Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 304

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

Archive 300

←

Archive 302

→

Creating 1st Wiki page

Hello Teahouse, I have just completed creating my 1st wiki page (deceased artist) which is in my sandbox and pending submission for publishing. Before I do this I have two questions. 1. Is it possible for someone in the Teahouse to check it for me first to get a view on the content and tone to ensure its suitability. 2. I would be grateful for some advice on uploading images as this page would benefit with images as reference material. The two jpeg images are paintings of works by the subject deceased artist and are more than 100 years old and are now outside of copyright and are appropriate for a free content encyclopaedia. As a courtesy I have also obtained permission from the owners of the paintings and they have given me their permission to use them as a digital image on Wikipedia. I have read the Wiki Uploading Images wizard page but am still not sure which is the correct copyright listing to use. Thanks for your advice. Toby Clark Wiki (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Toby Clark Wiki, welcome to the Teahouse! I've looked at User:Toby Clark Wiki/sandbox and the content and tone are generally suitable but could use some clean up. For example, we write in prose and try to avoid structures like 1) 2) 3)... A question about sources: You have lots of content - do the inline cites source all that content? For example, does one citation source an entire paragraph? As for images, if they're over 100 years old they are in the public domain. Did you take the digital photos? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:NeilN, Thank you for your help. I have updated the draft article in my sandbox to avoid the structures 1) 2) 3) etc. regarding the citations inline, they do refer to the contents of the paragraphs. Thanks for clarifying the images of paintings over 100 years old are in the public domain. The digital images have been taken by the owners of the paintings who have provided permission of use. I am unsure what wiki copyright tag should be used when uploading. I tried to upload a self portrait painting of William Beetham.png. but it was taken down as i had not indicated the correct license status of the image. Many thanks for your help Toby Clark Wiki (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Toby Clark Wiki, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Just to follow up on NeilN's answer above — for copyright purposes, the painting is in the public domain, but the photo of it is not. The photo copyright is owned by the person who took the digital photo, so the process is a bit complicated to have the image approved for posting on Wikimedia Commons. In my experience, it feels like wandering into a conceptual swamp.

Since the owners of the painting seem amenable to allowing their photograph of it to be posted on Wikimedia Commons, follow the instructions here to secure their permission in writing, using an e-mail template from this page. The trickiest part of the process is selecting an appropriate license, from this confusing list. One of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses could work for a digital image of a public domain work of art, but you may find another license that suits the needs of the copyright holder. You will need to upload the image using the wizard, and in the "Other" field add this code: {{subst:OP}}, which renders a template telling the volunteers who staff the Open-source Ticket Request System (OTRS) to look for the e-mail sent by the copyright owner, in order to approve the posting. Then finish uploading and add the resulting url for the image into the licensing template, e-mail it to the copyright holder, and ask that it be returned to the OTRS e-mail address directly. OTRS is backlogged, so it may take a while (months) to finalize it, but eventually you should have a positive result. Good luck..— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene, are you sure this is correct? Per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses: "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights—they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing. For example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa is ineligible for copyright." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for pointing this out, NeilN. I was going by the Wikimedia Commons page on derivative works, with the text, "This photograph of the Venus de Milo is a derivative work. The artist died more than 100 years ago, so the statue is in the public domain—no copyright problems here provided that an appropriate license is provided to cover the photographer's copyright in the photograph (italics mine). So Bridgeman v. Corel seems to differentiate between more restrictive UK law and US law, which differentiates between 2-dimensional public domain art in a frame and 3-dimensional art, where the photographer holds copyright for an image of 3-dimensional public domain art? ...starting to feel lost in the tullie weeds, again, here. But it's good news for Toby Clark Wiki, who can just upload the photo rather than use the circuitous process I described above. I should maybe heed Pope's advice, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; / Drink deep or taste not of the pierian spring: / There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, / And drinking largely sobers us again." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene, yes, the intricacies of copyright sometimes make my head spin too. The way I understand U.S. law is that a photo of a two-dimensional object requires no artistic creativity and so cannot be copyrighted. A photo of a three-dimensional object (statue, person, architecture, etc.) requires some artistic choices to be made and so is copyrightable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the scope of "orphan page" status?

On Feb. 6 I made some edits on PLUNA destinations (diff here; history here), to say

that the airline has ceased operations (which was stated in PLUNA) and
to remove the "orphan" tag, because PLUNA links to it as Main article from the Destinations section.

Jetstreamer reverted my edits (diff here) with the comments

"Unsourced" and
"It's an orphan, actually. WP:ALSO applies for parent article."

(1) is not at issue: I should have sourced the statement. But when I asked Jetstreamer about (2), their reply didn't address the point at all. (There was another issue, also my error but not relevant here.)

