Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 663

Archive 660

Archive 661

Archive 662

Archive 663

Archive 664

Archive 665

→

Archive 670

What requirements are needed to be able to new page patrol

I feel like helping out there would broaden my horizons as far as article editing goes, but I also know I'm not a particularly experienced editor. Can I help there or will I need to edit more until I become more experienced? LampGenie01 (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey LampGenie01. While volunteers are always needed at NPP, reviewing new pages often involves knowing how to apply a sometimes very complex set of policies and guidelines, and since you have only created one article so far, it seems that you probably should try to get some more experience before applying. But doing things like participating in articles for deletion discussion, and continuing to make articles that stick around for a long time are exactly the types of things you should be doing to get that type of experience. You're off to a good start, just probably need to keep going for a little while longer. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for your response. Apart from deletion discussions and article creation, is there anything else I can do to get experience? LampGenie01 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey LampGenie01. Sorry, I don't think your ping went through. You can always hang out at Special:RecentChanges, and try to spot new articles as they're made and work toward improving them. Besides that, it doesn't look like you've yet reached the 500 edit limit required to get the right in the first place though, and that's really a pretty bare minimum standard. So I guess the short and sweet of it is to just keep doing what you're doing and help us make the encyclopedia better. That's what NPP and everything else is for anyway. TimothyJosephWood 19:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Need external opinions to help move a dispute forward

Hello,

Looking for help with finding editors willing to look at a little dispute we are having over at Talk:Bvckup_2 page.

The situation is pretty basic: an editor made several edits, some of which were factually incorrect. Attempts to discuss these changes with the editor were without success. Most recent replies from the editor showed no desire to listen to the arguments nor to engage in a discussion. See the tail of the exchange starting with my reply from 08:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC).

I am thinking that we need someone else to look at the situation and weigh in. However I have no idea as to where to solicit this sort of help except for asking here. Hence this post.

Any guidance or help is much appreciated.

Thanks,
HelloVader (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey HelloVader. See Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. TimothyJosephWood 19:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading through Wikipedia:Third_opinion now... 46.126.209.18 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

gender symbols

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_symbol

Re: Unicode Name: "Male and female sign" - This is a representation of male and female inclusiveness. Not just Transgender, Trnassexual, Hermaphrodite. I've added "Female and Male" to the meaning previously and it was reverted. Why is that?

For context, Trans is typically represented by the Male with stroke sign. Which should also include "transsexual, hermaphrodite" under the meaning table which it is now.

Thank you.

Eyezure (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Eyezure. It looks like your edit was reverted because you did not include sources for where the information comes from. TimothyJosephWood 20:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Approval time

Hi

I have created a new page and I'd like to know how long it usually takes for edits or creations to go live? This is my first submission on WIKI so be gentle.

Thanks Andy Billquaymag (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Billquaymag, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article you created, 2017–18 South Shields F.C. season, is already "live". If you mean you want to know when it will show up in search engine results, it was decided earlier this year that new articles would have the <noindex> tag put on them for the first 90 days after they were created. I hope this answers your question; either way, you're welcome to return to the Teahouse anytime with further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new page for a music album

I have recently been editing and updating information for several albums in a Discography....see Matthews Southern Comfort (album) as one of them . How do I create a new page for other albums in that discography that don't currently exist using the same format as the existing one? Is there a template I can go to in order to create one....they all seem to follow the same format so I guess there is, but how do I find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldo1948 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC) (Moved to bottom of the page as it was skipped over and left unanswered.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Any template being used will be in the source text of the article, simply use the article as a template. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Need a bot replacement

I have a page at WikiProject Cornwall which is supposed to update automatically but has not done so since 2010. To be more precise, the page was updated by a bot called Wolterbot, which is no longer active. Is there a viable alternative? and if so could someone point out how to set it up. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: Accoring to User:WolterBot, it appears that User:CleanupWorklistBot is the replacement. RudolfRed (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Commons use?

I wanted to know how to add an image found in Wiki Commons to an article. Thank you. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrammerCracker96: Use double brackets with File: followed by the file name. For example: [[File:Siberian Husky pho.jpg]]. See WP:Image for guidelines on how and where to use images, along with how to specify parameters for thinks like a caption and size. RudolfRed (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi GrammerCracker96. The standard way to place an image (assuming you are not using an infobox) is to add: [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-Editing/ One on One help

Hello I'm new on wikipedia. I submitted my first contribution, I read all the guidelines, as expected, my contribution was deleted, what stinks is that I received the generic welcome email, but nothing that says what I did wrong, etc. Is there anyone or anything that can help me write it the way it should be? Specifics? I'm sure many people have asked this question. I truly appreciate any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.121.150 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor at IP address 71.52.121.150, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question above is the only edit you have made from this IP address; please either log in and post again, or, if you were editing from a different IP address, tell us the exact name of the article so we can look up why it was deleted. We hope to see you soon! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Page creation GB Leighton

Trying to create a page for GB Leighton a band from Minnesota Wmers5 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your attempt at Gb leighton is liable to be deleted, and you have received links on your user talk page to various pages with advice, including how to write your first article. It is wiser to get used to editing existing articles in Wikipedia and learning about its principles, rules, and practices before trying to write a new article from scratch. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How to download the image from other Wikipedias?

