Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 612

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 605 ← Archive 610 Archive 611 Archive 612 Archive 613 Archive 614 Archive 615

How to add image and find it is copyrighted or not

I am trying to upload an image but it had deleted to many times i just want to find how i found that image is copyrighted or not and how can i add image that is suitable for an article

Ntelabi Bukari (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The best way to avoid copyright issues is to take a picture or make an image yourself and release it under the appropriate copyright licence. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for further details. Normally, any images that you find on the internet should be assumed to be copyright, as should any pictures taken by a photographer other than yourself. Dbfirs 11:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Article just declined and not sure how to fix it.

Dear Treehouse. I've put together an article regarding the potted history of an 80s rock band. Everything written in there is factual and accurate. However, the article was declined because there were no references to established it as fact (I think). My question is how do I get the right references in place. Is there anyone out there willing to help or point me in the right direction. I have read some of the how-to articles, but they are so complicated. Please help. Thanks, Andy DemetriouAndy Demetriou (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Every article in Wikipedia should have each fact referenced to WP:Reliable sources. See WP:Referencing for beginners for details of how to do this. Your article at Draft:Charlie Ungry currently has no in-line references, so it needs some work before it is suitable for Wikipedia. I've removed the spaces at the start of each paragraph because Wikipedia doesn't use that layout. I'll leave it to you to find some independent publications in which the reader can check the facts in the article, but please ask again here if you need help with formatting the references. Dbfirs 11:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I was just browsing wiki.it and it has a fantastic feature...

of when you hover over a link it brings up some media or other, can this be implemented on wiki.en or is the size a barrier?121.98.51.62 (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There's something like that here, but you need to enable it. Go to "Preferences" .. "Gadgets" .. "Browsing" and select "Navigation popups". Maproom (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Italian feature is the similar "Page previews" (Hovercards) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. Both features can currently only be used by registered users at the English Wikipedia. Hovercards is scheduled for July here. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a section to a page about a book

Hello, I have just created this draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven-Day_Weekend_(book) The book in question is by the same author as Maverick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_(book)

...compared to the Maverick page, I can see that it doesn't have much structure.

I can't work out how to add the square template on the right hand side? (putting it in the 7 day weekend page, similar to the one on Maverick). Could you please let me know how to do this? Thank you very much. SunnyBoi (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

hello, SunnyBoi and welcome to the Teahouse. That is known as an infobox, in this case {{infobox book}}. click on the link to the template, and there you will find detailed instructions on how to use it. Basically you include the code {{infobox book}} but include the parameters needed for the information you want to include. Each parameter starts with a | followed by the parameter name and an =, followed by the value to be filled in for that parameter. DES (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A shortcut would be to go to Maverick_(book), click on "Edit this page", then copy the code from that infobox and paste it into the other article, changing each parameter's values as necessary. It's definitely a good idea to study the template page that DES linked, though, because the Maverick article's infobox might have missing parameters that could be filled in. By the way, you can link to another Wikipedia page without typing the whole url: typing [[Maverick (book)]] renders Maverick (book). RivertorchFIREWATER 17:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Visual editor (VE)

I am trying to add two or three entries to two tables in an article called List of Maritime Music Festivals. I want to do it in VE, but when I click on EDIT I get what appears to be the classic editing page. When I click on EDIT SOURCE, it comes up exactly the same. And it's not just this article. Can someone tell me how to open it in VE? Cushlamochree (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cushlamochree, welcome to the Teahouse. It works for me. At "Editing mode" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, do you have "Show me both editor tabs"? When the source editor starts, can you switch to VisualEditor on a pencil icon at the top right of the edit box? Does this link start VisualEditor? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Experts vs non-experts

I am an expert in the Dance Therapy field. I randomly got to the Wikipedia page for "Dance Therapy" and realized how poorly it is written, presenting all sort of mistakes and incorrect info. I tried to start editing the first paragraph, just to start a process of revision that is deeply needed for this topic. However, as I never contributed to Wikipedia before, my edits were rejected. Please, help me understand why and what a "new editor" like me should do to improve a page like that. By the way, I am a member of the Research and Practice Committee of the American Dance Therapy Association, and I can ask the committee to work collectively on the revision. The page how it is represents a source of disinformation and an embarrassment to your mission. CFontanesi (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello CFontanesi and welcome to the Teahouse.
One problem that new editors have at Wikipedia is that they try to apply their own expertise directly. Because all content at Wikipedia must be reliably sourced, leaving out the citations generally means the edits are rejected, even if the editor "knows" they are true. Also, the introductory paragraphs of an article may look unsourced, but they are supposed to be summarizing material that appears later in the body of the article. Making changes to the intro without first making suitable changes to the body is another mistake.
So, the first suggestion we usually give to new editors is to look at WP:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. Applying what you learn there is a good step towards being able to make contributions to Wikipedia. If you have an questions, the Teahouse is here to help! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Expanding on what jmcgnh said above: You've got one thing right: Wikipedia is mostly written by non-experts and that can lead to many problems in article content. You've also got the other side of the issue correct: many experts want to join the project, and we very much welcome them.
Writing for Wikipedia has some similarities, but also dissimilrities, with writing for expert (academic) publications. The main difference is that expert publications favor original thought. They want to know what conclusions you, the expert author, have come to in your years of research and experience. Wikipedia is not like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is supposed to summarize what others have already published before in mainstream reliable sources. In other words, Wikipedia is not for publishing your original research. The similarity with academic writing is that when you write, you are expected to inform the reader where you got your information from by citing those sources. The third thing that I'd like to point out is consensus. Wikipedia works by consensus of editors (expert or non-expert). They often disagree with what content to have and how to present it. This is not a problem, it's an opportunity for discussion. Whenever that happens, head to the talk page of the article and try to work out a consensus.
You also point out the possibility getting your colleagues to write for Wikipedia. This can be tricky because if they write as a part of their employment duties, it constitutes paid editing and we have all kinds of (complicated and restrictive) rules for it. In short, it's possible, but difficult to do responsibly. In any case (paid or not paid), you should not write about organizations you are affiliated with (ie. someone working with American Dance Therapy Association should not edit the article on American Dance Therapy Association. A member of that association should not write about the organization in the article about Dance therapy either.) Sticking to academic and journalistic sources written by and about someone else than the association would be best. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Lost Article Draft

