Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 758

Archive 755

Archive 756

Archive 757

Archive 758

Archive 759

Archive 760

→

Archive 765

How to reference images from within article text?

I, and many others, frequently use Wikipedia from my mobile device. The display of a page is quite different on mobile vs pc. This is especially apparent for the placement of images. Although images are placed in the same section on both media, their relative position with respect to the text differs. Namely, figures float to the top of a section on the mobile site. This can be a problem when authors refer to a figure from the text. Since the "Figure 1" style reference structure is not common on Wikipedia, authors resort to "in the image to the right" or some such. However, "the image to the right" is not a good description, since the image appears in different locations depending on the viewing medium.

So, what is the style guide for referring to an image from within the text on the same page? Ihearthonduras (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ihearthonduras. The Wikipedia manual of style, specifically this section, recommends to avoid referring to images by location for exactly the reasons that you brought up. If possible, you can move the text that refers to the image out of the article text and into the caption text for the image. Is there a specific article you can point out that has this issue? If you need assistance, please provide a link to the article so that we can help you fix it up. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 16:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. The article that specifically brought this question to mind was Lagrangian_point#L4_and_L5. However, I think that the image reference from the text is useful. Frequently in complex mathematical topics, a figure is used to illustrate some point within the context of a much longer derivation or explanation, and neither the derivation nor the figure 'stand alone.' This is why, in scientific works, we use the pretty much universal "See Fig. X" type reference. The manual of style section that you refer to specifically discourages using directional references such as 'left/right', but does not give advice on how to make such a reference when it is really warranted. Of course, it also doesn't specifically disallow the use of 'Fig. X' type references, but, although I think they would fit in fine with more scientific articles, such a habit might inadvertently bleed over into the rest of the site. (pardon my pivot from question-mode to discussion-mode :) Ihearthonduras (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

New Movie Page

Hi, I just made a page for a new Punjabi movie Kande that is set to release worldwide on 11th May, 2018. However, within one day of posting the details, I received a message saying that the page has been reviewed and is in discussion for deletion. I do not understand. I did not post any copied material. All the details provided are true facts. Why? How do I let the reviewer know that the facts are true? Despite the fact that I have linked the IMDB page of the movie in the reference section of the page. Moreover, I could not even upload the theatrical release poster of the movie. The production house has released the movie poster online. How do I get a certificate for that? There are scores of other Punjabi movies that have a page on wikipedia and also their theatrical release poster in the infobox film template. For reference I am listing them here Sajjan Singh Rangroot, Disco Singh, Super Singh, Punjab 1984, Sardaar Ji, The Lion of Punjab and many more in the pipeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpit cyberframe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arpit cyberframe. The article now has only a single reference, to IMDb. Please be aware that IMDb is not considered a reliable source, except in very limited circumstances. Please read Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for more information. You need to summarize what reliable published sources say about this unreleased film. If these sources do not exist, then neither should the article. After the film is released, and if it is reviewed by multiple reliable sources, then an acceptable article can be written at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen. That really helps me a lot. Hope to find more references and save my first page on wikipedia from sinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpit cyberframe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, Arpit cyberframe, at least part of the plot seems to have been WP:COPYPASTED from imdb. Don't do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for your guidance. Updated the plot of the movie. That being said, why am I not allowed to update the movie poster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpit cyberframe (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You can upload the poster to Commons if you own the copyright, or you can upload it here to enwiki if you can provide an acceptable non-free use rationale. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

How to add a table?

How to add a table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastar ceo(Yung ceo) (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You can find out more about tables at Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1 and Help:Table. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting facts

I found some facts:

1. Most FA-class and GA-class biographies are about deceased people or aged living people. There are very few FA-class and GA-class biographys about young people. Why?
2. Only 10%-20% AFC submissions can be accepted. Why?

Omega68537 (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Welcome to the Teahouse, Omega68537. The answers to your questions are simple. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we rely on what the world's written about people. FA and GA class articles require, as a minimum, many such sources, and FA articles in particular a hundred or more citations. Except in the entertainment and sports fields, few young people have ever gained the attention of the world to the degree that (say) multiple critical biographies have been written about them, and I'd bet you that the overwhelming majority of FA/GA articles about living people younger than 40 are about singers, actors or athletes.

