Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 318

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 315

Archive 316

Archive 317

→

'Thank' button does not seem to work

I used my Twinkle "Thank" button to commend an editor, but nothing showed up on his page. See the bottom item on this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_B._Pollard_III&action=history Does anybody in this teahouse know what might have happened? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GeorgeLouis. I hope that I understand your question properly. The "Thank" function does not operate through user talk pages, which barnstars, kittens, beers, tea, and other similar informal editor appreciation systems use. Instead, "Thanks" utilizes a much newer software function called "Notifications", implemented in 2013. This produces a little notice on the user's menu bar, instead of a talk page message. Refer to Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, when you 'thank' somebody, it will show up as a red '1' in the notifications and will say 'X user thanked you for your edit on Y page'. It's in good form because you're expecting that red 1 to be someone reverted your edit, left you a talk page message, and in reality someone thanked you. Tutelary (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@GeorgeLouis: The thanks log [1] shows you thanked the creator of that page six minutes before posting here. I have thanked you for your post so you can see how it looks. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Who to make it more "notable"?

I'm trying to create a page for John Kavanaugh - Emmy Award Winning Composer for "Sofia The First" - a Disney hit TV show…and it keeps on being rejected. Besides winning an Emmy, what else is needed to be "notable"?Efreng1965 (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

HI Efreng1965 and thanks for your question. The criteria for notability as applied to performers are listed at WP:ENT. I will have a look at the article and see if I can help. Generally speaking, you need people to have written about the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Efreng1965 - It wasn't rejected for notability last time, since he is an emmy-winner, and it's cited in the article, that alone satisfies the notability requirement. However, the last time it was declined, it was due it not being in a formal tone (as well as being a mess from a layout and format perspective). I see the above editor, Flat Out, as done a good job on fixing those issues, and I'm sure they'll get back to shortly about resubmitting. Onel5969 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

how to empty/clear sandbox?

I am a newbie. Yesterday I created an article as part of the Art+Feminism Project. It has gone live, but it still seems to be in my sandbox. How do I empty my sandbox so I have a blank page where I can work on another article? Cantabile3 (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Cantabile3. First of all be sure you are on the sandbox and not redirected to the article: If it says "(Redirected from User:Cantabile3/sandbox)" near the top of the page, click on the link, which will take you to the sandbox. Then click "Edit" and be sure that there are only two lines; delete the two lines and click "Save page". —teb728 t c 09:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That worked. I was indeed being redirected. But I don't understand what that means or why it was happening. Any chance you could explain it to me, please? Cantabile3 (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia's search function is title-specific, it won't do much in the way of fuzzy searches - you have to type in the exact title of the article you're searching for. To get around this, we have the concept of redirect pages - pages at one title that point to another title. For example, someone searching for Robert the Bruce might start by entering the search term "robert bruce". We don't actually have an article at that title, but instead the page robert bruce is set up to redirect the user to Robert the Bruce, where the article actually lives.

When you move a page from your sandbox to article space (or from any title to any other), Wikipedia will by default create a redirect at the original title, on the assumption that people might look for it ~~(you have the option of turning this off at the page move stage, incidentally)~~. Of course, for a sandbox, that's fairly pointless... To get to a redirect page, simply type the title in, and when you reach the target page, click the link at the top which says "Redirected from...". This will take you to the actual redirect page, where you can, if you wish, remove the code creating the redirect.

More info at WP:REDIRECT, naturally. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui: - You say "you have the option of turning this off at the page move stage". Are you sure? I thought that this option had been removed some time ago (except for administrators). --David Biddulph (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it might have been (I always see the admin interface). Let me check... Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

David, you're absolutely right, that option isn't available to non-admins. Ignore that bit! Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, thanks. That makes a certain amount of sense in the grander scheme of things but, as you say, "Of course, for a sandbox, that's fairly pointless..." not least because it unnecessarily confuses newbies like me. Is there somewhere, perhaps in the tutorials, that explains "how to clear out your sandbox from your first article so you can work on a second" up front? I didn't find anything, but there is so much documentation that perhaps I didn't look in the right place. I spent a bunch of time hunting (pursuing the Redirect link looked counterproductive at the time), and then more time figuring out how to use both Talk and the Teahouse, that could better have been spent editing. Maybe if such a link (if it exists) could be pointed out here others with the same question will find the answer sooner. Cantabile3 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and just out of curiosity, what would have happened if I had simply highlighted the whole article in my sandbox and deleted it, to clear the page. I assume it would have registered as an edit, but what else? I didn't choose this route because I feared causing some unintended chaos, in part because of the Redirect link that had appeared at the top of the article. Cantabile3 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

deleting photo from wiki commons

I need help completing deletion of bad photo of Paul Steinhardt from Wiki Commons:

1. guy who uploaded the bad photo quickly agreed. 2. Photo not used anywhere, so there is no controversy. 3. I tried to close the debate as instructed, but the bot has not deleted the photo.

