Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 441

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 435

←

Archive 439

→

Inserting graphics

I need to put some figures into an article I am editing. How do I that? All I need is to be pointed to where I can find a paragraph or three on that; not a dissertation. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Retired Pchem Prof. There are no simple, brief answers to open ended questions on very complex topics. You need to tell us more. Do these graphics already exist? Did you create them? What is their copyright status? If they are your work, are you willing to freely license them for use by anyone for any purpose?

It is very easy to add freely licensed or copyright free graphics which have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons to any Wikipedia article.

If you provide more details, then perhaps we can provide a concise and tailored answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So there is no documentation on this? Really?Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: On the contrary, there are many pages of documentation on it, but you wanted a paragraph or three; so you probably don't want ALL the documentation. If you want a short answer, you need to give more information. —teb728 t c 05:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As an example of documentation that you may or not need: If the figures are not licensed under a free license, their use is severely restricted as described at Wikipedia:Non-free content. —teb728 t c 05:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Retired Pchem Prof. Looking about your user talk page, I guess this may be about File:Z Overview.png, in which case the answers to Cullen’s questions that you created it and uploaded it to Commons, licensing it under CC-BY-SA-4.0.

You said on your user talk page that you were having trouble editing the description. Please click here to be sure you are on the right page. Do you see the Wikimedia Commons logo at the upper left and your username at the center top? If so, you are logged in; so try editing the description.

You said also that you wanted to change the filename to something more descriptive. On the same page, do you see a More tab with a dropdown to Move? If so, click move for the Renaming a file dialog. —teb728 t c 06:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Retired Pchem Prof, inserting "prefabricated" diagrams and tables such as the one mentioned above is no different from adding normal pictures. A short and very easy guide on how to do this is Images for beginners. Hope this may help you, w.carter-Talk 07:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Carter(? I am editing, so I can't reaaly tell) for the helpful link. It is, at least in spirit, what I was looking for.

I now feel I must rant. This is probably the wrong place, but so far as I know there is no way to provide feedback. Wikipedia's official position seems to be that people are encouraged to become editors. But institutionally, Wikipedia provides new editors with an extremely unwelcoming environment. Note that I say "institutionally"; there appear to be many helpful and welcoming individuals here. But an institution is not just the sum of the individuals involved.

When I started, I found the "Wikipedia:Questions" page and clicked on several promising looking links hoping to find an overview. No such luck. Just a bunch of long documents that at first glance appeared rambling and overlapping. When I decided to just jump in and try editing, I noticed among the icons a question mark inside a circle. Ah, help. I clicked on it and got a message saying, in effect: "Duh. Read the documentation, stupid." Not even a link to where I might find that documentation. Where do I find a link to something like User:Yunshui/Images for beginners? Not in the links on the bottom of this page. Or so far as I can tell via Wikipedia:Questions. Or something like that on editing equations? Or managing messages (which appears to be damn near impossible)? On second thought "unwelcoming" may have been nice.

The only thing that makes this work is the kindness of strangers, of which there seems to be a great deal here. But surely they could get some institutional help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retired Pchem Prof (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Retired Pchem Prof. The trouble is that the "institution" is the editors - the same volunteers that do everything else (or a self-selected subset). You are not the only person, by any means, who would like to see the institution made more welcoming; the question is, what are you prepared to do about it? There are probably already pages where people are discussing this, but I would start at the WP:Village pump, which is a sort of community space. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why my article is discarded ?

I create my article for my company I give reference according to you as journal, news and scholor and also google book but why this thing is happen my article is discarded.Ayesha jaisinghani (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest here if you are writing about your own company, but the reason for declining the draft was that the references you provided were nearly all your own adverts and press releases. You need to find more Wikipedia:Reliable sources where your company has been written about independently. Dbfirs 11:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ayesha jaisinghani and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote an organization, person or point of view, therefore a page should not be created "for" a company. This is because Wikipedia needs to present content neutrally: stating facts without taking sides. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are sources which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as a national newspaper. These should also preferably be not directly connected to the subject: for example, a news reporter should only be writing about the business because it is newsworthy, not because of a connection he or she has to it in some way. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Put simply, Ayesha jaisinghani, Wikipedia has no interest in what your company - or any other subject - has to say about itself. It is only interested in what other people, unconnected with the company, have published about it. If there is significant independent material published about it, then we can have an article on it (though you are discouraged from writing it); but if not, then no article on the company will be acceptable, however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My Questions