  As to your second question, you're not quite accurate. It's not that a low percentage of AfC drafts can be accepted. It's that not many are accepted. The vast majority of such articles are submitted by relative novices to Wikipedia, who find that creating new articles while unfamiliar with Wikipedia notability standards and formatting is a hard task, and often requires multiple attempts at it. Ravenswing 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @Omega68537 and Ravenswing:, you two might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Post-trial Research Report#Suggestions to the Wikimedia Foundation. Research found that only 1.2% of drafts are accepted. Not all of these are AfC submissions though, and there is extensive discussion about what the exact figure is here: Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Post-trial Research Report#It's great to see this report. But the headline number seems to be: 1.2% – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ravenswing: Thanks for your reply. Now I know that only highly notable people (Not just meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia)'s biographies can reach FA or GA class. That means the article Guan Xiaotong is likely to be a GA-class article, or at least, B-class article. Because Guan Xiaotong's popularity and notability are extremely high, and she has gained the attention of the world (I can find reliable sources even on Russian websites). In China, there are few people born after 1995 have higher popularity than Guan Xiaotong. So that it's possible to find many sources about her. But in fact, Guan Xiaotong is just a Start-class article. Right? Omega68537 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Omega68537: Actually, the quality scale has very little to do with the importance of the subject; it's an assessment of how comprehensive the article is. Some figures of monumental world importance have Start-class articles at best, while I know of two FA articles on ice hockey players for whom the term "insignificant journeyman" would be an accurate (if uncharitable) characterization of their careers. That Xiaotong's article is rated Start-class (I'd give it C-class, myself) is simply a matter of that no editors have put the time, passion and skill necessary into it to raise it to FA/GA. Ravenswing 16:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Ravenswing: Thanks for your reply. Your answer is good, but you may misunderstood my meaning. My meaning is, the article Guan Xiaotong is possible to reach GA-class when editors put enough time, passion and skill on it (because of the extremely high notability of the subject), while many biographies, such as Xu Geyang, are highly unlikely to reach GA-class because the subject is not very notable (as of now). The Baidu Encyclopedia's entry is a featured article of Baidu Encyclopedia which reachs Wikipedia's B-class article (or even GA-class article). Featured articles of Baidu Encyclopedia usually meets Wikipedia's B-class article, or higher. My question is, not all biographies are possible to reach FA/GA class, right?
        • Omega68537 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hey Omega68537. You've got things a little backward. GA/FA is about the quality of the article, not about the length of the article, or the number of sources in it. The answer to how long a GA/FA should be in sheer length is "long enough that it provides comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of the topic" and the answer to how many sources an article should have is "enough to support all the content in the article".

Many GA/FAs tend to be long and have many sources, because that's how much content it takes to cover the subject comprehensibly, and that's how many sources it takes to support it. They're not GA/FAs because they're written on the "most notable" topics. Notability (as an oversimplification) is essentially just a test, or a thought experiment to see if it is possible in principle to write a well sourced neutral article, given a perfect Wikipedia editor with unlimited time and access. Whether that article has in fact been written in a way that is well sourced and neutral, on the level of our most well sourced and most neutral articles on the entire project, is an issue of whether the article qualifies for FA or GA. GMG^talk 14:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Omega68537, yes. All FA class articles are about highly notable subject matter (as measured by the quantity of published, reliable original material on the subject). However, not all notable subjects have FA class articles. This should be seen as an opportunity for editors to expand these articles. Ihearthonduras (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Block on Page / Need Help

Hello, I am trying to assist Austin College and the Office of the President with updating their Wiki page and they cannot understand what the issue is with the submission. A COI is noted but the intern / student that is submitting on behalf of the College is working for the office of the president. Is the issue that an "employee" of the University needs to submit the application and not a student intern? They don't know which way to go with this so I am trying to interpret. The submission number and account is noted below. Please let me know how to direct them.

regards,

Stan Woodward Board of Trustees, Austin College (Annual Donor to Wikipedia as well)

Good Morning Stan, I am pasting the official correspondence from Wiki underneath this line. Presently, they recognize some of the Austin College pictures and assume copyright violations but everything in the page is directly from the college website and was approved by Lynn (office of President) before submission. Hopefully this won't be too much of an issue.