hi!

I created a new document. i hit save several times.

I left the page and attempted to go retrieve my draft and i cannot find it. I put a lot of work into it. Please help. The topic name was Charlie Heat. Whitwins (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in the deleted contributions for the account you're currently using. Were you previously editing under the user names Elijahwon or Charlie.heat?
Draft:Charlie Heat was a single paragraph that was deleted a year and a half ago, created by Charlie Heat himself -- something we discourage per WP:COI.
Charlie Heat was less than a paragraph deleted a year and two days ago because it was promotional -- something we don't allow per WP:NOTPROMO.
If you had no involvement with those particular attempts, then your work did not save to this site.
If you previously edited as Charlie.heat, then just stop trying to write an article about yourself.
If you are not Charlie.heat but edited as Elijahwon, your previous draft will be of no use in creating an article that won't get deleted again. If you want to create an article about Charlie Heat, see WP:42. A more detailed, step-by-step instructions:
Again, the only drafts that have been saved in the past do not contain any material that will help you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

removing original research tag

I removed and added content to the wikipedia article. Under the purpose section of the article I removed all OR-original research, however the tag is still there. Why?Albinoa (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Although it is possible to see what edits you made, it's still polite to actually tell us what page you're talking about instead making us guess. You should ask this at Talk:Pinterest. The tag is still there because you did not remove it. It's the part that says {{Original research |section |date=February 2015}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Albinoa, in the tag you are here about you will also see a prominent link that says "(Learn how and when to remove this template message)", which links to Help:Maintenance template removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

User subpage banner question

Hi, Teahouse Hosts! I am looking for a template to place on my user subpages, saying that they are user subpages, not articles (essentially, Template:User page, only appropriate for user subpages). However, I'm not sure what templates are appropriate. Can you help me find an appropriate one? Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that Template:User page is appropriate for user subpages. The logic behind this is as follows:
Template:User page says:

This template may be placed on pages in user space in order to differentiate them from pages containing encyclopedic content.

Wikipedia:User pages#Terminology and page locations then defines "user space" as all of the pages listed in the section (user page, user talk page, and subpages) as within user space. Therefore, I assume that Template:User page would be appropriate on subpages.
Note: Template:User page being appropriate on subpages was pointed out to me by EveDK in real life. However, I did the research mentioned above to confirm the template's appropriateness.
Thank you, Teahouse Hosts, for being here to solve problems, even though you didn't have to solve this problem!
Noah Kastin (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A range of templates appropriate for various pages in userpace can be seen at Template:Userspace Disclaimers. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, David Biddulph! This should be very useful. In particular, I think that Template:Usertalkpage will immediately be useful for me, and Template:Draft article should prove useful if I ever write any draft articles. Thanks again for the link! Noah Kastin (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Blockage

If you are blocked on Wikipedia- English, are you blocked on other wikis (like Simple English or Chinese etc.)? Exotic Cow (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC).

Requesting review of my article

Dear Teahouse, I would be grateful if you could have a look and review my article 'Maciej Frączyk'. I've created it quite a long time ago but it still is in a draft. Could you tell me what shall I improve to make eventually release it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maciej_Frączyk

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artur Kubacki (talk • contribs) 09:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Artur Kubacki, and welcome to the teahouse. The article. Draft:Maciej_Frączyk had not yet been submitted for review. I have done so on your behalf. Reviews may take a while. Articles for Creation has a backlog. Mduvekot (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a personal biography

