Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 69

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 65

←

Archive 67

→

How to change user name and how to prepare an acceptable article

hello, I am the only one using my account but since i have been told that the name is not right i wish to request a change of name. Again I wish to continue with my article and solicit your help to make it acceptable on wikipedia.Manowar.ng (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Manowar; welcome to the Teahouse. You can change your username fairly easily - first, check that your intended username isn't already taken by searching for it at this page. Assuming that it isn't already attached to another user, fill out this form (there's a handy checklist at the top to help you) and someone will rename your account for you (this can take a few days, depending on how many other rename requests there are at the time).

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Man O' War Nigeria, there are numerous problems with the submission. Firstly, it reads like an advertisement - Wikipedia content needs to be neutral. Secondly, it contains a lot of unencyclopedia information, such as lists of staff and contact details. Finally (and most importantly) it does not cite any sources - all Wikipedia article must contain multiple references to reliable, independent sources. You will need to rewrite the draft with appropriate language, content and sources if it is ever to be accepted as an article. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Using the Microsoft GIF Animator

Hello. I saw I can make adds by the Microsoft GIF Animator. My question is how to use this.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 08:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pratyya, thanks for coming to the Teahouse. Do you mean additions or advertisements? Truthfully I can't answer your question either way, but if it's about making advertisements, we only answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Best! heather walls (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he means advertisements like the animated one at the top of User talk:Moonriddengirl. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Pratyya. If your question involves an addition to Wikipedia, try the technical village pump. If it does not, the Computing Reference Desk is the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Change title of translation

I decided to try my hand at translating an article for the first time and took one from the Spanish Wikipedia called "Escudo de Sax," or "Coat of arms of Sax." However, when I tried to make the new page in the English wiki, I couldn't get the Sax in the title to come out capitalized (since Sax is a location and thus a proper noun). How do I convince it to do that? Reinana kyuu (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Reinana kyuu and welcome to the Teahouse. I just moved the page to the correct title. Just in case, here's a screenshot of how to move a page. By the way, thanks for translating the article! It's always good to have bilingual/multilingual users that can translate from other language Wikipedias. ¡Gracias!

The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me with that, Anonymouse! I'm going to study the screenshot so this doesn't happen again in the future. Reinana kyuu (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How to get rid of a redirect?

Hi Wikipedians! This link to my sandbox redirects to a blank article entitled this article What do I do? Do I have permission to remove a redirect or does an admin need to? Thanks. JHUbal27 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are getting redirected then, at the top of the page, under the title, there should be something along the lines of "redirected from <name of page>". If you click on the name of that page then you should be taken back to the blank article and you can remove it with a simple edit. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it though. I'll just request deletion. Anybody else know? JHUbal27 01:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The screenshot next to the contents page on WP:R will show you were it is. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sandbox deleted. If you create it anew to work on another article it will have a clean slate for a move to the mainspace.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect use of quotation marks in many articles?

I have edited many Wikipedia articles to fix various punctuation errors. In many articles, I see what I believe to be an incorrect use of quotation marks. For example (at least in the United States), when the last word of a sentence is within quotation marks, the ending quotation mark should come after any other punctuation mark that ends the sentence (period, question mark, exclamation mark, etc.), not before. An example of this error is in the second post directly below this one, at the end of the second sentence from user Kanasnick. The ending quotation mark after the word "essay" should come after the period, not before. I wonder if most other knowledgeable editors of English would agree with me and, if so, if there is any way to correct the incorrect quotation mark usage in the millions of articles!199.250.3.71 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, 199! There is a way to do that automatically, but that's not actually how we've decided to do things. The Manual of Style for Wikipedia recommends logical quoting: punctuation should be within quotes if it's part of the originally quoted material, and not otherwise. Even in American English, sometimes the punctuation goes outside the quotation marks: if a non-question quote appears at the end of a question, the question mark goes outside the quotation marks. Example: Did he really just say "bonerfart"? my creativity in coming up with examples is at an all-time low... So, yes it can be done, but whether it should be done is another question altogether. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)199.250.3.71, hi and welcome to the Teahouse and a further welcome to the whacky world of English grammar. In British English what you see as an error by Kanasnick is correct grammar and the punctuation marks go outside the quotation marks unless they form part of the quote (see Quotation marks#Typographical considerations). So how does Wikipedia go about managing these differences between American English and British English (with apologies to anyone using Canadian, Australian or any of the other XXX English variants)? Quite simply it accepts them all and the Manual of style dedicates a whole section to this issue calle WP:ENGVAR. Basically use the English that is most suited to an article so articles about American subjects use American English, article about British subjects use British English. If there is no national characteristic then stick with the variant English used in the majority of the article e.g. if I was the creator and predominant editor of an article on Duck egg blue and I've used British English then subsequent editors would be expected to follow suit and use British English. If it's not apparent which variant should be used article talk pages are sometimes tagged with a template from the Category:Varieties of English templates to indicate what variant should be. The same applies to spelling, don't change it unless it fits with the variant of English used. So if I had written "Duck egg blue is a colour . . ." I wouldn't be impressed if you changed it to color. ~~So feel free to correct but only where the variant of English used is one that follows American English grammar.~~ NtheP (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me Nthep but I think there's a confusing result of citing WP:ENGVAR, given the question. It is instructive but only be analogy as to the aspect of the question that appears to look to fixing English across all articles to conform to a United States standard in general. While it applies to aspects of spelling and grammar ("Pink Floyd is..." vs. "Pink Floyd are..."), in the specific context of the question of the OP, WP:ENGVAR does not dictate whether we should use logical quoting, the Manual of Style does that directly (regardless of national variety of English). Our house style is to use logical quoting in articles (as previously linked to its manual of style section by Writ Keeper), period. Punctuation, as distinct from grammar and spelling, is a house style issue; this is flagged in the ENGVAR section "(The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section...)" but possibly not with the clarity it should contain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. WP:LQ has never really affected me as it near enough follows British English so I've complied with it despite ignorance of it. My last sentence above struck out. NtheP (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Overly "Big" Words.