How to download the image from other Wikipedias?

Ewo-bolac (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC) (added section header) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ewo-bolac, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean other-language Wikipedias, such as es.wikipedia.org or zh.wikipedia.org, you can download images the same way as you would download images from the English Wikipedia: click on the image to bring up its description page, then select the size image you want, then save the image to your computer using ctrl-s or cmd-s, or by right-clicking and selecting save image (sorry, I don't know what the equivalent is on a Mac). If you're using a mobile device I'm afraid my advice won't help you either. In any case be sure to attribute the image wherever you use it — that's a condition of the license of most images on Wikipedias, and it's still polite to attribute images even if they're in the public domain. Hopefully I have answered your question; either way, feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Which license is recommended for this download? Ewo-bolac (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Capturing knowledge of an old algorithm

I've been involved in computing since about 1969. There's an old manual algorithm for the conversion between (it works in both directions) octal and decimal and is quite useful. It's on a par with the Double Dabble algorithm used to convert binary to BCD (which is documented on Wikipedia.) But so far, I think I'm the only living retainer of this algorithm and I think it's worth capturing.

The question I have is whether or not it is appropriate to capture it here.

As I understand things here, there must very solid references for anything added. Unfortunately, I've never seen a single paper on the topic and I seem to be the only person who knows about it and how it works.

An alternative, I suppose, would be to find a publication where this algorithm might be of interest. But given the changes in the computing industry, this is more like capturing arcane but interesting knowledge that has far less utility today. And I suspect that there aren't very many publications that would find it interesting for their readership. This is more about archiving knowledge for historical reasons than much else, today.

Would it be appropriate to consider preparing a detailed page on the topic here?

PS: The short-hand synopsis (I'd consider greatly expanding the discussion on a real page) is this:

CONVERSION OF DECIMAL TO OCTAL

 (0) Prefix the number with "0."  Be sure to include
     the radix point.  It's an important marker.

 (1) Double the value to the left side of the radix,
     using octal rules, move the radix point one digit
     rightward, and then place this doubled value
     underneath the current value so that the radix
     points align.

 (2) If the moved radix point crosses over a digit
     that is 8 or 9, convert it to 0 or 1 and add
     the carry to the next leftward digit of the
     current value.

 (3) Add octally those digits to the left of the radix
     and simply drop down those digits to the right,
     without modification.

 (4) If digits remain to the right of the radix, goto 1.

CONVERSION OF OCTAL TO DECIMAL

 (0) Prefix the number with "0."  Be sure to include
     the radix point.  It's an important marker.

 (1) Double the value to the left side of the radix,
     using decimal rules, move the radix point one digit
     rightward, and then place this doubled value
     underneath the current value so that the radix
     points align.

 (2) Subtract decimally those digits to the left of
     the radix and simply drop down those digits to
     the right, without modification.

 (3) If digits remain to the right of the radix, goto 1.

For example,

0.4 9 1 8        decimal value
 +0
---------
  4.9 1 8
 +1 0
 --------
  6 1.1 8
 +1 4 2
 --------
  7 5 3.8
 +1 7 2 6
 --------
1 1 4 6 6.       octal value

Let's convert it back:

0.1 1 4 6 6      octal value
 -0
-----------
  1.1 4 6 6
 -  2
 ----------
    9.4 6 6
 -  1 8
 ----------
    7 6.6 6
 -  1 5 2
 ----------
    6 1 4.6
 -  1 2 2 8
 ----------
    4 9 1 8.     decimal value

There's much more to write about it. But that provides enough detail that I think good opinion can be offered about whether or not the idea is appropriate for a page on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time. Jondkir (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jondkir. There's a couple of issues here. First, Wikipedia doesn't cover things that could be considered a how to guide. So for example we have articles on Paint by number and Drywall as things in themselves, but we don't have articles on how to paint by numbers or how to install or replace drywall.