I followed up with

I still don't see a source for your statement that "WP:ALSO applies for parent article". I'm not going to make an edit war about this, but unless there is an actual policy about it, PLUNA destinations is not an orphan as long as it's linked from PLUNA.

and I restored (1), properly sourced. Jetstreamer then made major revisions to the page in recognition of the airline's defunctness ("defunctitude"?), but left the "orphan" tag even though it is still linked from PLUNA.

So far I've had no reply. I haven't been able to find any policy about parent articles not counting against orphanhood, and frankly it seems a bizarre idea, in actuality as well as in the metaphor. PLUNA is linked to from about 54 pages, excluding redirect, talk, and user pages, so it certainly is no orphan. My question is,

In order not to be an orphan, does a page have to have links from outside its "family", or at least other than its "parent", however defined?*

*I haven't found any definition of "parent article", either.

Please {{ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: "WP:ALSO applies for parent article" meant you cannot remove the orphan tag just because you added a link to the "See also" section of the parent article when WP:ALSO says do not repeat links already in the body the article. The orphan status did not change after you did that. I thought this was clear. I hope it is now. Nevertheless, the orphan tag can perfectly be removed according to WP:ORPH because at least another article links to it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: Thank you. However, your explanation seems irrelevant to the facts:

In your answer quoted above, you said

that the article was an orphan – despite the link from PLUNA which had been there since 2007
that "WP:ALSO applies for parent article": an assertion that you still haven't shown any authority for, including WP:ALSO itself, and that would be irrelevant even if sourced.

Or did you, perhaps, mean WP:ORPH? That doesn't support your claim either:

§ Step 3: Adding links:

When you find an appropriate parent, insert a meaningful link to the orphaned article.
(This was already in place, as you yourself pointed out to me. That was enough to de-orphan the article. See below.)

§ Criteria:

The following pages do not count as incoming links:
1. Disambiguation pages
2. Redirects and Soft redirects
  ...except that incoming links to the redirects do count
3. Discussion pages of articles
4. Wikipedia pages outside of article space
The following pages do count as incoming links:
1. Any article in mainspace except those specifically excluded above
  (Which certainly applies to PLUNA. It's in mainspace and it's not a DAB or redirect.)
2. List of... articles
3. Set indexes

--Thnidu (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

When you publish to the sandbox is it live for all to see?

Hello,

I recently had a play with my sandbox to get a good idea of how it all works before creating my first page. I got the page how I'd like it and hit publish. As all looked good I decided to create the real page only to receive an automated message from CorenSearchBot saying the page appears to include material copied directly from my sandbox...

I quickly deleted the contents of my sandbox and left a message in the Talk section. Oops!

So does this mean anyone can read my sandbox? Apologies if this question has been asked before. Adaircameron (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Adaircameron:, there are no hidden pages on Wikipedia. Any page is visible to anyone, it's just a question of finding some of them. So although your sandbox is in your userspace, anyone can view it (although the convention is that people won't edit it unless it is a) with permission or b) there is somthing on it that it contrary to Wikipedia policies e.g. it's an attack page). CorenSearchBot is very good at what it does but it can through up false positives as it did here, that's why it only tags pages as suspected copies and doesn't delete them. Bizarrely in this case, the tag was not by comparing your article in draft userspace directly with your sandbox but because it picked up your sandbox at a Mirror site. Nthep (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep thanks for your response. That's much appreciated. So in this case there shouldn't be anything to worry about? Be great to see my first contribution to Wikipedia go live in the near future. Adaircameron (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about over the tagging. I dodn't really read the article so I can't comment on whether that is acceptable or not. Nthep (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adaircameron. It is a good question that you have asked and it does come up quite a bit. But since the same question comes up, it's always good to have it readily visible to new editors who may not be aware of this issue. Not everyone searches the archives to find a possible answer to their current question. So you have done everyone a favor.

Whenever this question comes up, I suggest that you create your drafts off of Wikipedia on your own computer to maintain your privacy and until you're ready for anyone on the planet to see your draft. I enjoy creating content, but don't like the idea of letting other editors seeing what I have created until I believe that it is ready for peer review. When I want to see how my potential article will look on Wikipedia, I do a quick copy and paste from my word processor of my article into my sandbox, press the preview button, and take a look. Since I have not saved the page into my sandbox it is not visible to editors although I suppose there is a way that someone with the knowledge and expertise could see the preview if they so desired. Once I am happy with the preview of my new article I delete it from my sandbox and put it back into my word processor.

Bfpage |leave a message 19:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

One other bit to add, Adaircameron: it is generally not a good idea to copy and paste within Wikipedia, because it tends to cause copyright problems (the licences under which most of the material is shared require attribution). There are times when it is appropriate to copy and paste, of course, but normally to move an article from a sandbox or draft space to main space it is best to move it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Query regarding citations! I think I am missing a syntax. Help!