Hi, I have an episode guide I want to keep private on my sandbox. Am I'm able to keep that private? TheFinaleAccount3 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sandbox is readable by everyone – not that anyone is likely to show any interest in it. Maproom (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In a word, no. Anything you submit to Wikipedia is visible to the entire Internet, with almost no exceptions. If you don't want everyone to see it, don't put it on Wikipedia. You can create your own user sandbox here, and other users should generally not interfere with it unless it violates an official policy or somehow is causing a problem (prohibited content is still prohibited within personal pages), but everyone can still see it, and changes are advertised for the world to see. The only way to have a truly private sandbox is to install MediaWiki locally on your personal computer or your own private server. --Murph9000 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Review action

Hi, I'm unsure as to how the review action is carried out on new articles. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question? If so, we will try to answer it. Otherwise, read Articles for Creation. If you have a specific question, we will try to answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean wp:New page patrol or wp:page curation? Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon and Happysquirrel. What I meant was, the specific action of approving an article, rather than an edit, which appears in Special:Log/review. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The log you are referring to is the wp:pending changes log. From what I gather, pending changes is a special kind of protection where every edit needs to be approved by someone with special user rights before appearing. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

To mark a page as patrolled, click on the little "[Mark this page as patrolled.]" thing on the bottom right of a new page. Before you do this, you should be certain you understand Wikipedia's policies, such as deletion, biographical articles, and copyright violations. The autopatrolled user right bypasses new page patrol. New pages are usually patrolled in a timely manner, but niche/technical articles often take longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability impasse - What happens next?

Apologies if I have sent this twice by mistake!

I have been working on an article (Draft:Gill Fielding) for some time and some editors are challenging the subject on notability grounds. Where do we go from here as I believe there is a strong case for notability and I think other reviewers would see my point?

Here is my position on the subject's notability based on the basic criteria: This says that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." Fielding has had non-trivial articles written about her in two (and arguably three) national UK non-tabloid newspapers. The Sunday Times and Telegraph are considered upper market newspapers - hence reliable - while the Daily Express (which has run two articles on Fielding) is described as a middle market newspaper (defined as 'the halfway point of a three-level continuum of journalistic seriousness; uppermarket newspapers generally cover hard news and down-market newspapers favor sensationalist stories.'). She has also featured as the central subject in a Channel 4 TV programme. Channel 4 is a publicly owned UK-wide TV channel. She also has a chapter written about her in an independent published book by Stephanie J. Hale.

In my mind, this only leaves the definition of 'significant' up for debate. I consider the above coverage to be significant yet some of those who have commented seem to disagree with me. How can we get this resolved? Thank you for your attention Neilho (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Sunday Times article says that she avoided her taxes (this is not mentioned in the draft) and appeared on a TV show. The Telegraph article confirms that she's worth £15,000,000. The Express article presents an interview with here, and is therefore not independent. I believe that all this does not constitute evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom for getting back to me. OK, I can mention that she flipped her properties to save on Capital Gains Tax - that would clearly improve the balance of the article. But as the Times is a secondary source which is reliable and independent of the subject, I hope you would agree that this article would still be evidence of the subject's notability. As for the Express articles (there are two), one is an interview while the other is a mixture of interview and editorial which contains researched facts to support the article. Are interviews not allowed? Citation No.6 on the Notability of people page defines independence as 'whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.' This adequately sums up the Express's position. The newspaper itself qualifies as an independent source as it has editorial independence and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain). I still stand by my original assertion that the subject is notable as a property developer and TV personality. How about the Hale book? Independent books from a respected publishing house are mentioned as a valid source for notability and this one has a full chapter on the subject. What is the next step to move this process forwards do you think?

109.150.25.155 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The "next step" should be one of three things: (1) you add another, better, reference or two, and resubmit; (2) you somehow persuade a reviewer that the references already in the draft are in fact adequate; (3) you accept that adequate evidence of notability cannot be found, and abandon the draft (which will then be deleted in six months, I think). Maproom (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom. As you can probably guess I will try (2) for now (I do have more references, for example a newspaper article from last week, but again it's mainly an interview and it's a regional newspaper). If this is the accepted way of doing things then could I please ask for a reviewer who does accept that I have provided sufficient evidence for notability to respond next. I would work with him or her to iron out any remaining issues with neutrality. Even if the subject only merits a stub at this stage I still do believe notability has been established due to the mainstream sources mentioned above (national newspapers, national TV coverage and chapter in a published book from a reputable publisher) combined with the multiple non-trivial articles in local newspapers and magazines I have also put in.

Neilho (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your boldface request seems like a defendant asking to be tried by a judge who already believes he is innocent. But I can't blame you for asking. Maproom (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be nice Maproom :) However, I would prefer there to be a jury to consider the case. If my only course of action is to find a sympathetic judge, then I will go that route for now.