Is there a tag I can use to let other editors know a word in an article should be simplified? xnamkcor (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can link to it here, I'll take a look :) gwickwire^talk_edits 04:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital "Envisaged". xnamkcor (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to envisioned, as I'm pretty sure envisaged wasn't what they intended in writing it. Better? :) gwickwire^talk_edits 04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I changed the other two instances of the word in the article. PS: http://www.google.com/search?q=envisage+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org xnamkcor (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, you may like to check out the Simple English Wikipedia. Jujutacular (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing a section - footnotes issue

I am trying to edit a section of an article. When I do a Preview, all the footnote numbers are changed and start at [1], as if there were no other footnotes prior to that section. I'm afraid to save it, not being sure of what's happening to the footnotes. If I do save it as is, will the numbers go back to their proper sequence? K828 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, K828! The answer is yes, the numbers will go back to their proper sequence. Whenever you edit a section and press preview, footnotes and references always start at 1, but if there were footnotes or references prior to the section, when you save it will go back to the proper numbering. This is just a little quirk of Wikipedia. Happy editing! öBrambleberry_{_ meow _ watch me in action} 00:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! K828 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello K828. A 'trick' I use when editing in a section it to temporarily place a {{Reflist}} template at the end of the section, and then use the Show preview 'button'. This, apart from the numbering, will show the references as they will appear when you save (though they may then be in multiple columns). The real trick is to remember to remove {{Reflist}} again before you save! If not you may end up with two reflists and a garbled page layout, though that is easily fixed by removing the excess {{Reflist}} - 220 of ^Borg 04:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Ps. I moved your sig to right after your post, otherwise it appears on the far left of the page, somewhat disassociated from your "Thanks!". Hope that is ok with you!

Thanks for the additional info! K828 (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How to align a previously existing Wikimedia page with a Wikipedia article if they have slightly different namespaces ?

I have recently created an article about Gutenberg Castle in Liechtenstein. However, I found out (too late) that Wikimedia Commons already had a page with some copyright-approved photos of the castle. Trouble is, the WC page with the images uses the namespace "Burg Gutenberg", while the article made by me uses "Gutenberg Castle". Though I've tried, I'm not really sure how to safely link to the WC page from the main article on the castle (you know, with that Wikimedia link added to the bottom of the article, between External links and Categories). Can the link to the existing WC page be created as a redicrect ? Or is my only hope asking permission to move the WC page to a namespace identical with that of the article ? Thanks in advance for any tips. ZemplinTemplar (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot: The Wikimedia page in question is this one : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Burg_Gutenberg ZemplinTemplar (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi ZemplinTemplar! Thanks for dropping by, I'm assuming you are referring to {{commons category}} which allows you to give a link to the commons category. There is functionality to allow you to link to a commons category of a different name than the article. In this case you should use the code {{commons category|Burg Gutenburg|Gutenberg Castle}}. I don't know how much you know about templates, but the vertical lines separate things known as parameters. In this case, the first unnamed parameter of the template (a named parameter would be one that uses a name= in it) defines the name of the commons category. The second unnamed parameter defines how it should be displayed. It's a bit of a confusing issue, but you can see the documentation at Template:commons category or ask me any follow up questions. Ryan Vesey 21:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that worked wonderfully. :-) I'm still a relative newbie to most of Wikipedia's functions, including templates, but I'm learning quite quickly. Thanks again. ZemplinTemplar (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Referencing mess

Hi,

I've been working on the Chalcogen article, and the references there are sort of a mess. Is there anything I should know about how to standardize the references there? Thanks

^King Jakob _C 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, King, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse. Folks can have opinions about referencing style, so you might want to discuss what you'd like to do on the talk page first. The Periodic table article doesn't have nearly so many problems and if you're specifically emulating that style I don't think you'll have too many problems. I've found template:citation to be really helpful. Good luck! Garamond Lethe 02:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How to put bullet points in two seperate columns?