Recently I have contributed to the Preamble to the Constitution of India article where I have added many facts with reliable citation from a single source. In the reference list, the same source appeared many times making the list really long! Interestingly, BG19bot did some error fixing and now the reference list appears neat and clean with single source hypertexted with a,b,c,d. The ref list has been shortened.

Now, Again I have added some info to the Indian rhinoceros and cited them with reliable source. There are two references - numbered 5 & 16 - to David Attenborough. My query is, how can I have multiple citations to a single source? On a lighter note: I really want to lessen the burden for BG19bot!! :D Anand2202 (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Anand2202. You can cite the same source multiple times by naming your references: see WP:NAMEDREFS. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. That was just what I needed. --Anand2202 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

How do reference sections differ?

I don't understand about the different types of references. How do "References", "Bibliography", "External Links", "Suggested Reading", and "Footnotes" differ?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mitzi.humphrey I'm not sure there are any fixed rules, pages tend to start with a References section and others get added as editors feel the need. - see MOS:FOOTERS for the wiki explanation. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- - References are the sources used to write the article.
  - Bibliography are the books used to write the article, the pages can be referred to in the references.
  - External links are weblinks to websites, added because they contain vital information that cannot be added to the article on Wikipedia (they are not used to write the article but are extra info).
  - Suggested reading are books that were not used to write the article, but might be of interest to people who read the article.
  - Footnotes are notes by the author to sections of the text. They are textual explanations and not sources.
- I hope this helps. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mitzi.humphrey. You have brought up one of my favorite discussions. But before I share my thoughts with you I would like to refer you to some helpful pages on Wikipedia that will help you understand the 'hows' and the 'whys' of references and citations. I have found these pages to be quite helpful and refer to them all the time:

WP:Citing sources

Help:Referencing for beginners

As an editor here on Wikipedia my favorite task is to create content with references for articles. It has been my pleasure to run into a group of people who follow me around as I create content and fix any mistakes that I make in referencing my statements. Believe me, I make a lot of mistakes and if it were not for these other editors a lot of what I do would be fruitless. You can even ask them for help: WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests

Bfpage |leave a message 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

- - Many thanks for these valuable suggestions. I'm going to see if I can copy and print them for quick, easy reference. Or do I only need to ask the Guild of Copy Editors to follow my mistakes? Or do both? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

How to ensure that an image is OK to use

I am working with a few other editors to improve the Gun show loophole article. I would like to add an image. I really like this one [1] that I found via Google images that says it's labeled for reuse. How do I ensure that an image is OK to use? Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Lightbreather. AFAICT there's no way to backtrack that image to a place at PBS. Can you provide the URL of the page at PBS where that's displayed in context? The URL's inclusion of "wp-content" makes it seem as if the image may have actually come from here (or possibly the Commons).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I believe the "wp-content" is actually just a default part of the URL for WordPress websites; very likely doesn't have to do with Wikipedia.

@Lightbreather: Welcome to the Teahouse. To put it simply, for an image to be considered free by Wikipedia's standards, it needs to be able to be used for any purpose, including commercially. If you can find the licensing information for the image that permits this, it would most likely be fine to upload at the Wikimedia Commons. Some of the most common free licenses we can accept are CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or public domain images. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

SuperHamster, Fuhghettaboutit "I believe the "wp-content" is actually just a default part of the URL for WordPress websites..." This is almost certainly what it is. See this search for all of the links we have here that contain it. Discant X 00:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I found it by searching for "gun show purchase" at Google Images, filtered by usage rights "Labeled for reuse" - hey! Wait a minute! Now it doesn't show up under the labeled-for-reuse filter. Never mind, I guess... Dang! Lightbreather (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lightbreather. Have you seen this image at Wikimedia Commons?

Houston Gun Show at the George R. Brown Convention Center

Personally, I would crop out the out-of-focus firearms in the foreground, and some extraneous stuff to the right. But it may benefit the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinniped?

I saw that something recently happened to Pinniped, what was it? Kitty 56 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I am asking so many questions, it's just that I am new and this seemed the perfect place to find out the policies. Kitty 56 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kitty 56
If you click the "History" tab at the top of that article, you can see it was vandalized twice on 4 February, the frst time the vandalism was reverted by ClueBot NG, an automatic programme, the second time by a human editor. If you want to see what was changed in any edit, or any group of edits, click one empty circle in each of the two columns and Compare selected revisions. That seems to have been the only recent activity at that page. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Vandalism! Thank you for clarifying. Kitty 56 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of vandalism? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

YoSoyUnHamster, it appears that someone decided to come along and insert a bunch of words in the article that didn't belong there, such as where they changed the link elephant seals to read telephone seals. It's not uncommon to see this kind of abuse, since anyone can edit here. When this happens, someone will be along shortly to change it back :) Discant X 00:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Telephone seals? Well that's just pure vandalism. Actually, I wonder what a telephone seal would look like. :) YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Find and replace