Wondering what I did wrong?

The link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Steinhardt.jpg

Thanks v much for the help! Sleepy Geek (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sleepy Geek, welcome to the Teahouse. Bots do not delete pictures, trusted users known as administrators do. You should wait for an administrator on Wikimedia Commons to delete it and close the debate. I've reopened the debate for now. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Sleepy Geek, I think it should be kept. The other photo you uploaded is probably not in the public domain. Public availability is not the same as public domain. We do not have evidence that it is indeed free to use by everyone. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

splitting/new article

In editing Henry Charles Lea this morning, I noticed that several paragraphs really only applied to his tutor, Eugenius Nulty, and thought they belonged in a separate article. Thus, I removed them, did a little more research and created a separate article for Nulty in my sandbox. However, when I attempted to post it, I received an error message, and can't figure out how to send a technical request. Apparently, searches for Nulty are redirected to the Lea page, which no longer has much about Nulty. Thanks for any help you can offer. Jweaver28 (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jweaver28

If you enter Eugenius Nulty in the search box and press enter, it will take you to the Education section of the Henry Charles Lea page. If you go to the top of that page, (provided you have got there by entering Eugenius Nulty, but not otherwise) the third line down under Henry Charles Lea , From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is "Redirected from Eugenius Nulty". If you click that blue link it will take you to the Eugenius Nulty page.
This currently shows a redirect, but can be edited like any other page. Just remove the redirect on the edit page and put your article there. However, please be sure that Eugenius Nulty meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO and remember "notability is not inherited" - he needs to be notable in his own right, not just as Henry Charles Lea's tutor. - Arjayay (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It worked. And he was notable, as the material I removed and reposted in an article of his own mentioned that not only was he one of the most famous American mathematicians of the 19th century, and a member of the American Philosophical Society and American Academy of Arts and Sciences, but one of his books remains in print (or multiple reprints). Not that I'm a math nerd. LOL.Jweaver28 (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jweaver28 - that's a nice little article, congratulations. I've added the article to WikiProjects Biography and Mathematics - with an initial Start class rating. (Now the math nerds can find and improve it.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Need help on Draft:Neeraj Mehta.

Hi, I Have updated the articles as per the review. I am putting the references which are the the published articles in various notable news papers and magazines. I am not sure What to do.

Please HelpNeeraj Mehta123 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read the message in the box at the top of your draft? It says "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

There are links in the message to explain the various aspects, including how to include inline citations. These will enable readers to see which parts of the article are supported by which of the references, and which (if any) of the article text is unsupported.

--David Biddulph (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Notablity - niche publications

Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia. I’m writing an article about a satellite company and submitted it for review yesterday. I provided links to articles in a number of satellite publications (e.g. SatNews, Satellite Today).

I provided citations to these sources, but my editor commented that the articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.

I’ve also noted some comments saying that references shouldn’t be to niche publications?

Does this mean that I would be better referring to sources like Reuters, even though they provide less detail about the company?

Thanks in advance for your help. EvenstarNZ (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi EvenstarNZ, think of Notability and Verifiability as two separate (but related) concepts. The Reuters article and others like it will help to establish that the company is notable - even though the article doesn't contain much information. Once Notability is established you use any other reliable sources (even the company itself to a limited extent) to support the more detailed information. So you actually use both types of sources. That being said I'm not actually fully in agreement that niche publications do not establish notability - nothing is more "niche" than academic journals but they are commonly regarded to be the very best sources. Any magazine with a specific theme (cars/cooking/cricket/fishing/fashion/finance/farming/whatever) can be called "niche", some niches are just larger than others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, EvenstarNZ. The publications you mentioned are not exactly "niche" magazines. They are trade journals. Trade journals are not considered reliable. Magazines write fact checked, independent articles, whereas trade journals write almost exclusively off press releases, and generally about companies that advertise in their publication. John from Idegon (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Why was an image deleted despite permission sent?