How do I make a list of things using bullet points but with two columns? I saw this list of items and I thought that it would be presented in a better way by using bullet points. I thought that the list would be too long, so how do I split the list into two columns using bullet points? Koopatrev (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Koopatrev, and welcome to the Teahouse! ~ There are several ways to accomplish this. What I usually use is {{multicol}} ••• {{multicol-break}} ••• {{multicol-end}}. Note: you can use as many {{multicol-break}} as you wish, and put them wherever in the list you want, making it quite flexible. The documentation for Template:Multicol has instructions for other ways to accomplish this, as does Template:Columns-list and Template:Col-float (and probably more) ~Eric 74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

hello.i am vinay and i would like to know few details that can i keep articles of wikipedia in my website.

hello.i am vinay and i would like to know few details that can i keep articles of wikipedia in my website.Satikavinaykumar (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Vinay, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can keep articles from wikipedia on your website. This is because all content on wikipedia (with the exception of some images) is licenced under a Creative Commons licence which means you are free to do with it as you wish as long as you comply with the Terms of use and attribute where you got the information from. NtheP (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I forgot my password and didn't add an e-mail?

I guess that wasn't a smart decision, but I checked the "remember login info on this browser for 180 days" box. If I forgot my password after the time is up, do I have to create another account? But I like my username! What can I do? Thanks. JHUbal27 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can't remember it and you don't have an email account, then yes you would. You could then move the talk and user pages of your old account to your new one. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the 180 days up? If not, then you can still change it under "Preferences". Go Phightins! 03:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't it still require an email address to confirm you are who you are though? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're logged in, I don't think you need an email to change your password; mine's enabled though, so I don't know for sure. Go Phightins! 03:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As is mine. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys I was asleep. No the 180 days are not up, but will I be able to keep the same username? By the way, if you haven't seen my userpage, it is a combination of Johns Hopkins University (JHU), Baltimore, Maryland (bal), and 27 (my favorite number). JHUbal27 12:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If your account is logged in right now there should be no problem.

Click here: Special:ChangePassword (this is the link provided under Preferences at the top of every page → User profile tab → Basic information → Password: Change password).

Once you do that:

Click here: Special:ChangeEmail (this is the link provided under the same page of Preferences under "E-mail options → Set an e-mail address").

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you would have still needed to know your old password to do either of those things. Had he not (as indicated below) remembered it, he would have been screwed when the 180 days expired. --Jayron32 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I remembered my password! Yay! JHUbal27 20:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! --Jayron32 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

References for notability of subject

Hi, an article I submitted yesterday for approval via my sandbox was declined and the reason stated was, "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." I double checked each reference, and they are all independent, third-party, and well-respected trade publications in the 3D printing and rapid prototyping industry. Each reference refers directly back to the subject of the related sentence. The editor suggested that I read the "guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule," which I did, and each reference in my proposed article adheres to all of the requirements stated in the guidelines and golden rule. Any suggestions? The article is called Mcor Technologies Ltd and is located here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mcor Technologies Ltd#References JulieAsarkofReece (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made your question more readable by changing the internet URL to a wikilink. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Julie. Welcome to Wikipedia! I read through this, and I don't actually think most of these sources are very good for establishing notability. Some of them (Fabboo) appear to be single-authored blogs. Others (efunda, rapidtoday) may be well-respected trade publications, but they're still trade publications. Consider this section of the business notability guideline.

"The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."