Neilho (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Q2

Hi, I want to know will someone expose my sandbox? Cause i'm trying to make my homemade episode guide. But I have to worry about who directed it and who wrote it and who viewed it. And I'm trying to come up with writers that wrote a show or an episode etc. But I could be copyrighting something. Could I be breaking the law on Wikipedia? GiftedTeen2014 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sandbox is here. It's empty at present. You should have a link to it at the top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in. You shouldn't put copyright material there, so don't copy text directly from the internet, but you can put your list of writers there. I'm not sure whether this answers your question. Did you mean something else? Dbfirs 19:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

hello Teahouse

is there a way to decipher from the useful edits you have made, what they where as from the edits that where made needlessly. I know there is what some users have is an edit count which I'm guessing is what it basically does? but I for some reason am unable to access that. is there another way to gain that information? Hot Pork Pie 20:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Hot Pork Pie. You might be interested in these tools. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Cordless Larry: I'll give that a try. Best Regards. Hot Pork Pie 20:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Hot Pork Pie. Others might have further suggestions. Just to let you know, a ping only works if you sign the post at the same time as inserting the ping template - if you add or fix it later, you need to re-sign the post to activate the notification. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay @Cordless Larry: bear that in mind for future. Cheers. Hot Pork Pie 20:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Q2(Part II)

Can I put the viewers, writers, and directors on the homemade episode guide on wikipedia? like for an example, If I put writer: M.A Larson on my homemade episode guide or put the viewer percentage: 3.00 or even put Director: Jayson Thiessen on my homemade episode guide will it cause a problem? Or If I say that the fanmade series was on Cartoon Network since 2012 or write the fanmade charecters info down Will any of that cause a problem? GiftedTeen2014 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Very simple facts are generally not subject to copyright. So, simple stuff like "Thing was written by Fred Smith" should never be a problem, as long as you have a good faith belief that it is true and are not making any attempt to deceive or mislead. Long sentences, paragraphs, and longer texts are subject to copyright, and must not be reproduced on Wikipedia. Most audio and visual media has some form of copyright protection as well. If you are trying to create something new for Wikipedia, doing approximately the same thing that is done widely across Wikipedia should be quite safe, as long as you remember that all images and longer text is protected by copyright. There should be some guidelines or essays explaining copyright in more detail somewhere in the Wikipedia project pages. --Murph9000 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Plagiarism might help you to understand copyright a bit. --Murph9000 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Other editors have answered about copyright, but you did not say that copyright was your concern. One of the other fundamental things about Wikipedia is the need for verifiability, which means that you need to be able to support the material you add by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fair comment, David, good advice. I was answering in the extended context of the previous question from the same person, which seemed to be concerned with copyright issues. --Murph9000 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

VFD a redirect

What is the procedure to request deletion of redirects created by banned users which are only causing controversy? YuHuw (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @YuHuw: If the user used a sockpuppet to create the redirect, then it is eligible for speedy deletion as blocked/banned user. If the redirect was created before they were blocked/banned, then the process would be a deletion discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at a Page

Hi all, I am creating a page of someone who is notable in the Dominican Republic and active in U.S. politics. Can anyone look at it and let me know if it meets the requirements for notable persons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leo_Perez_Minaya

Azeremen12

Azeremen12 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Azeremen12 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles are required to use reliable sources: sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, such as a respected newspaper. Some third-party sources are also needed: sources which do not come from the subject of the article, or from a person or organization directly related to them; for example, a press release would not be considered third-party. A good starting point for finding sources is to look for some coverage in national newspapers.

Significant coverage in reliable sources is also required. This doesn't mean that a whole newspaper article, for example, needs to be written about Leo Perez Minaya, but he should not just be mentioned in passing.

I hope this helps, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I have tried to use publications, newspaper articles, as well as live interviews as sources, but the page gets declined. The issue is that this is all Dominican based. It seems that notability depends on media exposure, but how do you get around that when the media we're discussing isn't well known outside of the country it is in? Some of the interviews I have linked are with some of the top showtime hosts in the country, but no one outside the country would know that. So how do I get around or work with that?

By the way, I appreciate the experience as I would like to write more articles about individuals that are notable in their countries but perhaps do not have an international profile.