Second, although experts are always welcome to contribute to Wikipedia within their fields, and they can and do often make huge differences in the quality of our coverage of certain (especially esoteric) topics, experts still have to follow the same rules as everyone else, namely that content on Wikipedia has to be cited to reliable published sources, and not based on the original research of editors themselves. If you can find sources that meet our guidelines for reliability and demonstrate that the subject meets our standards for notability, then you are more than welcome to create an article on it. But if those types of sources can't be found, and those types of standards met, then I'm afraid it is probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you've probably confirmed my own impressions. I suppose the reason I wanted to ask is because this algorithm is really about the same thing (my perspective) as the Double Dabble algorithm, which does have a Wikipedia page dedicated to it. (And about as useful, these days.) The only difference I can see is that Double Dabble has other references, while the algorithm I mentioned does not (so far as I'm aware, today.) But I also did do some reading here before posting and became very much aware of the need for solid references before creating an article. So this left me in a "chicken-egg" question, so to speak. Which I gather is resolved by the simple point you make, which are the standards regarding published sources and references and that original research isn't to be posted here, either. I think that's a good answer. I just needed to hear it. Thanks.Jondkir (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries Jondkir. Incidentally, you may want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. Seems like a group of folks you'd fit right in with, and certainly no shortage of work to be done. TimothyJosephWood 19:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm active in embedded programming related to measurement instrumentation (I'm a physicist-turned-engineer specializing in optical design and non-contact temperature measurement: pyrometry and phosphor thermometry; and have had some of my instruments used spanning from the Space Shuttle to brain research) and I've taught undergrad 2nd and 3rd year courses of CS at the largest 4yr university in my state. I'm not sure how I'd contribute (partly because of the steep learning curve I perceive and probably cannot afford) but I will take a look and I do appreciate the link.Jondkir (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jondkir. I encourage you to consider contributing to Wikipedia. The learning curve is not really that steep as long as you fully understand and humbly internalize that the role of a Wikipedia editor is to neutrally summarize what the best previously published reliable sources say about a topic. As for the octal to decimal conversion algorithm that you remember from the "old days", perhaps the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing might be a good place for you to submit an article about that topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if Wikiversity might be an appropriate place for your algorithm. I haven't checked their rules and policies. Dbfirs 07:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with warring

I am interested in putting truthful information on the "William M. Branham" page, like the revival meetings in Africa where thousands of people were healed at once, but some others want to put only negative information on the site and quickly delete anything I put there--even though I document it with newspaper references. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn, so I don't know how to deal with this. Also, someone deleted the word "halo" from where it told about the light that appeared over his head in a halo position in a photograph. On the talk pages I'm told that if I put the word back on it will be deleted again. All these things are well documented by historians and other sources. Is there a way to deal with this? Any helpful information will be appreciated. Danpeanuts (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2017Danpeanuts (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Danpeanuts. Well, if this edit is a good example, then your content is probably being removed because it is not supported by sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. It looks like there has been some lengthy attempts to discuss exactly that on the talk page. If they are well documented by reputable historians, and printed by reputable well-known publishers, then those are the sources you should be using, and not what are apparently online forums.

At the end of the day, Wikipedia is interested in verifiability and not "truth", and if something is true, but is not yet verifiable, then it will need to wait to be added to an article. TimothyJosephWood 13:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the quote from historian David Harrell: "But a shot taken of Rev. Branham, upon development showed a supernatural halo of light above his head". Nothing wrong with what he wrote, because that's similar to what most of the other books say too.

The problem we have here is that about 3 years ago I went to this site and all the information was correct. Since that time, if you will look at the references, you will notice that about 1/2 of them are from Weaver's book. Weaver is a Baptist theologian and he has negative opinions of Branham and even accuses him of being dishonest. Since there are now 2 opinions about Branham isn't there a way to put what they both wrote and give credit to Weaver for his negative opinions and Harrell and the other positive ones credit for what they wrote? I know that the only thing Wikipedia cares about is secondary books, whether they are true or not, that's why I am asking if there isn't a way to list opposing views. This page has drastically changed from positive to negative in recent years. Danpeanuts (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2017

References

Normally, when there are competing views in otherwise equally reliable sources, Wikipedia tries to present them as they are (e.g., Source 1 said this. Source two said that.) But if you can't reach a local consensus with other editors on the talk page, the usual next step is to follow the dispute resolution process, and try to get input from others who are uninvolved. TimothyJosephWood 14:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Hi, I have an article «Draft:Manuel González (guitarist)» that was declined for the following reason:

"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners."

However, I cannot see clearly where is the mistake. Would anyone help me with this matter?

It must be easy for an experienced user.

Thank you!