Hello. I'm having a really hard time understanding why the image ScottPageAMLORTour.jpg was deleted. It was being used on the Scott Page (the musician) article. Here's what was sent to Commons last year for its use:

--

from: scott <scott@iamscottpage.com> to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org cc: 1987ahb@gmail.com, date: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM subject: Scott Wikipedia photo mailed-by: iamscottpage.com signed-by: iamscottpage.com To Wikimedia Commons (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) and Wikipedia Editor 1987atomheartbrother (1987ahb@gmail.com):

I hereby affirm that I, Scott Page, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of attached image(s)/text. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Scott Page (Copyright holder)

December 22, 2014

--

Any help is appreciated.1987atomheartbrother (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Scott. I see that you left this message also to the OTRS admin at Commons:User talk:Jcb#ScottPageAMLORTour.jpg. I expect he will reply there. To be sure he sees it promptly, I left him a message on his Dutch Wikipedia talk page. —teb728 t c 08:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I just want to make sure, for disclosure: this is the editor, Ed: I've worked with Scott for some of these resources and had Scott send that email out with the picture when I requested it. Thank you so much for your help and feedback.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Barry T Glassman, December 2014.jpg

I have sent an email with the written permission from the photographer who took the photo, and I was just wondering how we would know if the email is received and pending approval or not. I am fairly new to this whole process and would just like to know how it works. I would have expected a return email stating a case number or something, but I understand that automated messages do take up servers and bandwidth so they might not be viable for the amount of stuff that gets sent there.Corestan (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corestan. I've just picked up the ticket at OTRS, verified it and updated the file page; the licensing is all sorted now. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Organizing a long disambiguation page.

I noticed that the DCF disambiguation page had grown to 23 entries. On the talk page someone had suggested, back in 2011, that it should to be sorted by subject area, to make it easier to use. I've gone ahead and done this, but not having organized a disambiguation page before, would like someone to review my edit and make sure it fits Wikipedia standards.Plvt2 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Plvt2. I think you did just fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Plvt2: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Organizing long lists by subject sections says: Entries which don't fit neatly into any section should be placed in an "Other uses" section or subsection, at the bottom of the page or section. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:I've now moved the miscellaneous entries into an "Other uses" section at the bottom of the page. Plvt2 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added several entries and made an Organizations section. American organizations love three-letter acronyms. Something to do with the name of their country? PrimeHunter (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: See Three-letter acronym and of course TLA. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:Thanks for the help, and adding the additional items. Also for adding the "TOC right" code, (the table of contents was in an awkward position on the left, but I didn't know how to move it). Looking at the archived version from before our changes, it certainly looks better, and more useable now.Plvt2 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How to make a summary box?

Hi there, I am starting my first Wiki article and would like to know how to make a "summary box" (the grey box on the right-hand side of many articles with some basic info). Can I make one manually from my draft page? Or is there another way to go about it? Jen zed (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jen zed, welcome to the Teahouse. It's called an infobox. There are many of them. Based on your edits I guess you want {{Infobox organization}}. Click the link to see the documentation. You can also click the "Edit" tab on a similar article to see how it does something. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How edit certain articles

I am very new i just confirmed my e-mail and now i want to write and advocate for Generational Living Hannelore Stuart (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a few useful links to your user talk page, but you must realise that Wikipedia is not the place to "advocate" any cause. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

posting an image

how come I cant post an image yet it has been over 4 days and I have 13 edits....please help me

(Jackheart314 (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account was created at 03:52 UTC on 10 March 2015, so that is 2 days ago, not 4. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Jackheart314, David is correct. But if you don't want to wait two more days, you can request a picture at Files for upload. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

o my bad!!

and yes I would like to post it now, but do I upload to Poe Cottage page (Jackheart314 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Photography Ownership Question

Can someone help me understand the follow-up to my question below on the file ScottPageAMLORTour.jpg?

The person who deleted this has stated the following: "As you were told already by e-mail, permission has to come from the photographer, not from the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)" Here is my question:

How can permission always need to be from the photographer? Celebrities receive thousands of pictures from fans and are the subject of photographs commissioned on their behalf and for their ownership all the time. If an actor pays for headshots... how is it possible they don't own what they paid for or someone gave to them? This doesn't make sense. The "subject" gave permission for use of an image that he allowed someone to take of him - someone commissioned to do this. He owns it. Unless the photographer were making a claim to the contrary, how in the world would anyone ever be expected to own a photography of their own? This seems like a stretch. Could someone please help me understand this? 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear 1987atomheartbrother: I can't say anything about why you didn't receive an e-mail, but I have some comments about your second point. Copyright law varies from country to country, and this makes it complicated at times. The copyright to a photograph in most places belongs to the photographer. If he or she was an employee of a photography company, the copyright may belong to the company, if that was part of the terms of employment. The copyright doesn't belong to the person being photographed. How can a person own the rights to a photograph of him or herself? (1) He can arrange to acquire the rights, and get a written document from the photographer transferring the copyright (not just licensing it for non-commercial copying as is sometimes done). (2) He can take a "selfie" using a web or phone camera, (3) He can invest in a camera which has a remote cable or a time delay and take a photograph himself. For Wikimedia Commons, an alternative would be to have the photographer upload the picture themselves, which involves agreeing to license it for any use.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Anne. I suppose for me a gray area would be if the subject hires the photographer. It seems copyright should favor the subject given that this is where the celebrity's image could be a lucrative element for the photographer. Anyway, I understand. Thanks. --1987atomheartbrother (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If the subject hires the photographer, he needs to ensure that the contract clarifies the ownership of the copyright. By default, the copyright lies with the photographer. (But, of course, Wikipedia can not give legal advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is the best place to start?

