Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 393

Archive 390

Archive 391

Archive 392

Archive 393

Archive 394

Archive 395

→

Archive 400

Pasting text from the edit page on an iPad

This is an actual editing problem, but I couldn't find a better place to put it...

Anyway, I had some questions for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science and sandboxed them here. Once I thought they were good enough, I tried to paste them from the preview page (pasting from the actual page removes the links) but I couldn't get the range right. (I might upload some screencaps or describe it (or both) if you don't know what I'm talking about). Is there a solution?

This isn't strictly a problem with WP, but I couldn't find a better place to post it (if there is, direct me there).

Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually pasting in general on iPad seems to be wonky. Can someone on a desktop paste it from here to WP:RD/S?

P.S. I'd paste this to the top if I could (but then I wouldn't need to ask this).

Hello, Hop on Bananas, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry no one has been able to address your question before now, though I see (because I went to do it on your behalf) that you did manage to get your question pasted over at the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk.

I'm afraid I have no experience with iPads. Although it is outside the scope of the assistance the Teahouse normally offers, I know someone with an iPad and will ask if she has any ideas about your difficulties with copy and paste. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

making a wikipedia page for a new company

Hi, I am a new user here, and this is my first time attempting to create and edit a page. I made a page for my new company, and immediately after saving it a "speedy deletion" notification popped up. What are the requirements for creating a page for an up and coming company? Since it's a new company, the only information I included was the purpose and uses of the company. Obviously, there is no history or monetary information yet, so it's literally just an overview about the company. What can I do to prevent my page from being deleted? I was hoping wikipedia could be a source of exposure for my company as well a place in which potential customers could gain some basic iinformation about it.

On a side note - how can I add an infobox to my page, as well as the company logo?

Thank you so much!!!

Suzyvginosyan (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You obviously have a mistaken impression of what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle of promotion for your start up company. Short and sweet, Suzyvginosyan, your totally non notable by your own admission company will not have a page here until it is notable. John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with everything that John from Idegon said, Suzyvginosyian, I think he might have been a bit friendlier to a new editor. It's not personal to you or your company: Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind - which means that it may not be used for "exposure" for anything. A Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject; so until there have been some in-depth independent articles about your company (and we do mean independent: interviews with you, and articles based on your press releases, do not count), there is literally nothing which can be put in such an article. Please see WP:CORP for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

bookmarks

is there a way to bookmark articles on to your account instead e.g. a computer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavestory116 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not specifically, Cavestory116. But something that a lot of editors do is to keep some links to pages they are interested in on their own user page. So you could edit User:Cavestory116 to have a section containing links you want to remember. (Anybody can see these, and in theory anybody could edit them, but it is not considered polite to edit somebody's user page without their permission, so it is unlikely to happen). --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you add them to your watchlist, this cannot be seen, and others cannot alter it - but you may confuse them with things you have added to your watchlist for other reasons. Even if they have not recently been altered, you can still see them via the "View and edit watchlist" option at the top - Arjayay (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I want a page

How do you make a page on the app I want to give info please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerzone2500 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Questioner is indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Nthep (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Grading

Hi, I have an article (Benji Lovitt) currently graded as "start" and wanted to know how to get it considered for a B grading class please. JamesSmithUT (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi JamesSmithUT, and welcome to the Teahouse. Article grading is dealt with by WikiProjects. That article is within the scope of a number of WikiProjects (see its talk page). Given that it's a relatively new article, I would suggest asking for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, but you could alternatively ask on the talk page of one of the other WikiProjects it's been graded by. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick help and suggestions, Cordless Larry! JamesSmithUT (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Featured Articles and WP:Good Article ratings have formal process that are outlined on the pages linked. Other ratings are made just by any Wikipedia editor making a personal assessment against the criteria. If you change an rating and someone disagrees then discuss and consider bringing in a third party to give their review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Licensing an improved copy of an existing image

Hello, all

I should like to consult you about licensing File:The_Rhinoceros.png, which I recently uploaded as an improved version of File:Dürer's_Rhinoceros,_1515.jpg. I received a notification to the effect that my upload will be deleted unless I specify missing copyright information. That information I simply copied from the original image with a note that my version was produced by converting it to grayscale and adjusting the contrast. Should it be enough?Ant 222 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Ant 222! No, it was not enough. Every image has to have a license attached to it as well as full info about the picture on the page of the image. If you copy and improve an image, you copy the license that the original was published under. When you added the license, you mistakenly put the license in the "Permission" space (which is supposed to be used for something else) and if the "License" section does not have the appropriate template, bots will immediately tag it is faulty. I see that a helpful editor has been kind enough to fix all that for you at the Commons. Copyright is taken very seriously on all Wikimedia sites, so you have to be thorough all the time. But don't be discouraged, the copyrights and the licensing of picture is one of the most difficult areas of the WP!! There are very few editors who understand it fully. ;) Btw, you should also look at the Categories (bottom of the page) that the original picture is listed under and copy those to the new picture as well. If you have any trouble with this just ping me. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, W.carter. I must pluck up my heart, collect my courage, and read and have read the several the pages treating of the licensing process.Ant 222 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Upload an improved copy of an image

How can I upload an improved version of an existing image so that it should be automatically used instead of the previous version? Whereas the image's page contains a File History section I thought one should be able to do it.