Is there a way to perform a mass find-and-replace other than searching manually? I'd like to replace most (but not all) instances of the word "semiautomatic" with "semi-automatic". Not a big deal, but it would be nice to do. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Faceless Enemy not that I know of and it would be dangerous and destructive if there was. Often when people who just do a find-and-replace in an article they break images, wiki links, cetegories, templates, reference links, etc. Changes have to be done with care to context. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Typo Team. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Faceless Enemy. When I do a Google search, I find both forms used by reliable sources. You should be prepared to make a convincing case, beyond your own personal preference, why one is to be preferred over the other. You should never make such a change within a quotation, and KylieTastic has pointed out other potential problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-automatic may be common in the UK, but U.S. dictionaries (such as Merriam-Webster ones) tend to spell all semi- compounds solid (no hyphen, closed up), including semiautomatic. The OP should not change semiautomatic unless the conditions specified in WP:ENGVAR so indicate. Deor (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay thank you all very much. I'll just leave it as-is for now. Good to know for the future. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Faceless Enemy, I agree with Cullen328 and Deor that the suggested edit should not be done. Not just for this case but for most similar types of minor examples where there are two ways of spelling, grammar, etc., the default is that unless there is a very compelling reason to make the change it is better to stick with the existing decisions in the article. I also agre with KylieTastic that find/replace can be dangerous if not used carefully. But there is such a feature. Look at the editing widgets. Make sure you have "Advanced Options" selected so that you see the second row of widgets. Then look all the way to the right of the second row, you will see a find/replace widget. In regard to caution I never do the "Replace All" option, the chances are too high you might mess up a reference or some other bit of code with the word searched for in it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable article ideas

Would a legitimate article on changing aesthetics of chest hair in the U.S. survive on wikipedia? My submission. Thank you. Jeffreykf (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffreykf: Welcome to the Teahouse. If there are credible sources that substantially discuss the aesthetics of chest hair in the U.S., then there can most likely be an article on it. If an article on the topic is nominated for deletion, it won't be because someone perceives the topic to be silly; we have plenty of established articles on trivial and esoteric topics, e.g. toilet paper orientation. --Jakob (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to what Jakob said and unpack it a bit more: a legitimately sourced article would need to make sure it just reported what significant sources said on the issue and not try to weave them into a creative essay. (Read about 'original research' here.) If it is a significant scholarly debate and you can summarise it, then it would be a reasonable article. If you planned to compose an essay on it drawing your own inferences from those sources, then no, that would generally count as original research. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish your own thinking on a subject - get an article published in a journal or serious magazine first, start a general academic or journalistic debate on the subject, and then it's worthy of a Wikipedia article.

Regarding whether or not it would survive if you wrote it: articles on topics such as this basically need to cover notable debates. Trivial things certainly count, but there needs to be serious coverage before it can survive deletion. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 09:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

changing username

Hello, i am aGastya, and i joined Wikipedia on 13 March, 2013 as Acagastya as my username but i forgot the password and then after an year made a new account. now i wish to change my username. is it possible? and is it possible to get that username(acagastya) again? please tell me the procedure to it thanks! aGastya 16:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)

Hi AgastyaC, welcome to the Teahouse. User:Acagastya has no edits so you can request a renaming of your current account at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

But User:PrimeHunter should i ask for username change in acagastya first( in the old account) and then acquire that username or should i do something else?

because the link provided by you; i didn't get it as it confused me. can you tell me what exactly i need to write there. Please let me know on my talk page. Thank you! aGastya 04:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)

@AgastyaC: Let's keep it here where others can see it and step in if needed. Post this to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations while logged in as AgastyaC:

{{subst:usurp|Acagastya|reason=I lost access to my original account but want the name now.}}

Click Place your request here. and replace the seen text by the above. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article that is the best, to use as a guide for editing...

Hilloo, hey, can someone tell me what the greatest article is in Wikipedia, that can be used as a guide for editing? Awsome!Frogger48 (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Frogger48: Welcome to the Teahouse! Featured articles are the articles that we consider the best Wikipedia has to offer. Note that these articles are very expansive and detailed - it's a goal to strive for, but it often takes many edits and a lot of time to get there; it's a step-by-step process. Another useful resource, I think, are WikiProject guidelines. WikiProjects are collaborations between editors on certain subjects. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games is a page for editors to collaborate and find information on editing video game articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines lists the guidelines for video game articles. Not all WikiProjects have these, but if you can find a WikiProject that covers your article's subject, and they have their own article guidelines, that can be a great resource. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, @Frogger48: Chiming in with additional info on WikiProjects that @SuperHamster: mentioned above. There is a directory of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I get a review for checks and balances before I resubmit my draft

I created my first page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Exilant_Technologies , and Anup helped to identify the issues while declining the submission. He advised to seek help from Teahouse team before I resubmit to avoid the obvious reject that I risk , being new to Wikipedia. Hence requesting the senior members to spend some time and help me out. Devopam (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Devopam. I'm afraid what I have to say is going to be a little disappointing.

