Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 108

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 105 Archive 106 Archive 107 Archive 108 Archive 109 Archive 110 → Archive 115

Non free images in tables

Hi guys, is there such a rule stating that non free images cannot be used in tables? Thanks, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bonkers, yes there is, WP:NFTABLE "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." - see WP:NFC for the full discussion and policy. So, for example, it would not be acceptable to have a table of all the Simpsons characters with a non free image accompanying each. A small sample to demonstrate the drawing style used by the animators would be acceptable, assuming that the images were accompanied by appropriate commentary. NtheP (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

my article wael nasr

my article does not show as if it is waiting for review any more. not sure what the reason is. I just added a picture and removed a comment to clean it up how do I know it is still waiting for review ?Amronasr (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amronasr. You removed the submission template with this edit. To relist the page for review, place the code {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"fair use" of image from European Patent

I added this image - File:Aeromovel_US_Patent_5,845,582,_sheet_1_of_5.jpg - to the page Atmospheric railway. When I loaded the image I did so on the basis of fair-use and that a textual description could not easily substitute for the image (the description in the text barely does justice to what is conveyed clearly in the image).

However I have now read the "Terms and conditions of use for the website of the European Patent Office" (http://www.epo.org/footer/terms.html#Copyright), the source of the image, and it makes clear that images can ONLY be used with explicit authorisation.

- Does this override the fair use policy? - Should I take the image down?

It also says that if a link is made to the patent office then "the Website must be the sole element of the browser's window, i.e. it must not appear within another website's frame.". Again I think if someone was interest in Atmospheric railways they would be interested in reading these patents so I added a link to them under "External links" but the terms above don't seem to allow this. Tjej (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tjej. I'm not an expert on this, but I think the situation is as follows: the EPO asserts copyright, and then gives some conditions upon which you may use the material within their copyright. Such conditions are not acceptable to Wikipedia as a licence, and therefore the material can only be used in Wikipedia (if at all) within the terms of the non-free content criteria; but if it does meet all these criteria, then it may be used notwithstanding the copyright. I'm not familiar enough with the criteria to advise whether or not it meets them, though.
On the subject of an External link: if somebody picks the link, it will open the page in a new window (or tab), so I don't think there's any problem on that score. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

using osm_id (for Open Street Maps ID)

In the Template:Infobox public transit one of the field is "osm_id".

However this tag is NOT described in the documentation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_public_transit.

After a test I found it displays as "Open Street Maps". For a particular railway line, especially short ones, the Open Street Map "way" for the railway is an excellent means of displaying the location and alignment of the line. This is a useful and interesting feature and certainly of interest to someone wanting more information on a topic in Wikipedia

QUESTION: Given it is not documented and the fact I can't find, after searching, any other reference to it should it be added to articles where it suits? Tjej (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question; thanks for asking it. Given that, I'm not sure I have the answer but would suggest Be Bold and go ahead with the inserts. You also might edit the template documentation to 1) improve it, and 2) see if anyone else takes not of it. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a note in the documentation. I think osm_id should probably also be added to the Template:Infobox rail line"

It would be nice if the id became a hyperlink that would automatically open in OpenStreetMaps. I presume this can be worked out in the parser. Tjej (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

When will the page come up?

Hi, I have completed my page long back and made all the necessary changes after having consulted people in the tea house. The page is still not up. what do i do? Page link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priyanka_DuttMartandbadoni (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I think the article was moved to the Article space on 18 May. It may be that your browser is storing an old page. Please clear your cache. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey!! Thanks a lot, it was a very unique problem.Martandbadoni (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I created a link at the top of the page Rhythm Thief (1994 film) to the game Rhythm Thief & the Emperor's Treasure although it links to a disambiguation page with the same name. [1] Am I missing something or does it just need to be deleted? DarkToonLink (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So it turns out I somehow used the wrong apostrophe (' and ’) and couldn't tell because of the italics and stuff... DarkToonLink (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
DarkToonLink, glad you got it sorted. When I'm looking at creating links like this I copy and paste the title in so I pick up the correct formatting whether it's apostophes, capitalisation, & instead of and etc. NtheP (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Flooded!

