Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 601

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 595

←

Archive 599

→

Cyrillic t displays as m?

I have encountered this twice, and realize that, most of the time, t is t. Any explanation? (most recently, in the name "Poteev", rendered in Cyrillic, in the article Illegals Program.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. The string "Poteev" only occurs in this reference:

Полковник Потеев вместо полковника Щербакова [Colonel Poteev instead of Colonel Scherbakov] (in Russian). Interfax. November 15, 2010. Retrieved November 16, 2010.

The Cyrillic letter т in Потеев looks similar to a Latin T to me in Firefox and not a Latin m. Maybe you meant "Poteyev" in this quote:

"Poteyev (reportedly, his full name is Александр Николаевич Потеев, Alexander Nikolayevich Poteyev)"

The letter is italicised there so it changes form from т to т. Te (Cyrillic)#Form says: "In italic type and cursive, the lowercase form ⟨т⟩ looks like the italic form of the lowercase Latin M ⟨m⟩". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I completely overlooked the italicization. Mystery solved; it's a Russian orthographic convention. Mysterious to me, but...Thanks!--Quisqualis (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Non English Persons

I was scrolling through random article and found one (A Turkish Footballer) that was a one sentence stub with an infobox. It had one reference that was just the Turkish Football Federation's page with some barebones info about him. I found no articles on the first five pages of google that were in English regarding this person except wikipedia and one athlete database. It seems to me that while he may be notable in Turkey, he is not notable in English speaking countries. Is this grounds for deletion? Alex the Nerd (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alex the Nerd. No, this is not a valid reason to delete an article, assuming that this person meets our notability guideline for association football players. It is likely that a Turkish speaking editor could easily expand this stub. Notability is a universal concept and is not limited geographically. Notability can be established by coverage in reliable independent sources in any language. Think of it this way: the English Wikipedia is the free English language encyclopedia of the entire world. It is not an encyclopedia limited to the English speaking world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 is right as usual, but I have a comment to add. Since this player is from Turkey, most sources will be in their language. Searching for English sources will therefore not bring up anything, but it doesn't mean sources don't exist. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alex the Nerd, if you are unable to read Turkish you could post a request for help at WT:WikiProject Turkey, many of the regulars there are proficient in the language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we get GamerGate added?

Can you add a GamerGate category describing the group GamerGate & it's goals for the game industry & gaming community? The only topic listed about GamerGate is 'GamerGate controversy' where the article tries to show that every member of GamerGate is a harasser. There are 77,000 people subscribed to KotakuInAction (closest thing to GamerGate home) on reddit who don't go around harassing people. In fact they're constantly condemning any form of harassment.

Do you honestly think that all 77,000 who believe in GamerGate's goals and ideals are harassers? See my point?

IMO add GamerGate as a category, describe it's goals, ideals & beliefs. Then you can link to the GamerGate controversy from there as well. All I'm asking is that you have a GamerGate category that represents the good people like me who are against self censorship, censorship & want honest journalism in the game industry.

Thank you for reading. Luzarius (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Luzarius. The answer is no. Wikipedia articles summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic, and the reliable mainstream sources seem to describe "Gamergate" primarily as a harassment campaign. I have certainly observed a lot of that harassment myself. If coverage changes and the perception of Gamergate changes, then our article will change as well. By the way, Reddit is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. It is just a bunch of random people expressing their opinions. I am glad that you are not personally a harasser. Thank you for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Experienced Editor to Comment on AFD

Can some other experienced editor please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pengurusan Aset Air and explain (if I am correct) to User:Alexander Iskandar that an Article for Deletion discussion looks only at the article that has been nominated for deletion, and that other stuff that exists is not considered? I first PROD'd the article when it was only one sentence that did not even state what country the company is in. (The fact that it is owned by the Ministry of Finance proves nothing, because out of approximately 200 countries, at least 100 of them probably have a Ministry of Finance, which is called something else in other countries, such as Department of the Treasury.) After the PROD was removed, which is any editor's right, and mention was made that the company is in Malaysia, I nominated it for deletion as not notable. The author is asking whether we should also review all of the other articles on companies in Malaysia; I am sure that some of them establish notability, and some do not, so that deleting them might be in order. (If I am misreading deletion policy, and we are required to look at other stuff, I would appreciate a clarification also.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Robert McClenon. I am in complete agreement that an AfD debate should focus primarily on the notability of the specific topic of the specific article. If we were to set out to debate the notability of every Malaysian company that is the subject of a Wikipedia article, my guess is that many would be indisputably notable, some would be non-notable, and that there would be some whose notability is debatable. None of that has any impact at all on whether the specific article at AfD should be kept it deleted. One article, one debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

is encyclopedia britannica a viable source?

could i cite it in an article? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey The Verified Cactus. Probably almost always yes. In fact, since some versions of the EB are old enough to be in the public domain, at times nearly entire articles are based on them almost word for word. The only exception to this that I'm aware of would be things that are clearly outdated, like scientific articles with lots of recent progress, or racial/ethnic/geopolitical issues where the view of the British, being after all, a part of the British Empire, was not necessarily the most neutral (assuming you're citing an older version of EB). TimothyJosephWood 00:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

However, the public domain 1913 version of the Britannica is a reliable source as to what the opinions of literate Britons were in 1913 about subjects such as the Second British Empire. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

By 1913 the Britannica was US-owned. This doesn't necessarily negate what you say, but it does suggest caution.--ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 03:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: For the substance, see the policy, WP:PSTS- note, pace above, that ' articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (my emph). — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 10:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The stuff I've written on my Userpage is getting mixed up with the Userboxes.