Firstly, remember Wikipedia isn't a business directory; it's an encyclopaedia. Your article does read like you are trying to present the company to clients rather than give us an idea of what makes it important in its field. Lack of notability is a problem that is very hard to overcome; it means you need to produce independent, third party reliable sources to qualify for an entry here. This is, as it sounds, difficult to assert if few or no such sources exist. News coverage is simply stuff like [2], which documents something the company has done, but doesn't discuss the impact of the sponsorship in enough detail to prove this is anything other than routine coverage, which many companies gain in some form or other, as are the links to PRWeb, which is simply a company announcement, rather than an independent article. This might be signs of the company gaining a presence in its marketplace, and if it carries on like that, then maybe you could put together something in a while.

I think one of the difficulties is that you are assuming that data from e.g. Companies House constitutes a source. Yes, you're right, it proves you exist and what happened within the company, and what certificates they hold, but it's not the sort of sourcing we need to fully prove notability.

Also, if you are affiliated with Exilant, then it's also difficult to get the right perspective needed. Companies sometimes ask an employee to write a Wikipedia article, but that's really at odds with our encyclopaedic goal. Having a conflict of interest means that you shouldn't really be writing an article on the subject; if you have the sources, you might request assistance with drafting, but if the sources simply don't exist, you can't really meet the notability guidelines, and as such can't really have the article in Wikipedia until the company is significant enough to have generated those sources.

When you first joined Wikipedia, someone left a lot of links on your talk page. It might be an idea to read those pages thoroughly (particularly the WP:CORP and WP:COI guidelines I linked earlier, so you get a better idea of what writing a Wikipedia article entails. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response and I don't mind the mistakes being pointed out else I won't learn in the first place. Not trying to sound critical , but I tried to model the page after viewing more than a dozen similar companies who have very similar structure and content; I fear few of them have even lesser details actually and floating freely since a while. Another point was about the mention of conflict of interest. Nah, I haven't been asked/paid by anyone to create this article - I did because I thought I have good amount of information that I can leverage for my first article. I tried to collect as much of information that I could gather over free internet , and then cite them with full clarity (including mention of prweb). Can someone actually spend some time to help me understand / set the neutral tone here for which I shall be obliged. Devopam (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a teahouse host, but if by any chance you have a connection with the Devopam who works for Exilant, you might still have a COI. See https://in.linkedin.com/in/devopam. SovalValtos (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Devopam I'm not a host either and don't usually mention that, but I saw the need to add further information. When you say you saw similar articles that means other stuff exists but that only means we haven't gotten around to dealing with those articles yet. Instead of pointing to articles of lesser quality, we should be trying to raise the quality of all articles and, if another company is not notable, its article might be headed for deletion.

Also, you were told PRWeb wasn't acceptable as a source at this point. Once notability is clear I'm sure those sources can be used. I've used them myself not knowing I wasn't supposed to, but hopefully that's not a problem since most of those articles were already well-established.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vchimpanzee. I had a look at the PRWeb source - it's a company announcement basically from a press release. It's not really a reliable source since it's in the company's own voice. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 07:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

dear SovalValtos , I acknowledge I am the same person you referred above, thanks for digging me out on the internet. My intent is to create article around a subject matter I am familiar with and hence I chose to write likewise. I respect the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia but I guess you will appreciate that I am actively editing for the first time, so ignorant about a lot many aspect I may not be expected. COI or not, I want my first article to be a good one , in terms of content and compliance. That was the intent to come and seek help from Teahouse as suggested by the reviewer who rejected my initial draft and told me why so. All I request is some good template, reference articles and little time from veterans to help me avoid such pitfalls. hi Vchimpanzee , thank you for pointing out the right issues/challenges that I am facing. I agree that referring something incorrect doesn't make my pov correct. May I request links to some good articles around Software Companies that I can use as reference to correct the problems in my draft. Apologies for the long note...Devopam (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Devopam. Try WikiProject Business and WikiProject Computing and have a look at their list of Good Articles (GAs) and Featured Articles (FAs). However, if you are connected with Exilant, you need to thoroughly read up on the neutral point of view guidelines as I suggested (and it's hard to be neutral about something with which you have this conflict of interest, even if you weren't directly instructed to write about the company). Try contributing to other articles first before trying to create an article - this is probably the best way to learn how to write good articles in accordance with policy. Unfortunately, scrutiny of new articles is very intense, and the reviewers, myself included, will judge them on their merits and not in comparison to other articles.