Thomas Tsaraiva (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It isn't immediately obvious to me why that reason was given for declining Draft:Manuel González (guitarist). I will ping the reviewer @Sulfurboy: in the hope that he can explain it to you. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's unclear. The article is lacking needed inline citations as stated in the decline. The article has points tagged where citations are needed done by another editor. When it comes to BLPs, we are very strict about all claims being cited. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So strict in deed that the bits should have been removed immediately instead of tagged. Note that the BLP policy applies to all namespaces, not just in the article space. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to add a country to the list on Rarbg, but I don't know how to

Bananador (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bananador. In order to add the information, you need to start with a reliable source for where the information comes from. TimothyJosephWood 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to write biography of living person, I concerned about rejection by wikipedia

I want to write biography of Dr. A.K. Dwivedi, He is a reputed homeopath in Indore, India, He also won Dhanvantari awards and chikitsa Ratna AWard. He also treated a renal stone of kidney successfully by homeopathic treatment. I am concerning about Wikipedia rejection please help so that I can publish this living person biography.Homoeoguru (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Homoeoguru and welcome to the Teahouse. The words "top", "modest" and "well-known" need references if they are to remain in the article. You might like to read WP:Biographies of living persons, and you will need to find independent WP:Reliable sources where the subject has been written about in detail. Dbfirs 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I have all references from same news sites, is it works ??Homoeoguru (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends what the news sites are, Homeoguru. Some are regarded as reliable for most purposes, some are unreliable for most purposes, and some are reliable in some areas and not in others. If you're unsure after reading the link Dbfirs gave you, please consult the reliable sources noticeboard. (You could search its archive first, and post a question if nothing relevant comes up). --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I should have advised you to create your article in draft space because your new article has now been deleted. Your references were fairly brief mentions which established that the subject exists, but not that he is notable in the Wikipedia sense. I know it is common in Indian English to miss out definite articles, but, to Western eyes, this practice diminishes the apparent status of the source. Are you able to find better sources in which the subject has been written about at length? Dbfirs 19:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

balance between summary of position & documentation

I am trying to write a brief article for average readers, while providing considerable documentation with quotations in footnotes for more serious readers. Can you recommend an acceptable balance (for example, would 50/50 article/footnote be too high for documentation)?

I know how to put footnotes in article, but am unclear how to put them in footnotes. Please advise.

Thank you.TBR-qed (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi TBR-qed. I don't understand your question. You say "I know how to put footnotes in article, but am unclear how to put them in footnotes. Please advise." That is seemingly a direct contradiction. Based on your first paragraph, did you mean to say "I know how to put footnotes in article, but am unclear how to put quotations in footnotes"? If you're using citation templates then the standard ones include a quote parameter, e.g., |quote=quotation text If you are not using a citation template, then anything you include between the <ref> ... </ref> tags will be included, so a quote will appear.

However, using quotes in footnotes is not very common, is usually done only for clarification purposes, and they need to be used judiciously. Please remember that only relatively short quotations are allowed at all, because long quotations may violate fair use. Your question does not indicate why you think quotations are needed at all, nor provide any context, and I also do not understand what you are asking about the balance to be struck.

That is, when you say "would 50/50 article/footnote be too high for documentation", I am just not clear what you mean. Are you asking whether the prose in the article's body would be properly balanced by use of quotations in the footnotes of approximately equal length to the prose length? (If so, the answer is likely no; far too much quoting, for purposes I cannot divine.) Can you clarify?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic Mystery

Extended content

My grammatical question is regarding one specific sentence (sorry if I am not asking in the right place, I am new to wiki) : To confirm your miles balance, just purchase and fly with Alitalia or the Partner Airlines to any destination and for any fare, between 25 May and 24 June 2017. What is confusing is that it seems to be an ambiguous phrase tree(?) Purchase and fly with .. it is two different verbs. Flying is the one tagged to the dates and purchase is the requirement.. Or am I wrong? Would you feel that means that the purchase also has to happen between 25 May and 24 June? I read it to mean purchase, and the dates relate to the travel and not the purchase. My thoughts are it was erroneously translated from Italian (we would say May 24th in USA) as this is alitalia. Below is the entire context: According to the terms and conditions, when no new miles have been earned under the Program over a period of 24 months, the miles in the account expire and are cancelled. But you are still in time to save them! To confirm your miles balance, just purchase and fly with Alitalia or the Partner Airlines to any destination and for any fare, between 25 May and 24 June 2017. Please help me !! I know it has something to do with linked or unlinked verbs (conjunctive verb, verb branch? ) ThePinkCats (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC) ThePinkCats ThePinkCats (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC) ThePinkCats, while Timothyjosephwood is correct that you asked your question in the wrong place, I am going to answer it for you. The word "from" is missing from the sentence in question; it should read To confirm your miles balance, just purchase from and fly with Alitalia or the Partner Airlines to any destination and for any fare, between 25 May and 24 June 2017. (And the day-first date format, e.g. 24 June instead of June 24th, is standard in most if not all of Europe.) I hope I have answered your question. In any case you are welcome to return to the Teahouse with any questions about editing Wikipedia you may have. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

ThePinkCats, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions related to editing Wikipedia. Since your question does not appear related to editing Wikipedia, this is indeed the wrong place. Further, posting this unrelated question in multiple places is bordering on disruptive. You would be well advised to stop. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation question

How do I add a citation for a fact from a reference (a journal) that is already listed as a reference?The steno pool (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The steno pool, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two ways to do this.