Hi, I noticed that I am mentioned in the Wiki article on None of the Above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above#NOTA_UK But my name is highlighted red indicating there is no article for me. I was just wondering how I go about getting one. I'm assuming I'm not allowed to make one myself? As well as being an independent recording artist and music producer, I'm the founder of NOTA UK and have appeared on international news channels and BBC Radio. With GE2017 coming up there is interest again in our campaign and a possibility of more media coverage. Would that not warrant an article on me perhaps? And if so, how does that come about? Apologies if this is a stupid question, I'm new to this! Malmanstan (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Malmanstan, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, it's not a stupid question, and thanks for coming and asking, rather than just ploughing ahead and doing it. The answer is that autobiography is strongly discouraged (though not forbidden); because it is likely to be hard for anybody to write an article about themselves in a sufficiently neutral way. The standard suggestion is to post a request at Requested articles; but there is a long backlog there, and no guarantee that anybody will pick it up. Another possibility is to post a request at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums, and see if anybody there is interested in running with it. What I will say, is that Wikipedia is not for promotion, whether of people, products, bands, or movements: whether or not there is media interest in a subject is of little interest to Wikipedia: it is only interested in whether or not there has already been substantial material published about the subject in reliable places, by people unconnected with the subject: the Wikipedia jargon for this is notability. Note that nothing published by you or your campaign will contribute to this; nor will anything based on interviews or press releases. The relevant question is, have people unconnected with you and your campaign chosen to publish substantial information about you, in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers? If not, then no article about you will be accepted, whoever writes it, and however they write it. If there are such sources, then citing them in your request will make the request that much more attractive for somebody to pick up. Be aware that notability is not inherited: it is possible, for example, that your organisation is notable in Wikipedia's sense, but you are not (or even vice versa, though that seems unlikely). --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What to do to avoid edit war

I put the "objectivity disputed" template on the article Hasidic Judaism. The reason I did this, as I explained on the talk page, is that there are at least 9 books published criticizing Hasidic Judaism (that is the topic of the books), and an article that treats them as if they did not exist is not objective. The template was removed today. If I put it back in it will be taken out again.

I don't think that trying to "work this out" with defenders of the article as it is is going to work. I have had interactions with them on other topics and I find them absolutely unwilling to deal with dissent or compromise in any way. If I add a section to the article about the criticisms I'm sure it will be removed immediately.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on how to handle this. deisenbe (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You did make a post to the article talk page but reading the post I wouldn't know what you think is POV about the article. You need to be much more specific about your concerns. ~ GB fan 14:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that was obvious from the titles of the books. These people all write that they "escaped", sometimes at great personal cost, from Hasidism. The Village Voice article quotes the following excerp from the blog Hasidic Rebels:

The Chasidic communities are filled with corrupt leaders and so-called activists, Many of these are self-appointed to communal positions because of personal wealth or pedigree, and often hold the masses in their vise-like grip, by being in control of social services and communal institutions. Moneys meant for needy are often pocketed by those in charge, or it is prioritized to go to cronies and relatives, and only then if there's any left does it go to those truly in need.

.

Are you recommending I expand my talk page discussion of what I think the article is omitting? I could, but that wouldn't solve the problem. I'm reluctant to put in the time to add a section to the article as I'm positive it will be immediately deleted. deisenbe (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You need to explain what you see as the problems with the article's neutrality. A list of sources does not describe what you see as the problems. ~ GB fan 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Vivien Saunders

Nomination for deletion has been withdrawn, should we post a notice somewhere so that the AfD is closed now or do we need to wait? Rogerx2 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's done. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Getting editing assistance

Hello: I just created an article in draft. How do I have someone review, edit it? I have a number of format issues that I am hoping I can get assistance with.

AxelMontclaire (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello AxelMontclaire, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume you are referring to Draft:Xposed 4Heads. (In future, please provide a link to a relevant article when asking for help.) I have marked it as a draft under the Articles for creation project. This includes a button you can click to submit the draft for review by an experienced editor. There can be a significant wait, up to several weeks, for a review as there is a large backlog.
However this draft could use significant work before it is even submitted for review.
  1. Read Your First Article for lots of hints on how to write a decent initial article.
  2. This draft needs cited inline references. Read Referencing for Beginners to better understand how to add reference citations to the draft. If that leaves yoiu unclear, return here or post on my talk page with more specific questions.
  3. The draft should include facts supported by the citations, and should not include significant information for which no citation can be found after diligent search.
  4. Except as citations, no external link should be in the body of the article, An "External links" section at the end should contain relevant links, but do not overlink.
  5. Be careful not to include statements of opinion or editorial comment unless they are the quoted or paraphrased and attributed vies of a named person or entity, with a supporting inline citation.
I hope that helps you get started. DES (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your guidance. Where can I learn how to make the right margin box toward the top? The paragraph at the end of my article has that information, but I don't know how to format it in to the right margin information box.

AxelMontclaire (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

AxelMontclaire, the box you refer to is, i think, what Wikipedia calls an "infobox". It is added to a page by inserting a template call, in this case {{Infobox musical artist}} (or its nickname {{Infobox band}}). Please read the documentation on the infobox page (click the link in the previous sentence) for the many available parameter and how to use them. You might also look at the wiki-code on some articles about bands that use infoboxes, such as Journey (band), Santana (band), and The Manhattan Transfer. If you still have a problem, ask, and I or another editor will fill in the box and you can see how it was done.
The info for the box, and some other aspects of the draft, look very much as if they had been copied directly from Wikipedia or another similar wiki? was that the case? If it was, proper attribution needs to be provided. Please let us know if this text was copied from any other online (or for the matter of that offline) source. Thank you. DES (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

PRP

In the clinical validity section of prp the Kanchanatawan meta-analysis has been misquoted.