Azeremen12 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it's an issue that the sources are mainly Dominican, Azeremen12. In declining the draft, SwisterTwister explained: "Perhaps simply still not enough in-depth third-party sources overall". It therefore sounds that you need to find more significant coverage of the subject (as opposed to passing mentions in media sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry! You make a valid point! My next question is, can TV interviews of the subject be used to make up the bulk of the sources in the case that there might be too few direct mentions in published sources? Azeremen12 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Azeremen12. I'm afraid the answer is No. Interviews of the subject are not independent. So you can use them as a source for uncontroversial factual data (including of the form "XXXX said in an interview that .... "), but the bulk of the sources must be independent of the subject; and if there are not enough such independent sources, the subject fails notability, by definition. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

how can i put references into the article?

how can i put references into the article?Albaghdadia (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Albaghdadia, you can do this by using these tags: <ref></ref> on either end of a bare url and then running the Refill tool, or by using the cite templates on the edit window. Create a reflist at the bottom of the article by typing this: {{reflist}}. Hope that helped. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Albaghdadia, also you can look at Help:Referencing for beginners Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition to those excellent answers, Albaghdadia, if you prefer visual learning there is a short video on YouTube here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox error

The page Mustafizur Rahman has no "Career statistics" in infobox. It follows the same template, {{Infobox cricketer}} such as in Shakib Al Hasan. All the career statistics can be seen in the edit page but not on the main page. Please help! Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like I solved the proble myself! I added |columns=4 to display this. See my edit for better understanding. Sorry for wasting time! Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That was quick - just 8 minutes between asking the question, and saying it was fixed! BTW, thanks for reporting the solution, because a lot of people watch this page to learn about editing - so you never know how many people may have learned something from your question and answer.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Constructive dialogue

Hi, I am struggling to get other users involved in constructive dialogue over at Talk:Crimean Karaites#Hatnote. There is some sort of sudden objection to some wording in a a hatnote. I have tried sending thanks to some of the users involved, but so far no one is being forthcoming about their fears/concerns. Is there anywhere which provides tips or advice on how to generate better discussion? YuHuw (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@YuHuw: welcome and you were correct in taking your concerns to the talk page. That thread seems to have attracted considerable discussion since you posted earlier today. But if a similar case arises again you have a number of possibile courses. To attract more interest in an existing talk page discussion you can "notify" particular editors who've been involved with this or similar topics - the {{ping}} template I just used here is handy for this (but avoid "canvassing") - or go direct to their user talk pages. Or ask for participants on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, if the project still seems to be active. To take up the matter beyond the original talk page, there are Noticeboards that deal with particular areas of policy. Finally, if a discussion has taken place but without progress towards any agreement, a request for comment can be launched. Basically any form of discussion is better than "edit warring": Noyster (talk), 15:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy and try one of the procedures described there for content disputes, such as a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Q2 III (Last Question Part I)

So, can I put down. Directed by: Jayson Thiessen Written by: M.A Larson Or Viewers: 2.09 Network: Cartoon Network Without lying on all four of those when I'm making my homemade episode guide? Cause all I'm really doing is just testing it out. Because none of the info on my episode guide are real. I'm just testing it out. And the writers didn't wrote none of the episodes. I'm just pretending like they did. And no one knows what the show looks like because like I said. "It isn't real." So can I write my homemade episode guide now?GiftedTeen2014 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GiftedTeen2014. You can experiment with anything in your sandbox, as long as you are working in good faith to develop your personal skills as an encyclopedia editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is entirely a personal work of fiction, done as an editing experiment to develop skills, it will probably only ever be allowable as a personal page. One of the main things will be to avoid controversy, i.e. avoid doing something which is going to cause significant concern for other editors. A possible approach to that is to start out with full disclosure by placing a clear notice at the top of the page, something like the following:

{{Mbox|type=content|text=This is a personal editing experiment to develop skills.  The information is fictional, and not for publication in an encyclopaedia article.}}

This is a personal editing experiment to develop skills. The information is fictional, and not for publication in an encyclopaedia article.

Adding something like that basically removes or preempts the possibility of someone accusing you of trying to actually publish fake information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is normally all about accurate and verifiable real information on notable subjects, so you can hopefully understand why someone might become concerned about your page. It should also remove the possibility of another user mistakenly taking facts from your page to use on a real article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, so this advice is on the basis of a single small-ish personal page genuinely being used to develop editing skills. See also WP:FAKEARTICLE, which has some relevance to this discussion.

--Murph9000 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

One more thing just sprang to mind, it is also good practice to place {{User sandbox}} at the very top of your sandbox page, in addition to any other message boxes, so that it is clear to any visitors that the page is a personal sandbox. --Murph9000 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

GiftedTeen2014, I'm not sure if you are the same user as TheFinaleAccount3 but you should stick with one account and abandon the other. Except under certain circumstances, editors are limited to one user account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Matthew Waterson notable enough to warrant an article?

I was reading the page for The Witness and there was a link to a voice actor, Matthew Waterson. I want to know if I make an article about this person, would it be taken down because they are not notable enough? I've never written an article before but I'm interested in trying.