On the other hand, the coverage in Wired online and DesignNews might be good enough to save the article, since they're both at least professionally written and edited, and they play to a more general audience. So an article like this one is a borderline case, in my opinion: it could just squeak by on notability grounds, or it could be rejected. Not surprisingly, several veteran Wikipedians decided it didn't make the cut. If I were you, I might follow up with the editor who most recently rejected the article, and ask him/her why the designnews and wired articles weren't enough to establish notability. If that doesn't get the result you want, wait a few months or a year for the company to generate more mainstream press, and then try again. The article will be right where you left it, in your userspace, when you return :) Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd content dispute and talk page

A user has started demanding an article layout be changed according to his desire against the opinion of everyone else who has reverted the changes. It is really odd. I have no idea how to handle the situation. I feel this guy is bullying to get his demands. And is this type of thing a regular occurrence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_called_a_polymath

I am also updating the page of Patrick M. Byrne which has extremely confusing Talk page requirements.Bhalluka (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

To Bhalluka and other hosts: I have replied at User Talk:Hajatvrc and at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_called_a_polymath. hajat vrc @ 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And what is this guy's thing with bullying? Telling me I am on my "last warning?" This is ridiculous, where do I report this guy for bullying? Bhalluka (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Hajatvrc, looks like he is bullying you too now. Is that common?Bhalluka (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that on this as on many Wikipedia issues there is no right or wrong answer, but has to be resolved by what in academia is known as "collegial discussion." By the way, until reading this discussion I didn't know there was such a thing as a polymath! Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with editing please

moved by Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Hello all. I have a section on my user page entitled 'articles I have edited/created,' but as I am editing more, the section is taking up rather a lot of space. Does anyone know what I could do to help make the space smaller? I see other users have boxes for theirs, could anyone tell me how to do this? Thanks for your help! --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

PrincessAlice, welcome to the Teahouse. One way is to use {{multicol}} and put the entries into several columns across your user page like this

Markup

Renders as

{{Multicol}}
This text appears in the first column.
{{Multicol-break}}
This text appears in the second column.
{{Multicol-break}}
This text appears in the third column.
{{Multicol-end}}

This text appears in the first column.

This text appears in the second column.

This text appears in the third column.

If this isn't a way you'd like have a look round other users pages to see how they do it - you can look at the source and copy that. NtheP (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! :) --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Alice. Another option is to use collapsible lists. For example, the following:

{{Collapsible list
|framestyle=border:2; padding:0; 
|title=Articles I have contributed to/edited 
|[[Princess Helena of the United Kingdom]] 
|[[Lady Louise Windsor]] 
|[[James, Viscount Severn]] 
|[[Infanta Leonor of Spain]]
}}

... ends up looking like:

Articles I have contributed to/edited

Princess Helena of the United Kingdom
Lady Louise Windsor
James, Viscount Severn
Infanta Leonor of Spain

Anyone who wants to see your list just clicks on "show". Just another option to try. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Help me please

I have made a page and it is telling me that A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (January 2013). I really don't know what this mean the link my page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Omega_Sigma

thank you in advance Daniel J WadeAlpha Omega Sigma (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel! Welcome to the teahouse. Since you have the exact same username as the article you were trying to create, someone assumed you are most likely a member of the organization and hence had a conflict of interest. I am not able to see the article you wrote, as it has been deleted, but you have to be very careful to stick to a neutral, non promotional point of view whenever you edit Wikipedia. This is especially important when you have a conflict of interest. You, unfortunately now have another problem. You have been blocked. Wikipedia accounts are only supposed to be used by one person, and since your name is that of a fraternity, it is assumed that was not your intention. Leave a note on your talk page inquiring on what you should do about that. I am pretty sure all you will need to do is change your username to get unblocked, but before you try again on an article about your frat, please read WP:COI. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What should I do?

What should I do if I edited anonymously, and when I create an account to make an AFD someone says I'm a SPA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioNovi (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

moved by me: heather walls (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings MarioNovi, I looked at your contributions and I think anyone who labeled you as a single purpose account would not be affording you the assumption of good faith that you deserve. Just continue editing and mostly ignore the comment. If you feel like you are being harassed, address your concern in a civil manner, and ask the editor what they are suggesting. If necessary, tell the editor that you are a single purpose account, telling them as well that your single purpose is to learn how best to improve Wikipedia. That was my single purpose when I began editing here. --My76Strat (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Uploading fonts

I have seen in Wikipedia few languages have two names in two different scripts. I also wanted to do the same to Nepal Bhasa. Can I upload Prachalit script to Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia? -KrozanK. (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

moved by me: heather walls (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, you can, sort of, if the Unicode issues are resolved. The way that this works is that when the scripts are all phonetic it is possible for the server to deliver different versions, and accept different inputs. See https://new.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE:Input_System .

To add another script you will have to talk to some technical folk, I think the Language Committee on Meta will be able to point you in the right direction. As well as the Unicode issue, though, you will probably have to show consensus on the new: Wikipedia for the addition. Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

I have also updated the detail on Unicode in the article Prachalit script - once again it is worth discussing on new:. Rich Farmbrough, 23:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

how to improve information

how to improve information about an individual or an organisation.Paras karnai (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, assuming you have a reliable source, the simplest way to improve content on Wikipedia is just to edit it. Does that help? ^King Jakob _C 16:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

My article has been denied four times now after being reviewed by three different people. I've done what was asked of me, but it seems that someone is really opposed to the idea of free knowledge for everyone, as more issues are made up every time the article is reviewed. Maybe someone should have a talk with these people? I honestly don't see why they would want to hinder a brilliant project like Wikipedia. I don't even know what is asked of me anymore. I've provided sources, just as asked - refined them, and added a "Reception" section. If anyone wants to give a new user some actually useful advice, or even better: help me get this article on Wikipedia, then feel free to do so. Please leave your answers below.