The first misrepresentation is that only 9 of 551 studies were worth considering... this is not true, 9 Were eligible for inclusion in the pool. This does not mean that the other 542 studies were not worth considering.. they just didn't meet the inclusion criteria

The other mistake is that Wikipedia states that prp did not beat placebo in the review .. this is wrong kzanchanatawan concluded that prp was better than placebo

I have tried to edit this but have been blocked...I would really like to resolve this

I am frustrated that my edits have apparently been over edited, and I would like to talk with someone about this

Peter lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.143 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Peter Lewis, and welcome to the Teahouse. I take it that you are refering to Platelet-rich plasma, is that correct? IN that case the place to discuss what should or should not go into the article ad why is Talk:Platelet-rich plasma. I see that Wuerzele, posted in Talk:Platelet-rich plasma#major edit in lede on what I think must be the edits you refer to, giving reasons why those edits were reverted. I urge you to follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle by responding to those comments in that section, and giving your reasons why that edit, or any other changes, should be made. Note that Medical articles on Wikipedia are subject to more stringent sourcing rules than other articles, see the relevant page. DES (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you might want to read Wikipedia:Why create an account? and consider whether to register a free account. DES (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New Articles

Where can I find a list of new articles that may not have been edited yet and need to be edited? I am new to the Wikipedia community and would like to help edit some articles to learn the ropes. I have read a lot of the informational pages and I figure newly posted articles would be a good place to start? MJC6437 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MJC6437, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a list of recently created articles here or in a different format here.
However, beware of the 'blind leading the blind" factor. That is, new pages often contain particularity blatant errors and issues. Do you feel comfortably able to find and fix these, or tag to call attention to them? Do you feel able to tactfully deal with new editors, without driving them away with what may seem hostile responses? Are you comfortabel finding and adding sourvces to unsourced or under-sourced articles? Have you read and understood Referencing for beginners and the pages it links to, at least? If not you might take a look at Category:Stubs and its many many sub-categories, to find short artilces in need of help, althoguh not all of them are new.
Or you might read Wikipedia:Basic copyediting and look at Category:All articles needing copy edit or Wikipedia:GettingStarted for places in need of work. DES (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The Community portal also offers lists of articles in need of improvements of various types: Noyster (talk), 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixing typos would be an easy and uncontroversial way to start editing, so would adding links and making other minor fixes. Whether the article is new or not doesn't matter, as it's an improvement either way. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
An excellent way to contribute and to learn how to edit is by finding missing sources. You could try playing citationhunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Validity of Sources

Hello Teahouse, it is my first time editing a wikipedia page for my boss. Are achievements posted through his Alma Mater Alumni page good enough as sources for what he's done in his career? What about smaller publications written by a non-affiliated journalist? He has some mentions in bigger publications like LA Times but they are often quotes that don't provide much information about him specifically. Thanks in advance! Amanduhbean (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Amanduhbean. It is not recommended that you write an article about your boss because of your conflict of interest. If, having read that page, and your first article, you decide to go ahead, please understand that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything said or written by the subject of the article or by his friends, associates, employees, or institutions. The article should be almost entirely based on material published in reliable places by people who have no connection with him; and if there is little or no such material, then he is by definition not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article about him will be accepted. So the answer to your question is no: if he is notable through independent sources, then uncontroversial factual information such as dates of appointment may be sourced to non-independent sources such as the alumni, but anything evaluative like "achievements" must come from independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Also note, Amanduhbean, that if writing this article is part of your job duties, or is likely to affect your standing at your job, you are considered a paid contributor, and must disclose your employer as described at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is an absolute requirement of our Terms of Service. DES (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
And if the Alma Mater Alumni page is largely based on content that your boss submitted, it is not considered "independent" and will not count toward notability. We need something more than mentions: multiple independent professionally published articles in reliable sources that discuss him in some detail are required, at a minimum. Lists, directories, and brief mentions will not do. DES (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Understood. All material is taken directly from reputable sources, none is being personally submitted. Thanks for your help Amanduhbean (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating First Wikipedia Page

Hello, I just posted a wikipedia page here - James_lambert_otis

It was reviewed by another wikipedia user who proposed a deletion of the page because it didn't contain references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Communityfirstwiki1 I just added a reference and can add more. Can we ensure the page is maintained? Any thoughts and advice are much appreciated.

Thank you!

Communityfirstwiki1 (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcoem to the Teahouse. Yes, you added a reference, Communityfirstwiki1, but then, in this edit you blanked the page. On Wikipedia that is generally taken as a request to delete the page, Is that what you had in mind? DES (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

which type of improvements should I do?

Hey, please guide me which type of improvements should I do so my article can get published on wikipedia?

Article Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abdullah_Muzaffar Itszaib (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There is some advice about improvements at the top of the draft. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Create article with COI

Hi

Several of my friends have helped creating an article that I would now like to post. The problem is I'm currently working with the subject of the article. How do I best proceed with this conflict of interest? The page is written in a neutral voice but I wish to post the article, in a way that enables me to request help from the community to make further edits and suggestions to improve it. There seemes to be several options available, which one is the best in order to receive some support on this from the community?

Thankful for any advice! 89.157.176.141 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I suggest submitting the article as a draft for review, via the link at Wikipedia:Your first article. You can add a note to the draft when you submit it, explaining your conflict of interest. See also WP:COI, if you haven't already read that. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cordless Larry (if that's how you tag someone). I'm the IP editor who asked the question earlier. Thank you so much for your advice on this, it was very helpful!