Dear Everyone,

If you look on my Userpage (User:Pianoguysfan), you will see the problem.

Pianoguysfan (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pianoguysfan, welcome to the Teahouse. {{Userboxbottom}} and many similar end templates must be placed at the start of a line because wikitext requires a table end |} to be at the start of a line. I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter! Thank you very much.

Pianoguysfan (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a U.S. pedia or a global pedia?

Can you point me to policies or guidelines on this? thx Humanengr (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Humanengr. This is the English Wikipedia and language is the only qualifier that applies there. We attempt to cover as many topics as possible which meet our notability guidelines, and we attempt, although we sometimes fail to achieve a product that is free of bias in this regard. However, we do allow for a regional focus on topics that are of a regional importance, and this applies right down to the variety of English we use.

So, for example, you would expect an article on Leeds to have a heavy UK focus, and an article on Apartheid to have a heavy South African focus, but you would also expect an article on Bridge or Racial segregation to represent a global perspective, and not concentrate unduly on Western countries, including the US. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thx. Follow-on qqs: Should an article about a dispute between another nation and the U.S. be treated from a global perspective? Should it present accusations by one nation against the other as 'fact' (as opposed to, e.g., A has accused B of … )? Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the devil is in the details, and it if were clear cut enough that I could give you a definitive answer, then there probably wouldn't be an open RfC on the matter. In general, we should avoid stating opinions as facts, but it's not entirely clear here whether saying X concluded Y is definitively the same thing as saying Y is true, rather than another way of restating X's opinion is that Y is true.

Now, the real question seems to be, either way, would one way of stating the claim strongly imply that it was unquestionable fact, even if it doesn't come right out and say it. For the answer to that we may just have to sit tight and wait for the end of the RfC. But if I wanted to argue against it, I would probably go the route of trying to argue "from implication" as it were.TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I guess I should ping @Humanengr:. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Details: A's investigations concluded 'with high certainty' that B did x to y. Given that, should the title of the article say 'B x'ed y' or something else like 'A's investigation of x'? Humanengr (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, I know this probably isn't the answer you want to hear, but honestly I wouldn't stress over it too much. The article is almost certain to very drastically change over the next six months to a year, as the final reports from two congressional committees as well as the FBI start to come out (assuming they'll be unclassified, which seems likely at least in part). But overall, I can't say that I really know which way the article should go, and I don't at all envy the person who has to close that RfC, because it's gonna be a tough one. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: To clarify: Assume the U.S. completes its 'investigations' and concludes with 100% confidence that 'B x'ed y'. That is still not a global perspective; no international trial, not even an U.N. resolution, or anything of that sort. For an article to say that 'B x'ed y' without such is a U.S. perspective. Such a narrow view 'stresses' WP to the point of making it a mouthpiece for a particular nation's (in this case, the U.S.) perspective. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of WP? WW Jimmy Do? Humanengr (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs). Should I be pursuing this issue (in particular or in general) in another WP forum? Thx again for the feedback. Humanengr (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, In a lot of ways you're absolutely right, and we should be conscious that information coming from a particular government likely comes with some kind of an agenda behind it. For example, I guarantee there's someone right now working on an article somewhere about an event that happened 50 years ago, and correcting errors that have been there for a long time because the relevant documents have been declassified by the US government and we now understand the full story.

But at the same time, often we have to go with the best sources that are available, and it's difficult to find better sources because so much of the information is, and will for a long time be classified. Obviously if the UN or a respected NGO puts out an independent report, we should probably prefer those results over the US investigation. But for now, for example, a report of a bipartisan congressional panel, half of which have a very big interest in keeping the current president in power and blameless, is not terribly bad as far as a source goes, and it should probably be in our hands soon.