I think Wikipedia looks interesting, but I am not sure where to start. Green Sour Kid (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. The "Wikipedia Help pages" link from the message on your user talk page should give you a number of suggestions. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also a new member and you can start like me, from the Wikipedia Adventure. It tells you a lot about Wikipedia, Editing, its policies and more. Welcome Komchi^{Let's talk}_{What I have done} 20:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

About notability. Please help me to establish better notability. I think that all is all right, but...

I'm in trouble with the Joseph Pace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Pace) notability about the article i have created in february 2012.

In "Talk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Pace) i have written about it but i'm not sure that it could be enough for to evoid that the article "Joseph Pace" could be deleted.

Can you help me about it? I have much to contribute to Wikipedia, writing some other articles in english (as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Garelli) and integrating other topics. I recognize the importance of the work done by the people who contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you for cooperation. Ornella Galardo Castillo (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Ornella Galardo Castillo (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ornella Galardo Castillo hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm sorry no one answered your question earlier, and I usually make sure every question has gotten some sort of an answer if I can. I was really busy last week.

I don't see a problem with notability for Joseph Pace. I do see some wording that neds to be improved, but that wouldn't lead to the article possibly getting deleted. In several places it appears English is not your first language and either you didn't know how to word something or you used translation software. And then there are promotional words and phrases such as "erudite" and "the highest exponent" which would have to come from an independent reliable source to be used. I made some minor fixes where it seemed obvious what to do.

For why he thought the artist was not notable, ask Carlomartini86.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki2-Live mirror

Hi! While doing a web search for copyvio from an article, I ran across wiki2, which appears to be a live mirror of Wikipedia (see Special:Recentchanges. Also note the search bar.) I have added it to the list of live mirrors, but I know that this is unacceptable under the terms of use, and am wondering what further action to take. Thanks, Iwilsonp (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iwilsonp: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Remote loading says: "If you suspect a website is remote loading Wikipedia content, you can report it at meta:Live mirrors." You already did that [2] so it seems you have done what you can. Editors can complain to a site if the license for their edits are broken but that is not the case here. Live mirrors are for the Wikimedia Foundation to deal with. I don't know what they do but I guess their main concern will be blocking the mirror's access to Wikimedia sites if it costs significant server resources. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to see who contributed to a particular edit?

Please forgive me if this has been answered. It seems it would be a popular issue, but I couldn't find any answer even close to it... Is there a way to check who is responsible for a certain edit? For an article with a long history, it was very difficult to find who's input the edit is from. (This is for a company wiki, so I would know who the editor was) Also please forgive me and look kindly if the question is irrelevant. No offense, just ignorance.Powguma (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Powguma: Hey Powguma. It is often a highly relevant query. There are three tools I know of for trying to pin this down (listed at WP:TOOLS): 1) WikiBlame (which is integrated into the page history view – go to the history and then click on Revision history search); 2) Article Blamer; and 3) User:AmiDaniel/WhodunitQuery.

Manually, you might try first expanding the history view (after expanding to "500" you can just change that number to a larger one in the URL), then (this might or might not be obvious) go back about halfway (opening in a new tab), check if the text is still present or somewhere further back and then repeat, narrowing the history by one-half each iteration.

By the way, other than questions that truly don't belong here ("how do I do X" [X being completely unrelated to Wikipedia]), ask anything you'd like and don't worry about it having been answered before or being possibly obvious to veterans. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:: Thank you for such a great answer! Although I've had no luck with the tools on my company wiki, I can certainly try the manual method you described.

Also, thanks Fuhghettaboutit for saying nice words. I thought I could be asking an inappropriate question, which is mercilessly punished on sites like StackOverflow. I now have trust in humanity again.Powguma (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Powguma: I don't know anything about how to set up a tool to do this at another wiki and maybe it's too hard but there is a general MediaWiki help desk at mw:Project:Support desk. This page is more for questions about Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Question relating to reliable source?

Hello,

I am Editing about 'Minecon', a convection that is held by the Mojang(creator of Minecraft) committee. There is a thing that any person who attends Minecon gets a special in-game cape. But in the Wikipedia article, a user has cited a source of Minecon cape 2013 from a Twitter account of one of a Minecraft creator.

So I wanted to ask whether the cited source will be considered reliable or not? I think it should be a 'Yes' because the cape came into the game eventually!