Ant 222 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ant 222, and welcome to the Teahouse. To upload a new version of the image, go to the current image's description page, which you can get to by clicking on the image where it appears in an article and then clicking "More details" at the bottom right. On that page, probably about halfway down, you should find a link called "Upload a new version of this file"; click on that, and follow the on-screen instructions. And don't be afraid to come back here if you need more help — copyright for images is complicated, and the process of correctly licensing an image for use on Wikipedia (or at Wikimedia Commons) can be confusing. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GrammarFascist. I hope I shan't have any copyright problems, for I only intend to edit the existing image. It is a reproduction of a woodcut, so I will convert it to grayscale and adjust the contrast. Ant 222 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ant 222, you can do as GrammarFascist so rightly explained above, but when it comes to art it is sometimes better to upload a new version of the file separately in case someone wants to use the original file for something. Remember that the pictures can be used on many Wikipedias, and changing the picture itself will change the pic on all Wikipedias using that picture. Some of them may not want to display it in greyscale. In this example you can see how it is done: original file and the new one. On those pages you can see how to say that there are other versions. After the uploading is done you simply switch to the new file name in the article. Here is another example: grainy and small & less grainy and bigger. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a fragment showing my proposed edit. Should not you think it an improvement certain enough to replace the original image instead of uploading a new one?

Ant 222 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: It is not a question of what you or I think is the best picture. Some art aficionados here (who know a lot more about how art should be displayed than I do) may prefer the original since the new version looks a little too perfect, almost more like a Marvel comic monster than a woodcut. Making a second upload takes very little time and will ensure that you do not end up in some editing war over which version is the better. It is simply an advice, take it or leave it. w.carter-Talk 20:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: I will upload a new image as you suggest, but I would also contact the uploader of the original. What is the proper way to do it?

Ant 222 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: On each file's page at the Commons there is a section called "File history" (scroll down) where you can see who uploaded it. That editor is stated as "User". Click on the "(talk|", that will take you to that editor's talk page on Commons where you can leave a message. You can also check if that editor has an account here on the Wikipedia and leave a message on her/his talk page here. w.carter-Talk 20:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: You have my thanks. Here is the modified page: [Durer's Rhinoceros]Ant 222 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: You're welcome. Changing the picture was a very bold move since the article you changed it in is a Featured article about that particular woodcut. This is indicated by the little gold star in the upper right corner. Please read about such articles in the link. Any changes to such articles should preferably be discussed on that article's talk page before they are made, since the contents of such articles are formed by consensus in the Wikipedia community. That page is watched by 83 editors and has a couple of hundred views every day, so I would not be surprised if any of them has another view about the picture than you. Oh, and when you link to an article, don't use the "https-thing", simply use the bracets like this: Dürer's Rhinoceros (look in the code). Since you have only done a hundred or so edits, for your own good, I would suggest that you stay away from making bold changes to Featured articles until you have learned some more. If you want to change anything, make a suggestion at the article's talk page instead. If you had read the whole text at the file's Commons page you would have seen that the original picture (before you changed it) was sold for $866,500, and you do not mess with such expensive art as you please. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 21:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: I see I have been somewhat rash and reckless. Henceforth I will be more chary and will offer my suggestions at the talk page.

Yes, I had read the full Commons page. My position is that the paper decayed into fallow is as impertinent to the original work of art as the clicks heard a shellac disc to the song it contains. If the defect may be removed without harm, then it is the way to go. Notice that some of Durer's other line art are presented in high-contrast black and white (as becomes line art), for example: The Cannon and The Small Horse (does the engine support local links images as it does to articles?)Ant 222 (talk)

@Ant 222: Once again, I'm not the art expert! I'm not the one you should present your case to, do it to the art people at the article's talk page should need be. I understand your reasoning, I'm just not sure they apply in this case since the aging is part of a piece of art's appeal. I'm sure you could also do wonders lifting away all the years from say Mona Lisa, not so sure it is the right thing to do though. And please sign your posts with the four ~~~~, otherwise the 'ping' will not work. w.carter-Talk 22:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)777