User talk:Ssalser16 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia March 2018[edit source] Copyright problem icon Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Information icon Hello, Ssalser16. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you: avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors; propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template); disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE); avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM); do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)​

Thank you, Sierra Public Affairs Student Intern Austin College | Office of the President 900 North Grand Avenue, Suite 61335| Sherman, TX 75090 www. austincollege.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan Woodward (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you go to the page User talk:Ssalser16, from which you have quoted the rendered version, you will see that there are many words or phrases in blue. These are wikilinks to further information which ought to answer your questions. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Note also that 3 accounts (subsequent to the earlier ACpublicaffairs) appear to have tried to make the same edit to the article, giving rise to suspicion of sock puppetry or meatpuppetry. You must also take note of the fact that any of you editing on behalf of your employer need to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite the reverse (to your thought that an employee is required to submit the changes), Stan Woodward. Of all people in the world, the employees, associates, and students of the College are the least appropriate to edit the article, because it is likely to be hard for them to edit it in a neutral fashion. Wikipedia has very little interest in anything that an organisation says about itself, or that its friends, associates, employees, etc say about it; and has no interest at all in how the organisation wishes to be portrayed. An article should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it (and if there is little such material, then there cannot really be an article).

You, or any of your staff, are welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page (declaring your conflict of interest), but it is up to uninvolved editors to decide what to do with your suggestions. Citations to published references will help your case, and to references wholly independent of the College will do so even more. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Stan Woodward: Please note that you cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. This is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, so all content must be licensed for that purpose. You can learn more about this policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Using video from Commons

I'm trying to include a video fron Wikipedia commons in the article The Jubalaires. I'm having trouble. The relevant video portion starts at 8:17. Is there a way to cue it up or clip the relevant portion? The bigger problem I'm having is including it with a caption. The "thumb" bit used for photos makes ot a still image. Thanks for any help / suggestions. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello FloridaArmy See Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Video_files for instructions. Vexations (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to add myself to Wikipedia...

I'm 65 years old and technology-challenged. Proof of my identity and accomplishments predates the Internet, but I do have tons of documentation about everything: my 25-year career as a forensic artist, the books I've authored, the original certificate from Forensic Artists International that can authenticate that I am internationally certified, newspaper clippings that show of some of my composite drawings, and my website (www.drawspace.com) which has tons of information about me along with over 400 art lessons I've authored...etc... Thank you to anyone who can help me with this frustrating Wikipedia adventure! :)Bhoddinott (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bhoddinott, and welcome to the Teahosue and to Wikipedia. Please do note that writing autobiography here is discouraged, because Wikipedia articles must be neutral and most people find it hard to be neutral about themselves or their own work. Moreover, facts in articles must be supported by published reliable sources, and personal memories do not count.

Beyond all this, articles must be about "notable" topics. This means that what certificates you hav earned or what books you have written do not matter so much as what others have written about you, including reviews of your work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Bhoddinott! Wow, you do like a challenge, don't you. To add to DESiegel's excellent advice, I took a look your website and your edithistory and googled a little. On g-books I found books by you, which, per the above, doesn't help us. Neither did I find anything on g-news that I think helps show notability in the WP-sense. Like DESiegel said, Wikipedia:Offline sources are perfectly fine, but everything mentioned above still applies. Please consider sticking around anyway and improve articles not about you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång and DESiegel, Thank you for your words of wisdom! I do love challenges! Obviously I have a lot to learn! Again! Thank you! Bhoddinott (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In short, unless people who are not you have written about you, at length, in publications that are not just local, i.e., your town's newspaper, not going to happen. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

How to change an article page title.

Hello, I'm brand new to creating a page in Wikipedia, though I've spent 6 years editing a mediwiki site for my previous work.

I created an article page draft called "Institute of Cognitive Science", and realized that it should be titled "Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Colorado Boulder". I submitted the draft for review and it is in the cue.

How do I change the article page title before it becomes a live page?

Thanks for your help, Yaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaz at UCB-ICS (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Yaz at UCB-ICS. A page name, in any namespace, is changed by moving it. Your account is not yet autoconfirmed so you cannot yet do this. i will move it on your behalf. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Yaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaz at UCB-ICS (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Draft:Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Yaz at UCB-ICS, if, as your username suggests you are affiliated with teh institute, do please read our guideline on conflict of interst and our policy on paid editing. Please make the required disclosures promptly. Disclosure is mandatory for paid editors. Please also consider carefully if the Institute meets our guideline on the notability of organizations and is fully notable.