Thank You.Any sort of help will be appreciated. Komchi^{Let's talk}_{What I have done} 15:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Komchi hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The place to ask is The Reliable Sources Noticeboard but I'm guessing what you are describing won't be considered acceptable. I have no knowledge of anything that ends in "con". The fact that "the cape came into the game eventually" would not mean anything. That just means the source happened to be right, and it could just have easily been wrong.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

VchimpanzeeThank you nevertheless! Komchi^{Let's talk}_{What I have done} 23:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

History of featured content

Greetings, and my apologies if this question has been answered before. I did do a search but couldn't find a relevant response, but I am a newbie. I want to know how to quickly search for the history of previous "featured content" articles. Is this even possible? Surely there must be a quick link to, say, the week of Jan 01- Jan 07, or some such. Thank you in advance for your help.Vita Excolatur (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vita Excolatur, welcome to the Teahouse. Many Wikipedia pages have an "Archive" link. The featured article box on the main page says "Archive". You can click that. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vita Excolatur. Every single article on Wikipedia has an associated history, which can be accessed using the "history" tab at the top of the page view when looking at that article. You can view up to 500 edits at a time. A single click displays 500 older (or newer) edits. It should only take a handful of clicks to display 2007 edits on any but the most heavily edited articles. That tiny minority of articles might require dozens of clicks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. But I am not asking about the history of revisions made to a given article. I'm asking about links to previous featured content articles. For example, what was posted as a featured article for the week of X? I should think one might scroll down a calendar of sorts and see what articles were featured at any given week (or other time period) in the past.Vita Excolatur (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you not find what you wanted in my "Archive" link? PrimeHunter (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That's perfect, exactly what I wanted and sorry for missing that before. But if I'm go to the main portal of the Featured Content page, I don't see any link to an archive page. I don't know how you got there. Sorry to be so dense. Another issue is that the Archive page that you linked to only cites the main article of the day, not any of the other articles that appeared along with it on that same day. I might remember the main article and correctly identify the week in which it was posted, but if I don't remember the exact name of the sub-article that I'm interested in, then I'm out of luck. Or am I missing something? Vita Excolatur (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Vita Excolatur, You can also see the list of all FAs by topic at Wikipedia:Featured articles, if that helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vita Excolatur: The "main page" referred to above in "featured article box on the main page" is the main page; you're right that there is no direct link for that archive from Wikipedia:Featured articles. When you ask about other "'featured content' articles" that appeared along with it, do you mean other articles appearing in the other sections of the main page at the same time (which are "featured" in a vernacular sense, but are not "featured content"), such as in the "did you know", "on this day" and "in the news" sections? If so, see respectively, Wikipedia:Recent additions, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March and Wikipedia:ITN archives. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Main Page history. Main Page#Did you know... changes twice a day (and more in the past), so only half of those will be saved in the daily snapshots at Wikipedia:Main Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I didn't use the correct terminology to explain myself, sorry about that. Fuhghettaboutit is right, I was talking about other material posted on a particular day (lists, pictures, did you know), but not specifically "featured content". I've since become more familiar with navigating my way around. Thanks again.Vita Excolatur (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The articles about our company

Hi! I just started working in communications in a shipping company, and quickly found that articles regarding us were either missing, outdated or wrong. I would love to help getting these up to date, but I understand that I should not be the one to edit them. How should I go about to do this? How do I approach editors? Sveinung Tvedt 11:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveinungtvedt (talk • contribs)

Hello, Sveinungtvedt. as a person with a conflict of interest, you shouldn't create articles that you consider "missing", since Wikipedia has specific notability requirements for companies which are difficult to judge by a closely connected person. Outdated and incorrect material is another matter. First, try leaving a message on the talk page of the article describing the changes that you think should be made, and why. If you don't get any reply (as sometimes happens if not many editors are watching a specific page), try leaving a specific request on the talk page of a WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Companies or WT:WikiProject Business. Another approach would be to check the history of a specific article, see who has been editing it lately, and leave a message on that editor's talk page. All this will take time, and some patience may be required.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

References

I was viewing an article and in the editing history, one editor has removed the Unreferenced tag from the article, I looked for references but I couldnt find a ref list or a references section, only some external links the majority of which look to point to the same URL, I was going to revert the edit, but I was not sure where I should or not, so I thought I would ask about it first before doing so, any help appreciated TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey TeaLover1996. Since the basis for whether that tag belongs is simply noting whether references are present or not, and you've confirmed in your post they are not (an external links section, marked as such, even if some of them might be able to function as references if someone explored them is not what we mean), you should go ahead and add it back, noting in your edit summary the reason; maybe something like "revert unexplained removal of unreferenced maintenance tag; there are none listed". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Which article is it about? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: The article in question is Dhanmondi Tutorial TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: That article had references when {{Unreferenced}} was removed in [3]. A section called "References" is not required to be referenced, but it was added 3 minutes later [4] (6 minutes before your post was saved). It would have been wrong to restore {{Unreferenced}} both before and after the references section was added. Content in <ref>...</ref> is references no matter where it is displayed. The https version of the referenced site doesn't work for me currently but http works. "External links" usually refers to links which are not used in a reference, often listed in an "External links" section at the end. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