@Ant 222: Sorry, I forgot to answer your last question. Yes, files can be linked to like this: File:Nürnberger Feldschlange.JPG and File:Albrecht Dürer - The Small Horse - Google Art Project.jpg. Don't forget the initial ":" otherwise the picture will be displayed in full. And also a comment about those pics: They are just examples of Dürer's art, they do not have their own Featured articles attached to them. The rhino is a special case. w.carter-Talk 22:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: Thanks for a great consultation.Ant 222 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: I have found a much better scan of Durer's Rhinoceros on the Commons and applied thereto most delicate contrast adjustments (contrast adjustments). Should you deem it meet for uploading as a new version of that image?Ant 222 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: If you have found another version and want to do yet another cleanup of the print, then by all means do so, but do it as before as a new separate upload. Most old, great work of art have a number of versions uploaded at the Commons so that editors can pick and choose the one they find most suited. Just look at all the versions here and here There is never one definitive version of an old work of art. Only keep in mind to add them all to the same categories so that users can compare them easily when choosing for an article. Also, if you have a question directed to me or any other editor, you can also ask at my or their talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: I also forgot to mention that there are already a number of versions of the print already, see here. w.carter-Talk 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: As I have shown in this animated .gif, I do not propose serious changes as before, i.e. removal of the paper background and conversion to high-contrast black-and-white. My edit is only a slight adjustment of a digital photograph. If it is not fit for uploading as a new version, then what is? I understand the keeping of different scans/photos/reproductions of the same work of art as separate Wikimedia entities, but thus to separate mere edits of the same digital image seems too much as long as those edits are minor improvements.

Fore safety's sake I will upload my image separately as you suggest, but still I should like to know what file versions are for.

As to communication on the talk page, I will do as you prefer. I though the talk page was somewhat more personal like private messages in a forum...Ant 222 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: The concept of what the "new version" should be used for varies greatly from editor to editor, as do many other things on the Wikipedia. Mostly it is used for when an editor is say working on a photo or a picture s(he) (or someone else) has taken or made, adjusting and tweaking it to get the perfect. Examples here, here and here. When I was new here I also made corrections of art and placed them as new versions, I have since learned to be more cautious and make new uploads instead to avoid conflicts. As you will learn there is nothing that is personal or private here on the WP. :) Discussions on personal talk pages can be more productive and involve many more editors than discussions on forums. Example. It seems that you have yet to learn about talk page stalking. w.carter-Talk 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please help?

I don't know anything about creating the perfect wiki page. I am way too new to Wiki. If I knew the correct way to create a page, I wouldn't be in this problem. I started a page the other day and I am so lost. Where do I go, what do I do. I know I have an issue with building things. My attention gets very distracted and I lose focus. That may be the issue here. What seems okay to me is not okay to those on Wiki. I need real help. Someone guide me through the steps. My page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Velazquez I would like to continue to add, but I am afraid that my added work or writing will NEVER be good enough. Pleaser help and Thank you teahouse for the invite. Trippit (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Trippit, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you need to do is consider whether Mark Velazquez is Notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. Then see this summary of the basic requirements. Note that on Wikipedia, "notable" primarily means that others, not connected with the subject, have written about him (or about it for a subject that is not a person) in some detail, and been published in reliable sources. If this has not been done, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about this subject, and there probably won't be for long. See also Your First Article.

Secondly, you should not use any "Description provided by artist representative". Content should be based on sources, particularly independent sources, but should be rewritten so that it does not directly copy or closely paraphrase any of them.

Thirdly, what the subject has written or created matters less than what others have written about him. Therefore the iTunes and Google Play links should be removed. Moreover, they look like an attempt to sell Velazquez's music, and that is never taken well on Wikipedia.

Fourthly, read Referencing for Beginners. That will tell you how to cite the sources I said were needed. However, if you can indicate clearly where the sources are, enough to allow others to find them, others can help with the job of formatting them properly. But without proper sources, nothing can be done. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Trippit, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is guidance on creating articles at Wikipedia:Your first article, and you'll see a link to the article wizard, which is a tool that will help you get things right next time. As for the Mark Velazquez article, I'm afraid that there are quite a few problems. Wikipedia requires material in articles to be verifiable, which means that you need to cite reliable sources that support the content of articles. This is all the more important when the article is about a living person, and more important still when the article contains details about potentially sensitive details about the person - such as their sexuality. If that material cannot be sourced, then it must be removed. There is also the question of notability. Put simply, in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about a subject, werequire significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And on another note, just to be utterly pedantic, you should not think of it as "your page", but rather as "A Wikipedia article that I created - and other people will edit" - per the notice on every editing screen, any content you submit to Wikipedia can (and likely will be) edited, and re-edited and re-re-edited by anyone who follows the Wikipedia content policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Pasting text from the edit page on an iPad

This is an actual editing problem, but I couldn't find a better place to put it...

