Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 46

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 40

←

Archive 44

→

Wikipedia on iPad

I can access ALL articles on my laptop as well as my desktop computers. When doing a search on the ipad I get a response that "no articles could be found". That is on the iStore Wikipedia app

Please help!!41.145.53.126 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest you visit an Apple online forum or visit a physical store to seek the answer to this question. This space is for editors to discuss how to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Even though I am a registered user with all of one article to my anonymous self

Even though I am a registered user and I understand I can post my new article myself, I have not because I am concerned that it will be deleted outright if I skip the review procedure. Am I being ludicrous? Article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Clover_Forest_or_Clover_Forest_Plantation Thanks, Van Aldenhaag (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Van Aldenhaag, that's a very comprehensive article you've written! There is no reason why you can't move your article to the main article space but, like you suggest, the article would then be open to editing by everyone else. Personally I would question how much of the article is based on published sources and how much is 'original research' from unpublished documents. Original research shouldn't be published on Wikipedia. The Goochland Deed Book and the Land Patent Book sound to me like original documents, therefore not appropriate sources for Wikipedia. Recollections collected by Sebastian Volcker also sounds like original unpublished research (if it has been published we will need to know where). In addition there seems to be quite a bit of off-topic content, particularly some of the biographical information about the occupants(?). Lastly, because Clover Forest is currently a commercial business you have to be mindful of not to be seen as using Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Maybe you could wait for an experienced editor to review the article at AfC and get a second opinion? Best of luck! Sionk (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sionk, still trying to find my Wiki legs, I am thinking that Deed Books and patent books are published sources though the copies in circulation might be very low but the information in those have been published too so I think that is safe. The recollections are a tough one indeed, hopefully there is a way to make that work. I am weary and aware of the potential publicity angle which is why I kept the last 34 years to the very basics and focused on the 19th century inhabitants of the house which you think might be off topic! Man it is a subtle game to write for Wiki! I shall indeed wait for an experienced editor! Thanks for the feed back.Van Aldenhaag (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I mean another experienced editor ;) The 'No original research' policy of Wikipedia is non-negotiable. If the sources have been published you'll need to provide enough information to enable someone else (theoretically) to find them, if needed. Sionk (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cropping photos

Hello, I just want to know how you crop photos on Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions? BeasttoBeast 23:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeasttoBeast (talk • contribs)

Hi there. I am no Wiki expert but I crop/prep my pictures before uploading. Any graphics program should work.Van Aldenhaag (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi BeasttoBeast. I suggest downloading GIMP, the GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is a powerful (and free) open source image editing program. If you do, here's a short video tutorial specifically on how to crop an image. I see another interpretation of your question; if the issue is about how to crop a photo that is already in use on Wikipedia (or alternatively, is used here but is actually hosted on the Wikimedia Commons), please advise including telling us the name of the file, and we can give additional advice for that situation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Note too, if you look at a Wikimedia or Wikipedia image file, it shows the History of the image as it's been modified over time. For example, I uploaded File:Manxlabourparty.jpg, realised it would look better cropped, and then re-uploaded the cropped version over the old one, so instead of having competing files, I have one File:Manxlabourparty.jpg filename that has several adaptations of the same graphic. The only thing I'd caution is that if you're modifying an image someone else uploaded you may want to check with them first before making an update, or deliberately make a separate file (like his was "Tower of Pisa" and your cropped is "Tower of Pisa - left crop") to not throw off some other article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I'd like to add graphics to the page (e.g. flow diagrams, charts). I can see that some pages have a little note on the picture (e.g. "Courtesy of ... www...."), some pages avoid that but the source is specified on the Licensing page. What is acceptable? What should be avoided? Thank you. NewBridge11 (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi NewBridge11. Supply any such credits, text, licensing, etc. on the image page and not in the image itself. From Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Do not put credits in images themselves." "If you create an image that contains text, please also upload a version without any text." ... "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use." From Commons:Watermarks "Adding your name directly to the photograph when uploading is strongly discouraged. It detracts from the quality of photographs, and generally the thumbnails used on pages are so small the text is not visible anyway." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes, generally attribution is on the image page with the licensing details. Rich Farmbrough, 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC).

translating pages

How do I translate a page from Wikipedia EN to another language? Pgcysneiros (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

By this, are you asking, for example, how if there's an En.wiki article "1927 Smith Motors coupe" and there's no equivalent at Fr.wiki (French language Wikipedia), how can you create one? If so, great question, and I do a lot of that.

First, identify your target language (again using French as an example). Try searching for the term/keywords you want to write about to make sure they don't already have an article about "1927 Smith Motors coupe".
Once you're sure there's no article on the 1927 and Fr.wiki needs one, all you'd need to do is, same as here, go to fr.wikipedia.org type in "1927 Smith Motors coupe", select the "Create page" option when it can't find the article, and start in writing in French. If you're literally translating part of all of the En.wiki article, make sure you apply a Template:Translated page template to the Talk page of the target article, so people know where the info came from originally. Template:Translated page is for English pages, but note if you scope out the left-hand margin of that page, there are equivalent Templates in most other Wiki languages.
Not official method, but what I like to do for convenience is copy-paste the whole en.wiki version into MS Word, translate all or part of it (don't forget to find the equivalent templates, infoboxes, etc on the target language wiki), and then paste it in to the target language. Again making sure you mark the Talk page for it being a translation, and add a wikilink to the English version (type [[en:1927 Smith Motors coupe]] at the bottom of the page; a 'bot should eventually come along and make the link two-way and link the article to any other language versions already linked to the en.wiki version.
Wikipedia:Translate us and Wikipedia:Translation give some useful advice. Do bear in mind, don't just use GoogleTranslate and dump the text in without checking it, as gTranslate is basically never clean enough to just produce a clear article. So it can be acceptable to get started out, but requires careful quality control before launching the new translated article.