Do you ever feel like you've been flooded by the sheer number of users, and have this feeling everything you can contribute has already been contributed? --XndrK‽ 18:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really. there are many open requests at WP:GOCE and there are not too many volunteers to do those work. I work in WP:India and there are lots of pending tasks, consider joining the WikiProject India if you want. Just now, I posted art SuggestBot's talk page, everytime I get suggestbot suggestions, I get surprised to see the amount of tasks needed to be done.
In case, you are not talking about article copyedit, expansion and want to create articles, please pick requests from Wikipedia:Requested articles --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, XndrK, good to see you again! Yup, I sure do. Just the other day, I was all excited to write an article about takeout doubles. To my disappointment, there is not only an article on that, but on nearly every bridge bidding convention there is! But, despite appearances, there actually is still a great deal to do. A nice resource that I use to find articles to write is the inestimable Uncle G's list of missing encyclopaedic articles; I've plucked a couple of nice article ideas from there. There's still plenty to do; you just have to be a little more creative about it. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I feel sometimes that way too :( Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to take a crack at the potential articles on my "to do" list, have at it!--ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Try clicking on my name in my signature, and you'll see my userpage where I have listed probably a good 500 redlinks that I want to make articles for. So just me, just one person with interests in a few niche areas, has a list like that. I could probably double that list in size in a few weeks if I wanted to go peering around more. There are still literally millions of articles worth writing, and probably a good 80% or more of Wikipedia articles could do with some properly-footnoted expansion. So never fear, though we already have articles for Egypt, Lettuce, and Amadeus Mozart, there are quite a few fruit left to pick. ;) MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

help

hello,

I need help with my article. Need some senior member to review and help me develop it further. Thanks Wryte2sana (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wryte2sana. The biggest problem is that your article needs references to reliable sources that give significant coverage to Tarana Raja. Please read our policy on biographies of living people. You should add wikilinks to various items in the "Personal life" section, and eliminate the long list of clients. Every significant claim needs to be referenced. In my opinion, there are too many external links. Reduce these to the ones that provide the best neutral information. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Wryte2sana, please take on board Cullen328's advice as he is an experienced editor and very helpful. I have added one citation to your article to help get you started and added {{reflist}} which automatically adds the citation to the reference list. I agree that the long list of clients should be reduced. Good luck with your editing. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, Flat Out. Greetings to Australia from California! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bible Society

I added 'See Leslie Howsam, 'Cheap Bibles, for an accurate account.' Problem: the citation error regarding the red tag. What should I do?174.89.49.106 (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The citation was incorrectly formatted, that why you saw the red tag. The correct formatting would have been <ref>Please see Leslie Howsam, 'Cheap Bibles' for an accurate account</ref> However I've removed the additional altogether as references should be complete and explanatory. Rather than just saying see this book, you should expand the text to include a fuller account and provide full details of the book including which pages you are referring to. NtheP (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing images

Question moved from the bottom, and heading added, by ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC).

how to edit a image in wikipedia plz help me and some articals are deleted automaticly in my edits ams me . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi9889 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ravi. I moved your question to the top, because on this page (only) the newest questions are at the top, so it might be missed at the bottom.
To your first question: the answer depends on exactly what you want to do. If you want to replace an image by another image already in Wikipedia, you just change the link (that will start [[File:). If you want to replace it with a different image, then (as long as the replacement is in the public domain, or can be released by the copyright owner) you can update it to Wikipedia and link to it from the article. If you are talking about making a change to an existing image, you would need to download the image to your computer, edit it outside Wikipedia with some suitable software, and then upload the new version.
I'm not sure what the other part of your question refers to; there is nothing on your talk page about articles deleted, which there ought to be if somebody has proposed an article for deletion where you were a major contributer. If you mean the reversion of the edits you made to Jhansi, that is explained on your talk page.
For any further help, I think you'll have to tell us which page or pages you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Supedi

Supedi, I found the article at New Pages section, the article was , uncategorized etc. I added 1 category 1 source. But, since then they are continuously removing the reference, reflist, categories. I have left messages at their talk page, but can not understand if they are ignoring the messages or not understanding the new message system Suggestions? --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tito I think the user've stopped. So no need to be tensed. But if the user does this again then you must warn. Cause this time it'll be vandalism. Hope it helps you.--Pratyya (Hello!) 11:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have refined the categorization and also added WikiProject India. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Roger Dodger for making changes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have edited an article to improve it. The article currently has the header "This article has multiple issues." How do I remove this?

- The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. (July 2010) - This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2010) - A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (July 2010)

I have addressed these and would like to submit the article for removal of the header stating that "This article has multiple issues." How do I do this?