I have uploaded a first draft of the article and I (think) I have added a note as well as written about my COI on the talk page. What would you say is a good way to get someone else from the Wikipedia community with more experience to engage and edit so as to improve the page and hopefully turn it from a draft to a real article? Thanks, I'm grateful for any advice and guidance. MatildeZ (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, MatildeZ. I've added a button to Draft:Simon Cohen (communication expert) that you can press to submit the draft for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Oh great, thanks a lot Cordless Larry! MatildeZ (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a Wikipedia local editor/compiler?

At times my internet access is spotty or, for a variety of reasons, I may choose not to connect to the Internet or to the Wikipedia site ;-). However, I would like to be able to edit files locally before I post it in my sandbox for peer review. I would like to edit/draft files and look at them right away locally. Not having to two-step the editing. All such a piece of software would do is the matching/translating of markup from the Wikipedia brackets and tildes to plain html. Is there, at least, such an official lookup table? How do wikipedians do that? Albretch Mueller (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Albretch Mueller and welcome to the Teahouse. To hte best of my knowledge there is no locally-installable software that would properly render wiki-code into the displayed HTML, short of installing a full local copy of MediWiki with all the extensions used by Wikipedia, and copying the entire template namespace at least. That would be a huge overkill for your purpose.
What I do is start an edit, and copy the wiki-code from the edit window to a local text editor such as notepad++ (or even plain notepad). Then I mark the page with {{inuse}} or {{underConstruction}} depending on how long I expect to be and save it. Then I can edit in the local editor as long as i want. I won't see previews, I will be editing raw wiki-code. When I am ready, I start an edit again (edit source if you are using the visual editor by default, which i personally don't) and paste my edited wiki-code into the edit box. This works fairly well, but you do need to be a little aware of wiki-code markup. But then that is always a good idea in any case -- the visual editor simply does not handle everything correctly. I hope this method will be useful to you. I know that many editors follow it. DES (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh one note about wiki-code. When you start a line/paragraph with a leading space, it renders the text inside an HTML <PRE> tag, so it is formatted with no wrapping, a light background color, and a mono-spaced font, as if it were a source code excerpt. I have removed the leading spaces from your question above. DES (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I won't see previews

but this is what I need. Anyone could go monkey and work as you describe ;-). In a sense I am amazed that not so many people have such a need, it seems Albretch Mueller (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about images and copyright

Hi, so I'm confused about images and copyright

I want to use an image similar to the one which can be found here (image source) (I would take my own photo of an example in the book not use that exact image). This is the notation system of a book which I don't think is in the public domain (published in England in 1931, authors died 1949 and 1939), but I was thinking it might be possible to use an image as a "quotation".

It's not an issue to quote from works which are still copyrighted, as in I could do something like

· ‾ · ·<sub>◝</sup>.
hi fɛlt ɪn ɪz pɒkɪt

--Armstrong & Ward 1931 The Intonation of English 2nd edition. Cambridge. page 36

But doing so isn't clear or fully accurate with the way they've written it. Since the book doesn't treat this as an image, if I take a photo of the text and the way they've written it out am I the copyright holder? Or is the copyright holder the authors of the text?

Thanks for any advice, I hope I was clear. Umimmak (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that, just as you can copy a short piece of copyrighted text verbatim so long as you attribute it and make it clear that it's a quotation, so you can do something similar with a small excerpt of a copyrighted image. But I've never seen it done in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Would I upload my image of the text/typesetting to Wikipedia commons and say I'm the source of the image? Or would I upload it to Wikipedia and have to fill out a Fair Use Rationale?
edit: I just noticed this "It is too simple to be eligible for copyright. This typically applies only to graphics that consist solely of simple geometric shapes and/or a few letters or words, or to items such as mathematical or chemical formulae. It may apply to some very simple logos that do not contain complex pictorial elements. It never applies to photographs!"
So maybe copyright doesn't apply if I create an image of a few words they transcribed? Umimmak (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: I tried it here [and here — Umimmak (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)] with a similar situation -- does this look okay? I would imagine the process would be the same if I did it with an example with intonation diacritics above the text as well. Umimmak (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What is meant by WikiVisually?

There isn't any article related with WikiVisually.Is this a part of Wikipedia.Some times if I search any information related to sports etc.I often see articles copied from Wikipedia to WikiVisually [for example:http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Kasun_Jayasuriya]Abishe (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikivisually is independent of Wikipedia. It copies content from Wikipedia, acknowledging it with a clear statement. This is all legal, and welcomed by Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Maproom:, Wikivisually is a blatant copyright infringer of our content. They do not link to our articles where the page history is available, nor link to the page history, nor provide a list of authors – and thereby do not comply with our copyright licenses. The main promise of our licenses is suitable credit to the copyright owners, which are the authors of our articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit:, at the top of each article they say "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Is that not a sufficient acknowledgement? It identifies the source, and allows a reader to find Wikipedia's version. I am interested because I have, for my own purposes, copied images from Wikimedia Commons and used them on my web pages with statements like "The image above, and the two below, are copied from Wikipedia." Would it be enough if I put the URL of each copied image into hover text? Maproom (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit:, at the top of each article they say "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Is that not a sufficient acknowledgement? It identifies the source, and allows a reader to find Wikipedia's version. I am interested because I have, for my own purposes, copied images from Wikimedia Commons and used them on my web pages with statements like "The image above, and the two below, are copied from Wikipedia." Would it be enough if I put the URL of each copied image into hover text? Maproom (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Maproom: No, it's woefully short of sufficient acknowledgment, because Wikipedia does not own the copyright, we do, and the copyright licenses that we give to our copyrighted expression contain two promises and legal obligations for re-users: suitable credit to the authors, and the posting of the license of the work. When you contribute to an article (and so long as what you contribute is sufficiently artistic that it it is copyrightable) you own that content – you personally – that is, you, and not the Wikimedia Foundation.