Here is the link to the article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Piter

Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Samotny Wędrowiec. Welcome to Teahouse. Will you please answer a question for me? Have you read WP:NBOOK? If you answer that for me, I will be happy to help you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samotny. First, starting on a side issue, since you must see that all of your inline citations are not working properly, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. In short though, you have the citations in the form <ref>{{http://www.example}}</ref> which will not work. An extremely basic web citation format would be <ref>[http://www.example Name of Source]</ref>, though we really want much more information than just this. Since you used the curly brackets as if you were trying to use a template, let me give you the basic code for a formatted and well attributed web citation using one:

{{cite web|url=|title=|date=|publisher=|author=|accessdate=}}

You can copy and paste this and then just fill in the data next to each equal sign. This will produce properly formatted, consistent citations with decent attribution. Back to your question.

What a topic needs to establish notability is substantive treatment in independent, third-party, reliable sources. To parse that, substantive treatment means not just a mere mention but real content about the subject. Independent, third party sources means that the sources cited should be completely unconnected to the subject. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for checking the facts, editorial oversight and accuracy – so not some unknown person on a blog, but published books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Notability, which is about sources showing that the world has taken note of the topic, goes hand in hand with verifiability, which is about sources existing from which the information in an article can be verified – since Wikipedia's content should not be about new things, but based on already published material. Do the sources you've listed meet these requirements?

Metro is not an independent, third party source, but exactly the opposite, a site promoting the product they are involved with. Fantlab is some kind of a blend of a blog and a wiki with user-generated content, per the Russian article on it, and thus very much not a reliable source (see WP:BLOGS). In any event, it does not provide any sort of substantive treatment. Looking at the rest of the sources, they all suffer from the same defects. The only source that appears to have a somewhat substantive write up is kawerna.pl and that appears to be a fan site, also with user-generated content. All this is to say, you need to find the sources we are looking for, which you have not provided (not yet). If such sources do not exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Samotny Wędrowiec. I looked over your article. Firstly, I fixed your citations. (not sure why you thought they had to be enclosed in curly brackets, but they are gone now). Secondly, I removed your overlinking. You only Wikilink the first instance of a term in an article and you don't Wikilink common terms (like Polish). Then I evaluated your article as best I could, considering all sources are foreign language. You have plenty of citations to websites that are selling the book, but those only show that the book exists. No one is trying to say otherwise. What you need is something to show notability. Wikipedia only publishes articles on subjects that the world has noticed (hence, the term, notability). You show this by citing articles about the book in reliable sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles. Blogs and most other internet sources (other than websites associated with newspapers or magazines) are not considered reliable sources. I hope this clears things up. I hope also that someone translates the series into English, as it appears to be pretty interesting. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! If you boldly disagree with other editors, then you are allowed to accept the article yourself. However, I am not recommending this. JHUbal27 20:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for taking the time to reply and thank you Gtwfan52 for clearing up the mess I made. As for showing the notability of the subject: I find that almost impossible to do. Metro 2033 is one of the biggest modern novels in Russia lately and it's very well-known in Eastern Europe. Due to that fact alone, the Universe of Metro 2033 series is also becoming more and more popular.

However, since Metro 2033 itself is the only book that has been translated into English so far, it is impossible to obtain any English sources regarding Piter. As such, I am limited to Russian sources that I mostly cannot understand and can only pick out bits and pieces of information from (or rely on Google Translate, which is far from the best option but it's the only other one) and Polish ones. Unfortunately, I have not lived in Poland since I was nine years old so I'm not aware of which magazines are popular there right now.

The book has certainly been "noticed by the world", but only a part of it and that part does not speak English. I'm trying to help people who only speak English with finding out more about this book series (mostly for English and American fans of Metro 2033 and its video game adaptation). I wanted to follow this up with another article on Towards the Light (another novel in the series), but I don't think I will considering how much hassle I had to go through with the article for Piter and it's still not accepted.