• First, you can use VisualEditor (click the Edit tab if you see both an Edit tab and an Edit source tab; if you don't see both, you may need to change your preferences to access VE). Position the cursor where the reference goes, then click Cite at the top of the editing window. In the popup that appears, click the Re-use tab, and select the reference you want from the list. That's it!
• Alternately, if you're editing in wikitext (or source) mode, you will need to have a name for the reference you want to duplicate. It may already have a name; it would look like <ref name="[name here]">[reference information here]</ref>. If it's not already named, just give it a descriptive name such as "Smith 2008-08-31". To then "call" that reference elsewhere on the page, use the format <ref name="[name here]"/> — note the placement of the /.

You may also want to read Help:Referencing for beginners. I hope this has answered your question; either way, feel free to return to the Teahouse anytime with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi The steno pool. The answer does depend on the type of citation markup being used in the article in question. Assuming the most common citation markup is in use though, <ref>...</ref> tags, then the first time the reference is used, provide an intuitive name for the cite, usually drawn from the name of the author, maybe coupled, with the year.

For example, if what you see in the article is:

<ref>{{cite book|last=Newton|first=Ian|title=The Speciation and Biogeography of Birds|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E33oSw6j8UsC&pg=PA93|year=2003|publisher=Gulf Professional Publishing|isbn=978-0-12-517375-9|page=93}}</ref>

You would give is a name like this (changes in red):

<ref name="Newton2003">{{cite book|last=Newton|first=Ian|title=The Speciation and Biogeography of Birds|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E33oSw6j8UsC&pg=PA93|year=2003|publisher=Gulf Professional Publishing|isbn=978-0-12-517375-9|page=93}}</ref>

Now, to use that cite again, you would simply type (note the closing slash (/)):

<ref name="Newton2003"/>

See more at WP:NAMEDREFS. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Logo Images & Copyright

I have recently created an article on behalf of a website (following all Conflict of Interest policies) and am wondering about uploading the website/company's logo. The website owner is the copyright holder so there wouldn't be any concern about violating any copyrights when uploading it. But what are Wikipedia's general guidelines on uploading your company's logo? Does that make the logo part of the public domain? Is there a specific Wikipedia Help page that deals with this issue? I've tried looking but can't seem to find anything.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Thanks! CeraWithaC (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi CeraWithaC. Typically you can upload a logo under the Wikipedia:Fair use rationale. It does not become public domain if you use it that way, but if you uploaded using the copyright holder's permission it probably would. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So let me see if I understand this correctly. If I upload the logo on behalf of the copyright holder, than it would become part of the public domain (or be released under a Creative Commons license)? But if I upload a logo as myself (not the copyright holder) then the logo's upload to Wikipedia is considered Fair Use and therefore would remain copyrighted? CeraWithaC (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey CeraWithaC. No disrespect to WAF, but the issue is actually a bit more complicated then that. The first thing is what logo you wish to upload. If you have a link to the file, please post it so I can see, and ping me by copy/pasting {{ping|Timothyjosephwood}}. TimothyJosephWood 23:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi CeraWithaC. Not quite. In order to use non-free content here, outside of fair use, it has to be explicitly released (irrevocably, to the world) into the public domain, or under a free copyright license that is compatible with the two free licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content. (Which, by the way, means that it is not correct that because the website owner approves, copyright would not be violated). Rather, the scheme you are thinking of (I think)—a one-time license for use here while retaining the non-free copyright, which is what you see and is fine at many other websites—cannot be used here at all—is simply immiscible with our copyright scheme. Meanwhile, generally, you cannot provide a second-hand release of the copyright anyway; the release has to come from the copyright owner directly, and in a verifiable manner.

That being said, we have a separate, strictly limited way that non-free content can be used, under a claim of fair use, which is detailed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Many, many types of images do not qualify. However, logos, uploaded at low resolution, often do. Doing so will have no affect on the copyright. But it's also a bit complicated, requiring that a tailored fair use rationale and a copyright license be placed on the upload. As Timothyjosephwood says, giving us the context will help. Is it the logo seen here? (warning to others—graphic content)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello CeraWithaC. Another issue is that the "Crime Scene" logo may not be eligible for copyright protection. It consists of a generic sans serif font and simple geometric shapes, namely diagonal black and yellow stripes reminiscent of crime scene tape. If my assessment is correct (I am neither a lawyer nor a copyright expert), then the logo can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without permission from the Crime Scene website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture credits

Hi, my actual name is Caroline Joy Chang. I know you link the pictures I took to my username Cute Little Sweet Rainbow Stag Beetles. I would like to know why my actual name has been removed from the pictures. I am not being unappreciative for the help you have given me, so please do not take this as an offense. Thank you! :)