Connorstack (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Connorstack. The question is "Is there substantial material about him published in reliable places, and written by people unconnected with him?" If so, then he is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense), and a properly-written article about him would be acceptable. Please read your first article, and then I recommend you use the article wizard to create a draft in the draft space, where you can work on it (as long as you don't do anything really naughty like infringing copyright) until you're ready to submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk)

Q3 Last Question (Part II)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:AmericanWeekendPizza2013/sandbox is making me worried about if they'll delete my sandbox! They can't abolish my sandbox! I need it for testing my editing skills! AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

First, it was tagged for speedy deletion because you appear to be testing your editing skills, which appear to be pretty good, by creating fictional articles. That isn't related to the underlying purpose of the improvement of Wikipedia. Second, although anyone can contest a speedy deletion, the removal of a speedy deletion tag by the page's author is disruptive editing. If you want to prevent the deletion of your sandbox, one way to do that would be to blank it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Beginner's Manual

Are there any manual anywhere for users starting at zero - maybe even sub-zero? I am old, thinks slowly and English isn't my "native" language... signed "Sternococktail" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.128.135 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(I have given your question a title, so that it does not get confused with the previous question.)

You say "starting at zero" – but you don't say what you are hoping to do. Are you hoping to use Wikipedia, or to contribute to it? If you want to contribute, then in what way? Maproom (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are posting from an IP address in Sweden. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you might best be able to do so by finding articles that are in English Wikipedia but not in Swedish Wikipedia, or vice versa, and translating them. Maproom (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sternococktail and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several resources to help people get started with editing (assuming that is what you want to do): I like Wikipedia:Introduction, and this is where I suggest you start. There are plenty of links to more specific information at Help:Getting started. A good way to practice the skills is to work through "The Wikipedia Adventure". Other editors may have suggestions, but I don't want to overwhelm you; I hope this helps you to get started and you are always welcome to come back and ask questions here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual may be what you are looking for. —teb728 t c 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Reporting Hearsay

HI there, tricky one this. I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Noye, a well known British criminal. What struck me was that The murder of Stephen Cameron is misleading because it misses out on a rumour that is strongly believed by people in the law enforcement and legal communities. Basically that Stephen Cameron was not killed in a 'road rage' incident but in fact was murdered because he owed Kenneth Noye money, and I can't find a reputable source, rather just endless repetition in blog articles.

Some advice on this please. I think it's important Wikipedia be able to nail down stuff like this. Perhaps someone could recommend a way to find better sources.

Caveywavey46 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Caveywavey46. Any such assertion requires far stronger coverage in reliable sources than "hearsay" in blog posts. Our policy on biographies of living people is stringent, and everyone alive is covered by its restrictions, even convicted murderers. Unless you can find a far better source, the theory should be kept out of the article. Perhaps talk page discussion might lead to discovery of a better source. That talk page has been inactive since 2008. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, If I were to find a reputable source quoting this rumour as hearsay would it be acceptable for inclusion as a 'sourced hearsay/allegation/rumour'?

Caveywavey46 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caveywavey46: I would say that if a source reported a rumour, then by that fact it would not be a reliable source. —teb728 t c 03:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Energy (Rock Band)

I reviewed Draft: Energy (Rock Band) and declined it, saying that it did not appear that anything had been added to the draft after its last decline by User:RadioFan. User: Thablaqkgoat then posted the following inquiry to my talk page: “So I had made a minor change before resubmitting it, removing a videography section to the page as the sources were posted to YouTube by the band itself. That was the difference between the first time it was submitted and the time you reviewed it. But I'm still trying to understand how my sources aren't "reliable." I had this discussion with the previous reviewer and I got the impression that he was the wrong person for this particular type of artist, as he did not understand reputability within this genre. So my question is: how exactly can my sources not be reliable? They are all varied between multiple sites that are entirely independent of the artist (minus a couple that are there purely for referencing dates and proving existence.) One of them is Alternative Press, which is a well established and reliable print magazine and another is the very well known and reputable IGN. I have found many artists in similar genres with similar notability and they have Wikipedia pages with less sources from similar outlets. Just as well, they are listed or referenced on other pages here and the link redirects to the wrong artist (which I'm in the process of removing those links for accuracy.) I'd just really like to nail down this issue please. Thank you.”

I agree that Alternative Press is a reliable source. The sources in the draft are a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources. Can other experienced editors please advise as to whether the sources are reliable? If other experienced editors think that the sourcing is sufficient, either they or I can accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd really like to understand this a bit better! Thablaqkgoat (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thablaqkgoat. Please read our notability guideline for bands. Most of what I see are basic tour schedules, album release announcements, reprinted press releases, interviews and social media content. These do not establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. We are looking for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, not stuff generated by the band's publicity efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Alternative Press item is a very brief tour schedule, of the sort we call a "passing mention". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen. I've been a regular visitor and done a few edits every once and a while but I'm excited to get the hang of everything and become a little bit more involved.