I wouldn't escalate any further at this point. There is an open RfC, and that is the mainstay tool of Wikipedia for resolving these kinds of issues. Maybe more importantly for you, if you try to cause a stink at a place like WP:ANI or WP:NPOVN, they're going to tell you fairly quickly to come back after the RfC is completed, because there's already a dispute resolution tool in place to deal with the issue. TimothyJosephWood 21:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Valid point. There are several dozen articles that I'd like to 'correct', but due to lack of sources (*classified documents / NDA*), I just sit here at look at them disapprovingly, until such a day comes that they are released for public consumption. ;) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

NsTaGaTr (talk · contribs) The US is actually better at this than many countries, since there is an official time table for declassification, where in many cases, classified material simply stays classified forever. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NsTaGaTr: Declassification of U.S. government docs is not the issue. Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thx for acknowledging “a lot of ways". Re "a bipartisan congressional panel, half of which have a very big interest in keeping the current president in power and blameless”, the issue here is deeper and broader than that. The title of the article in question begins "Russian interference …” as a statement of fact. That fact has not been adjudicated (by anyone, much less an international court). (It has been investigated by an agency of the accusing party.) My question here is whether it is appropriate to present that as fact, which the title clearly does — when in fact it is an accusation by one nation (the U.S.) against another (Russia). As for the content of the article, of the 222 cites, only 3 are from Russia -- and those are to support one point in the entire article. To repeat, my question is whether this is a U.S. or global pedia?

And I do thank you for your other suggestions. But re waiting until "documents have been declassified by the US government" to "understand the full story”: on what grounds would deference be given to U.S. docs (now or later) rather than say docs from nation ‘B’? The UN? That is not a viable path given US veto authority. NGOs? That would be nice, but note that comments not toeing the party line by -past- intel officials or -current Senators on the Intel Committee- have been disallowed on various grounds. In any case, these are subordinate issues. The title statement sets the tone and context for all of this.

Finally, this issue is broader and deeper than an RfC or whether an article satisfies 'NPOV' or what constitutes RS when all those toe the party line re the issue above. It is about what it means to be NPOV re an international dispute. Twiddling with application of the current NPOV or RS guideline is inadequate. Else bye-bye integrity. Humanengr (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr: As attractive as they can be, broad statements about the nature of the project are rarely going to do any good in resolving a particular content dispute, and are probably not going to go anywhere in bringing people on the talk page over to your side. Whatever the extent of the systemic bias on Wikipedia is, it got that way by individual changes on individual articles backed up with particular sources and argument. So that's the level you have to address it on.

The way forward here is to find reliable sources that back up your arguments, and then continue to make them in as specific a way as possible on the article's talk page. Editors are rarely going to buy into an argument along the lines of the only source we have is baised, but can often be convinced by Sources A and B contradict source C. TimothyJosephWood 12:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs) -- This has been most productive; and apologies for not picking up earlier on your link to the systemic bias essay re American or European perspective. I note that the linked WikiProject Countering systemic bias has a section on "Significant Regional Disputes" but no section on “Significant Global Disputes”; and the former lists only "Arab-Israeli conflict”. While of course the language issue is recognized, the bias towards those nations with a “Special Relationship” with the United State and United Kingdom is not. Would this be appropriate for a WikiProject? The systemic bias in RS selection towards US (and UK, …) could presumably be addressed as part of this. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, looks like that WikiProject is pretty dead. No new discussions since January 2015 on their talk page. But there's nothing saying you couldn't be the one to work toward getting it up and active again. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Would the most appropriate course to draw attention to this be to first or along with that raise this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or ?? Also, while there have been a few mentions of systemic bias on the article’s talk page and one brief mention that "We already have to live with the bias inherent our reliance on the Anglo-American corporate press”, this has not been addressed there as a specific topic or RfC. Given that this hasn’t been addressed there or elsewhere (AFAICS) on WP, but fits to a T the NPOV:Impartial tone policy that "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone”, would placement of an NPOV tag on the article be de rigueur given the 219-to-3 ratio of sources in a dispute between US and nation B (Russia)? Humanengr (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr: You don't really seem to have a proposition for a place like the Village Pump other than make Wikipedia less biased, and that's not really a proposition in any practical sense. If you're really into it, and you have about a half hour to spare, you may want to read through the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#WP:RS as a means of POV-pushing. It's not exactly on the topic you raise, but it is potentially related. TimothyJosephWood 00:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood: Thx for the pointer; will peruse further -- but one point in the first response indicates the scope and nature of the problem: "And this is not to say that your rule would declare reliable Russian and Chinese govt newspapers." So, re practical proposition: my current thinking is, given the difficulty of achieving 'global balanced POV’, the best that might be done for now (and quite possibly in perpetuity), is to apply -- by default -- an 'NPOV:global neutrality disputed’ to all such un-adjudicated, un-resolved (e.g., by Hague court, dispute settlement) US-UK-…-vs-x dispute articles. There is such an overwhelming, unrecognized, un-admitted bias by the editors of such articles and the cites they use, that there might very well be no other practical solution. (I see no possibility of acceptance of an NPOV tag by editors of such articles.) Else WP increasingly becomes a verbatim mouthpiece for US-UK-… media. I would think that would be a matter of concern at the highest levels here. Humanengr (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood: Given the difficulties there within the narrower scope of left-right w/i US politics (with some of the same editors there as in the article in question), that would seem to support my take above. How would one go about introducing such a tag? And again, I very much appreciate your efforts and guidance here. Humanengr (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr: Probably the closest thing to what you are saying is Template:Globalize. But I would add that the purpose of these tags is to add them to cleanup categories. They're usually used on articles that have very little community attention, and if they are used on highly visible articles, where conversation is active and ongoing, or if they're used en masse, it's very likely going to be seen as disruptive. Clean up tags don't actually fix anything, and aren't to be used as a "badge of shame". TimothyJosephWood 12:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Raido SOG,