Sincerely, Cute Little Sweet Rainbow Stag Beetles Cute Little Sweet Rainbow Stag Beetles (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cute Little Sweet Rainbow Stag Beetles, the only pictures that I see you have uploaded were uploaded 31 August to Wikimedia Commons and show no revisions other than the upload. I do not understand your question. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I believe the credits removal referred to is this. Hi Caroline. The credit for images is at the image page. Such things are behind the scenes matters that detract from an article. It's really little different from not allowing editors to sign their additions to articles. The credit is in the page history. The article itself is for the subject of the article to be explored, and a third-party credit has nothing directly to do with the topic of the article. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Watermarks, credits, titles, and distortions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After examining your edit history I guess you refer to this removal of your name from image captions in an article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits says: "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article." Readers can click an image to see the file page, for example File:Prionus Laticollis with ovipositer extended laying eggs.jpg. File pages automatically show the username of the uploader. If you want your real name to be found then you have three options. 1) Write it manually on each file page at commons:Special:ListFiles/Cute Little Sweet Rainbow Stag Beetles. 2) Change your username to your real name. See Wikipedia:Changing username. 3) Create a user page stating your real name at User:Cute Little Sweet Rainbow Stag Beetles and maybe commons:User:Cute Little Sweet Rainbow Stag Beetles. Readers will have to click your username to see the user page. You can also create a global user page at meta:Special:MyPage. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cute Little Sweet Rainbow Stag Beetles. You can add "Photo by Caroline Joy Chang" to the file description page of your photos at Wikimedia Commons. I add "Photo by Jim Heaphy" to my uploads. However, it is not appropriate to add your name to the captions of your photos in Wikipedia articles. We do not credit photographers in captions unless the photographer is notable, we have a biography of that photographer, and identifying the photographer of a historic or notable image adds encyclopedic value to the reader. None of that is applies to either you or me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Profile is not Visible on Google

Hi This is manas Dubey, I do work in Bollywood Creative Designer, i love to contribute on Wikipedia creating editing articles, want to write about people who are not yet on Wikipedia n improve Profile, recently i created 2 profile on Wikipedia they are not visible on Google could someone help me or share the reason so can make the changes & improve them Manas dubey (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Manas dubey. Due to some recent changes, it takes 90 days for a new unreviewed Wikipedia article to be indexed by Google. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

How to redirect a honorific suffix?

Hey, today when i was working on the article of srinivasa ramanujan, who is the fellow of the royal society .I thought that i would add a honourific suffix which stated 'FRS' but i was unable to redirect it to the wiki page of fellow of the royal society but instead it was being redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRS. Thus i waned to know how could i redirct a suffix to the right page.Adithya harish pergade (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adithya harish pergade. What you need to do here is used a so-called piped link, which leaves the text "FRS" for the reader to see, but leads to "Fellow of the Royal Society". You put the title of the article first in the Wikilink, then a pipe symbol/vertical line | , and then the display text: [[Fellow of the Royal Society|FRS]]. Hope that makes sense. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What's the most common mistake of newbies (esp. those from cultural heritage institutions)?

I have a sense of what the answer is to this, I'd be curious what Teahouse editors think based on their encounters with newbies in Teahouse. Thanks for your reply! Monikasj (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Monikasj,and welcome to the Teahouse. I would call it a tie between jumping straight into creating a new article without any previous editing experience, and failing to find multiple independent, reliable sources for the topic of their new article as the first step in article creation — as opposed to something they think they'll get to eventually. Thank you for an interesting question; I'm also interested to see what other Teahouse volunteers have to say. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Monikasj. In a nutshell, it is the failure of many new editors to understand that an acceptable Wikipedia article neutrally summarizes what the range of reliable, independent sources say about a topic. New editors commonly try to insert their own personal knowledge and opinions into articles, along with extensive material written by the person or group that is the topic of the article. They have a hard time comprehending the emphasis that experienced editors place on truly independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is the assumption that the best, or only, way to contribute to Wikipedia is to create a new article. Attempting this while lacking the necessary skills then leads to other problems. See, for example, the three five threads below this one. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey there Teahousers GrammarFascist, Cullen328 and Maproom -- thanks for the quick responses! I appreciate these. And yep, it's right about what I thought it would be. Do let me know if there's anything else you think of. Full disclosure, I'm facilitating a Wikipedia + Libraries online training program that starts Sept. 13. So, in the course, we'll be carefully scaffolding the way that the participants (who are library staff interested in learning to edit/do outreach with Wikipedia) engage. Down the line (in six weeks-ish), I'd like to let them know that Teahouse will be a place they can go to ask questions after the course. What's the best way that I can share this with Teahouse editors -- that around 250+ new editors will be onboarding in the next three months? Monikasj (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Monikasj, glad to hear that you're running a training. The best place for messages about the Teahouse itself would be the page Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, a "behind the scenes" page of sorts for discussion about the Teahouse as a page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Howicus -- will do. Monikasj (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Monikasj. When I first read your reply, I was going to suggest that you contact the knowledgeable Merrilee Proffitt of the Online Computer Library Center, but then I looked at your user page, and noticed that you are a Wikipedian in Residence for the very same organization. I assume that you are working with her. I think that we can assure you that the Teahouse regulars are ready to handle an influx of intelligent questions about editing. Since librarians are very good at "looking things up", I suggest that you teach the technique of typing WP:KEYWORD into the search box, substituting something logical about Wikipedia editing for "KEYWORD". I want to ping two active Wikipedia administrators who are librarians: DGG and LadyofShalott. Perhaps they may have comments as well. I wish you the very best with your training program. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