What I'd do now is leave Exilant alone for the moment because of the COI concerns, and try to find something else to contribute. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 07:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lstanley1979 thank you for reminding me. I should have specified that this is for non-controversial information only, even after notability is established.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Replacing a recently changed logo

I've just noticed that on the Ordnance Survey's website (https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/) that OS has changed its logo, confirmed in this article http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2015/february/os-rebrand, meaning that the logo on the Wikipedia page for OS is no longer current. How should I go about replacing this? Thanks, MatthewLaw1 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi MatthewLaw1, you can download a copy of the image then upload locally as "Fair Use". I would assume the copyright status is the same as the existing logo so I would compare the tags from that file page after the upload. Give it a sensible name such as File:Ordnance-survey-logo-2015.svg. Then you can replace in the OS article and preferably add a section explained the rebrand, showing a copy of the old logo, and the link you added here in your question. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --MatthewLaw1 (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh and MatthewLaw1, when I said upload locally I should have been more specific as you haven't uploaded any other files and maybe didn't know - there is a "Upload File" link in the left hand "Tools" menu. The just follow the Wizard. Any problems just pop back and ask :) KylieTastic (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Artical Ressurection?

Hi, Is it possible to bring back an article that was deleted for various reasons. For example when I first joined Wikipedia, I remember creating a few articles for the site. But Within 2 weeks, they all got deleted due to them not having any references added. And ever since they all got deleted, I ended up coming across reliable references for them. So is there a way to bring back an article that was deleted from the site?, because I REALLY don't want to start over from scratch. (Zucat (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zucat their maybe other ways but the one I know of is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist or whatever it's called

I know what it is but I got a question about it. If I add a talk page to it for example will I get a notification? Same as if someone replies to me? Thanks. DangerousJXD (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

DangerousJXD, yes if a page is added to you wp:watchlist you will get a notification when it is changed, regardless of the type of page. However, if you ignore the notification then the page will be taken off your watchlist. These things can be tweaked by changing the defaults in you user preferences --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Here notification doesn't mean Notification messages . Even if you add talk page to your watchlist you won't get notification messages unless someone mention you in the discussion. But, your watchlist will display how that talk page has changed since you last visited/edited it.--Chamith (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ChamithN and DangerousJXD - I think there has been a bit of confusion. If you have email enabled, you will get an email every time a page on your watchlist changes, even if you're not mentioned (I got one because a bot posted on a talk-page I have watchlisted), and ignoring an email stops you getting these sort of notifications. Notifications - messages appearing next to your username at the top of the screen ewhen logged in - are indeed different and will only tell you if you've been mentioned by the use of specific templates (like the ones I used in this post). They don't relate to watch-lists at all. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 09:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course Lstanley1979! But you said it yourself. You will get e-mail for watchlist changes only if you have enabled that on your preferences. By default this feature is disabled. And furthermore DangerousJXD wanted know whether he will get notifications for watchlist changes, not emails

--Chamith (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@ChamithN: - MadScientistX11 is responding to the question as if they mean email, however. No-one made that distinction, and I don't get on-wiki notifications when something on my watchlist is changed. I only get those if something is reverted (which I have been once or twice). So the message is still a little confusing. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 10:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lstanley1979 I explained that above (2nd comment). Notification messages and notifications are kind of different. Notification messages are displayed by those red color indicator (grey, if you don't have any notification messages) next to your user name on the toolbar. Watchlist changes can be considered as notifications but they are not notification messages. And I do agree with you, it is confusing.--Chamith (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand. Thanks for all that. DangerousJXD (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Trouble adding spouse(s) to info box for William Richardson Belknap,

I've been trying to add Alice Trumbull Silliman and Juliet Davison Rathbone as wives of William Richardson Belknap, but for some reason the addition does not save.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mitzi.humphrey. You must use the parameter names documented at Template:Infobox person. The field displays as "Spouse(s)" in the infobox but the parameter is called spouse. Fixed in [3]. See more at Help:A quick guide to templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter (talk). Thank you for your assistance in making this correction.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How to reference a letter

I have included a reference to an official government letter in the Smoky Falls Generating Station article and I'd like to know what the correct format is for referencing such a document.

http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/page/5625_December_20,_2007_Hydro_Electric_Agreements_with_OPG.pdf

Thanks Walkabout14 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Walkabout14. Since the letter is publicly available on the web, use the {{cite web}} template using the governmental authority website as the major source. Otherwise, if the correspondence was private and not accessible to the public, you wouldn't be able to use it, since Wikipedia doesn't host original research and requires that any sources being used be publicly accessible.