vessels SOG, COG, [ BRG (Bearing) and DST (Distance) ]50.108.8.81 (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. It doesn't appear that you've actually asked an intelligible question, and I'm afraid you're going to have to go into a bit more detail for us to be of any help. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

after reading WP {:RS :SYNTHESIS :OR} ...

I still find the Microwave_auditory_effect#Conspiracy_theories entry very "questionable" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect#.22Conspiracy_theories.22

I think I did explain why but LuckyLouie did not address my basic questions

Albretch Mueller (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Albretch Mueller. It looks like the real problem here is that even the sources you yourself provide don't actually back up the claim that this is a thing. Some like this are pretty clearly speculation about what might one day be developed. Other's like this are flatly making fun at the idea. Other's like this and this have nothing to do with microwaves whatsoever, and are talking about acoustics.

So the synthesis is in taking a lot of speculation about what may one day developed, combined with stories not about the subject at all, and trying to reach a conclusion, i.e., that this technology exists, has existsed, and can explain current and past hallucinations and delusions, a conclusion which actually isn't contained in any of the sources provided. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback about my draft welcome!

Hello, fellow editors!

I would love it if you reviewed my current and ATM only (need to learn the basics first) draft (not sandbox! :)). I plan on submitting it tomorrow for review so I am nervous!

Please ignore the external links that link to non-wikipedia pages-- working on that this afternoon. Also would love suggestions to prove the statement that the director I am writing about would be the youngest, female Spanish one to ever direct a feature film.

Thank you so much, everyone,

Martha

MarthaDaisy (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Try the Wikipedia tutorial for basics, and submitting sandboxes are usually rejected. Hope that helps! GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarthaDaisy. Just for the record, there's nothing really wrong with submitting a sandbox as a draft, and I don't think doing so means that there's a greater chance of it getting rejected. Drafts for articles are usually better off being in the draft namespace, but userspace drafts are acceptable. The most important thing is whether you are able to establish the Wikipedia notability of whatever you're writing about. If you can do that, then all of the other formatting fixes, etc. can be cleaned up afterwards. If, however, you are unable to clearly do that, then the draft is unlikely to be accepted no matter how well written/formatted it is as explained in WP:ARTN. Sometimes a new editor makes the mistake of assuming that "more must be better" when it comes to getting a draft accepted. More content, more citations, more pictures, etc. mean that the draft's chances of getting accepted just have to be better. However, the opposite is often the case since "more" can be seen as "unnecessary clutter" which might make it difficult for the reviewer to assess the subject's notability. Reviewers are volunteers and may be unable to spend tons of time weeding through a long content-dense draft with lots of sources to be verified. I briefly touched upon this in my post on your user talk page about a week ago, and still feel that the draft might actually be made better by removing some of the extraneous detail you've added and focusing more on the parts that you believe Draft:Alice Waddington clearly shows that WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO are met. That is why I also suggested you ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers since the editors in that WikiProject probably can offer more specific pointers based upon their experience with similar articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In particular, you have about 50 citations in support of one uncontroversial claim, many of them duplicates like this: [55][55][55][55][55][55][55][55][55][55][55]. That just looks crazy, as well as making the table unnecessarily wide. It certainly doesn't impress anyone. I suggest that you remove all but one of those references. Maproom (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

... and I see it's not even for an award, just for a nomination for an award that she didn't win. The draft would look better if you removed all the nominations. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarthaDaisy. I don't think is likely to be a direct reason for rejection of the draft, but I started a copyedit and was mostly fixing citations. You might look at those edits to see what I'm suggesting. It would be great if you worked on them a bit, to provide better attribution to the source. Retain the original title for non-English sources, and use |trans-title= for the translated title. You can tell the reader the source is in Spanish using ~~|language=en~~ (whoops) |language=es. This is minor but it's really good when using named citations to use something unique from the source as the reference name, such as the author's last name, and not ":0", ":1", ":2", etc., which make it difficult for you or anyone to locate a previous citation for re-use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I think the draft was created using the Visual Editor(?) rather than "Edit source" which most old-timer Wikipedia editors use, and I think that inserted the current numbering of citations. Maybe it handles them well, I dunno. I am unfamiliar with the syntax but in this edit i just segregated the egregious "[55]" duplicates on the Madrid Fashion Film Festival row, and in this edit I removed the duplicates. That fixed a display problem which made the "Category" column too wide, at least for me using Chrome browser. --do ncr am 04:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I presume that Fuhghettaboutit meant to write "You can tell the reader the source is in Spanish using |language=es", MarthaDaisy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Thank Larry. I actually stared at your post and mine for a while thinking they were identical before seeing the "en". Too close to what you have yourself written.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

WOW! This community is so great. Thank you everyone for your ideas, just saw them as I cannot be on the site everyday. Checked but could not see the crazy consecutive annotations, could have been a glitch? Anyway I will try and use all these ideas. Excited. Thank you again!!MarthaDaisy (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Should I remove this template message?