Also, please in future sign talk page and discussion posts with four tildes (~~~~) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again DESiegel - I went and added disclosure statements to the Talk page and my User Page. Is that sufficient? I really appreciate your help. This is a whole new world, Wikipedia. I have re-read WP:N|notable and do believe we are. I got great feedback from another reviewer so will scrutinize the writing to remove anything remotely "promotional" or self-aggrandizing sounding, and focus on how to make it clear that what we do and what we contribute, contributes to the great good. Yaz at UCB-ICS (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Merely telling the world about your organization and its good work is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yaz at UCB-ICS, the best practice is to use {{paid}} on your user page, and {{connected contributor (paid)}} on the article talk page. Follow the links to the templates for what parameters to use. However, the manual disclosures you have already made should be sufficient.

It is not required that you make it clear that what we do and what we contribute, contributes to the great[er] good.. The Nazi Party is clearly notable, but is not generally considered to have been a force for good. What is essential is that you must show that others have written about the institute, in published reliable sources. Notability is never demonstrated by recounting what the subject has said or written, but how others have taken note of the subject by writing about it. Each source must cover the subject in some detail for it to help establish notability, and there should be several such sources, all independent of the Institute (or of whatever the article's subject is, in other cases). You need above all to make it clear who has written about the institute, and when and where. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel and 331dot, this is very helpful guidance. I'll keep working on it. This draft and approval system is valuable for this rather high learning-curve for me, and I am grateful for all your input.Yaz at UCB-ICS (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hello. I'm a new editor (joined 4 days ago) and would appreciate some advice. I was doing a minor edit on a Wikipedia article that had been marked as needing some work on references. It was quickly apparent that the article had been largely "lifted" from an acknowledged authority with whole paragraphs copied verbatim, with no attempt to acknowledge the source. My own view is that the extent of apparent plagiarism is such that the whole article should be deleted and re-written. 4 days in, however, a decision of that type is beyond my salary grade. Can one of you experienced editors advise me how to proceed? Allan Mungall (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:Plagiarism, but if you tell us which article then hopefully editors here can give you more specific advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David. The subject Wikipedia article is Tay Road Bridge. The non-acknowledged source is Allan Mungall (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Be careful with your links. Tay Road Bridge. is a red link; you presumably intended Tay Road Bridge? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks yet again - yes I meant the Blue one. I still have a lot to learn.  :-) Allan Mungall (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The offending paragraphs have now been removed. Many thanks. Allan Mungall (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Allan Mungall Thanks again for reporting this. However it turned out that the outside source copied us, not the reverse, this is often called a "backwards copyvio" here. I have restored the content, and put a template and a post indicating the situation on the article talk page. Please comment there if further work is needed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, DESiegel. Apologies for confusion. Allan Mungall (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

References for magazines/periodicals

ISBN references for magazines return invalid "Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN" in page. How to reference magazines/periodicals properly - Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aegir.heyerdhal (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aegir.heyerdhal. Magazines and other periodicals do not normally get ISBN numbers, which are for books. Magazines get ISSN numbers instead, which is a different system. Please read this Bowker webpage for more information. You can use the news citation template for general circulation magazines, or the journal citation template for academic magazines. Provide as much bibliographic information as you can.

According to our ISSN article, "An ISSN, unlike the ISBN code, is an anonymous identifier associated with a serial title, containing no information as to the publisher or its location." Also, there is no online search function for ISSN numbers. Therefore, they are much less useful to readers than ISBN numbers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Aegir.heyerdhal (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)aegir Thank you! I have used the Temple:Cite Magazine and this is what I need actually. Thank you!

SVG file displays a black silhouette

Hi all,

I've recently started playing around with Illustrator, and decided to create and upload a file for the coat of arms of Tepatitlan. However, the file isn't displaying correctly. If I click on "view original file (SVG)" it opens it correctly, but the preview page and the PNG previews all show a black outline instead.