Be aware that this is also a primary source, so be careful not to draw too many original inferences from what it says and only use it for verifying simple facts. It's probably better to stick with what secondary, reliable sources have said on the subject you're trying to write about and puts what the letter says into a wider public context. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I'm going to ask what you intend to reference from it. There's a lot of secondary sources there as well as cites directly from the Power Authority, and I'm not sure it needs a primary source to augment it. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 10:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi LouiseS1979, thanks for the response. Maybe I'm over-referencing but I was using that letter as a factual confirmation of the company's authority to move ahead with the project. Given the nuances of policy-making in Ontario, that directive is key to the project moving forward. The secondary sources all confirm that the project took place, but this is a useful 'breadcrumb' for anyone following the legal history of the project. Let me know if I'm overdoing it. Walkabout14 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Who edits the main home Wikipedia page?

I don't see an option to edit it. Is it run by the top dogs up stairs or something? DangerousJXD (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: I wouldn't call them the "top dogs up stairs", but yes, only administrators can edit Wikipedia's main page. As you can imagine, this is necessary due to it being Wikipedia's most important page!

Note that the main page is rarely edited directly. Each section is transcluded from various project templates. For example, Wikipedia:Today's featured article is the place where editors review featured articles and queue them up to appear on the main page. Wikipedia:Did you know is where editors submit, review, and queue up entries for the "Did you know?" section of the main page. All editors can contribute to these projects, but ultimately it is the admins who do the final step of submitting the entries to get placed on the main page. If you do see an error on the main page, you can go ahead and report it at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi DangerousJXD. Main Page and templates displayed there can only be edited by administrators. Talk:Main Page displays some options if you want to suggest edits to different parts. If you cannot edit a page then it has a "View source" tab instead in the desktop version, and clicking there gives some information. I'm not sure how the mobile version works. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I deal with WP:CRUSH

I am worried that a fellow editor may have the appearance of CRUSH. While I have had to re-examine my own methods of trying not to use civility to my own advantage, so to speak, I feel another editor may be using this tactic, perhaps unwittingly? Darknipples (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Darknipples. These are my personal opinions, not definitive answers. The essay WP:CRUSH that you mention, which has to do with civil POV pushing, discusses an important behavioral issue on Wikipedia. In my opinion, though, the essay has an overly pessimistic tone. Though the essay makes some good points, I disagree with other points. I advocate the "big picture" and the "long view". I recommend keeping in mind that the goal of this project is to create and improve an encyclopedia that summarizes all of human knowledge, that the encyclopedia gets better every day, that it will always have flaws and shortcomings, and that no one article or topic area is all-important. Long term productive editors tend to be generalist editors, interested in a wide range of topics, and with the skill set to foster collaboration and help resolve disputes in hot topics that they have no prior interest in. "Truly useful" editors bring the emotional attitude that underlies the neutral point of view to every dispute, and bend over backwards to try to understand and accomodate opposing viewpoints.

We have 4.7 million articles on pretty much every topic that the average mind can imagine. That doesn't mean that we need no new articles. We do. But it is worth keeping in mind that POV pushing and controversy affects a relatively small percentage of our articles. There are a massive number of articles to be improved, without any controversy whatsoever. Doing so as a break from battles can bring great satisfaction, and a renewed resolve to deal with the controversial ones in a more level-headed way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen. I appreciate your thoughts and suggestion. Darknipples (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How did I do?

OK so, on King of the Hill I added a reference. Under "reception" it says: Common Sense Media called King of the Hill "Wickedly funny at times, but not for all tastes". Then after that there was a citation thing which means it needs a reference. So I found the exact page and put the reference in (46). So my question is, did I do it right? DangerousJXD (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD yes that is perfectly fine for a basic reference, however there are other templates that allow for a fuller reference to be added. If you use the normal wiki editor you can drop down the 'cite' menu on the top,then select the relevant template from the drop down templates list (in this case cite web). Use the form to fill in the key details (not all are needed) and add. I've already change the article as an example. It means you can add a title, the website, and date accessed to the entry in the reference list. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of User:Sphilippian, then move of User:Sphilippian to User:Sphilippian/sandbox

Hello, Wikipedian administrators! I am writing here right now because I came up with an idea:

Undelete User:Sphilippian
Revert to the revision of the page just before the page was tagged for speedy deletion
Move the page to User:Sphilippian/sandbox
Add a sandbox header

(And yes, there is copyrighted material in the page, but you can comment it out.)

So, could you please do that for me? ApparatumLover (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ApparatumLover. I suggest you ask FreeRangeFrog, who was the admin who deleted that page. However, I observe that the deletion log does not mention copyright, but says "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host", so you'll need to convince them that it was material that is appropriate to a sandbox. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Info = Composition in Past Tense, right?