Hello

I am wondering if I should delete the copy editing template message on the page "Sangareddi." I did edit it but I am not sure whether to delete the message or not.

If you happen to see this, could you either tell me or do it your self?

Thank you.

OA123 (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Give me a sec and I'll take a look. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

How to put a photo onto a Wikepedia page without running into copyright issues

Dear All,

I'm really worried about adding suitable photos for certain articles that I see on Google Images because I'm scared I'm going to run into copyright issues. Please tell me how to tell which photos I can put onto Wikipedia without running into any issues whatsoever.

Pianoguysfan (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: I don't really know how to put images onto Wikipedia anyway! Please tell me how!

Pianoguysfan (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pianoguysfan. The vast majority of the photos you can find with a Google Images search are restricted by copyright and not eligible for use in a Wikipedia article. A much better place to search is Wikimedia Commons since all images there are OK to use on Wikipedia. Image use policy is very complicated, so it would be best if you can mention the specific article you are working on and what type of photo you are looking for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The surest way to have a photo without running into copyright issues is by taking a photo yourself. That way you are the copyright holder and you can do whatever you want with it, including releasing it with a Wikipedia-compatible license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Pianoguysfan. Here's some of the ground rules.

Any image you find you must assume to be fully non-free copyrighted, and cannot be used here unless you have affirmative and verifiable evidence of copyright status that makes it usable here. This excludes a vast cross section of images you find on the Internet, and through a Google image search.
Usable images are those which are either in the public domain or are under a suitably-free copyright license (meaning the image is copyrighted, but is permitted to used on a very unrestricted basis, that is as free or freer than the licenses most of Wikipedia's material is released under).
"Public domain" is often misunderstood as meaning publicly posted or publicly used, which have little bearing. It means that the copyright of the image has been affirmatively released by its owner into the public domain (e.g., the owner so states in relation to the image), or it has passed into the public domain because of some situational status, such as that it was not subject to copyright in the first place (e.g., an image created by a U.S. federal employee during the scope of his or her duties), or because of timing, coupled with publication status—which can be summarized as the image being:
- Created/photographed prior to 1896 (whether published or not) = PD.
- Published before 1923 = PD.
- Published after 1923 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
- Published between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
- Published from 1923 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
- Unpublished and created/taken before 1923 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
- Unpublished and created/taken after 1923 = too complicated to get into.
Suitably-free copyright licenses can be viewed here.
Images that meet the above standards should be uploaded to our sister site, the Wikimedia Commons, and not locally, so all Wikimedia projects have access to the image. Images at the Commons can be displayed here natively.
There is a strict and limited exception to the above, which is that non-free images can be used under a claim of fair use, but they must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. Such images cannot be uploaded to the Commons, but only locally. Rules of thumb for that are also complex and I don't think it would be useful to go into them unless you come back with specifics of what image you are looking to use, and it seems a fair use exception might be applicable. Just note one exclusion that covers a lot of terrain: generally we cannot use non-free photographs of anyone who is alive.
You can use an advanced Google search to try to locate suitably-free images. Go to Settings → Advanced → usage rights → Free to use, share or modify, even commercially.
You might try the "FIST", Free Image Search Tool.
Once you have uploaded or found an existing suitable image, the mechanics of placing it for display can be read at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, but the most basic markup is [[File:Name of image.extension|thumb|Caption to display below image]].

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving pages

What limited the move to autoconfirmed accounts? Abuse? 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:A1 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Most abusive edits come from unregistered editors and new accounts. The autoconfirmed status helps reduce (though not eliminate) disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

oh. How long ago was this? And i think was grawp? 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:5B (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

article submission denied

Hello, I've just received a message from Yashovardhan Dhanania, that my submission has been rejected. How do I contact this person?86.191.77.146 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can do so here: User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the only edit you have made from this IP address, so that we cannot comment on why your submission was declined. I suggest that you register an account, which will maintain your history better. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Will swtiching to visual editor make me lose all my changes?