Has anybody run into this problem/does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remaggio (talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escudo_de_Armas_de_Tepatitl%C3%A1n_de_Morelos.svg Maproom (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I did a Google search and found some info that using the trace function on certain software can cause problems, also "Save to web" can cause problems in Adobe. - X201 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Curator

How can I become a curator on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgedColtron (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JudgedColtron, welcome to Wikipedia and to our Teahouse. I'm guessing you're asking asking about Wikipedia:Page Curation (click this link for more details) in which trusted editors are given permissions to monitor and approve the live feed of new pages, around 700 or more of which are created every day, and quite a lot put forward for immediate deletion on various specific grounds. We expect a minimum skill level/competency to have be attained, and so the benchmark for requesting and being granted permission to help out with page curation is having 500 uncontested edits in the main body of Wikipedia (='mainspace') and having been active for at least 90 days. You do have a little way to go yet, but we're always keen to help and encourage new editors like you. Just keep actively editing, learning from questions asked here and elsewhere, or by any mistake you make as you go along (it happens to all of us at first). I hope this answers your question? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It does. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgedColtron (talk • contribs) 22:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Father's Wikipedia Page

My father has a Wikipedia page that needs to be updated since he passed away. I have no idea what his log-in was - is this something I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianne5436 (talk • contribs)

Do you know of any articles he created or edited? Deb (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean there's a Wikipedia article about him, (like Albert Einstein for example), that needs the details of his death adding to it? If so, what was his name? - X201 (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

​I think she means he is an editor that has passed. Any info about what articles he used to work on would probably get us there. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dianne5436: my condolences on your loss. Your father's log-in is irrelevant for getting access, as all accounts are required to be personal to individuals; but there are no pages anywhere on Wikipedia that can be edited only by one particular account. As the other replies have indicated, we're not sure exactly what you are asking. If your father was the subject of an article, the best thing to do is to put a note on the talk page associated with that article explaining that he has passed away, and (if possible) providing a link to a published obituary. If you put the template {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) somewhere in your posting, it will be put on a list of requests, and somebody will get around to editing the article to insert the information.

If your father was a Wikipedia editor, and you want to update his user page to show he is deceased, then you will need to find his account name somehow - as Insertcleverephrasehere said, knowing some articles he worked on might lead us to that. Then you can either edit the User page yourself, or similarly put a request on his User Talk page for somebody else to do so. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate, Dianne5436, but English Wikipedia does maintain this memorial listing of its editors who are known to have passed on. Their user pages can be protected or messages left in accordance with family wishes, if required. Please accept our condolences. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any legal action against editing the pages?

Hi sir,

     Will there be any legal action if found editing the pages inappropriately?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkiusa (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC) 

If you continue to make edits like these, you're likely to be banned from editing Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There will not be "legal action" unless you are breaking a law in your country with your edits; but as Maproom states inappropriate edits will lead to a Wikipedia administrator blocking you from editing. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Probably not, but deliberate and offensive vandalism has prompted legal action in the past, and should be avoided, especially as you seem to have a propensity for vandalism. - Stormy clouds (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikkiusa:. As 331dot points out above, editors here can land themselves in big trouble if they breach the laws of their country. You might be interested to read this recent blog post about two Greek Wikipedians who recently won a court case against them for their editing. Imagine what could have happened if they had not been acting in good faith and had not based their edits on Reliable Sources! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia?

Forgive me for asking - and then answering - my own question. But folks at the Teahouse might be interested (and surprised) by this recent blog post on that very subject from the Wikimedia Foundation. It says that across all language wikipedias, these are the most frequently cited references:

1. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification:  2,830,341 citations
2. Prediction of Hydrophobic (Lipophilic) Properties of Small Organic Molecules Using Fragment Methods: An Analysis of AlogP and CLogP Methods:  21,350 citations
3. The status, quality, and expansion of the NIH full-length cDNA project: the Mammalian Gene Collection (MGC):  20,247 citations
4. The de Vaucouleurs Atlas of Galaxies:  19,068 citations
5. The Complete New General Catalogue and Index Catalogues of Nebulae and Star Clusters by J. L. E. Dryer:  19,060 citations
6. Galaxies and How to Observe Them:  19,058 citations
7. A Concise History of Romania:  15,597 citations
8. Catalog of Fishes California Academy of Sciences:  11,980 citations,
9. Dictionary of Minor Planet Names:  10,651 citations
10. National and religious composition of the population of Croatia, 1880-1991: By settlements:  8,230 citations

Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds difficult to count. In the English Wikipedia, the string "New York Times" gives 219,946 article hits, "Los Angeles Times" 68,759, "Washington Post" 66,599, "Encyclopædia Britannica" 40,790, "2010 United States Census" 13,686. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I should perhaps have clarified - the blog post was only counting those articles using citations which referenced a unique identifier like a DOI or ISBN number etc, rather than a broader newspaper or general periodical. But interesting for all that. I note that commenters to the blogpost also picked up on issues like NYT. (I wonder if they found the handful of Wikipedia article that still link to the Daily Mail.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

View my deleted contribution/edit

Hi, I found the Xtools page and noticed a section called deleted edits and I can see that one of my edits was deleted entirely. I cannot view this? I understand that only admins can view deleted content but why can users not view their own deleted content?