Shouldn't the articles be edited in 'past tense' especially when it pertains to an event? --Anand2202 (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anand2202. It depends. The past tense is usually used for events in the past, present for current and timeless facts, and for plot summaries of fictional works. See WP:TENSE. We could answer better if you told us which article you are referrring to. --ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Forming an article about a person

Hi I am trying to form a wikipedia article about a person. Although my request was rejected twice hence the reasons first it was considered self promotion and second wikipedia asked for the significance and importance of that person whom I am trying to form the article about. My reasons wouldn't satisfy wikipedia. This person is active in production community in Turkey, and took place very important photo shoots of the world famous magazines, for example he is the line producer of the photo shoot of Harper's magazine took place in Cırağan palace. İstanbul featuring Jeniffer Lopez he also worked with world famous actors Daniel Craig and Kevin Spacey. He is the one in charge of the productions of Omega watches (Daniel Craig) and Kevin Spacey interview in İstanbul. However he didn't recieve awards for these works but his name was on the magazines that he was responsible for the production of these projects. So can you give me any advice on how can I put an article about him on wikipedia which wouldn^t be deleted. I will work on researching the proper citing techniques of wikipedia. Thank you sincereley 213.155.126.6 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that the person you want to write an article about satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria? --Anand2202 (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 213.155.126.6. A Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject in reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers). If these sources exist (and they don't have to be in English, or available online) then an article can be written based on them. If they don't exist, then it is impossible to write a satifactory article about the subject, and the attempt to do so will always fail. If there are articles about him doing these photoshoots, then that would go a long way to establishing his notability. But merely having his name to the photos is not enough: we require that other people have published material about the subject. The best place to look for the techniques is referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure of how to proceed, having had my article rejected.

I'd really appreciate some help! I'm trying to publish an article about the theatre company I work for - we're a well established, British, feminist theatre company, who have been running for 34 years, and it's a little weird that we don't exist on Wikipedia! So I wrote an article, trying hard to comply with the rules I had read in the guidelines, but my attempt was rejected for not being neutral. Is this because I work for the company in question? I absolutely understand that Wikipedia articles need to be neutral, but I'm unclear as to where I'm not complying. I don't include anything other than factual statements about the company - is it that I mention awards Clean Break have won? I've also included as many independent sources as I could find. My apologies for being dense here - I've never written a wiki article before and would really appreciate a steer as to where I'm going wrong! Many thanks, Cleanbreak (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Cleanbreak, the draft at Draft:Clean Break (Theatre Company) has a variety of problems, but given the sources that are already cited it looks like an acceptable article can be created. I would be very happy to assist you to get it into shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cleanbreak, as Dodger67 already said I can't see why this can not be turned into an article but it does need some attention first, so don't be discouraged. Also as you have stated a conflict of interest people will probably be more concerned with any perceived non neutral point of view. A few things jump out: firstly most of the references appears to be for awards with a lack of citation of the other text (all though it may actually be covered in the sources); the main section has a load of external links which makes it looks like self promotion. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cleanbreak. To echo what the others have said: this reads (unsurprisingly) very much as what Clean Break would want to say about themselves. That's not what Wikipedia is. An article should be based almost entirely on what other people unconnected with the subject have said about it (and published in reliable places). The article needs not to be exhaustive lists of courses, productions or anything else: the reader interested in these can follow the link to the company's website. The article should be predominantly text, summarising the history, activities and importance of the company (but, again, drawing exclusively from what others have written about it).

One other point: I'm afraid your user name probably contravenes Wikipedia's policy on user names, in that it is the name of an organisation. I suggest you create a new, personal account (you are free to use any pseudonym for it, as long as it doesn't suggest that you are representing the organisation) straight away, and abandon the existing account. --ColinFine (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have started the article here Clean Break (theatre company) Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Constructive Feedback Welcome

Hi there, An article I hoped to post was declined and I was hoping for some critical feedback to help me improve it. I've asked a few writer friends for advice, and have a few edits at my fingertips, but I wanted to get a Wiki-pro's opinion before resubmitting. Thanks so much! I'm loving the Teahouse. :) LitaOstar (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us which article? Is it Draft:Nexmo by any chance? - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Arjayay, it is Draft:Nexmo indeed. Thank you. :) LitaOstar (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings LitaOstar], and welcome to the Teahouse. I have taken a look at your draft and have found quite a few problems with it that will prevent it from being added to Wikipedia in its present form. Referencing PRNewswire urls is the same as referencing your company's own press releases. A company's press release, is not really considered a neutral source of information. Your other references into the authored and published by your company also. There are many small computer and software applications that are not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines and it appears to me that this is the case in your article. It may be difficult to rewrite this article without it appearing to be promotional.

Bfpage |leave a message 19:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bfpage, Thanks so much for taking time to check out Draft:Nexmo. Looks like I have some work cut out for me in terms of cleaning up the article and making sure to only site truly external sources (I clearly didn't realize press releases were not external - really appreciate that info!). This was incredibly helpful feedback, and I seriously can't thank you enough for taking the time to look at the article. Cheers! LitaOstar (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)