Does this give you somewhere to start? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew. Your answer will be very helpful. My purpose is to translate from en to pt (of course, I am the translator). Pgcysneiros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgcysneiros (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal; voce pretenta traduzir artigos do cual assunto? Eu fiz varias traduccoes (pt->en) da historia i cultura da Angola e Cabo Verde, os quais tems varios artigos utils em Portuguese. Lembra-se, depois de traduzir um aritculo en-pt, utiliza-se desta template no pagina de Discussao do artigo novo, pra indicar o origem do material: pt:Predefinição:Traduzido. Alem disso, o proceso de traduccao d'um Wiki ao otro e' bem facil. So tem de cortesia de marcar "Traduzido" e prover um wikilink ao articulo correspondente no en.wiki. Deixe-me um messagem se tem qualquer outras perguntas em quanto a traduccao (e disculpa as minhas errorers, as minhas abilidades em Portugues sao oxidados...). MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Warning of NSFW and shock site links?

I wrote the page Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati. By the nature of the content, there are a number of links in the references which point to sites which are variously traumatic, offensive, NSFW and deliberately shocking. Is there are standard warning or template that I should be using? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stuartyeates, welcome to the Teahouse. There should be no warning on links. The article Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati could also contain autopsy images when it's so relevant to the article subject. See WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As the main contributor to the article, I don't see that the images would add anything to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no mandate to add potentially shocking imagery, even if there's an argument for its relevance. That's up to the judgement of the editors involved. Nice work, by the way! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This actually disgusted me so much that I've now uploaded one of the images under fair use criteria. There may be justification for including at child abuse (as an extreme case) too. -- Trevj (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

How to correct a link pointing to paid content

In the article "USS Ponce (LPD-15)", reference # 5 (concerning the 2011 relief of the ship's C.O. & X.O. as the result of a hazing inquiry) points to a Newport News Daily News article that is freely available from a search engine; however, the link provided by the said reference (http://articles.dailypress.com/2011-04-23/news/dp-nws-ponce-commander-20110423_1_command-hazing-incidents-amphibious-transport-dock-ship) re-directs to a "restricted, paid content" advisory window when directly accessed via this link. Dismissing the advisory window results in re-direction to the site's current page. Any attempt to archive the page via The WebCite Consortioum service yields a similar result. Being loathe to violate the copyright protection this organization has enabled for the content they have produced (and believing that the fact that this paid content advisory being absent when the same page is located via the Bing search engine merely reflects the organization's recognition that public access in this form is in their best interest, but also believeing that archiving a search engine's "cached" page & thereby providing a valid link to this information for the afore-said article may be viewed askance), I am sadly unaware of how to proceed. Should I simply mark the link "dead", & let the bots search for an adequate solution? Should I contact the news site & question and ask for an exertion of effort to add this link to their "trusted" status? Any advice & help I might find with this dilemma will be---as always---greatly appreciated! Happy editing!Tech77 (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Something like <ref>{{citation|title=Commander, executive officer of USS Ponce relieved of command after hazing inquiry|last=Lessig|first=Hugh|date=April 23, 2011|accessdate=September 29, 2012|publisher=Daily Press Media Group|url=http://articles.dailypress.com/2011-04-23/news/dp-nws-ponce-commander-20110423_1_command-hazing-incidents-amphibious-transport-dock-ship}}</ref> ?

In other words, the absence or presence of a paywall, or its exact mechanics, does not affect your ability to cite the source. (see WP:PAYWALL). Whether the url in the citation I just provided works or not (it happens to work for me, today), the citation is still valid. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Important to note that linking to a search engine's cache is always a bad idea, as these are ephemeral.

Citation and linking are two different things often rolled into one, if the link is behind a pay-wall it is fairly common to add "(subscription needed)". Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC).

Getting GPS location data for articles

I was wondering what the standard way was to get Lat-Lon specs for locations such as mountains, can anyone help? This is my first time posting in the teahouse... Grapeman4 (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, ideally we try to sum up a "quick and easy" introductory answer rather than refer folks to dry policy guidelines, but geographical coordinates are indeed a little technical, so I'm suggest you take a glance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates to see what the specialists have to say. If the answer isn't clear to you there, come back and holler and we can try to narrow the answer down a little for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How can one add diacritics?

1) The page on Tian Tian, the giant panda, needs to have diacritics added to the name, Tian Tian. Specifically, there needs to be a short horizontal line over the 'a' both times to show that the word is pronounced with first tone. How does one add diacritics to letters? 2) I am not yet an editor, and I'm not sure if I have the time to learn how to be one. Is there no easy place to post the above need and have someone who is an editor and who knows how to do this make the change? NC Daoist (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NC. First, I disagree that the name needs to be changed. Wikipedia's naming convention specifies that English is preferred. On diacritics, the policy says, "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." All of the references cited in the Tian Tian article show the name exactly as it is used in Wikipedia.