Why are the sources provided unreliable? They do more than show that the book exists - they support the facts given in the article. Everything you see is user-generated. Wikipedia is user-generated, if you haven't noticed. What else is it supposed to be? Robot-generated? I don't understand.Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. The problem is that the sources you are using are user generated. Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Reliable sources are generally fact-checked, like newspapers, magazines and books. You find very few books about books, so that leaves you with newspapers and magazines. I really don't know how to tell you to go about finding newspaper and magazine articles written about a foreign language book, but the source being in a foreign language is not a problem. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It also appears your article got some attention from the article rescue squad today. It appears they added a reliable source, so you are getting much closer. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Favorte Webside.

What do you enjoy online besides Wikimedia? Joshvs (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No question. Cracked.com. Consistently the smartest humor site on the internet. John Cheese and Dan O'Brien are my favorite columnists, though there's lots of good stuff all around. The "After Hours" video series is great. The site is solid. --Jayron32 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Stumbleupon. I have never failed to turn up something interesting or inspirational with that site. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, my second favorite website is answers.yahoo.com or funtrivia.com. Not Facebook. That was a random question. JHUbal27 02:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I go to YouTube a lot as well as Wikipedia. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 10:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How to get a third review of an article in creation

Hello,

I am trying to get an article approved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lise_Skou

It has been decined twice because of missing references. I have now added references but the 'submit-again' button has disappeared. How do I get someone to view it again? Kunstasa (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kunstasa. You can resubmit the page for review by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This question inspired my question above, about whether it was better to simply create an article outright, as is permitted by the rules. Isn't it sometimes better to just take the bull by the horns and create an article, and then work with the community to improve it? Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! In response to Coretheapple, I would say maybe. The two things that get new articles deleted the most are lack of notability, and being written in an overly promotional way. If you feel completely comfortable with the nuances of notability, you are just fine creating the article on your own. There are many nuances to notability, however. By the time you get through AfC, you will have an article that will stick. It may take a month, but it should stick. If you create an article straightaway, you run the risk of it being speedy deleted. It is a trade-off. Brand new users should stick to AfC; once you have some experience, just go ahead and create it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How to add a visual to an article.

How to add a visual to an article, such as an album. Mr.M.Ouellet (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That does not quite help because I don't know what to put in there. A citing of where the picture is located ? or the name of the file from my computer ? if so, how to I upload it ? Mr.M.Ouellet (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Ouellet. Wikipedia cannot link to an image elsewhere: every picture in an article must first be uploaded, either to Wikipedia itself, or preferably to Wikimedia Commons (which will make the picture available to all the different language Wikipedias, and other Wikimedia wikis as well). But Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so the pictures to be uploaded must either be in the public domain, or the copyright owner must agree to licence them under one of the free licences which Wikipedia requires. Please see WP:Uploading images for the first part, and WP:Image tutorial for the second. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Albumm covers are usually uploaded under WP:Fair use provisions. Rich Farmbrough, 06:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

I want an Album artwork link to album page.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dissident Prophet's We're Not Grasshoppers, 1995.jpg) Thanks for uploading File:Dissident Prophet's We're Not Grasshoppers, 1995.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Firstade (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, basically if We're Not Grasshoppers didn't use the file then it was deleted as unused. I think this is because of a typo "File:Dissident Prophet's We're Not Grasshoppers, 1996.jpg in the article. I'll ask for an admin to undelete the file. Rich Farmbrough, 06:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC).
- It's done. Rich Farmbrough, 06:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

Problem After Uploading New Version Logo Image in Nepal Stock Exchange

After uploading a newer version image file of NEPSE Logo, it is noticed that the older file is still being displayed in the article main page. I tried clearing the cache in my browser as instructed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Technical_aspects , but it won't work. I even used another web browser and another pc as well to see the change but that problem still persisted. I also followed few purging methods explained at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Purge but they even did not work. So, I request to fix or help fix this issue. Thanks in advance ! Mkg just4u (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mkg just4u, welcome to the Teahouse, the image looks fine to me - so it's probably just a caching issue with your browser. Have you tried the process at Wikipedia:Purge#For images? NtheP (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have already mentioned that I tried image purging methods as well. Thanks... Mkg just4u (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a caching problem with thumbnails, it's being discussed at the Village pump even as we speak. Rich Farmbrough, 06:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

i want to know how to get beyond beyond the ethernet?

The ethernet can be regarded as everything beyond the internet. ie universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.250.47 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! That's a good question, however, this page is specifically for people who have questions about how to edit Wikipedia. I think it'd be great for you to ask your question as our reference desk which was created to answer questions just like this - about life, culture, science, technology, etc. Thanks again for coming by! SarahStierch (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, look at the article ethernet to find out what ethernet is. Rich Farmbrough, 06:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

Question about WP:HW

Hi! Before I begin, I'm sorry if this is unrelated to Wikipedia and/or is not allowed. I know WP:HW states that editors will not do your homework for you, but I have a question if anyone is willing to help. My question is related to analyzing a statement for a debate. I can be reached by e-mail or on my talk page, but preferrably (I don't know if I spelled that right) my e-mail. I am also willing to e-mail/talk you. Thank you. JHUbal27 01:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, JHUbal27! If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. ~Best of luck, ~Eric 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Email me. I will help with direction if I'm able, without doing the work for you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Image transfer from "commons" to "pedia."