3 things

Hello! OK so, 1. Is there any particular reason why I'll be in edit mode and I'll see a double space that seems to serve no purpose? I have left multiple double spaces in this post so if you edit it you'll see what I mean. 2. Again same situation and I'll see this {{-}}. Again any reason? 3. There is a bot that removes deleted pictures from articles. Instead of just backspacing everything it leaves it and puts a silent note or something thus making it invisible. Again any reason to this? They all seem pointless to me. DangerousJXD (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DangerousJXD hello and welcome to The Teahouse.

I see a large empty space in the middle of your post.

Hopefully, someone will come along soon who knows the answer, but my recommendation would be WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: 1. Multiple and single spaces render the same way. This is a feature of html and not just wikitext. The wiki editor saves what people actually wrote so if you see two spaces then it's because somebody wrote it at some time. Maybe they didn't notice it because it looks the same as one space if they preview. If it's after a period or similar then it may have been on purpose to give wikitext which is easier to read in their opinion. Don't worry about it. 2. Your post says {{-}} after "I'll see this". That calls the template called "-", i.e. Template:-. See the documentation there. It currently causes a big blank space for me here because it moves the following text below the table of contents, as it's supposed to do. 3. Leaving a deleted picture in a comment can alert later editors that a picture has disappeared from the page so they can for example look for a replacement, or try to get it uploaded again with an allowed license. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dangerous, with some people - me for one - double space after a period is habit as it's the way we were taught to type and it can be difficult to break long term behaviour. As PrimeHunter says, they render the same way anyway so there is no damage done if they are there and there is no damage done if you remove one of them (and, yes, I have automatically put double space in after the first sentence in typing this). Nthep (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bohehead seeks help

I'm back editing at Wikipedia after a long absence, and realize I just know enough to be dangerous. Seeking some mentoring for which I can pay for with any grunt work you have for me (after you train me how to do it :) I have a project in mind for Wikipedia that I think would be valuable but don't know how to go about it. If anyone who reads this would help me I would be grateful. If so, how do we communicate? I don't think the minuet of our conversations would be useful here. Thanks for your time. TimoleonWash (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello TimoleonWash and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have an idea for a new project you should probably make the idea known at one of the sections of the Wikipedia:Village pump. Post at the part of it that corresponds best with your idea. If you want a mentor, you can apply at the newly formed Wikipedia:Co-op. On another note: You say that you are back here, is this the same account as the one you used then or do you have another account as well? Best, w.carter-Talk 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks w.carter-Talk for your suggestions; I shall implement them as best as I can. I had a wikipedia account back in the 80s but I don't remember the account name. Does wikipedia have a list of inactive accounts from back then? TimoleonWash (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

TimoleonWash, if you can remember an article you worked on back then, you could look at its History and you should see your old name there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, If my memory was that good, I'd be, well, why I'd be young again ;) TimoleonWash (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding an Image to an Article

I recently wrote an article that is a Biography of a Living Person. It was accepted and published, for which I am grateful. I would like to add a photograph taken by a third party. The photographer has given permission for the photo to be used in the BLP article.

This article was my first and this photograph upload will be my first, so please forgive my ignorance. I want to make sure I handle the image right and abide by Wikipedia's policies as well as properly communicate to the photographer what her permission for use entails. I've been reading Wikipedia's policies (particularly the "Image use policy") and I'm not clear on some things. I could use some help from someone who can explain the policies in plain English.

The image must fall into one of the following 3 categories, right? (The 4th, being my own work, is ruled out by definition.) (1) freely licensed, (2) public domain, or (3) fair use. This is where my understanding falls apart. I don't understand the differences and I don't understand when it is more appropriate to upload a photograph to Wikimedia and then pull it from there to use in the article and when is it more appropriate to upload the photograph directly to the Wikipedia article.

I have received written permission from the photographer to use the photograph in the article. Is that permission broad enough? Do I need to ask the photographer for permission for the article to be reused by anyone for any purpose?

I'm very confused. I think I can figure out the mechanics of tagging and uploading the photograph, but I want to make sure I understand the policies and get my ducks in a row before I do so.

Thank you for your help on my question. I apologize if it has been asked before. I am new to this community.