The band had a full page ad in Alternative Press at one point as well, but I'm not sure how I would be able to reference that. So interviews and release announcements, though not posted personally by the bands, are counted as not notable because it is considered promotion by them? I just added a feature article from a Mass. based news website, would that count as independent? Thablaqkgoat (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Advertisements are most certainly not independent coverage, and so they contribute nothing to notability, Thablaqkgoat. It is the notability of the band that we are evaluating, which is the basic threshold for inclusion of an article about this topic in the encyclopedia. As for the sources, we are evaluating whether they are independent and reliable. Nothing generated by the band's PR efforts is independent. Sources need to have professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy to be reliable. Sources that simply parrot press releases are not considered reliable. What is the name of the Massachusetts news source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The publication is Wicked Local. Thablaqkgoat (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q3 Last Question (Part IV/Final Part)

What is the content?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello AmericanWeekendPizza2013. Your pattern of editing seems very similar to GiftedTeen2014. Are you possibly the same person? If so, please be aware that each user should in general use only one account, with very limited exceptions for security reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello AmericanWeekendPizza2013. I am going to guess that this question is a continuation of "Q3 Last Question (Part III)" below. (A note for next time: it would be easier if you had just continued that discussion rather than starting this new thread with no context, but I will make that assumption for now.) So the question is about how to blank the content of your sandbox. The steps to blank the page are:

Open your sandbox (User:AmericanWeekendPizza2013/sandbox)
Click the "Edit" tab, near the top right corner (if using a PC; on a mobile device click the icon that looks like a kind of pencil)
Select everything in the edit window underneath "", and delete it all
Save your changes.

That's it; the page should now be blank.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Inserting a logo into the Infobox

Hi,

I am currently struggling with learning how to: 1) Inserting a logo into the Infobox 2) Adding coordinates in the Infobox for a location

The page I am working on is 'Sula Vineyards' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Vineyards

I am new to wikipedia, and this is the first page I have edited. Could someone possibly help me out? Also can this be done without coding?

Thank you!

Finivino1000 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Finivino1000. For a logo you first need to upload it to Wikipedia; see WP:Logos. When it is uploaded, add the file name to the winery_logo parameter of the infobox. For the coordinates, add a coordinates = {{coord}} parameter to the infobox, filling in the coord parameters as described in the Template:coord documentation. —teb728 t c 21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finivino1000. I'm not familiar with the coordinate parameters, but it seems like teb728 did a good job above. To add an image to the infobox, upload or find an image (preferably an image under the Creative Commons) and put the image name (without "File:" next to winery_logo =.

It will look something like this when it's done: winery_logo = example.png. Ana r chyte 12:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Finivino1000: @Anarchyte: No, it is unlikely that Sula Vineyards’ lawyers will allow the logo to be licensed under a free license—even Wikipedia for all its commitment to free content does not free-license its logo. The logo should be tagged with {{non-free logo}}, and {{non-free use rationale logo}} should be used for a non-free use rationale (as outlined at WP:Logos#Uploading non-free logos). —teb728 t c 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help!

I managed to successfully insert the logo into the inforbox. I added the coordinates as well, however there is an error. Could someone please have a look at it and correct it, or let me know what I am doing wrong?

Thanks once again!

Finivino1000 (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

New Member Trying To Get Some Tips From An Experienced Member.

Hello, my Wikipedia name is FromAllAspects, currently I'm a new member of Wikipedia. I was wondering if I could get some tips on how to create/enhance articles. I recently created a article by the name "HSV GTO", which is an Australian Muscle Car that was made by Holden Special Vehicles between 2002 and 2006, but was called off as it lacked information (Didn't know how to create proper templates and other important pieces to make it worthy). I hope this isn't a stupid question, but a response would be excellent.

Kind regards, FromAllAspects 17/01/2016 FromAllAspects (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi FromAllAspects, no it's not a stupid question. You can read WP:Your first article for some tips. Also, a helpful way to make new articles is to create them in a sandbox or user subpage, because then you have an unlimited amount of time to perfect them. You can do this by typing User:FromAllAspects/HSV GTO (or whatever you want the title to be, after the slash) on your userpage and then clicking on the redlink. Whenever the article is ready, you can then move it to mainspace. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

However FromAllAspects, the HSV GTO (and other HSV models) already have coverage at Holden Monaro#HSV range (and HSV GTO redirects there). You should consider adding your content there instead of creating a new article. —teb728 t c 20:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I see now that there is a separate HSV article at Holden Special Vehicles. That would be an even better place to add content. —teb728 t c 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, White Arabian Filly and teb728 t c. I'll see if I can add some detailed information in the HSV section instead.