I've found the image in Wikimedia Commons that I want to use in an edit of a Wikipedia article. Where do I find the procedure? ThanxBart and Whizzer (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just use the filename like this: [[File:(namenamenamenamename)|thumb]] and it'll work. Make sure to not use parenthesis however! gwickwire^talk_edits 22:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The image stays at Commons. You use exactly the same code to display it whether the image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons or at the English Wikipedia. If you still have problems then please say which image it is and where you want to display it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it permissible to create a website which domain name is starting with wiki and says we are MediaWiki affiliates?

I want to know that is it permissible to buy a domain which is started from "wiki" like "wikiinfo". If it is permitted then tell me is it allowed to use the name of WikiMedia or MediaWiki on the wiki website to show the visitors that this information is true and authentic. And if it is permitted then tell me is it permitted to insult and provide fake information about a particular religion to show people that it is false and untrue on the same site which is using "wiki" in domain name and saying we are the members of MediaWiki. Kindly reply me it's a serious question. Sanpatrick81 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For the answer to the first question yes, WikiMedia does not own the Wiki- Prefix. For the second, without permission from the Foundation, no. And lastly, its your website, do whatever you want on it. §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 19:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Another note, the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia runs on is avaliable online at their website. You can download it there and use it on your site if you wish, provided you follow all their rules. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I found WikiIslam.com a website which is using the name of WikiMedia and MediaWiki and provides false statements.

Sanpatrick81 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please point to where they say or indicate they are a "Mediawiki affiliate", use the name of Wikimedia or where they provide "false statements" on this issue? I looked but couldn't find any. The only thing I see is that they have a logo at the bottom of pages saying "Powered by MediaWiki", which is true—that is a statement of the software they run, the Mediaiwiki platform, which MediaWiki allows others to use freely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify further from the above answers:

Wikimedia Foundation is an American non-profit charitable organization which runs Wikipedia and several other websites. You are not allowed to claim that your own website is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Some websites contain false claims of this. They risk legal action from the Wikimedia Foundation.
A wiki is a type of website. Anybody is allowed to create a wiki and give it a name containing "wiki" (assuming the full name doesn't make infringements). Wikipedia is an example of a wiki. Many other wikis are not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. The wiki concept and word are older than Wikipedia. Wikipedia was given a name starting with "wiki" to indicate that it is a wiki.
MediaWiki is not an organization but a specific piece of software used to make wikis. There is also other software which can make wikis. MediaWiki is free. You are allowed to download the MediaWiki software and use it to create a wiki if you just satisfy the license conditions of the software. MediaWiki is made by the Wikimedia Foundation but this does not in any way imply that wikis using MediaWiki are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Since MediaWiki is not an organization, it wouldn't make sense to claim you are a "member" of MediaWiki or "affiliated" with MediaWiki. Many websites correctly say they are "powered" by MediaWiki, often with a small image in the lower right corner like Wikipedia. This only refers to using MediaWiki as software to run the website. You are allowed to say that if you use MediaWiki. Wikimedia Foundation websites also have another image in the lower right corner saying "a Wikimedia project". This is not allowed for sites not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, but some sites falsely display the image.
As for making a website which insults some people and contains fake information, Wikipedia does not give legal opinions. We cannot comment on the legality of such a website. All I can say is that some people take perceived attacks on their religion very seriously and may get angry. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing Image size

What is editing text for changing Wikicommoms image size?Bart and Whizzer (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You probably would have more luck at Commons with this question §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 18:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Bart, if you talking about changing the size of images used in articles then the full syntax for image placement is [[File:Name|Type|Border|Location|Alignment|Size|link=Link|alt=Alt|Caption]] and the parameters you're interested in is |Size=. By changing this value you make images lager or smaller. You can find a full description of it and all the other parameters at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. NtheP (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I properly format inline citations?

Hi, I'm a newbie here and working on the Peter Kalmus article.

I have been given editorial feedback that I've used inline citations but that they are not correctly formatted.

Is there anyone who could please help me understand what I need to do to correct this? And how I should work on the to improve them?

Many thanks! Admiralquirk (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Please take a look at referencing for beginners. Don't hesitate to ask again if you have any further questions.--ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Admiralquirk, and welcome to Wikipedia. As you see, all wikipedia articles have references, and they must be in the proper format. For example, see the references section of Isaac Newton. You will see that it contains a lot more than simply the URL. Open the edit window, and you'll realise that every reference has a particular format which should be followed.