Adding letters with diacritics is easy and requires no special skill. Below the edit window and the "Save page / Preview / Changes" buttons is another button that most likely says "Insert." Click on that button for a drop-down menu and choose "Latin." You will see every variety of mark that is in common use. Just click on the letter or symbol that you want to use and it is added to the end of the text in your edit window. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 00:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, NC Daoist and Welcome to Teahouse. Firstly, you ARE an editor on Wikipedia. You became one of us when you posted your question here. That is all it takes! Regarding your question on diacritics, we have a rather confusing guideline on that. In short, it says whenever possible, use English, and as you know, English doesn't use diacritics. If English sources, when speaking of Tian Tian, don't use diacritics, then we don't on Wikipedia either. And since the place where Tian Tian lives, the National Zoo, writes about him without diacritics, then we should too. Hope this helps, and thank you for letting me make my first official reply at Teahouse to you! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style/China-related articles recommends using Template:Zh to embed the Chinese characters, their pronunciation, and (optionally) their meaning in English in the lede (the first sentence of the article). I will add the Zh template around the Chinese characters, and leave it up to you to add the pronunciation as a homework exercise ;-) If you click on the Tai Shan link in the Tian Tian article then you can see an example of how it is done. This is not the only way to do it; you will notice that the Pearl Buck article uses this template together with Template:Linktext to allow readers to look up the individual characters of her Chinese name in Wiktionary.
Ideally any foreign language characters embedded in English Wikipedia should be embedded inside any of the several foreign language templates including Template:Lang, so that the semantic markup of the web page is correct. Many countries have strict laws about web accessibility. Wikipedia also has web accessibility guidelines, but not many editors seem to have heard of them yet. I believe that the Zh and other foreign language templates include the semantic markup functions of Template:Lang, but I haven't confirmed this yet. LittleBen (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Will it simplify or confuse things if I copy this back up here? Let's find out heather walls (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Where's my answer?

I got a message saying my question was answered here, but I can't find anything that seems tobe an answer. Nothing references my name. This whole Wikipedia world is completely opaque and inaccessible to a newcomer. Does the in-crowd want it that way? NC Daoist (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, NC Daoist! We don't want it that way, and we try our best not to make it that way, but it's not always easy. Anyway, what happened here is that your question, and the associated answers, got archived, as they were three weeks old (the question was answered on the 10th of September). We archive our questions periodically; we have to, because otherwise the page would get too big and unusable. BUT! The good news is that we archive the questions, not delete them. Your question is still there in our archives! You can see it by following this link. In the future, if something similar happens, you can search our archives by going to the box labeled "archives", clicking on "show", and then entering your name into the search box. That'll give you all the questions you've asked or replied to from our archives. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The message was posted to you 9 September. The section has been archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 41#How can one add diacritics? I found it by entering your username in the search box which appears if "Show" is clicked at "Previous questions" to the right. Note however that the interface has changed since the post by DocTree. If you don't see the feature DocTree refers to then it may reappear (possibly higher on the page) on Thursday, or if you disable "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. You may currently have a link saying "Special characters" above the edit box. The appearance of some things depend on your browser and settings. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved the original question back to the front page, hope that helps. heather walls (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why can't I copy-lock?

Why can't I copy lock my pages I made, such as my User Page?

Thank you in advance. Foope (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Foope; I'm not totally clear what you mean by "copy lock". Do you mean make it so other people can't edit it (not generally done), or something else? Can you clarify what you're trying to do, or what problem you're encountering, in detail? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry. I mean to make it so I can only edit that particular page so that vandalism doesn't occur. And clearly I messed up the question. What I meant was HOW do I copy-lock. I'm sorry if I mislead you. Foope (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Foope, sorry but you can't. No one owns a page, any page is open to any editor to edit, whether the edits remain or not is another matter but the right to edit is absolute. Vandalism fighting is an ever present activity but pages don't get permanently locked down. Pages can be protected for certain periods for certain reasons but not for prolonged periods. NtheP (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that in this case, Foope may be referring to protection of their userpage -- something which may, if it has been vandalized, be done. See this page, also linked above for details on how to request it. Theo polisme 21:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The page User:Foope has so far only been edited by Foope and will not be protected on request. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyways guys. Sorry to disturb you. Foope (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, that's what this page is for. Just for your awareness in case it does come up, if someone is repeatedly vandalising any page, and you've tried erasing ("reverting") their edits, sent them "hey, please don't do that" messages, etc. and they keep going, there's a page called Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress where you can get vandalism shut down. Note that it's only for blatant vandalism (insults, obscenity, disruption, etc) and not just disagreements, and it's only for things happening constantly and ongoing, not just something that annoys for a few minutes. But if it's a good "in case of emergency, break glass" tool if you need it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

stuff

why cant i edit info on here???????????70.184.205.2 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, 70! The answer to that depends on what info you're trying to edit. Can we get a page name? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation - new page

Hi! I translated an article from Wikipedia in Portuguese, which still does not exist in the English Wikipedia. How can I put this article in Wikipedia in English? Thank you for your attention. USAnne (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi USAnne, welcome to the Teahouse. We can give more precise instructions if you tell the exact Portuguese title and which English title you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bom dia e bem vindo! What you'll want to do is just type the title for your English article into the search box on English Wikipedia, and when it gives the error message saying "this article doesn't exist", select the option "Create article". Then you can just paste in your text in English.