new editors commonly need guidance in determining an appropriate topic. often they will pick out what they are interested in without regard to whether it is easy to reference, but librarians can be expected to realize this intuitively-- regardless of the type of library, advising students on term paper topics is a considerable part of our jobs. All new editors connectedwith academic classes often pick too narrow a topic--a case study often makes avery appropriate academic paper, but rarely an acceptable WP article. Everyone connected with academic or any other organization often tries to write topics connected with their own organization, and this is rarely a good idea until they've edited enough to have a sense of proportion and an understanding of NPOV. Librarians at WP tend to want to work on library related topics, but I like others soon realized that much of what librarians consider important is considered trivial by Wikipedians in general--in particular it is difficult to support bios of librarians except for the most famous. People connected with the social sciences find it difficult to avoid using jargon, which is relatively accepted in some social science fields but much less so here. In summary, for all new editors, I think it important they they consult on the topic before starting--it is important to havea good first experience. I can't resist giving m:Wikimedia New York City a mention--at NYC editathons we try to insist people check first, and consequntly have a very low rate of rejection. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Anybody know how to correct this?

Anybody know how to correct this? "An asado almost always includes meats, and usually..."? Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop, I see a couple of things that I might want to correct, but nothing too glaringly obvious. Can you be more specific? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out what this is supposed to be: {{{2}}}[[Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template|esembutidos]]. I could just remove it. But I'm wondering if there is some valid information in there that I may be discarding. Thanks for responding. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It was missing the pipe symbol after the language abbreviation. Sorry I didn't see that on first pass, it was pretty obvious once you pointed it out. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Bus stop (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Suddenly: failed attempts to log in to my account from a new device.

Since some days I get *many* messages either saying:

"There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password."

Or: "There has been a failed attempt to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password."

It started on en.wikipedia.org but now it went over to commons.wikimedia.org

Is it only me, or is that something general? Is there anything I can do except strengthening my password? Will it be adding to my problem that I openly asked about it? 123 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@123: Hello and welcome. If you want to prevent this message from appearing, there is an option to do so in your Preferences. Click "Preferences" in the top right corner of the computer screen, then click "Notifications". One entry in the list is "Failed login attempts" which you can change by unchecking the appropriate box. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

However, I would add that if you get this message frequently, you may want to strengthen your password as advised. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Such warnings are a new feature.[1] I'm not surprised you get it a lot with the username 123. People choosing something for testing are likely to pick 123 and you just haven't been told about it before. I suggest disabling it at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I trust that your password is not 456. Dbfirs 11:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Help required in drafting Wikipedia page

Hello, I am trying to draft a Wikipedia page for my band New Celeste. Can somebody help me find out how to reference historical details and prove notability? Iainmf (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Iainmf. Overall, in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a subject needs to have received sustained in depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Looking around a quick news search, it looks like there are very few times that the words New Celeste are used in that order at all, and none of them seem to be in reference to a band of any sort. It therefore seems doubtful that the subject would meet our standards for notability. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

One source that may help is http://theafterword.co.uk/new-celeste-a-perfect-sky/ . But one won't be enough, and I failed to find another. Maproom (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey TimothyJosephWood. If you put the words "New Celeste" into google, you will find many references to my band? We were formed in 1975 and have recorded 7 albums in several different European countries over 6 decades. :-) Furthermore New Celeste is referenced on at least two other well known bands' Wikipedia pages - see Runrig (Formation and early years) and Wet Wet Wet (Background information and Formation and early years) Iainmf (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well Iainmf, I was specifically doing a news search and not just an open web search. If you simply google it, then the first page of things is pretty much social media and the official website, none of which count toward notability. But if the band has in fact been the subject of things like published reviews and other reputable media coverage, then it may meet notability, but you're going to have to definitively locate that kind of coverage in order to demonstrate that. TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that Timothyjosephwood‬ I can certainly find a few published reviews and other reputable media coverage, but how do I put those in the draft I'm preparing? I know how to link references to other Wikipedia pages using and but where and how do I reference published reviews and other reputable media coverage? Iainmf (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Iainmf (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC) I think I know how to address you now. :-) Iainmf (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Do I simply add a references section at the bottom of the draft and then add the references like this [[2]] and [[3]] Iainmf (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Iainmf. There are multiple ways to include references, but probably the easiest and most common is to use: <ref>REFERENCE HERE</ref> and {{reflist}} . So for example when you type this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref>

==References==
 {{reflist}}

What you get is something like this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."