Anyway, I had some questions for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science and sandboxed them here. Once I thought they were good enough, I tried to paste them from the preview page (pasting from the actual page removes the links) but I couldn't get the range right. (I might upload some screencaps or describe it (or both) if you don't know what I'm talking about). Is there a solution?

This isn't strictly a problem with WP, but I couldn't find a better place to post it (if there is, direct me there).

Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually pasting in general on iPad seems to be wonky. Can someone on a desktop paste it from here to WP:RD/S?

P.S. I'd paste this to the top if I could (but then I wouldn't need to ask this).

Question answered here (sort of).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with rejected Article

Our article about Real Music was rejected. There are many pages about independent music labels, what should we delete or change to make our page more acceptable? Thanks RealMusic (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RealMusic, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The grey box within the pink box at the top of your draft page actually answered your question pretty well: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." (I bolded the links for you so they're easier to see.)

I would also point out that every Wikipedia article also has to meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. Put simply, at least three of those independent reliable sources have to have written an article (or published a book chapter or TV segment) that is entirely or at least substantially about Real Music, or Real Music cannot have a Wikipedia article about it. If such sources do not yet exist, you can wait and come back once they do.

And you should also be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy under which editors closely connected to the subject of an article are strongly discouraged from creating or editing that article themselves. Ideally all Wikipedia articles are written and edited by people unconnected with the subject of the article.

Finally, you should know that Wikipedia accounts are for use by a single person only — there are no multi-user or shared accounts allowed — and Wikipedia policy also forbids usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, as yours seems to.

I know I've just thrown a lot of rules at you all at once, but they are rules all Wikipedians have to abide by. Please feel free to ask if you have specific questions about any of these policies. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist while most of the above is quite correct, and I endorse it, it is not at all correct that "t least three of those independent reliable sources have to have written an article (or published a book chapter or TV segment) that is entirely or at least substantially about Real Music, or Real Music cannot have a Wikipedia article about it" There is no such requirement. It is usually required that there are multiple independent sources that devote "significant" coverage, which is often spoken of as "coverage in some detail." But if, say, a reliable 500 page book on "Current Pop Music " devoted 3 pages to a particular group, that would count as "significant" coverage in my view. Similarly, and perhaps more probably, if a 5-page article on "hot bands" in a reliable magazine or similar publication devoted multiple paragraphs to a particular group, that would also count, although it isn't anything like the majority of the article. And if a single reliable book-length source were largely devoted to a single subject, that one source might be enough to establish notability. DES ^(talk) 23:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You're correct that I over-simplified things somewhat, DES. Thanks for the clarification. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the rules on "trumping" an article's primary photo

Specifically, A Tribe Called Red has a biographical photo of the trio performing at an event. However, if I came across a "better" (which can be quite a subjective term) free picture, what the rules and protocol for determining it is indeed worthy of trumping the previous picture?

Furthermore, for a musical group, what's the guidelines for what the infobox's picture should be? Them at a live show? Their work? Them at a non-event?

Thank you! —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 01:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @F3ndot: Welcome to the Teahouse!

The first thing would be to ensure that the replacement image is appropriately licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 License free use terms by the legitimate copyright holder.

If it is, then you can either be BOLD and make the change and see if anyone dissents. If they do, start a discussion on the talk page. Or you can start a discussion on the talk page and if no one objects, make the change. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Trouble With Citations

I am a student editor, and I was trying to add some citations to The Mask Of Agamemnon for a school project. I was getting by mostly through trial and error, and I made an error that I think pasted the last half of the Wikipedia article on The Mask, and also a photo link, into the description of the reference I was citing. I saved this erroneous change in a way that I don't know how to undo, because I was hunting and pecking and I don't know what the wikipedia equivalent of ctrl+z is after you save a change. Next time I will play around more in my sandbox than on an actual article, but this time I have made a poor edit that I don't know how to fix. How do I put the article back the way it was?

Achurn333 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, @Achurn333:! welcome to the Teahouse!