Don't forget to provide an WP:Interlanguage link going back to the Portuguese version, like this: [[pt:História da Islândia]], for example, if you wanted to link from History of Iceland to the Portuguese version (the "pt:" is for Portuguese). Place this code at the bottom of the English article with the pt.wiki article exactly as shown in the title on Portutguese Wikipedia, and it'll create a link. Later an automated 'bot will come by and make the link two-way, and add any other links tying in already.

I answered some other translation questions a few down from here, coincidentally for someone translating English to Portuguese, so maybe check that advice too. You can also check out Wikipedia:Translation for more suggestions. Glad to have more translators helping out! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys! I'll follow your instructions! --USAnne (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, note some other questions with translation advice recently that might be worth checking out for ideas: links to-from French and translating to Portuguese. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

how to add a French version of a English page.Louki23 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour, to add an inter-language link, simply copy the title of the target article, and place it in brackets with the code for the target language before it. For example, if I want to link History of Louisiana to Histoire de la Louisiane, I would go to the bottom of History of Louisiana and type [[fr: Histoire de la Louisiane]], type a note like "add French link" in the Edit Summary, and save. Now the English article will have a link to the French article in its left margin.

There are 'bots which wander the language links and make them reciprocal, so you shouldn't have to make one from French to English by hand, the 'bot should see the English->French and make it go both ways. Similarly, if the English version has a link to a German equivalent article, the 'bot should also copy that to the French. If you need more information, the full guideline is Wikipedia:Interlanguage links. Does that answer your question? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

How to find out who and why a submission was removed.

Hi there,

I had added some infomation to the wikipedia entrey on Fractal art .. and noticed that one of my entry was deleted .. and trying to findout if it was because i did not meet some guidlines or somethign else..

Here is the link to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fractal_art&action=history

Afrohealer 13:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrohealer (talk • contribs)

Hi Afrohealer. Judging from the edit history, the editor who removed your information said that the source you cited didn't actually contain the information you added- that the Ted Talk you referenced didn't reference Fractal art. Given that I haven't actually listened to the Ted Talk in question, I can't speak for the Wikipedia editor's decisions, but you might want to contact the editor at his/her talk page if you believe this was in error. Alternatively, if you have another source with a clearer link to the info you'd like to include, you might want to include that instead. Hope this helps! RunnerOnIce (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

setting or changing subject for a draft article

Hi,

I've been working on an article for a small sailing dinghy and am now in the stage of submitting it for review.

My question is: Where is the name of the article set? Is there a template for this? I've only see a place to indicate a subject for an article (i.e. the title at the top of an article page) in the article wizard.

I've seen references to creating an article in your user page but I don't know know to do this.

Should I just take by current draft and start fresh with the article wizard?

Seattleseascooter (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Seattleseascooter, welcome to the Teahouse. If Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Seattle Sea Scooter is accepted then the reviewing editor will decide the title. The current pagename indicates the suggested title is "Seattle Sea Scooter". Your account is autoconfirmed so you can change that by moving the page. Please don't remove old declines. I have restored it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, Thanks for clearing this up for me. I do want to do things correctly. Where, when or how would I suggest a slightly different name? Seattleseascooter (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to suggest it first. It's still a draft and you wrote it so nobody would object if you changed the draft name (the reviewer may still choose another name if the draft is accepted). My first post had a link on "moving the page". The procedure is explained there. Or you can just click this direct link to move it: Special:MovePage/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Seattle Sea Scooter. Only change the part saying "Seattle Sea Scooter". PrimeHunter (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how to share my comments about deleting articles

Hi, I just received an email that someone wants to delete the article "List of DirecTV channels (United States...)".

If i read it correctly, some are proposing the complete deletion of the whole thing.

How do share my feelings that this should not be deleted? I can't figure it out because i think the WP page, which i've used for years, is the best anywhere.

Do i "EDIT" the article where it's proposed to have the article listed above, deleted? Is that where i put in my 2 cents?

I'm so lost. I'm sorry for the newbie question.

Thanks

TersterTerster (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Terster and welcome back to wikipedia. The discussion you're looking for appears to be the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination). Before you contribute, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

Hey, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed that the reason the editors are requesting delete on these articles based on the result of another Articles for Deletion submission. The basis for the old submission was basically that Wikipedia is not the place for electronic directories, including channel guides. Based on that AfD, the editor nominated other ones that fit the same category. I'm glad that you disagree with the editor, however, because that's how Wikipedia works! If you wish to publicise your disagreement, go to the article's AfD page and edit in a post at the bottom of the page with your opinion, following the format of other editors. Be careful not to disturb other editors opinions in the meantime though! It would also be a good idea to look at the above link to Arguments to avoid before posting, as you will get more support behind you if you provide a convincing argument. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! gwickwire | Leave a message 03:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Link to Wiktionary?

Stuck again. This time on polyphage. -- Is there some way to link directly to Wiktionary definition instead of "normal" link, which goes to inappropriate page (a bacteria). A redirect using polyphagy is actually a misdirect to oligophagy -- and relates to insects.

What I'm looking for is the common (general) usage, as in "many foods" -- or as on Wiktionary:

Noun

polyphage (plural polyphages)

  1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore.

~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 09:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polyphage
P.s.: why is the definition (above) in a blue box? ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Try using namespaces [[:wikt:polyphage]] for wikt:polyphage

or even the "pipe trick" [[:wikt:polyphage|]] for polyphage

Your paragraph above is indented and boxed because you started its line with some space. If you want indents (and no box), then use a colon instead,like this:

1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore. gives:

  1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore.