There are many ways to add a reference, some of which are explained in "Referencing for beginners". You may choose any one of them, and stick with it in the article.

Hope this reply helped. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask again.

Cheers! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello TheOriginalSoni, thanks very much for your response. That's very helpful, and I think it points me in the right direction. Lots to improve, but I have a much better idea what to do now. Thanks again.

Admiralquirk (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help :) Feel free to ask again if you want any help. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A reference as something other than a published article

I am writing an entry on a well-known business person that is supported by at least two dozen reputable sources, including major newspapers and two best sellers. In addition to helping change the way global business was done in his industry and leading several high-profile initiatives that are well-recognized by the average person, he was involved in an under-the-radar (but critical) government program for which no press coverage was pursued. At its conclusion, he was sent a thank you letter from a Secretary-of-State, a PDF of which I was considering using as an illustration/picture. Can I do that, and (if yes) how do I direct readers to the image as a reference for the brief paragraph about it? Thank you, Joe Intimeagain (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. When you are asking Questions here, its usually good to be specific so others know exactly what you are speaking of. You probably meant Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcio Moreira here. As you have already said, this article seems to be supported by several reliable sources and will pass.

As for the illustration, I believe you were talking about "Shared Values". Since you are talking about a PDF here, it will fall under the purview of files.

So Yes - You can absolutely upload the file and use it in your article. [I think an image will be a better upload than a PDF though]
But make sure the image you upload follows our image uploading policies. We are very strict on these issues, and your image could be deleted if you do not follow it. If your image is under a Creative Commons license, you can upload it directly to "Wikipedia Commons", from where the image can be used on any language Wikipedia. If not, then you might still be able to upload it on English Wikipedia under "fair use".

For more information, please see our image uploading guidelines and how to upload a file. Other hosts, please link to the relevant pages too. I cant find the particular pages right now

Hope this helped. If you have any further doubts or questions, feel free to ask again. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As to copyright, it belongs to the creator of the letter. In many countries works by government are public domain and cannot be copyrighted. If you find the correct {PD-Gov} licence template at the commons then it will explain. Many have links to the actual law that the licence quotes from.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both so much. I'm not sure what "the commons" is and how to get there/search it. Sorry to inconvenience you both, but if either of you can give me a bit more direction, I'd appreciate it. Sorry to be such a newb. Joe Intimeagain (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've found it. @Canoe1967, if you get a chance, what is {PD-Gov} and how do I search that? Intimeagain (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD-Gov_license_tags Is the correct country in that category?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

inserting pictures into new article

I am having trouble viewing pictures i am trying to insert into a new article. On the preview, it has a link to the picture, I think. I have uploaded the pictures through wiki commons, yet i still dont think they are on the page i am creating. Any help? Caseywhittington (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it!Caseywhittington (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How to move my article?

Hi all. I wrote my first wiki article and would like to know how can I post this? I've read that I'm not allowed to move it but others can. What should I do to ensure that the article will be moved? Thx Bzfsolpex (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor was blocked indefinitely. Mono 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

Is there any maximum number of times a reference can be cited? The most I've seen is cite note a, b, c.... All the way till ch. Forgot what page that was. Bicholim Conflict? Anyways, yeah, back to my question. I ask this because it would seem reasonable to cite a source which devotes all its content to the subject in detail many times... But what's the limit? Zz? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well zz gives you 676 uses of the same reference by which time, you'd be dealing with a very long article. But if you got anywhere near that I'd be questioning how the reference was being used. If it's a book then the pages should be referenced so you might have umpteen uses of the same book but only two or three to any particular page and the system used for referencing should reflect that. NtheP (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How to have an article created about my organisation

Hello

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia and despite reading a lot of help and reference pages, I'm still confused and would really appreciate some assistance.

I would like to create an article about the not-for-profit organisation that I work for. There are already pages about the subsidiary organisations, but I'd like to create an overarching page that links them all together.

I read the Conflict of Interest policy and it seems like this would be against that policy. Could someone please advise me of how to work around this problem to have the article created?

Thank you

203.21.125.202 (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 203. Having a conflict of interest does not forbid you from writing an article. It suggests that you get any edits you make reviewed, so if you create your article at Articles for Creation, that will be reviewed before it is published to the encyclopedia. Just make sure that the references you have are reliable sources and that you have enough referenced information to pass the notability standard for organizations, WP:ORG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's really helpful. I'll start with that.

Thanks again.

203.21.125.202 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 203! Please keep us informed. We will be glad to help you along the way. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)