If you are a major contributor to an article, and someone like Wikivisually does not comply with their legal obligation by giving you (and other authors) suitable credit, you could sue for copyright infringement (again, you personally, not Wikipedia or Wikimedia). The heart of our license is credit to the authors and credit is all about access to the page history where our identities are provided. A re-user can provide a hyperlink to the page history, or they can provide a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article (which has been interpreted as sufficient credit because from there a person can directly access the page history where the authors are listed), or, if they don't want to link, they can list each and every author. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. What Wikivisually is doing is both illegal and ethically bankrupt. We put in our thousands and thousands of hour of sweat equity writing content and then have people like this use our writing without giving us the credit we are promised.

As to your website, it depends on the license of the images. Many images at the Commons are in the public domain. For those, you do not have to provide credit. Many others are under free copyright licenses, but not necessarily CC BY-SA-3.0. If CC BY-SA-3.0, or many Creative Commons licenses, yes, what you are doing is copyright infringement. Read the re-use pages I linked. You must link to the image page and link the applicable license(s), or list all of the authors and provide the full text of the license(s). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a uniform writing style?

I notice that many of the articles on this site have a general tone and prose to them that is pretty seamless. Many newspapers and other similar publications encourage their contributors to adopt a standard form of writing so that the publication maintains a certain "image". Does Wikipedia have such guidelines? Should we avoid or embrace particular writing conventions when contributing to articles?Truthslayer89 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We have a manual of style that concerns small things like grammar and punctuation but there's nothing affecting writer's voice beyond that. Beyond that, articles work on the same principle as choirs -- frequently read articles have hundreds of editors, making it nearly impossible to pick out inconsistencies. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Some pages do have particular guidelines that are usually noted on the talk page - for example, some pages use British English. In cases where an article has an established style for citation or British/American english, it is a good idea to adhere to that style unless there is consensus for a change. Seraphim System (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Truthslayer89. Take a look at Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone as well as the rest of that article. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Great discussion, Ian.thomson Some editors edit in different areas. For example, I am a medical content writer. So for those of us create content and edit on medical topics, we follow WP:MEDMOS which is a manual of style for medical articles. Having said this, there are lots of reasons to NOT follow a manual of style, but editors decide that on their own. If you deviate significantly from a consensus-derived-style, you will hear about it from other editors or they may just edit your content to match what they think is the 'proper' style. I used to be insulted, but I don't care anymore. With my tongue in my cheek, I can say that if I didn't make errors in my prose and style, some editors wouldn't have anything to do!
Best Regards,
  Bfpage  let's talk...  22:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Page numbers for multiple citations of a single academic article

Hi, I'm using a journal article (via JSTOR) to cite several points and want to know if I can put in page number references, or should I put the citation at the end of all quotes? Gsnerd (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to log off so I have made the edit as a single citation at the end of the quotes at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortifacient&oldid=777918551 . If this is the wrong way please leave a message and I will add the page numbers tomorrow. Gsnerd (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Gsnerd and welcome to the Teahouse. It is best to provide as much information as possible so that a reader who wants to verify or further explore a source can find the exact passage beign cited. Page numbers should be provided when they are available. To provide separate citations to different pages of the same source without repeating the entire bibliographic data for the source, you can create a basic cite for the source without page numbers, use it multiple times as specified in WP:REFNAME, and then use {{rp}} to specify the page number for each individual citation. I hope this helps. DES (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, DES! That was a very useful explanation, the article is now fixed. Gsnerd (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for visiting the Teahouse, Gsnerd. I also use a lot of journal citations. I enter the full citation with the right parameters the first time I use the source. Whenever the source needs to be used to support content from the same source but from a different page, I reference the second occurence like this: {{sfn|Jones|page = 10}} . It is good thing to ask questions at the Teahouse because there are probably plenty of other new editors that have the same question but are afraid to ask. Best Regards,
  Bfpage  let's talk...  22:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
How to do it when I am using visual editor?

Regards, Sonal Sardasonal (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I also have that question, since it would be nice to do it in a single edit instead of revising a visual edit manually after the fact. Gsnerd (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How to create a company page?