: 1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore. gives:

1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore.

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew there had to be a way. (And I thought copy/pasting a hidden unicode character might have caused the box.) ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Point of despair...

Hi Sarah,

Thank you for this link...

I am aware you were one of the editors who looked at my submission for "John Gledden" Professional Tennis Coach.

I have spend nearly 4 months and approximately 6 submissions trying to get this article accepted and I am now at the point I wish I'd not started as I accept I don't know enough about Wikipedia or editing, to be qualified to get this article passed for submission.

That said, seeing your link gave me the inspiration for one last shot as I feel my subject is very important and relevant and in a lot of ways unique and inspiring.

My submission has been rejected for not enough information, too much information and many other reasons and I am now pretty much stuck as to where to go next.

Can you help ?

Kind Regards

Janet Knowles - Tennisbuff12345 Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Janet. Looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden I can see that you're getting there; there are only a few things that need doing to fix the article up. The main and most important issue is the referencing. You have assembled an enormous slew of references, which is fantastic, but they need to be cited correctly. To do this, follow these steps:

Take a sentence that needs a reference, for example: "Gledden started his tennis career relatively late, not picking up a racket until the age of 12 years old in 1986."
Locate one of your sources that provides that information - let's assume that 1981's Gledden Gets off to winning start / Gledden stars for Yorkshire 22nd May 1981 Sheffield Star & Sheffield Telegraph reference tells us that he started playing at age 12.
In the body of the article, immediately after the text you want to verify, place the reference between two <ref></ref> tags, like this:
Gledden started his tennis career relatively late, not picking up a racket until the age of 12 years old in 1986.<ref>Gledden Gets off to winning start / Gledden stars for Yorkshire'' 22nd May 1981 Sheffield Star & Sheffield Telegraph</ref>
Do this for as much as the article as possible.
Under the "References" header, where you currently have an enormous list of newspaper articles, delete everything (you've already turned them into inline citations). Replace them with the text {{Reflist}} (including the curly brackets). This will create a numbered list of references.

In an ideal world, you would also provide links to online versions of the articles you're referencing, and use a {{cite}} template to format them, but that's best practice rather than a baseline requirement. You also don't necessarily need all of those many references - as long as the information in the text can be verified, that's all that's needed.

Hope this helps, feel free to contact me here or on my talkpage if you need a hand. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The menu at the top of the editing window also has a "cite" option, which greatly simplifies the technical aspect of formatting references. --Jayron32 12:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Janet, getting started on Wiki can be frustrating if you hit some early friction, so I'm really glad you're coming by to refine your approach before submitting AFC again. Sometimes people re-submit AFC without getting a clear explanation of what needs to be fixed, and get another frustrating Decline. Now that you're here, a few more folks can give more detailed advice.

Yunshui has a great sum-up of how to do footnotes, and proper footnoting, instead of just a collection of articles, would go a long way towards helping the article. I also did a little format fixing for you, especially adding WP:Wikilinks to the first part of your article, so that people can follow those links to, say, the article on that specific 2012 tennis final. Another way to get a good feel for how your article should look is to take a look at a very well-developed article on another person in the field, like Andre Agassi or Serena Williams. Hit "edit" and don't make any changes, but just look at how their code is typed, and article laid out.

One other small thing to check out: since one moves text around a lot trying to get the right wording, you can end up with broken sentences, sentences that repeat themself, etc. So it's good every so often while working on the draft to just sit down and read a section out-loud all the way through, so you can catch the bits that are broken or lose track of sense. Or sometimes it helps just to have someone who hasn't worked on the article (like a non-Wikipedia friend) read over a section and make sure it reads smoothly for the casual reader. Having a smooth copyedit, along with proper sourcing, will also really help your article.

It certainly looks publishable, but just check back in with folks as you move forward to make sure it's ready before submitting. Looking better and better! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

Why? Why do some people on here help me, then another say he/she wants to delete it. Why? Just leave it alone. RomfordReject (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello RomfordReject. Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. I am an administrator, and according to the logs, not a single thing you have done here under this account has been deleted. Have you edited under another account? I'd like to help you out here, but I can't find any evidence of any work done under this account being deleted. --Jayron32 05:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32, I think RomfordReject is talking about this article which was marked for speedy deletion due to notability concerns. Romford, do I have that right? Garamond Lethe 05:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. It was marked for speedy deletion at the very outset, but declined by an administator. However it is now marked with Proposed deletion. I have left some advice for RomfordReject on his talk page (I'm not a host here). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A question about censorship

Hi Everyone, I am a new editor and I tried to update the page on Satanic Ritual Abuse (dark place to start, I know. It's one of the things I am studying in school). I found that I was not able to cite some webpages that had a lot of information about Satanic Ritual Abuse. I looked into it further and found out that any perspectives on SRA other than that it was a moral panic based on false memories, are censored from wikipedia. My understanding is that wikipedia is not supposed to censor information, but that as an encyclopedia it is supposed to stay neutral and present all facts and perspectives without adopting language that takes one side of the controversy. If this is true, why are some subjects being censored to present only one perspective? Thank you, LiaJB (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, LiaJB, welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to this edit, it got removed because (among other things) it's not cited to a reliable source. The website you cited it to is a blog, and thus not reliable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it does not do original research, and certainly not based on blogs. In fact, none of the websites that the article about Wikipedia's "censorship" are reliable sources; this is not because of their stance on Satanic ritual abuse, but because they are all blogs, and blogs are almost never reliable sources, and even when they are, they only count in extremely narrow circumstances. I'm not privy to the rationale behind blacklisting them, but usually this happens because someone is posting inappropriate links to them continuously or in bizarre places, which is a tactic we call linkspamming.