References

Hopefully that helps. You may also want to check out our tutorial on referencing for beginners at WP:REFB. TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay excellent Timothyjosephwood many thanks for that, I shall get on with doing that this evening. You've been a great help and Maproom too Iainmf (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Still don't know how to send messages to your mailbox though. :-) Iainmf (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Iainmf, you can send a "ping" a few different ways, for example:

[[User:Timothyjosephwood]] - User:Timothyjosephwood

[[User:Timothyjosephwood|Timothyjosephwood]] - Timothyjosephwood

{{yo|Timothyjosephwood}} - @Timothyjosephwood:

{{ping|Timothyjosephwood}} - @Timothyjosephwood:

Your previous ping didn't work because you didn't preface it with User:. So it tried to point to an article named Timothyjosephwood. TimothyJosephWood 16:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Timothyjosephwood Okay excellent, now I know how to do that too. :-) 81.149.253.201 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Timothyjosephwood I've finished preparing a Draft:New Celeste which includes plenty references, can I send it to you for you to check? Iainmf (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well Iainmf, I can tell you one thing that jumps out right off the bat is that discogs is 100% not a reliable source, and notoriously so. So at least that bit needs to be replaced with better sourcing. Really the kinds of things you're looking for are things along the lines of reviews and such in industry publications. Generic websites can be useful, but there's many many many of them, and often the barrier to inclusion there is much lower than in a publication with editorial oversight.

Might be a good idea to look at our tutorial on writing your first article, or maybe look over some GA rated articles at Wikipedia:Good articles/Music (bands and musicians are at the bottom of that page). I have also taken the liberty of adding the Articles for Creation banner to your draft, so that when you think your done, you can submit it for review. I've added the draft to my watchlist, so I'll be around. TimothyJosephWood 14:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay Timothyjosephwood that's understood. What if I remove the Discog references, aren't there sufficient other references for this draft to succeed? Iainmf (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

...Ok, here goes:

1. Appears to be only film credits, and helps to establish the existence of the film, but doesn't really contribute to notability
2. discogs
3. discogs
4. discogs
5. Appears to be simply a track listing, which does not contribute to notability
6. WP:ROUTINE passing mention
7. Seems okay, but is still pretty brief
8. Extremely brief listing, still routine coverage
9. Not bad
10. discogs
11. Not bad
12. discogs
13. 90% is a press release, that doesn't count toward notability
14. Really just a routine track listing
15. Pretty good, fairly in depth and apparently independent, assuming I'm not missing something, like being based on a press release

All in all you have, somewhere around 3 sources that are kindof meh but still probably contribute to notability, one source that seems pretty good, and a lot of other sources that don't really contribute much of anything at all. So when you're looking at sources, you need to concentrate on quality over quantities. You're looking for in-depth coverage, not just passing mention or track listings. TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops. @Iainmf: TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay Timothyjosephwood in that case do you think I'd be better removing the discogs ones and the other ones that don't count towards notability (I only included them to prove we'd made those albums anyway) and that I should just leave in the reviews and other mentions you think are acceptable? I ought to point out that a lot of our earlier releases go back to days before the internet was invented and reviews from that period can't be found online now. Iainmf (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iainmf: There's nothing wrong with using offline sources as long as proper citations can be provided. Discogs is downright unreliable, and should be used at all. Other sources might be fine as a source for content, but that doesn't mean they contribute to notability. FOr notabiliyt, you need in-depth coverage. TimothyJosephWood 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help Timothyjosephwood just one more question for now! What counts as proper citations for offline sources? Can I take a photograph of press reviews I have here? Or the sleeve notes on our first album cover by Billy Connolly? And if so, how do I link to them? Iainmf (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iainmf: Well.. I suppose the whole point of a reference is to provide enough information that someone can verify where the information came from. At the very least this usually includes things like title, author, date and publisher. Just as a side note, I've seen people cite sleeve notes before, but these would not be considered independent of the subject, and so could be used for fairly uncontroversial information, but not controversial information or to demonstrate notability, since anybody can write anything in their own sleeve notes. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay Timothyjosephwood well I can try to supply the title, author, date and publisher of these older offline reviews then and replace the discogs and iTunes references with them. Billy Connolly is actually a very famous guy, we didn't write the sleeve notes for our album, he did. :-) Iainmf (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Even Billy Connolly, when writing the sleeve notes for an album, can't be considered independent of the band. Maproom (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)