Please help me, how can I create wiki page for my Company? Pravesh Maurya (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello,Pravesh Maurya, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first piece of advice is, don't. Whether "my company" means "the company I own" or "the company I work for", you have a clear conflict of interest. If you have been assigned to create the article, or it will affect your evaluation at work you are considered a paid editor and must disclose this as described in that page. It is hard for most people to be neutral about somewhere that they are as closely connected with as their job or business.
The second issue is to consider whether your company is notable in the special sense that Wikipedia uses the term. See our guideline for the notability of companies. See also Wikipedia's golden rule. Have there been multiple, professionally published independent reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail? not passing mentions, not trivial and routine coverage, not inclusion in directories and lists, not blogs or fansites, and not by or based on info from the company itself, such as interviews or press releases? If not, no article can be created (or if created will be deleted fairly soon).
Creating a new article from scratch is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia -- it is best if a user edits existing articles for a while first. Then, read Your First Article, and Referencing for Beginners, and use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. The draft will need to cite those reliable sources I mentioned. The draft can then be reviewed by an experienced editor before it goes live as an article.
I hope all that is helpful. DES (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

userpage configuration

How can I make it so that an infobox appears at the top of the page with other content on the left of it? If I place the infobox code above the other items, then the other items get moved to an area below the infobox-the two cannot coexist side by side. The problem is on my userpage. Thanks. NikolaiHo☎️ 02:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nikolaiho. Remove clear:both; from the Random Statistics box if you want to allow other content next to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, I tried it but it still doesn't work somehow. Thanks. NikolaiHo☎️ 19:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I find that if the infobox is at the top that is where it will be. Is that better ? Dave Rave (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

ORPHAN & CATEGORIES

  • Questions: it says on the top of the Roberto Estuardo Penedo article: "This article is an orphan", how to link it to the other articles the right way? It also says it needs additional or more specific categories, how to do it? Thanks Olga Wills (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello and welcome back, OlgaWills2017. An article is an "orphan" when no other articles link to it. If this article survives it will be good to introduce links from other articles where these are natural and proper, but I would not bother until the deletion discussion is over, because if the article is deleted they would only need to be removed again.
Similarly categories will be important in the long run if the article survives, but are not urgent now.
The urgent task, the sole urgent task at the moment, is to find additional published independent reliable sources that discuss Penedo in some detail, and showing how those sources demonstrate his notability. If this is not done the article will be deleted, and nothing else about it will matter. It is as simple as that, and being distracted by other issues about the article at this point is a mistake. DES (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View on "Template: Find Sources"?

So I've been noticing this template appearing on articles: Template:Find sources mainspace and Template:Find sources (they might be merged), and I have no problem with the use of the template. But I find it extremely surprising that JSTOR is specifically mentioned on it. Why is this? Why this specific company, and not any of the others in the world, or at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library? I'm just curious. =) Popcrate (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that it is because Wikipedia has set up a collaboration with JSTOR to allow free access to a restricted number of editors. You can read about it here. I have access and have used it to provide references to a number of articles.Leschnei (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
JSTOR is one of dozens of resources that are made available to editors under certain conditions. The full list can be found at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases. I have benefited greatly from a subscription to Newspapers.com and books from McFarland Publishing Company, both via this program. I don't know why others are not included in the template. Perhaps JSTOR was selected because it is described on the databases page as "one of the largest and most reputable journal archives in the world." Eddie Blick (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

How to address obvious bias and logical confusion -what do I do?

First, the article "Mother Goddess" is not on subject. It is a critique of long-rejected theories of a universal matriarchal culture. Second, the author is illogical, confusing the existence of art depicting women with acceptance of a universal matriarchal culture. Third, there is no discussion of the many "mother goddess" cults (Isis, Demeter, Cybele, to name a few.). Fourth, it is patronizing, offensive, and lacking in scientific distance. The oldest sculptures in the world are of women, and, usually, they are obviously mothers. There are almost no early sculptures of male figures. Experts have no qualms about attributing spiritual significance cave paintings with male figures depicted with weapons or depictions of hands that would hunt. It demonstrates bias to insist that female figures be labeled "figures with probable cult significance". The standards should be the same for art depicting women as they are for art depicting men. C. BenaghCPBenagh (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You refer to the "author" but the article, Mother goddess, is the result of the input of many editors since 2003. The article may need help, but you may want to express yourself on the article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, the only thing Wikipedia does is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, with no interpretation or elaboration. It is neutral in the presentation of those sources in accordance with the prominence of those sources -- which does not mean that we give each idea equal validity. The problems you are identifying sound more like a problem with mainstream scholarship (which we can do nothing about, we're a tertiary source) than with the article itself. You would have to go to Talk:Mother Goddess and cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that address the issues you have a problem with -- this is not the place to fix that article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How to upload a "public use" photo

If possible, I would like to upload photos of GA State Representatives from the official website: http://www.house.ga.gov/mediaServices/en-US/HousePhoto.aspx. I can't figure out which options I'm supposed to use when uploading. The photos are listed as "public use." Does anyone know what to do to upload them??? Caspian X 02:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello LuckyWiki26, and welcome to the Teahouse. That page says "These photos are provided in electronic format by the Georgia House of Representatives as a public service for public information purposes.". It does not say that anyone may create derivative works, or re-use them commercially. Nor does it name a specific free license, nor indeed any specific license. I am afraid Wikipedia must treat these as copyrighted, and not under a free license, and therefore you may not upload them at all, as they do not qualify under fair use, being replaceable. (The linked page https://www.smugmug.com/about/terms/ does not help.) You could get a second opnion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, if you like -- people there have more experience with this issue, but I doubt the answer will be different. DES (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How to use the Sandbox?