On Wikipedia, the equivalent of a control z is to go to the History tab, find the line of the edit that includes the mistake, and select "undo" and save the restored version. and dont worry, you cannot permanently break anything! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

this page Help:Diff gives more information about how to navigate through the edit history, which would probably be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Justify paragraphs

In preferences-gadget tab, there is a part "justify paragraphs". After checking and unchecking i didn't find any difference to an article's paragraphs. NewMutants (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Works for me - using W7 IE11 and Vector skin - I'm not sure if it works on all skins - it may be worth trying to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache - Arjayay (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It works in all four skins for me in Firefox. It's ignored in the mobile version. @NewMutants: What is your browser? And just to be sure, do you know it should make an even right margin? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Chrome.NewMutants (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@NewMutants: It works for me in Google Chrome 45.0.2454.101 on Windows Vista. Can you enable it again, wiew an article you haven't seen before, and confirm that you don't see an even right margin? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: No not seeing any difference. If this is very ordinary gadget, I must ignore it. I have Windows 8. NewMutants (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

edit page with right info for the distance of mars from earth

if distance of mars from sun is (1) 227,900,000 km, and distance of mars from earth is (2) 225,300,000 km, then how can be distance of earth from sun be (3) 149,600,000 km. it should be 2,600,000km according to above data in (1) & (2) which is obviously a very short distance. kindly edit the pages with the right information115.111.227.210 (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Mars and Earth are both rotating around the sun. You'll find details at Orbit of Mars. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the distance between Mars and Earth varies between around 55 and 401 million km during their orbits. The average distance is about 225 million km. If a Wikipedia article is unclear about this then please name the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help me add information to existing article

Hi! Can anybody add information about Commander One to following articles

Comparison of file managers Comparison of FTP client software

Commander One page here Commander One

Thanks! DashaG11 (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to refer to a Wikipedia page, rather than using URLs as in your question, better to use wikilinks like Comparison of file managers, Comparison of FTP client software, and Commander One. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Rider over Article

Hello Editors I recently saw two riders over my article on Carey (surname). The first which said my introductory paragraph didn't cover the points in the article I objected to as it does a perfectly succinct job, given the nature of the onomastics. That has now gone.

The second, stating that the article is too long to navigate and suggesting splitting into smaller articles, condensing or adding or removing subheadings (both?), I have responded to by condensing the information and adding subheadings. It's much shorter now, but short of excluding essential information However, it's still there.Patrick FitzGerald (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Patrick FitzGerald: and welcome to the Teahouse!

As a starting point, it is probably best to reframe your approach from "my article" to "the Wikipedia article that I have been working on - and that other people will edit and re-edit".

As far as length, the article as it currently stands is still REALLY long. When articles get too long, it is can be a good idea to leave a summary overview of the sub-topic, and spin out a child article that explores the sub-topic in a more detailed manner.

As for the introduction, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so has conventions for presenting information. For substantial articles, it will have a lead sentence that encapsulates the basics of the topic, and then a lead section which summarises the main points of the article. When an introduction / lead section says "There are 9 facets" , the article should then have 9 sections - one dealing with each of the facets. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Word not listed

I notice the word Civic Entrepreneur is not listed, despite many academic publications and books on this topic. Is it hard to add plz? Thnx! 2602:301:77C6:D250:E99F:C056:902C:395A (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia covers the subject under the article Social entrepreneurship, which seems to be a synonym of "civic entrepreneurship". If there is information which needs to be added to the article, feel free to do so. I am also adding redirects from the relevant terms, because of this connection. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! --Jayron32 16:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, 2602:301:77C6:D250:E99F:C056:902C:395A. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Do you think there is enough published by independent, reliable sources about this term to have an actual, useful article about it? See the Golden Rule and Your First Article for the relevant standards. If you do, you could use the article wizard and the articles for creation process to start such an article. DES ^(talk) 16:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't a redirect from Civic Entrepreneur (with a capital E) to Social entrepreneurship, yet, which was the specific title the IP user at 2602:301:77C6:D250:E99F:C056:902C:395A asked about. I'll fix that momentarily. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello Teahouse, Fritzmann again. I was wondering how to create a redirect or an alternate name for an article. If anyone could give me a brief synopsis on how to do this I would be very appreciative. Fritzmann2002 15:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzmann2002 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Fritzmann2002, and welcome to the Teahouse. For details, see Wikipedia:Redirect. The short form is that you create a page whose content is #REDIRECT [[Target]]. This will make that page a redirect to the target page. (Replace "Target" by the exact name of the desired destination page, and leave off the nowiki and code tags). You can also include categories and templates such as {{R from initialism}} where appropriate, but they are not required. (It used to be required, years ago, that "REDIRECT" be all upper case, but I don't think it is any more.) Redirects from pages in article space should normally go only to articles, not to Wikipedia: pages, or Draft: pages, or Talk: pages, or other non-article pages. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much DESiegel! This was very helpful!