Kind regards, FromAllAspects 18/01/2016 FromAllAspects (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q5: Final Bonus

Am I'm allowed to create a new fictional episode guide after deleting the recent one?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Our purpose here on Wikipedia is to create and improve encyclopedia articles, not fictional content. Are you planning to work on encyclopedia articles, AmericanWeekendPizza2013? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as User:TheFinaleAccount3? We are puzzled about the purpose of your edits. If you are just practising the format of tables with the intention of doing genuine edits to real articles, then that's fine. If you think that Wikipedia pages (even in your own sandbox) are a form of free webhosting, then you are mistaken, and we regret to advise you that new fictional guides without any constructive purpose are likely to be deleted as fake articles. Dbfirs 07:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of "space" for duration of time

In the article Jacobite rising of 1745 (as well as others) "space in time" has been used to describe the duration of time. Some of the edits that I have made have been reverted based on the premise that the previous "sounds better". Space measures volume vs. time measures duration. A calendar takes up space but the time on it takes up duration. Now I understand that "space in time" has been used liberally but it seems that when the wrong use of word has been made that regardless of how it sounds the wrong use of a word persists. What is the policy of WP?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the relevant policy would be here, but "in/within a short space of time" is a well-established phrase. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Col. Saunders, I agree with Cordless Larry. Describing time in spatial terms is a major underlying metaphor in English and many other languages. Consider:

You have been called before this court... / I have to be there before ten.
Jill came tumbling after / Repeat after me.
I'll go on ahead / the days ahead
We're approaching the end of the year.
Christmas is coming.
a short time, a long time
This week has just whizzed by in a blur. / My days crawl by when you're away.

See Conceptual metaphor for further discussion.

--Thnidu (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your reference to my name offensive and I am certain that you would be the first to understand that you have absolutely no right to do so. It disrespects me, can on some levels be found to be derogatory and makes my name a mockery.

Space is measured by volume and time is measured by duration. The phrase to non-English speakers can be very confusing because it is not logical. I had always thought that its use was a sign that a person was either confused or just plain ignorant. If there is some special exception then for those that persist to use are justified to do so. What newspaper of record is willing to use it in their publication, and if they do is it only as a direct quote? What legal action has it within its text or does the profession regard its use merely for literary use. I would not regard WP as a literary pursuit. It is an act of encyclopedia that to a certain extent is a measurement of an absolute/definition of something. It is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Srednuas Lenoroc. You can find an example of "space of time" used in newspapers here and here, and there are plenty more if you search. "Space in time" is perhaps less common and it's harder to find examples, because searching for that throws up many results along the lines of "Tim Peake blasted off into space in time for Christmas". What is the context in which you have encountered "space in time"? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked Jacobite rising of 1745, and I see you've made two edits to it recently. The first one changed "red silk with a white space in the centre" to "red silk with a white period in the centre" and appears to have been made in error - "space" is clearly correct there, not "period", as the sentence is describing the design of a banner. The second changed "in so short a space of time" to "in so short a period of time". Both of those are correct, in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with both examples cited of "news" reporting is that one is a reader asking the question which the newspaper then poses to its readers. It is not a "news" story to be found on a front page. The second example is an op-ed piece contributed to the newspaper and not written by the newspaper staff. So again, where are there examples of a contemporary newspaper that has its reporters write original verse with a phases such as would use volume to describe duration--and it is not a direct quote? If it cannot be found in an example of legal actions such as an opinion/ruling or legislation then the inherent confusion to be found by the incompatible comparisons found within the phase. It may be fine and dandy for novels but not works that are used to establish credibility such as encyclopedias.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the writer of the letter wrote the headline of that article, Srednuas Lenoroc, but if you want more examples, there are thousands here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

An advice column is not of the same writing importance as a front page above the fold current events report. Novels make great reading but they are fiction. Wikipedia is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about a novel, but I have provided a link to a list of lots of newspaper articles that use the term, as you requested. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