At the end of the day, this is not censorship; this is removing unreliable sources and original research from the encyclopedia, which is one of our tasks. You should also keep in mind that neutral point-of-view does not mean all points of view. Not all points of view get (or should get) equal billing, and some shouldn't get coverage at all, depending on the situation. This is something we call undue weight; we do not put undue emphasis on minority viewpoints by giving them equal attention, or presenting them as equivalent in acceptance to the mainstream. I hope this helps you understand what's going on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lia! Thanks for coming to the Teahouse! To expand a bit on what Writ Keeper said, the reason blogs are not considered reliable sources is because they are not fact-checked like newspapers, magazines and books generally are. Hope that helps understand a bit about the policy and also what kind of weight to assign to materials you may read.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52 and Writ Keeper, Thank you for clearing up why I couldn't cite the page, I will only cite fact checked sources from now on.

I am concerned about the idea that some view points don't get any coverage and I am hoping that doesn't apply to victims of abuse. The SRA page has a clear narrative that it has been proven that SRA does not exist and that no one was/is ever victimized by it. There are a lot of issues with this viewpoint. Beyond the fact that the only 'evidence' that survivors stories are false is that they couldn't be proven true, that ideology reinforces the cultural myth that victims make up stories about abuse. If I expand the page with legitimately sourced information that offers an expanded perspective that does not corroborate the current narrative, will the additions be deleted?

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I appreciate it. LiaJB (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey LiaJB. Unfortunately, we cannot answer that question for sure without knowing what sources you are going to use. I understand the concern about a cultural stance that victims of abuse (in any category) are making it up. In that article we discuss numerous times that these stories were made up because that is what the reliable sources discuss. It is much more common for academics to show that abuse did not occur in a particular case than to show that it did occur in another. This is not Wikipedia's fault, it is just the way things work. If you could link us to sources that you have in mind, we could help you determine whether they are considered reliable on Wikipedia. Maybe try Google Books and Google Scholar and get back to us. hajat vrc @ 02:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi hajatvrc,

Thanks for the reply. You are right and unfortunately victim blaming and rape excusing are the default in our society right now, but there are some good studies out there. The first that comes to mind is: Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Bottoms, B. L., Qin, J., & Shaver, P. R. (November 01, 1997). Children's Religious Knowledge: Implications for Understanding Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations. Child Abuse & Neglect: the International Journal, 21, 11, 1111-28.

I am confident that peer reviewed studies are considered reliable sources. My question is more about whether the view point will be censored, even when it comes from a reliable source.

Thank you, LiaJB (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Lisa, I would urge you to, as the Wiki saying goes "Assume good faith". That is, understand that the vast majority of peoples on Wikipedia are not out to deliberately censor, defame, vandalise, etc. For such reasons, we strongly discourage anyone from making accusations of such unless ill intent is blatantly evident, like someone dismissing edits with no explanation, clearly being dishonest, etc. It is rather unlikely that there are numerous people out to censor the article, but more likely that for such a sensitive topic people are being real sticklers for the rules, requiring strong sourcing, etc.

So far as your sources, we on this page aren't necessarily here to judge individual arguments so much as give broad advice, but here are a few suggestions:

"AGF" (assume good faith) and make it a default estimate that most people are generally trying to help each article
Visit the "Talk" page of the article in question (including any pages linked as "Archives"). On controversial articles, it is very, very common that the same issues are brought up repeatedly over time, so you will be better equipped to make a case if you are familiar with past arguments. Maybe you want to bring up "John Smith"'s book, but in 2010 the editors on that page conceded that Smith's book was self-published and not peer-reviewed, so not admissible. Then again, maybe it was picked up by a major university press and republished in 2012; by being familiar with the past argument and saying "folks, notice a chance since the last time this was discussed, here's new information", you're better equipped to state a case.
Make statements on talk clear, concise, unemotional, and where possible provide links or clear sourcing details.
In the end, realise that not every argument can be won here on Wikipedia; there's a classic guideline warning of the desire for "Righting Great Wrongs. Fundamentally, if the great majority of published material by professional academics from recognised institutions says Claim X, then Wikipedia will have to reflect Claim X. It is always entirely possible that Claim Y is totally accurate, but since Wikipedia is a compiler of data, not a decider of data, until Claim Y has risen up to become the primary professional/academic belief, it can't be the focus of an article. Those are fights that have to be fought in the public square, courts, and the media, and only after Claim Y achieves mainstream acceptance would it become the primary narrative on Wiki.

A bit of a complicated situation, and I understand it's a difficult and emotional topic, but hope this helps clarify our rigid focus on maintaining neutrality and using the most (currently) reputable published sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi LiaJB. Let me commend you for going to the primary literature. That will give you a much more nuanced understanding of any topic, but like most things here there are nuances involved in using them well. The best resources to cite are secondary and tertiary sources: in this case, review articles and textbooks. That extra distance (hopefully) means that a competent editor has gathered together several ideas that have stood the test of time. Primary sources, in this case the original peer-reviewed literature, will contain several ideas that won't end up standing the test of time. For newer work it's hard to tell which is which; for older work citation counts are a rough guide. Google Scholar has only 9 citations to the Goodman article. Compare that to Young 1991 (82 cites) or Victor 1998 (46 cites).