Fritzmann2002 19:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

How to correct "mark for deletion"

Hi Teahouse,

I'm new to Wikipedia and recently posted an article. The article has been flagged for deletion, but I don't know why so I don't know how to fix it. Can you offer some help?

Thank you!

Publichealthnerd (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Publichealthnerd, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are referring to the article Brendan Miles. It has been nominated for deletion, and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Miles. The main suggested reason for deletion is lack of notability. What you need to do is find and supply independent reliable sources that have written about Brendan Miles. This means not things that Miles has written, not blogs or one-person web sites. It also means not directory entries or other places where he is mentioned but there is no significant content about him. It also means things not from his partners, business affiliates, family members, or other close associates. Newspaper and magazine articles would be good, as would be books from reputable publishers, or web sites with comparable quality of editorial supervision, such as some online magazines have. Once you have such sources, they need to be included in the article (see Referencing for Beginners for the needed formats) or if you find that hard, list them at Talk:Brendan Miles. Once they (or even some of them) are listed, add a note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Miles indicating the sources that you have found. Also, I suggest that you read the golden rule of article basics. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 18:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Publichealthnerd, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would add to DES's excellent advice that the kind of sources you're looking for to establish notability would be something like this article about another politician with the same name in Connecticut, USA. Articles which simply mention (Canadian) Brendan Miles in passing while talking primarily about another topic are insufficient. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DES and GrammarFascist! Publichealthnerd (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Publichealthnerd, I have also nominated Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures for deletion, out of a similar concern about notability. If you have any sources that demonstrate that the study is notable, I would be happy to hear about them, but I haven't been able to find much independent coverage of the study. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I need help getting my page approved.

Hi, I need help with my page, but not sure where to go. Any ideas? 108.38.131.129 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You're in the right place to ask for advice, but it would help if you could tell us which article you need help with. The comment you have just made is the only one that has been made from your current IP address, so I presume that you are currently logged out from your account? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP, so the requester may not understand that we can't trace their previous edits. - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is the entry for ZendyHealth, but it is in draft mode. I really have no idea how to navigate here, since I'm not familiar with this format. RonjiniJoshua (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the location of the post (I think) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RonjiniJoshua/sandbox/ZendyHealth RonjiniJoshua (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RonjiniJoshua, and welcome to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia).

I have taken a brief look at your draft. One problem with it is that the citations are not formatted correctly; you are not supposed to manually enter numbers enclosed in brackets like [1]. Instead, we use Wikipedia's built in citation software to tell it what the source being cited is, and where in the article it's being cited, and the result looks something like ^[1] (though that isn't a real citation). The easiest way to do this is to put your cursor after the statement of fact that needs a source citation, then click "Cite" in the blue bar at the top of the editing window, then click "Templates" in the second blue bar that appears, then click the appropriate template — "Cite web" is usually fine. This opens up a handy form that you can just fill in with the source URL (if online), title (required), author's name if given (click on the + if there's more than one author), date the source was published if given, and website name, then click the icon next to "Access date" to fill that field in automatically.

You should also make sure that at least three sources are cited that prove ZendyHealth is notable by Wikipedia's definition. My brief Googling shows that indeed it is, but that needs to be demonstrated by sources cited in the article itself.

If you have not already, you should also read Wikipedia's policies on paid editing and our guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest, in case they apply to you. While editors with a conflict of interest are not forbidden from creating or editing articles about themselves or their companies or organizations, they are discouraged from doing so. Uninvolved editors are often willing to step in and work on an article begun by someone with a conflict of interest, however; I myself have helped create a number of such articles. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have formatted one of the cited sources in User:RonjiniJoshua/sandbox/ZendyHealth as an example, RonjiniJoshua. Note however that this one (the Tech Crunch article) has only a brief one-sentence mention of the subject, so it is of little value to establish notability, and PRWEB is normally a source of press relases, which are not independent, and so are of no value at all in establishing notability, although they can be cited to support specific facts, if those facts are non-controversial. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist I am completely out of my element, would you be able to help me get this page up and running? RonjiniJoshua (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, RonjiniJoshua. Yes, I will give you some more assistance. You should see my first edits to the draft you created shortly. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits to the draft, RonjiniJoshua. You can see them at Draft:ZendyHealth. One of the things I did was change the phrasing in several places so that the article sounds less like an advertisement; promotional language is not allowed and the draft would have failed AfC (Articles for creation) review worded the way it was. I also separated the content into sections, formatted all the citations correctly and placed them within the article itself, and added another source and some content I found. I also marked where facts were asserted that I could not find proof of in the sources cited so far. The article could still stand to be improved substantially, but it stands some chance of passing review and being accepted as a Wikipedia article now. Feel free to ask for more help if you need it, bearing in mind that the more specific you are in your request, the easier it will be for us to help. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Query about status of Mercury Prize nominations