Kekki1978 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Kekki1978: Thanks for stopping by and asking this question. It's OK to be confused about these things, the copyright of images and their use at Wikipedia is one of the more confusing things here. There are at least 3 different issues we need to cover. I hope I can make this as simple as possible:

First is the licensing aspect of using the image. In order for an image to be used at Wikipedia, the image must be unambiguously licensed to be compatible with Wikipedia's free-use licenses, which are CC-BY-SA and GFDL. To simplify this, the images have to be licensed such that they can be copied and used (with attribution) by anyone, with no restrictions against commercial or other use. The owner still retains their own copyright, but allows Wikipedia, and all of Wikipedia's downstream users, mirror sites, etc. to use the image again with proper attribution. Permission to use an image only in a specific Wikipedia article is insufficient. Make sure the owner of the copyright understands this, and have them (and yourself) review the information at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, which includes instructions on how to properly document permissions for Wikipedia to use these images. There's also a page called Wikipedia:Image use policy which exhaustively covers Wikipedia's image use policy.
Second is the uploading of the image. Once the licensing is taken care of, the image should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which is the media repository for all projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, including Wikipedia. While it is technically possible to upload the image locally to English Wikipedia, we recommend against it because 1) it can't be used by other projects, including (for example) other language Wikipedias who may want to translate the article and use the image in their language and 2) If you upload it locally and it is properly licensed, it will just be moved to Commons anyways, and uploading it directly to Commons saves everyone extra work. See This page for a tutorial on how to use Commons.
Third is the adding of the image to the article. To do so, you would add the following code to the article: [[File:IMAGENAMEHERE.jpg|thumb|right|captiontextgoeshere]] First is the file name. Second is the word "thumb" which indicates that the image is a thumbnail; which allows for appropriate resizing and bordering (without this code, the image gets placed full resolution, which is bad for most articles). Third is either the word "right" or "left" indicating where you want it to go. Fourth is the caption, which would be the text you want to place under the image. There are other options you can use for sizing and location, and all sorts of stuff, but that's extra stuff and not really necessary. You can read ALL about the full range of image options, and how to code for them, at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial if you wish.

I hope this is all helpful! Feel free to ask again if you have any questions. --Jayron 32 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jayron32: Thank you very much for your explanation! You hit on exactly what I was confused about. Part 1 of your response will quite clearly guide me towards understanding the licensing aspect of using the image, which I feel is the most difficult part of this for me to understand. I'm impressed with the clarity of your explanation. Much appreciated. Kekki1978 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: I think Jayron's given you some excellent advice, but since he didn't cover the fair use aspect of your question: fair use is a legal doctrine which provides that for certain classes of use of (non-free) copyrighted material – such as for educational, criticism, news reporting and other purposes – there is an exception to the rule that the material cannot be used without infringing on the owner's copyright, even though you don't have their permission. Certain standards must be met to fall within the bounds of the doctrine's exception.

The most common way fair use comes into play here is in direct quotations. When you see a quote in an article from some source and that source is not in the public domain or freely-licensed, we're using that copyrighted text without the owner's permission, under a claim of fair use. I won't get into the details of the standard too deeply, but suffice it to say that you can't use too much of the work under fair use, so the rule of thumb is short quotations are generally okay, and large ones are probably not. For images (and other media files), we have a set of the standards that a work must meet in order for it to be properly claimed as fair use here, that are provided at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. It can be complicated but to summarize some salient points from them that come up a lot:

We only allow uploads of non-free images if no free equivalent is available, or could be created – which means in practice: 1) if a relatively poor but free image is available to us, a better but non-free image cannot be uploaded; and 2) with some exceptions, a non-free image of a living person cannot be used at all, because while the person is alive, there's always the potential of a free image being created by someone by simply snapping a photograph;
We require minimal usage – which means in practice: 1) we don't allow multiple fair use images to convey information, where one is sufficient; and 2) we use only enough needed, a part if sufficient from a larger whole, and a low resolution image that can still be functionally useful, even if the original is of high resolution; and
We only allow fair use images in articles, and never in behind-the-scenes pages (like this one).

The place where most fair use images come into play is in (lo-res) album covers, movie posters, book covers – things of that nature that are unlikely to ever be free (until their copyright expires) and for which there are no useful free equivalents. By the way, as noted above, the Commons is only for free image, so fair use images must be uploaded here and not there. Hope this helps--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you for your clarification. Am I correctly understanding that for it to be permissible to add to a BLP a photograph of the subject of the BLP, the photograph in almost all instances is *required* to be "free"? If it's not "free", it can be used only if all 10 criteria in the "Non-free Content Criteria" policy are met (which would likely never happen because a substitute photo could likely be obtained)? Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: Yes, that's exactly right. That's why we have many articles on quite famous people with no picture, and many more with terrible photos (because they are necessarily some amateur's haphazard snap at a book signing or on the street by the uploader themselves, who is then willing to release their photo under a free license), rather than one of the numerous professional better photographs that exist for that same person that are a one second Google image search away but are not free. I'll give you an example of an exception to the general rule. I uploaded File:Farrah Fawcett iconic pinup 1976.jpg under a claim of fair use (before she died) because, even though it contained her image, the image itself was the subject of critical commentary in the article, as the best-selling pinup poster of all time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I think I understand. Thank you for your guidance. Kekki1978 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with speedy deletion of a draft article