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/c0n0r97

Is there any way I can reach out to someone with the appropriate permissions who can tell me what was deleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0n0r97 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello C0n0r97, and welcome to the Teahouse. You reverted a change to Dorothy the Dinosaur and Friends Video made by an IP editor. However, that entire article has been deleted via the proposed deletion process as not being notable. Therefore, all edits to the article are now deleted edits, including the edit where deletion was proposed. It is very common to have deleted edits, I have over 3,000 myself. our policy restricts display of deleted content to a limited number of users holding advanced permissions, such as Admins. There is no exception for a user viewing his or her own edits, this would add technical complexity and might be inappropriate in some cases. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and please in future sign your comments on talk and discussion pages like this one (not in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The software will convert this to a link to your user page, or your custom signature if you have specified one, plus a timestamp. Thank yiu. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you very much! C0n0r97 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright to remove maintenance tag from this article?

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

After multiple additions to fix the maintenance tag (mt) issue, the mt remains.

Tried to remove the mt, but looks like it may only be revised, instead of removed altogether.

Please advise.

Thank you.

PS: If alright to remove the mt, please feel free ("thank" forthcoming). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqiwiki (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I just did; it seemed to me that the article had ample inline cites. Ravenswing 01:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Skins and references

Hi folks -- is there a Wikipedia skin that will show material inside ref tags in a different colour than body text when editing? I often find it confusing to try to edit a big block o text when it's difficult to see which is which. Thanks!!! PaulCHebert (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi PaulCHebert, welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a skin but "Syntax highlighter" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets does this and more. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes - I'd thoroughly recommend it. Great for spotting if you've not paired a set of commands correctly, too. (Hadn't realised it had been rolled out from Beta testing) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"Wikitext syntax highlighting" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures is a different but similar feature. And then there is "wikEd" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets which is an editor and includes a third syntax highlighting feature. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, PrimeHunter. Didn't know that. Do you think it's worth switching over from the beta version of syntax highlighter (which I currently use)? Might give it a try, anyway. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have experience with either. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Dedicated and helpful communities FTW. PaulCHebert (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

How do I get an image to move where I want it to?

I can't get the image to go into its proper section, or to align to the left so that it fits within the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplemoonsong (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Purplemoonsong welcome to the Teahouse. I can see you've been working in an article which already has lots of images in various locations, so I'm going to assume you must have some very specific thing you want to achieve, rather than just copying the syntax used there. Might I suggest you check out two of our image-related help pages and see if they describe any of the scenarios you want? These are: Help:Pictures and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. If you then want to come back and describe in detail what you're still stuck with, we'll do our best to help if we can. Oh, and please remember to sign all your posts, as someone else suggested on your Talk Page recently. Just use four tildes (~) and its popped in automatically for you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I read the articles you sent me (thank you very much for them!), and I'm trying to figure out how to co-align two images horizontally. I put what I have done into my user sandbox. If you take a look at it, it's clear that it's not right: what am I doing wrong? Purplemoonsong (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Purplemoonsong Try this:

 {{multiple image
 | align = right
 | total_width = 400
 | image1 = Head Attributed to Arsinoe II MET DT10849.jpg
 | height1 = 
 | alt1 = alt text 1
 | link1 = 
 | caption1 = Head Attributed to Arsinoe II, depicted as an Egyptian divinity
 | image2 = Marble head of a Ptolemaic queen MET DP333700.jpg
 | height2 = 
 | alt2 = alt text 2
 | link2 = 
 | caption2  = Marble Head of a Ptolemaic Queen
 | footer = Footer spanning both images
}}

This renders as:

Head Attributed to Arsinoe II, depicted as an Egyptian divinity

Marble Head of a Ptolemaic Queen

Footer spanning both images

Vexations (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice - thanks, Vexations. Judging from their sandbox, I guess that's pretty much what Purplemoonsong was after. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Vexations! That's what I was trying to do! Purplemoonsong (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but your information is incorrect about the Officer Down Memorial Page . They were being dispersed back in the 1970 and 1980 by a different organization I have one and How can I prove it to you?