I registered with Wiki in order to edit a page where a Mercury Prize nomination for Album of the Year had been described as "...one of the Barclaycard Mercury Prize Albums of the Year", which I found misleading because the album had been shortlisted but hadn't won that award, but when I went to the Mercury Prize website to check the source I saw the following: "All of the 12 shortlisted artists receive a specially commissioned ‘Album of the Year’ trophy, with the overall winner also receiving a coveted winner trophy. " It still seems misleading to say that it was an "Album of the Year", but is it actually necessary to edit this to say "shortlisted for Album of the Year", or do you think they're within their rights to phrase it the way they do? Or does the phrasing need a slight tweak? If I were them I would be happy to use "shortlisted" as that's prestigious enough anyway.

Does anyone have any input on this?

Incidentally, the page needs other types of editing for neutrality, but I wasn't looking at that on this occasion.

(This is my first message here so please forgive me if I'm doing it wrong.) Gateteller (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gateteller, and welcome to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia). I think "shortlisted for Album of the Year" would be less missleading; even better might be "shortlisted for Album of the Year, and received a special 'Album of the Year' trophy awarded to all shortlisted nominees." Note that for technical reasons plain single quotation marks, 'like so', are preferred to the "curly quotes" that appear in the source where it says ‘Album of the Year’.

You should feel free to go ahead and make the edit whichever way you think best. One of Wikipedia's principles is to be bold. You're encouraged to make other edits you think would improve the article (or any other article) as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist, for the welcome and the help. Gateteller (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Gateteller. I saw you still hadn't edited the GoGo Penguin article, though, so I went ahead and did it. You could still help by adding the reference you found about the trophy, since the statement is currently unsourced. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia; I hope you stay around! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

new heading makes unwanted block quote

When I want to make a new section, I hit return twice, the use the ==new heading== markup. It works normally for a couple of sections. Then, repeating the same thing, it makes the heading, but puts the previous paragraph into a block quote. Why? How do I either get rid of the box or stop it from creating it in the first place.? the page is User:Eagledj/Kye Fleming. Thank youEagledj (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the block quote appearance is that you started the text of the paragraph with a space. The solution is to delete that space. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Help on deleted article

I have contributed an article Anupam (Politician) with various links as evidence but now it showing, article has been deleted. Kindly guide, what should I do? Shreeneth (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shreeneth. The article was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anupam (Politician), because it did not appear that the subject met Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. You have two options here. Firstly, you can try recreating the article as a draft, addressing this issues raised at the deletion discussion. If your new version shows that the topic is suitable for Wikipedia, you should be able to move it into mainspace, but be aware that if the problems are not fixed, it will just be deleted again. Your other option is to challenge the outcome of the discussion at Deletion Review, although the close appears to have been correct and I doubt that it would be overturned there. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How to edit a page?

Hi guys, I'm new here. Why when I edit the category and there always somebody delete it? Can you guys teach and guide me how to create a right and correct page? Thanks Luda88 (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luda88, stay well away from categories until you have a good understanding of how the system works, particularly in biographies where they can be a very thorny issue even for veteran editors. Rather edit article text; fix typos, improve grammar, etc. and engage in talk page discussions until you're more familiar with the Wikipedia environment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Luda88, part of the problem seems to be that you are categorising people by ethnicity, without providing a source for that ethnicity classification. I'd suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which states "the inclusion of people in an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability related category, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Marking page as Patrolled or not when using WP:PROD

Hi, when using WP:PROD (with Twinkle) on any unpatrolled article. The article doesn't automatically gets patrolled. So, should an editor "mark it as patrolled" manually or leave it. What is the standard procedure in these cases ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Peppy Paneer: My logic suggests that Twinkle could/should also mark this as patrolled. This is a question best asked on the Twinkle talk page, so please raise it there. With regard to manual marking, I think the answer is that you ought to mark it patrolled (whether using Twinkle or manually), but that it is of no earth shattering importance either way, Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi, Thank you for answer. I will put the question there. And when tagging page with CSD using Twinkle, the article gets automatically patrolled but not in the case of PROD. I too second your logic. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate tag for bio photo