You are free to use this material in any constructive way. There should be no charge for the use of this material or any profit made from the use of it. For the most part it was freely given and should be passed along the same way. If you have material to add, or changes that should be made, please contact me at fireriter@aol.com .

That statement is posted on the website that wiki cited material in my draft was copied from, it is however, not the actual source of the material and is copied from a paper posted elsewhere on another non-profits site, and the material is historical in nature. How can I get statements, which are copied verbatim, to pass muster when writing my draft article to prevent the bot from removing it before all changes and corrections are done? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the referenced draft, the material removed is found in 'Talk" CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stentorians

This is the referenced draft, the material removed is found in 'Talk" CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello CaptJayRuffins, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think you can get permission to use that material as Wikipedia's licensing stands. Material usable by Wikipedia should be licensed for commercial use: the project aims to be as free as possible such that people can disseminate content commercially. This could be as simple as, for instance, selling a CD of material used on Wikipedia to people without stable internet access: it doesn't have to be huge multi-million dollar/pound enterprise. You may be able to use that work as a properly credited source (but see notes on reliable sources, notes on using primary sources and WP:Referencing for beginners). This is as much to avoid plagiarism as it is to avoid copyright violations or mixing incompatible licensing.

In addition, you need to look up how to properly format a Wikipedia article. It looks like you're trying to write a dense textbook on your subject; articles should take a different approach and aim for providing concise information. Read WP:Your first article and other links that Largoplazo put on your page last June - those will help you fit the work you want to do into our house style.

Thank you, however, for contributing. It's hard work to create a new article that meets our standards for inclusion, but quite rewarding. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your answer applies. Why would a historical timeline need to be licensed commercially? Lets be clear, when it was written like an article someone edited it to be like notes in a classroom, now you say it should be written like and article. I placed it in draft for but did not submit it for review, yet someone deleted not just the Talk where the portion that was being contested was posted but the balance of the article/story. It did not appear that either of you read it, but you both claim to be editors. give me a minute to work on figuring just what you people do, and make sure you're not bots. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahoy, CaptJayRuffins, you have run into on of the least favorite issues related to writing up drafts of articles on Wikipedia. Everyone, I mean anyone and everyone, can see everything that you type onto the wikimedia foundation servers. Not only can they see it, they want to see it and they are looking for it before you think it is ready to be seen. I write offline. Nothing goes onto any pages until I am ready for anyone to see it. All my drafting and writing takes place off Wikipedia and then appears when I am ready to submit it. Also, it is best that you save a copy of your drafts offline if they disappear because you had something wrong in your draft/sandbox. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

industry slant in Wikiedia articles

I was told I should go here for advice. The best question I would ask is this:

What should I do when I come across an article that is badly slanted to favor industry, such as was the case with the BP article of which 44% was written by BP. What is the right way to address this when there is a WP:GANG that control the article and insists on that Pro-industry slant and refuses to add any material critical of the industry, claiming that any reliable source that would criticize the industry is by definition unreliable and WP:FRINGE or created by "activists", because apparently, only insane or "conspiracy theorists" would be crazy enough to question the intelligence of the PR of a multi-million or billion dollar industry. Also, what should be done if the WP:OWN owner of the article(s) bullies new users who attempt to correct industry slant and make an article more NPOV? In other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries? David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page. Have you found reliable sources for your critical content? If talk page discussion fails (and your description seems to indicate that you think it has failed), read dispute resolution and follow one of the dispute resolution procedures described there. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You were told to come here for advice. That was good advice, but another, sometimes even better, place to get advice is the Wikipedia Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, David Tornheim and thank you for bringing your question to the Teahouse. One thing I have to do while I remember editing is to keep in mind the subject of the article. With the demographic make-up of editors on Wikipedia there is a built in drive to bring a neutral point of view into editing on all articles. Yet the BP article is only meant to be an article about an oil company. There must be other articles in which the information that you want to share could find a place. Each well-documented, well-referenced BP-related event is certainly able to have its own article if you can pull it together. I did a quick search on Wikipedia and found plenty of well-referenced material bringing to 'light' the actions of the company. There are separate articles that exist for separate incidents. Be bold! Get your references together and the information out there.

Bfpage |leave a message 23:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)