Because this experience is so new and because I want to do well at it, I will be looking for ways to improve its status to the best of my ability and will not stop until it's reached the highest regard that any article can. If I can do that, then I imagine I should keep contributing. If not, not. I'm sure you understand. Thanks, Rmark1030 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome back to the Teahouse, Rmark1030. You do not need to notify anyone that you have fixed an issue and removed a tag. If editors want to know, they can put the article on their Watchlist and monitor any and all changes. Once you have fixed an issue, you may remove the corresponding tag. If you are not sure if your fix is sufficient, you can post on the article talk page, or ask here. If you wan to know why a given editor placed a given tag, or ask that editor if s/he thinks a change is sufficient, you can post on that editor's talk page, or perhaps better post on the article talk page and use {{ping}} or {{U}} to notify the editor. But that is strictly optional.

Note that not all articles can achieve the very highest status on Wikipedia. In some cases there is just not enough information available to achieve Featured Article. Achieving B-class is a significant landmark, many articles never get there.

I hope this helps a bit. DES ^(talk) 01:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Siegel! Your help is much appreciated!!2601:602:8100:5FC1:98A8:3E4D:D8F6:D7E8 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)