Greetings~ I would like to upload a portrait photo of a subject whose bio page I was hired to write (my first wikipedia entry). My client is the owner of the photograph and the son of the subject. I definitely have permission to use the image however I'm unclear on which tag is the appropriate one to use as none of those listed seem applicable. The photo was probably taken in the 1960's. There is a credit stamped on the back of the print, so I searched the name of the photo studio and found nothing. It's highly likely that the photographer is gone from this life. I'd be most appreciative of advice on how to proceed. Thank you!Biowriterinpa (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Biowriterinpa, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the photograph was taken in or after 1964, it is probably still in copyright, particularly if it was never published. This is true even if the photographer has died. (If the photo was published without a copyright notice before the 1978 effective date of the US 1976 copyright act, it might be in the public domain.) It is in fact unlikely that the son of the subject owns the copyright of the photo, for this to be true he would need to have a written agreement with the original photographer specifying that the photo was a "work made for hire" or transferring the copyright to the subject (or possibly the son). This is unusual for ordinary personal portrait photos, but is often done if the photo was intended for professional use, for example to form part of an actor's portfolio. (I have a photo with such a contract, it was taken for publicity purposes for use in a political campaign.) In the absence of such a contract, permission would need to be obtained from the heir of the photographer, whoever that might be. This is a frustrating situation which the US Congress has declined to deal with althoguh it has been presented to them on several occasions. See http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ for some additional details.

Also, if you have been hired to create a Wikipedia article, you must disclose this in accord with our terms of use. Using {{paid}} is one way to so disclose. Please read our conflict of interest guideline. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate tag for bio photo_follow up

Thanks very much for your response, DES. The photo in question was surely published somewhere as that would be the primary reason portraits of the subject were taken. Finding the heir to the photographer would be a time consuming and likely unfruitful quest, so I will have to forego using the image. Regarding my compensation for improving the content and accuracy of the bio for the subject of the page, I have opened up an ethical can of worms without knowing it. To follow the proper procedure you explained in answer to my initial question, I've disclosed the source of compensation in the edit box, and now there are 2 unsightly warnings on the page, the first of which was already there when I began working on the page. How is a page evaluated to determine if it qualifies as being neutral? Also, I'm unclear on how or where {{paid}} would be placed to identify the page as such. Thank you again for your time. Biowriterinpa (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Biowriterinpa. As it says on https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

{{paid}} is designed for use on the user page. Its documentation says "For article talk pages, use {{Connected contributor (paid)}}." It also gives examples of how to use {{paid}}.

Yes it is possible for an experienced editor with no COI to review the article and remove the COI tag (notice) if s/he believes that the article does not violate WP:NPOV. This should probably not be done until you are done editing the article directly, and the citations are in a much better shape. The tag about needing additional citations can be removed as soon as there are in fact sufficient citations. Any editor may do this in good faith, but you would be well advised to ask some experienced editor to review and give an opinion about whether there are enough citations before removing it yourself. I hope that helps. DES ^(talk) 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thomas B. McCabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - just so we all know which article is being discussed...--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Afd nomination

Hi, can a withdrawal of Afd nomination be done under this - "the author states that he/she wants to work more on the article and need more than a week" ? For details, visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resources Development Administration (RDA). What is a go ahead in this case ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

One may withdraw for any sensible reason. My view is that this probably ought not to include the author's wishing to do more work. Under those circumstances I have noted that in the past and asked simply that the discussion be extended for a further period to allow work to complete. I have then left this in the hands of whoever might close the discussion at the due time. Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that one may not withdraw once someone has supported it. In reality people do withdraw. Articles can improve or the nominator may have mind change. So we need to be pragmatic, which is what WP:IAR is about. Fiddle Faddle 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi since there is not much scope for the subject to have a stand alone article in main space as basic research done by me and one more editor strongly supporting the Afd. So, I will left it to the closing administrator. And I was not aware of this rule - WP:IAR Thank you for letting me know. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of MicroAssist

Hi, I've created a article for MicroAssist. Unfortunately, the article didn't get approval. I used neutral wording and and cited from different sources including news. I've visited other companies' pages to see what they have and been accepted and revised mine several times. But still the content is marked as advertising. I don't know what I can do to edit the the content. Could you please help me with my content and give me more specific guideline on creating a wiki page for company?

Thanks. Jessicahuma (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessicahuma hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Draft:MicroAssist needs a lot of work. What we really want is to know not what the company says about themselves, but what others not connected with the company say about them. The history is a list, but it would be better as a story.

Some of your references could be better. At this stage, you don't want press releases. And there is not a reference for every fact. At the very least each paragraph of each line in the list would have one reference. There is also some promotional-sounding language such as "actively participating" and "engages".

You want to provide more details than just a list of the company's activities. And of course those should come from someplace other than the company's web site. Right now that's what the first part of the article looks like.

If there is well-sourced negative information about the company you should include that too.

The article is not being deleted, but it just can't appear in mainspace, as we call it, until these issues are fixed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)