Are there instructions on how to use the Sandbox? For example, how to use it for preparing drafts for edits... Aarvotucker (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aarvotucker. There is "the sandbox" which is a page which can be used by anyone for quick tests and fooling around, and which is emptied out frequently. Do not use that page for anything you want to keep for more than a few minutes. Then, there is "your own sandbox", which you can reach by clicking the sandbox link next to your talk page link. You can use that page for anything related to improving the encyclopedia, and you can create as many sandbox subpages as you need to develop articles or test coding. If I am working on a draft article about a topic called "XYZ" , I will create a sandbox subpage for that draft article, and work on it at my leisure until I believe that it is ready for the encyclopedia. At that point. I will move it there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Help With Wiki Page

I need help editing the Page of Bryan Pray. Can anyone help? Aimco123 (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is to write the article in your own words, not just copy this website. Dbfirs 07:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy

Living people pages are seldom accurate and constantly changing so that even correct information morphs into a mixture of truth and nonsense over time. Some pages seem to get most of the detail right some of the time, but each time an alteration is made and then corrected by someone else misunderstanding seem to create ever increasing errors of detail which can remain indefinitely. Would it be possible to ensure that pages about living people are periodically edited by asking the living people directly for first hand information and confirmation because even published interviews can be misreported or written with bias? I have heard a lot of complaints about misrepresentation from people on pages and a number have asked for their pages to be removed altogether because the information is so inaccurate and potentially damaging. This process appears to take about six month to achieve. Would it be possible for deletion of a page at the request of the person the page is about to be performed much more rapidly so as to reduce offense? Highfunctioningautistic (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are doubts about the accuracy of a biography of a living person, our first priority should be to remove anything that is both unreferenced and defamatory. Then facts can be checked, and content added, using reliable independent sources. We should disregard what the person wants said about themself, unless they can supply such sources. Maproom (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, though it is difficult when the main source contains errors and the person referenced is unable to prove this by citing anything published. Complicated. Some of the people who contacted me about the problem have spent years trying to get the details corrected, but had no independent research to refer to. But why did it take so long to remove their pages? Highfunctioningautistic (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Highfunctioningautistic: in that case where the material is disputed, but the alternate facts can't be referenced, it should be removed. It is better to be silent on the subject than to include statements which are dubious, especially in articles about living people.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The ideal would be for the person who disputes claims in articles published by WP:Reliable sources to persuade that source to publish a retraction. That will not always be possible, of course, because even reliable sources don't always care enough about accuracy, but, with a bit of pressure, they can often be persuaded to publish a correction which is then good evidence for removing the claim from Wikipedia. Dbfirs 07:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How to make a dynamic picture?

I have a question about Libre Calc:

How do I create a drop-down list in Libre Calc which is linked to a worksheet with icons. An entry list must come with a drop-down list that allows someone to set an icon on another worksheet. I can not do it.

Example:

On the "Import" worksheet, you can insert an icon on the "Announcement Cards" sheet via a drop-down menu. All icons are on an "icons" worksheet. I do not know how to connect these 3 worksheets to achieve that.

The goal is to create a dynamiche image in Calc.

I would like to receive a ready-to-use solution so that I can finish my program as it should eventually come true.

Thanks in advance!

Original question in Dutch

Ik heb een vraag over Libre Calc.

Hoe maak ik een keuzelijst in Libre Calc welke is gekoppeld aan een werkblad met pictogrammen. Op een invoerblad moet een keuzelijst komen waarmee iemand een icoon kan instellen op op een ander werkblad. Ik krijg het niet voorelkaar.

Voorbeeld:

Op het werkblad "Invoer" kan men via een keuzelijst een pictogram invoegen op het werkblad "aankondigingskaartjes". Alle pictogrammen staan op een "pictogrammen"werkblad. Ik weet niet hoe ik deze 3 werkbladen met elkaar moet koppelen om datgene te bereiken.

Het doel is uiteindelijk om een dynamiche afbeelding te maken in Calc.

Hoe maak ik een keuzelijst in Libre Calc welke is gekoppeld aan een werkblad met pictogrammen. Op een invoerblad moet een keuzelijst komen waarmee iemand een icoon kan instellen op op een ander werkblad. Ik krijg het niet voorelkaar.

Voorbeeld:

Op het werkblad "Invoer" kan men via een keuzelijst een pictogram invoegen op het werkblad "aankondigingskaartjes". Alle pictogrammen staan op een "pictogrammen"werkblad. Ik weet niet hoe ik deze 3 werkbladen met elkaar moet koppelen om datgene te bereiken.

Het doel is uiteindelijk om een dynamiche afbeelding te maken in Calc.

Graag zou ik een kant en klare oplossing ontvangen zodat ik mijn programma kan afmaken zoals het er uiteindelijk uit moet komen te zien.

Bij voorbaat dank!Ina Janssen (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ina Janssen This is a page for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, not for general questions. If you ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, someone there might be able to help answer your technical question. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Joseph, Thank you!Ina Janssen (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_612&oldid=1214545933"