I went back to my article to edit some more and when I clicked the pencil icon to switch to visual, got a warning that all my changes would be discarded if i switched!! Now too scared to try anything...please advise. Article has been submitted for approval...I was assuming I could continue to edit while it awaits approval, but maybe that's the problem. CharOster (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You submitted Draft:Stratford Caldecott successfully, but it was declined with a note to provide more sources as to notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:CharOster - Also, you can continue to edit a draft that you have submitted for review. The reviewer will see and act on the most current version of the draft, so if, after submitting the draft, you think that it can be improved, you can improve it. The previous versions are available in the page history, but it is the current version that is reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The warning that all of your changes would be discarded is only a warning about all of the changes that you have made since the last time you saved, not about changes that you made that have already been saved. (You can roll back changes that you have previously saved, but you have to do that deliberately.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi CharOster. Other than through deletion by an administrator or oversighting, all edits, once saved, are permanent, are available from the page history, and can never be lost barring the compromise/destruction of Wikipedia servers and all backups or of the internet, say through the end of civilization as we know it, reversion to barbarianism, the singularity, takeover by the Lizard People, and similar likely events. I am not familiar with the specific mediawiki message you saw but I guarantee you it refers to something like non-saved edits made after clicking source editing, and then a switch to visual editor before saving, and not to prior saved edits. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong language link -- but the edit page has the right link

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_of_Megalithic_Culture under Languages, you find German as one of the links. This link is wrong; it goes to "Großsteingrab im Ipeken" instead of "Straße der Megalithkultur". The German https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fe_der_Megalithkultur, on the other hand, links correctly to the English page.

Now the puzzle. If you click to edit the wrong link, you're taken to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2354267#sitelinks-wikipedia. On this site, the link to the German site is correct. There is no sign of the incorrect link to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fsteingrab_im_Ipeken. Where is that incorrect link defined, and how can it override the entry in wikidata?

Cheers, Liontooth (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Liontooth. The links are at the very end of the article. I guess if links are explicitly added to the article itself they override Wikidata. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Question to Yashovardhan re Matt Johnson Writer submission

I have to say I find Wikipedia chat the hardest website to navigate on that I've ever used.

I want to reply to Yashovardhan re the submission of Matt Johnson Writer page. I'm not sure what isn't notable - there are newspaper articles mentioned from The Sunday Times and The Telegraph - reputable UK newspapers. There is a link to the publishers Wikipedia page which mentioned him and also links to where the book has been shortlisted for awards. How much more proof that he's a published author, written two books, mentioned in newspapers and doing well is needed? I'm confused.

Thanks SianPhillips (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Rather than using chat, it is normally better to communicate using the editor's user talk page, so that the conversation is there for everyone to see. In this case, it is User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania, which is linked from his notification to you on the draft and also your own user talk page. (You could, of course, have replied there.) --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user

Hi fellow Wikipedians! How can I know when I was granted status of being an 'autoconfirmed user?' It is because I am planning to state it on my user page. Thank you! ~Pog ing Juan 12:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey PogingJuan. That's...umm... a good question, since the only entry in Special:UserRights/PogingJuan seems to be an update from none to extended confirmed. TimothyJosephWood 13:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You will have been autoconfirmed when your account was 4 days old (on 26 May 2016), as by then you had already made at least 10 edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@PogingJuan: Right, autoconfirmed cannot be manually granted or removed so I think it would be a little pointless to mention the time on a user page. 'confirmed' can be granted by administrators but it's done relatively rarely because it's easy to become autoconfirmed which gives the same rights as confirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Modifying output formatting of cite template?

The default output ordering of the cite template produces references that are kind of infelicitous for my purposes. For example, if I'm citing a volume, chapter, and page number, the chapter will be displayed prior to the book title, the volume after the book title, and the page number following publication information. Here's a real example from yesterday:

Luo Guanzhong (2003) [1522]. "9". 三國演義 [Three Kingdoms]. Vol. 1. Translated by Moss Roberts. Beijing: Foreign Language Press. p. 155. 4 vols.

Here's what I'd rather have it look like:

Luo Guanzhong (2003) [1522]. 三國演義 [Three Kingdoms]. Translated by Moss Roberts. Beijing: Foreign Language Press. 4 vols. 1:9:155

My question is if there is any way to ask the template to group the volume, chapter, and page number (or at least chapter and page; chapters seem consistently numbered without respecting volume breaks) into one place in the produced output. If there is no way to do this, what is the most acceptable practice to achieve the desired effect? I've been doing a lot of manual formatting of references which would be difficult to change if the MOS changes. Thanks in advance for any advice. Snuge purveyor (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Snuge purveyor: you need to raise an issue like this at Help talk:Citation Style 1 as it involves changing the layout of {{cite book}} which may have far reaching consequences as it is very, very widely used. Nthep (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you. That sounds ominous. Sorry about the wrong venue. Snuge purveyor (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean it to sound ominous, - there is no one-off way of doing what you are after, so you are looking at a significant change to a widely used template which need to be discussed at the centralised discussion page for cite templates. Nthep (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:M. A. K. Aurangzaib Yousufzai

I posted an article that is basically profile of a person with introduction to his work. Same profile was published in other website, which was in reference. It was added in speedy deletion, whereas being profile it can be sameShoaibumar (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to tell you that unless you can make a valid claim that the text from another site can be freely used or is in the public domain, text from other websites cannot be copied to Wikipedia. You must use your own words. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 17:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