This isn't to say that you can't cite Goodman, but the prominence given to Goodman in the article needs to be proportional to Goodman's prominence in this area (see WP:UNDUE for the gory details). Is the work that Goodman cites better known, perhaps? (By the way, if you are having trouble tracking down obscure or paywalled material, check out WP:RX.)

Best,

Garamond Lethe 06:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, for all the feedback. I appreciate all the patient effort in explaining wikipedia policies. I have a better understanding now of how this whole thing works. I'm looking forward to contributing more. Best, LiaJB (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

how to post pictures

sorry i'm asking so many questions but how do you post a picture in an article.i read the other question about posting pictures and i should meet those standards the problem is i don't know how to do it Zeroro (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem Zeroro, Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and we understand some processes are complicated. The picture process is very complicated. Have you found Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial yet? The first gives details on how to get a picture from your computer to Wikipedia's servers, and the second covers how to put that picture into an article and format it after it has been uploaded. Do either of those help, or do you have more specific questions? --Jayron32 04:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

i'm not sure but think you i'll check it out Zeroro (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

how to get the word out of new articles

hi.

I've created my first Wikipedia page and I'd like people to see it so I was wondering how to get the word out or if maybe the was some kind of list of all of the new Wikipedia pages. the page is the A.T.E.M.S. page if that helps at all.

Zeroro (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Zeroro (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Zeroro, one popular but very competitive method to get on the front page of Wikipedia is WP:Did you know?, but unfortunately that's only for articles created in the last 5 days. Some other ways to let folks know about your page are to drop in to introduce it to the WikiProjects listed on your article's talk page (Texas, Education, etc). Also, you could always share your article on social media, like post it on Facebook walls, etc.

Before you move on to the promotions, I'd suggest you get the article as polished as you can so people can see a really well-developed article by the time the word gets out. On the article's talkpage, I've suggested that it include a photograph, and a WP:Infobox. I've also put "tags" on the top of the article indicating what needs to be cleaned up or tweaked. I'd also strongly advise you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, which will have the "winning formula" for making a strong and informative school article on Wikipedia. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I really appreciate that and thanks for responding so quickly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroro (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you post pictures in a article?

Hello.

I joined Wiki last Friday and i was wondering how can you post a picture on a wiki page. I went to the upload page and i can't upload a picture so i was wondering can you give me a step by step on how to do it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helendixon1960 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Question moved to top of page. NtheP (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what problem you are having with uploading it? Is it a copyright issue or file name already exists issue? –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Anonymouse: I was just wondering how to post a picture in a article and when i try to upload a picture it wouldn't let me but after reading what other users told me i now understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helendixon1960 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 October 2012

Hi Helen! Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. The more Wikipedia edits you make, the more "rights" you are given on Wikipedia to do cool things - like upload photographs. I could be wrong, but I don't think you're able to do that yet - you have to be what we call "autopatrolled." Perhaps another Teahouse host can confirm this for me. In theory, the more article content you edit, the more like you will become autopatrolled. Can I ask what image you want to upload? Perhaps you can link us to it. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In order to upload files, you must be Autoconfirmed, which requires 4 days and 10 edits on Wikipedia. When you filed the request, you were not autoconfirmed, but you are now. The autoconfirmed permission is generally requested at WP: PERM/C, but non-autoconfirmed users can request a file to be uploaded for them at WP: FFU. The Autopatrolled flag is given out differently and is requested at WP: PERM/AP. Users should have created at least 50 decent articles before being given the autoreviewer flag. The autopatrolled flag marks the user's new pages (at Special: Newpages) as patrolled. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you guys!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Helendixon1960 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 October 2012

How to Request a Revision to Company Page

Hello -

I'm in corporate communications at The Home Depot and would like to inquire about how to make factual edits to our page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Home_Depot

I understand given my position I have a conflict of interest and would appreciate your guidance on how best to handle. For example, we'd like to make sure Wikipedia users get correct information on our store number and International locations. Can you please advise?

Thanks, Meghan165.130.136.208 (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Meghan, welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for being up-front about your COI; some people aren't always so straightforward, and it causes no end of drama whenever we find out about it. The best way to do it is to make an edit request to the article's talk page. Basically, what you'd do is this: go to the article's talk page (in this case, it's Talk:The Home Depot). Start a new section in the talk page, and in the new section, write out {{Request edit}} and then explain the edit that you'd like made. This makes the request; someone will come answer it and either enact the changes or explain to you why they shouldn't be enacted, and a conversation can go from there. Do keep in mind, though, that the information that's in our articles needs to be verifiable by having support from independent, reliable sources. If you link to those sources in your initial edit request, it makes it quite a bit easier for us to handle it. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

how do you create an article?