As above in subject. I recived the same badge by Guardian-Tactical.com in 1981 and other awardes in 1983 from the Police Hall of fame in florida and the state of Oklahoma The Police Medal of Honor, the Police Purple Heart and the Legion of Honor. this should be noted. as a lot of us received the badges prior to this group taking over and their NOT recognizing them. Once again the LORD saved me and thats why I am now a Ordained Minister with a Doctor of Divinity Degree. If you have a email address I can show proof. I dont know who is reading this . But a lot of Officer's families are being disserviced by this page. some one needs to do research before posting. The person sending mine stated that if I lived or died I deserve the badge for what I went though. I had a 35 year service. And proud of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by First Seargeant (talk • contribs) 05:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @First Seargeant: Good day. Welcome to Teahouse and thank you for your question above. First of all, we would like to let you know that we understand your intent and thank you for serving the country and keep the citizens safe.

I believe you are referring to this edit of Officer Down Memorial Page article in Wikipedia (believe you had edit with an IP address prior you registered in Wikipedia) which I have reverted due the content is "unsourced". Content in an article in Wikipedia needs to support with independent, reliable source, such as from reputable newspaper, to support the content claimed for verification. For any incidents happen (even it is true and you have personally eyewitnessed it), a source is still needed for the content to be added in. Once again thank you for your service as it is very much appreciated. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Officer Down Memorial Page is about the current organization of that name, not about other organizations named after Down. Maproom (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about original research

Hi! I am looking to add articles based on information that has been verified, referencing peer-reviewed articles from journals that are published and/or produced by ivy-league universities. However, these findings go against conventional wisdom due to the way knowledge has been produced and spread since the Enlightenment. And so, they risk being removed because they go against mainstream wisdom but I see them as fundamental to our understanding of the world. What is the best way to assure/prove the quality of the knowledge I put up and how can I engage discussion on the information before the article is removed by whoever does not agree? As you may know, scientific findings are based on hypotheses that are informed by the researchers' bias, and when the researcher assumes objectivity without acknowledging their bias or stating their stand-point, this damages the quality of the information in many ways. Today we have reached the point where there is a conflict between knowledge that has been shaped by Enlightenment thinkers' biases/presumptions, and knowledge produced by researchers of today that assume their subjectivity and historico-cultural context, and take a critical stance towards knowledge that calls itself "objective" but clearly does not reflect reality. This creates a snake-biting-its-tail situation where fact delegitimizes fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerresearch (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(Note, I have moved this question to a new section as it was previously appended wrongly to another section). Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 12:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Diggerresearch. I think you're making things a little more complicated than they need to be. Wikipedia doesn't really have an opinion on grand issues of post-Enlightenment epistemology. We just find what's in the most reliable sources available, and attempt to summarize that in articles. If there is clearly a consensus among reliable sources, and only a small minority diverges from that, we generally present the consensus view. If there is substantive disagreement among sources, then we present that disagreement.

We don't really make a judgement on whether the sources are wrong, but only whether the sources are generally reliable. If they are generally reliable, but in this instance wrong, then Wikipedia will generally be wrong also, until the sources correct themselves. GMG^talk 13:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Big help if you can give an example of an article you want to edit. And note that what Wikipedia refers to as 'original research' is unpublished information known by the editor, not information that has been published. You mention potential of article being removed. If these are existing articles and you are making changes, those might be reversed (reverted). The next step would be to open a discussion on the Talk page of that article. Remember to sign your name by type four of ~ . David notMD (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to explain that there can be a conflict of facts, where the 2 different editors have equally reliable sources saying opposing things, and asking what to do in such a situation, but you have explained that the most important thing is the reliability of sources and that if the information has been removed, you can open a discussion after it happens. I was hoping there was a way to notify the editor about any issues on the sources before removing what was edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerresearch (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