All varieties of English use idiom and synonym which may be illogical and appear to be imprecise. "Short/long space of time", note the qualifiers should be included, is a widely used British English synonym and if even English use guides like Fowler's Modern English Usage use it (example - read the entry on Google) then it's use on Wikipedia isn't an issue to me. Perhaps it's a term that should be added to Wiktionary but and absence of definition there is not reason to eradicate it's usage across Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding here. I am not for an across-the-board eradication of the term at hand in WP; only its use as an original composed contribution to WP articles outside of a direct quote. Grammar exists to provide a logic that is not framed well with the phase at hand regardless as to how any "authorities" sustain it.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The first definition of space in the Oxford English Dictionary is "denoting time or duration". Its use for denoting area or volume while not a secondary definition is not the first listed. Yes, grammar does exist to provide a logic and in British English space as a measure of time is perfectly acceptable. While it might grate to the ears to some or seem illogical to others, it's an acceptable and logical form in any Wikipedia article where British English is the form of English used. Wikipedia isn't here to create an international form of English and the variations are accepted, even welcomed - see WP:ENGVAR. Nthep (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding, I am not advocating for universal British/American English, just a logical one.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Srednuas Lenoroc. You seem to be objecting to a particular use of language which several people have pointed out is a normal part of English (and other languages, incidentally). If you choose to avoid such expressions in text that you write, I doubt if anybody would even notice; but for you to go round removing it because you consider it illogical would probably be regarded as disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that due diligence be practiced so that since this discussion has what I thought ended there has not been any additional changes. Your apology accepted. As was previously stated, WP is not the place for innovation regardless as illogical is the English language. I do still hold the point that this "volume" vs. duration has its point except in creative writing and WP is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to your supporting statements; please do not take them away on my account. I am certain that there are others that might find them of interest. As they appeared following my comments I assume that the proper way of including them was not followed.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Increasing the sizes of images on wikipedia

Hi,

Does anyone know how to increase the size of an image on a wiki page? After uploading an image, it displays quite small on the page, and I don't understand exactly how I can go about increasing its size.

Thanks in advance!

Finivino1000 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have enlarged one of the images at Sula Vineyards for you, so that you can see how to do it. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Finivino1000. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for various methods of increasing image size. Keep in mind that readers can click on an image to see a larger version. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I finally figured it out!

Finivino1000 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finivino1000
Please note that WP:IMAGESIZE specifically states:-
"Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width."
The thumb parameter allows readers to choose the image size they want, not have a size forced on them. - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Students and teachers

Wikipedia is not a school/university. There are course online volunteers. They have students. There are student accounts also. Very strange. Do they get admission and also prepare for examination? Marvel Hero (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Marvel Hero. I believe the things you have noticed are part of the Wikipedia:Education program. Wikipedia is not a school/university, but provides resources to help educators/students use and effectively edit Wikipedia as part of education courses. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Marvel Hero and Welcome to the Teahouse! A good overview about Wikipedia:School and university projects which may be helpful. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q6: Extra

Can I please make my fictional episode guide now? I always wanted to make one since July 2015. I promise I wont break the law. It's only on my sandbox! Please? can I make one?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered the questions which you were asked at #Q5: Final Bonus. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete

How can I delete my former accounts? such as AmericanWeekwendPizza 2013, Gifted Teen, and GenoRobinsonWood, 2602:306:3A5D:D950:D058:3859:AD9E:7374 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't delete former accounts, but you can put a note on the user page that the account is no longer in use. Why do you keep creating new accounts? Dbfirs 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q9: Notice all Facts!!!

And y'all users will always be cool with me. Y'all always be cool. Wikipedia Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But the problem is the episode guide problem. So i love wikipeida.2602:306:3A5D:D950:D058:3859:AD9E:7374 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The fake episode guide List of Triton Henderson episodes should never have been created. Dbfirs 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q7:User Talk

Yes, David. I am the same user. I keep getting locked out of my account :( AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q4: Bonus Question

So The Fictional Episode Guide I have on my sandbox, Can I keep that without doing something wrong on wikipedia I'm a teen and i trying to make an episode guide on my sandbox. So I still have it. I'm only worried about Who are the episodes directed by and who are the episodes written by and who are the episodes viewed by because i'm afraid i might be breaking the law. But it is fictional. You Know what?!! let's do a role call: Directed by: Fictional- Written by: Fictional- Viewers: Fictional- Title: Fictional- Summary: Fictional. So it turns out to be that all info on my fictional episode guide aren't real. So can i put what i currently have on there? I worked too hard on this. AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Subject is reference

Hi, I'm trying to create an article in which it matches the criteria for original content, as well as notability, but the subject of the article is my reference. How do I cite the reference so the content becomes verifiable for the page Cason Cooley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekozacek (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 January 2016‎ (UTC)

If you are saying that you can't find any references independent of the subject, the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, so the article will be deleted. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q3 Last Question (Part III)

But how can I blank it? AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

By blanking it. By deleting its content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In order to find help I've just read again the biography for Tomo Milicevic, who is the guitarist of the same band as Stevie Aiello, and I can't understand what is remarkable for him that I could add also for Aiello.

During his career Aiello has made much more then Milicevic but it seems not notable, could I know why? StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)