How do you create an article?82.69.121.214 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unregistered users cannot create pages in article space - if you have a registered account (or if you create one, see this page for the perks it gives you and to sign up) you can simply type the name of the page you want into the search bar and (assuming nothing comes up) create the page. However, if you're editing from an IP address, your best bet is Articles for creation - this will help you create a page step-by-step using the Article Wizard. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Complaint About Image Use Policy

I am writing to complain about Wikipedia’s image use policy as enforced by your editors. I’m not sure I agree with or understand why you have chosen a policy so strict that it basically negates the power and potential of the Internet—if you want to have the image policy of a print encyclopedia, that’s your business. What I object to is the impossibility of figuring out what you want and the apparent inability of any of your editors to actually help me solve the problem. The several editors who so vigilantly monitor licenses were quick to detect some problem, what problem I still don’t understand, then instantly delete the picture, and refer me to the same thicket of dozens of articles explaining licenses and policies. What I want to do should be very simple—upload a picture that a friend took of another friend that we all want to be used freely. Why is it so complicated to figure out how to do something simple? I believed I had complied with your demands proving this each time—we’re on the sixth attempt now—only to have someone else come along and complain and give me the same instructions that I thought I’d already satisfied. If I hadn’t satisfied the policy, can you help me do so? We’ve emailed you the permissions of both the person who took the picture and who owns the picture. So what do you want now? I love Wikipedia, but the number of hours I have spent trying to figure out what you want for one simple picture and the frustration this produced has greatly soured me. I’m all for quality control, but all this time that everyone has spent could have been much better invested than in proving the license of an image whose use no one will ever object to. Sincerely, Odell Huff (Writing in reference to the article and image of Warren Coats).Odellhuff (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Odellhuff. I'm sorry that you've been having a problem like that with image licenses - they are difficult, and Wikipedia's policies on the issue are always hard to work through.

With images Wikipedia faces two problems. The first is a normal copyright one - with anonymous editors, it is hard to know if the person uploading an image has the right to do so, of if they are violating the photographer's copyright. The second is a bit more unique to Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is released under a free license, people reusing Wikipedia's content may find themselves in trouble when if works were added that did allow the same level of reuse. So as a general rule, Wikipedia is limited to accepting photographs that are either public domain or released under a free license that allows full reuse of the photos by third parties, even commercially.

Anyway, it looks like you are mostly running into the first of these problems. I'm not quite sure what you have been told before, so I can't be as specific as I would like. You mention above that you've email the permissions, so this may be obsolete, but the two steps are:

Have the copyright holder (Warren Coats, I presume?) email permissions-en@wikimedia.org saying that the image is being released into the public domain. There is a nice example of sample wording at: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.
Add to the photo page the code: {{OTRS pending}}. This will let other editors know that everything is under control, and that it is being taken care of. :)

Once permission has been received, someone else will edit the photo's page to let everyone know that they're received the permission to use the image. The one point that might be of some concern is that the copyright of the photo normally belongs to the photographer, rather than the subject, unless that was specifically allowed for, so the copyright holder might need to be clear on that in the email. It may be that no-one added the "OTRS pending" message, which might be causing some of the trouble

It is unfortunate that this is complex, but Wikipedia tends to be overly cautious. If you have any problems feel free to contact me or raise it here. I'd love to help. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby for your nice reply. I reforwarded an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from both the author and the subject (one contention has been that it was the subject's camera for the subjects computer but a friend snapped the picture--we had to track down the person who snapped the picture, the "author," to ask his permission to use it?). Then, in Wikimedia Commons on the file's description page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warren_Baghdad.JPG#.7B.7Bint:license-header.7D.7D) under the licensing heading I inserted: OTRS pending

Does that satisfy the requirements? Thank you for help. While I do understand the reasoning, my personal opinion is that licensing requirements this severe are consuming manpower in recreating the limitations of print. Surely a better balance could be struck between unleashing wiki potential, especially for content meant to be in the public domain, and Wikipedia's legal needs.Odellhuff (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That helps a lot. The only thing missing is information about the license it is being released under. Do you know what license was to be specified in the email? If that could be clarified then all should be good. I generally agree with you about the complexity - there have been a number of projects to try and make it easier, but it is very tricky to get the balance right. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby, but I'm confused again, "information about the license it is being released under"--the three of us just want it to be released in the public domain with no copyright protection or attribution necessary and the author's email reflected that?Odellhuff (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Odellhuff! The license requirement can be satisfied with either CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or the GFDL. Those are the same licences referenced on the edit page, which is telling you that you are releasing what you wrote under them. Hope that clears things up. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi GTWfan52, sorry if I'm being dense, but that actually does not tell me what to do. I went again to the pic description file and it is not clear to me where or how I'm supposed to alter the "information about the license it is being released under," whether it's to be a CC or GFDL, and how I'm supposed to designate it. Every time I thought I've done this, it turns out I've done it wrong. Can someone please point me to the exact location and which license to use for public domain and how to designate that? Why do we have to fret about this step if the permission for public domain by the author has already been submitted anyway?Odellhuff (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You have it perfect now. :) That was the correct thing to do with the article. The problem is that if I say "I'm willing to share this photo", I still have a right to choose how I will share that photo. So we need a bit more information. For example, I could say that I'm willing to share it so long as people acknowledge that the photo was taken by me, in which case it is great and we can use it. Or, as you have done, I could say that this is able to be used by anyone, for any reason, without them having to acknowledge who the photographer was. But I could mean something mor restrictive, like "this photo can be used by anyone, so long as it isn't used commercially", or "this photo can only be used on Wikipedia". I have every right to say that, but the last two can't be used here. So out of respect for the photographer's wishes, Wikipedia needs a clear statement on the photo's page about how the photographer is permitting it to be used.

It is painful to go through it the first time. On the plus side, once you know what the hoops are, jumping through them is much, much easier the second time. It is a tricky process, but it is needed if Wikipedia is both to be released under a free license and properly respect the wishes of everyone involved. - Bilby (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)