My quotations

Hi Recently I edited variety subjects. The references were from 'Naver encyclopedia'. I want to make sure that the 'Naver encyclopedia' is different from just 'Naver'. I know that the 'Naver' is just searching engine and do not have enough responsibility. However, the "Naver encyclopedia' that I used as quotations is a definitely different site with "Naver", and I strongly believe that it is kind of the Internet encyclopedia, like Wiki. Many people from other countries who have less understand about "Naver encyclopedia" are removing my edits and even warning me. I think the regulation about "Naver" should have some changes. ("Naver's encyclopedia" should be the exception in policy.) I want the feedback about my request as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.235.241.137 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If Naver Encyclopedia is, like Wikipedia, a work which anyone can edit, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source and should not be cited. Maproom (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

See also the answers already given at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 753#About citation as 'Naver". Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

... so the best procedure would be to use Naver to find the original source of the information, then cite that (assuming that it is a WP:Reliable source). Dbfirs 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom and Cordless Larry: Naver, like Google, is not just a search engine. Naver search links are not acceptable, just as google search links, but we allow Google Books links. Google doesn't have its own encyclopedia (through remember Knol?). Naver, however, does, and it is not a wiki, it seems to use experts or maybe it just aggregates and republishes other Korean online encyclopedias. Using Google Translate, I see for example an entry on panic disorder ([1]) sourced to "National Health Information Portal Medical Information http://health.cdc.go.kr/health/Main.do Author National Health Information Portal" and the entry on periodic table ([2]) sourced to "Current affairs dictionary Author pmg knowledge engine lab Provided by Park Moon-ang Theme See other books from http://www.pmg.co.kr". The links to http://terms.naver.com/ seem fine, as far as reliability / etc. and should be removed from the spamlist (or not added there, I am not sure what MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Naver exactly implies, ping User:Moxy). We need a more experienced Korean speaker to discuss this, but I think the complaint here has merit. Ping User:-revi. PS. Sample edit reverted by User:Walter Görlitz because of the assumption that naver=spam: [3]. I am not saying such edits are necessarily correct, but they should not have been reverted because of the ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Currently on mobile but Naver hosts contents of encyclopedia (published in paper) with proper license. I’ll look into it within few hours. — regards, Revi 09:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Naver search result comes from Special:LinkSearch/https://search.naver.com, not Special:LinkSearch/http://terms.naver.com which is being discussed here. Take a closer look at the differences.
2. Naver Knowledge Encyclopedia, according to themselves, "provides encyclopedic and professional information about various subjects". They host "Legal Terms Encyclopedia" (ISBN 9788975353413), "Nutritional science Encyclopedia" (ISBN 9788976161666), "Excerpts from National Science Museum of Korea's DB", etc etc. Most of them are already published as a paper books, so they're reliable source, IMO.
3. They're displayed in "Knowledge Encyclopedia" section in search results.

HTH. CC: @Maproom, Cordless Larry, Dbfirs, Piotrus, Moxy, and Walter Görlitz

— regards, Revi 10:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the search results one sees on Naver are paid inclusions.--Moxy (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It might contain ads in search result, but so do Google search results contains ads in the search results. And it is not the case for terms.naver. If you want to blacklist them, block google books as well, since it's virtually same. (Digitizing books and providing them online.) I'm out. — regards, Revi 12:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: Naver being search engine does not mean they have other stuff. Naver have blog.naver.com, cafe.naver.com, news.naver.com, etc etc. Unless you're going to say all of them are paid... LOL. Also, that statement (paid inclusion stuff) needs citation. — regards, Revi 12:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Just need to look at reviews Google search.

Let's set this straight. Nobody is suggesting naver search results are reliable. However, articles featured in terms.naver.com, as revi noted, seem reliable, and are often reprints of other sources. While one could dispute them on a case by case basis, and ideally pipe/convert them to the original source, rather than link to naver reprints (re-hosts?) there is no reason to revert, blacklist, or treat them as spam. PS. Come to think of it, I wonder if terms.naver can mirror (Korean?) Wikipedia articles, User:-revi? (But even if it does, they do seem to attribute a source on the bottom, so editors can check whether a particular naver terms/encyclopedia page is reliable or not). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I can say they do not mirror Korean (or other language) Wikipedia in terms.naver.com, as far as I know. They appear on search.naver.com, of course. I am not willing to discuss with someone who cannot differentiate Naver Knowledge Encyclopedia and Naver Search. — regards, Revi 09:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)