New article creation

Hello,

was trying to create an article for one of the producers of Bollywood. But the article got rejected. Was truing to create a Wikipedia article page for Kalpesh Vivek Pansare Kalpesh Vivek Pansare (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kalpesh Vivek Pansare. You seem to be trying to write an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read our guideline on autobiographies. In addition, your draft article is completely unreferenced, which is contrary to policy. Please read and study Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing 'Proposed for Deletion' error

Hi. I added a reference to support my page about a person. How to remove this error though?Ahmed Ali Raza (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahmed Ali Raza. The article in question is Faisal Taj. I have removed the proposed deletion tag, since you added one reference. However, I am not sure that this cricket player meets our notability guideline for cricket. Is he playing at the highest level? If he meets the guideline, I suggest expanding the article and adding more references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

How can I modify my user name?

I would like to make a change in my user name. Is there a way to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtej (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:Changing username. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I request a detector of article's issues

Hello there.First time whe ni joined here on Wikipedia here show to me Edit or don't know what written there but i edited lot when was time to l'm going to sleep,next day when i enter on Wikipedia The detector how articles need edits has vanished! Please i want edit pages to bad grammar to good grammar or export page be on readers language...Etc. Please help me and tell to me how i can have it again for edit pages with Isuues Silviu (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silviu, welcome to the Teahouse. As a new user you may have seen the feature at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. You can for example try it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanda,_Uttarakhand?gettingStartedReturn=true. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silviu, thank you for your edits so far, some of which have been good. Please be careful, though, to make changes only when you have checked that the English is actually wrong. It is easiest to do copy-editing in a language in which you have full fluency. Dbfirs 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Why can I not currently submit my draft for review, please?

Hi!

Beginner here. Just a second ago there was a button available to submit my draft for review but it seems to have disappeared before I had time to.

Could anybody tell me what happened?

Thank you!

Marthadaisy

MarthaDaisy (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a bug whereby whenever a reviewer adds a comment to the draft, the submission template gets removed. I've had to replace it a few times already. Also, please stop removing comments from the draft, MarthaDaisy - they're helpful to the reviewer when you submit it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain Golden Rule?

What are these two terms: Talk namespace and Template namespace and what is the difference? SharynSharyn Finnegan (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sharyn Finnegan, welcome to the Teahouse. The Talk namespace is pages starting with "Talk:" like Talk:Tea. It's used to discuss the content of the associated article Tea. The template namespace is pages starting with "Template:". Templates contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. There are many other namespaces. See more at Help:Using talk pages, Wikipedia:Template namespace, and Wikipedia:Namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Talk namespaces and Wikipedia:Template namespace, to add some links. Lectonar (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Sharyn Finnegan, what is sometimes called the golden rule is something else: WP:GOLDENRULE. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsure if meets Notability standards

Been working on this article about the Egyptian Knowledge Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Egyptian_Knowledge_Bank) for a week now. It got rejected the first time because I didn't have much time to focus on it, but I'm having a hard time finding good sources. Can someone have a quick look over and give me an idea if it's acceptable? Thanks! --13:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Kygies 27 (talk)Kygies27

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kygies 27. I think you still need to put work into finding and citing sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Also, beware of including original research in the article. For instance, the draft currently includes the sentence "Access is free for all Egyptian citizens, estimated at over 92 million, by using their National ID and email for registration, however it is limited by its predominantly English language content as only 35% of the population know English as an additional language, and that only a little over a third of Egyptains have access to the internet". To make that claim, you'd need sources that state that access to the Egyptian Knowledge Bank is limited by a lack of English-language proficiency, rather than just asserting that yourself based on language statistics (which incidentally are cited to a source that appears to be using data from Wikipedia - i.e not a reliable source). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kygies 27, Cordless Larry, I was looking at this just now. I searched for "بنك المعرفة المصرى" (bank al-maʿrifat al-maṣri), and got almost "2800 hits" (actually 460) on Google News; about the first 250 seem really to mention the topic. There seem to be several reputable papers listed there, including Al-Ahram – this article, for example, is entirely about the database. I don't believe notability is in question. I do agree that the article needs some work and some tidying, but I think nothing that couldn't be done as well in mainspace as in draft. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the replies! I have been trying to find better sources, but am somewhat limited by my inadequate arabic language skills to fully search and understand Egyptian newspapers. As for the claim about language, I remember it was questioned in a source but I cannot remember where; but I am going to try and look into some other sources to see what I can dig up. Thanx! Kygies 27 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

submitting new article for review

What is the wiki code I need to put in my draft so my article can be reviewed?

thanks MauraWen (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen. ~~It got removed by mistake and the editor put it back. Its there now.~~ StarryGrandma (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The code is {{subst:AFC draft}}, MauraWen. You seem to have several drafts on the go, so it would help to tell us which one. (StarryGrandma seems to have worked it out, but I couldn't!). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I didn't find it. I thought I was answering the question above. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Finding the "named reference"

Many times, I encounter a "named reference" in an article, and on numerous occasions, I can't find the original name of the reference, even by searching the entire article in edit mode. For example, in Audie Murphy, there is a reference called "sfn|Murphy|2002". Where do I look up the book that name refers to?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not a named reference. See Help:Shortened footnotes. The reference generates a link to a reference with author last name Murphy and year 2002 in the list of references surrounded by refbegin and refend in the References section. StarryGrandma (talk)

That good article will take you a while to get your head around. Look at the References section, the extra 'harvn' makes it link. Then you just use the author surname and year as presented. If you have two authors, you give it two links. Always preview or play in your sandbox. CHeck and check before saving. Dave Rave (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: There actually is a named reference involved but the name is generated by a template so you don't see the name in the source. I copied the parts which work together to produce your example.^[1]

^ Murphy 2002, pp. 4–7.

Murphy, Audie (2002) [First published 1949]. To Hell and Back. Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 978-0-8050-7086-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

{{sfn|Murphy|2002|pp=4–7}} and {{cite book|last=Murphy|year=2002|ref=harv}} automatically make matching anchors CITEREFMurphy2002 so a click on "Murphy 2002" at Audie Murphy#Citations links to Audie Murphy#CITEREFMurphy2002. {{cite book}} can have additional parameters without affecting the anchor. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations. There is a term a couple of you used, "harv" or "harvn" which I can't deduce the origin of. Does it come from the cited source or from WP in general? And what might it mean?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: A name with "harv" refers to the citation style Harvard referencing. Several citation templates have such a name or parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Help solving potential bombardment before submission

Hello again, my admired Contributors:

It has been pointed out to me through an experienced user that a draft article I am writing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alice_Waddington) could be what the site calls bombardment. I would like to know if you could either indicate how to solve this in this particular case or if you could touch it up directly for me. I refer 65 film festivals in it and have therefore included a total of 105 different sources for different claims. The most sources a statement shows is 2.

Thank you so my dears!

Marthadaisy MarthaDaisy (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarthaDaisy. The large table is the problem as the comments have been trying to tell you. Encyclopedia articles summarize. That much detail is bombardment. Remove the table completely. Then write a paragraph about just her most important actual awards, not nominations. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MarthaDaisy. I am in complete agreement with StarryGrandma on this matter. Instead of listing every obscure film festival that has nominated one of her films, trim this content way back to include only her wins at notable film festivals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can remove the template messages on my article. PLEASE HELP!

Hey everyone, I am posting this for the second time. I seek your help.

I created this page a few months ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurabh_Uboweja. There are multiple issues on the article - sounding like an ad, no real information etc. I picked up the references from official sources. I have corrected the language multiple times. I am not sure if I can remove the issues yet. Can someone please give me a feedback? Divyasinghrathore (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Divyasinghrathore. The article in question is Saurabh Uboweja, about a person who specializes in brand promotion. Uninvolved editors tend to be highly skeptical of such articles which tend to be promotional in nature, and often involve conflict of interest. Please read and comply with our policy regarding conflict of interest. Your best reference seems to be an interview in The Economic Times, but this is an interview with the subject, and therefore is not a fully independent source. Notability on Wikipedia requires references to significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the topic. Accordingly, I have my doubts whether this person is notable based on the references now in the article. As for the various awards, these look like run-of-the-mill industry backscratching awards to me, as opposed to truly significant awards. Accordingly, I think that the tags should stay on the article until it is improved significantly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can remove the template messages on my article. PLEASE HELP!

I created this page a few months ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurabh_Uboweja. There are multiple issues on the article - sounding like an ad, no real information etc. I picked up the references from official sources. I have corrected the language multiple times. I am not sure if I can remove the issues yet. Please help! Divyasinghrathore (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome. I took a look at the entry and I don't find anything that is overly promotional, so I removed those templates from the page. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Another question about submitting new article for review

thanks, CordlessLarry and StarryGrandma for your input. I am working on multiple articles at once, and it was the Ida Hill article in my sandbox that I was referring to in my earlier question, although Elizabeth Pierce Blegen in my userpage sandbox is finished also.

I added the code that you recommended and now there is a big box of info that is really confusing me. It does not look like I have submitted my article.

Can you take a look and let me know if I need to do something else or has my article been submitted properly? Is there an easier way to submit articles for review than adding that code?

thanks MauraWen (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MauraWen. No, you have not submitted your sandbox draft about Ida Thallon Hill. You need to click the blue button at the very bottom of the gray information box to submit it for an Articles for Creation review. In the future, if you write your drafts using the Article Wizard, that submit button will be added automatically. Please also be aware that the Articles for Creation review process is entirely optional. Once you are confident that you can create an acceptable article yourself, you can just move your drafts to the encyclopedia main space yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

[FOOTNOTEMurphy20024–7-1] Murphy 2002, pp. 4–7.

[1]