222.154.168.175 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello 222.154.1568.175, and welcome. The IP address you are using has made no other recent edits anywhere at Wikipedia except this question. Could you link to the article in question so we can help you out? --Jayron32 01:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate any offer of help with the article I have worked on , but my question is general in nature. Is there a process one can follow to submit an article for removal of the "multiple issues" header?

222.154.168.175 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The header can be removed by deleting the words in {{ }} brackets at the very top of the article. However, I would not recommend this for a brand new user like yourself. It might be better to come back to this page and ask for assistance when you have a particular article in mind. The Multiple Issues header/tag/banner should only be removed when the issues have been resolved according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which as a new user you many not know just yet. Welcome to WP and let us know how we can help you further. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The general answer is that any editor can remove the tags if the issues have been resolved. There is no formal process other than that. This assumes that there are no protections placed on the article, due to excessive vandalism, for example. In this specific case, I would recommend that you ask the editor who placed the tags in the first place whether they agree that the issues have been resolved. This assumes that the editor is still active on Wikipedia. If you would simply link to the article in question, helpful editors here at the Teahouse will be happy to take a look, and assist you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If you've fixed ALL of the problems, you remove the tag. If you're not an experienced Wikipedia user, such that you not confident that you have fixed all of the problems, you link the article someplace like here at the Teahouse, or maybe at WP:HD, and someone will take a look and offer some help. This is one of those things where it's plain you aren't familiar enough with Wikipedia to be confident that all problems have been fixed, so it really would be best if you linked to the articles so we can look things over and offer help if needed. After you've been here a while, it's perfectly fine to just remove any tags which you have ameliorated yourself. Remember, one of the most important principles of Wikipedia is you don't have to ask permission to make Wikipedia better. You can, of course, always ask for help if you are unsure if what you are doing really is making Wikipedia better, but generally, if you fix the problem, you can remove the tag that highlights the now non-existent problem. --Jayron32 02:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much everybody for your help. I will certainly not remove the header until confident all of the problems have been fixed and will consult with Teahouse at that time. thanks!

222.154.168.175 (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please help with the review of IF4IT Company/Organization article?

Hi,

I'm developing content for a smaller private Company/Organization page (User:FGuerino/The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)) that I'd like to see successfully published, one day. I'm the founder of the page so I'm disclosing that I have a vested interest in the company and I'd like to prove that, by fully following WP policies and guidelines, people who have a vested interest can, in fact, write WP worthy articles about their Companies/Organizations that are better than those written by people who know much less about them.

To date, I've had significant assistance from two admins, Jimfbleak and Mediran, both of whom have been extremely helpful in getting me to the point I'm. They've also done a lot to help keep me in line with WP Policies. Jim has been especially gracious with a great deal of his time and I'm very grateful for it but I may be overwhelming him a bit with all of my requests for assistance, so I'm turning to the Teahouse community for some help.

Some background… To date, I've been working hard to follow policies and guidelines that Jimfbleak and Mediran keep reminding me of, such as:

  • Creating the article in my user subpages, with the intent to perform a formal "move", whenever it is deemed ready for doing so,
  • Keeping in mind that the article content should be written and treated as a tertiary source,
  • Working to maintain a very neutral point of view in all areas of the article,
  • Working to find an use credible and viable sources, such as education research, government agencies using the material, and companies publicly noting that they use the material as part of their day-today work,
  • Working to add as much informative content as possible, in order to give the article the kind of substance that is worthy of a WP article,
  • Working to avoid using specific product and service names, so as not to make the article appear or read like any form of advertising, and
  • Working to avoid any mention of myself, as a means of avoiding any form of self-promotion, and
  • Working with people that are far more knowledgeable than me, both, about writing and about WP standards and policies so as to maintain the highest quality.

Some of the challenges:

  • The company is small
  • The company is still young (almost 3 years old)
  • We have source-able references where we're "used" by the sources as references for their own material but we don't have any out in public space that are written about us, yet (although i know some are coming)

Anyhow, I was hoping some community members could take some of their valuable time to help review the page and provide some feedback and ideas on it, that could help improve it.

Again, I'm in no rush and any help that can be offered is greatly appreciated.

Enjoy your weekend,

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey FGuerino! Thanks for stopping by. I've not gone over the article with a fine-toothed comb, but some things that stood out to me on my first reading (mostly stylistic issue) are:
  • The text in places gets very heavy in non-standard English, especially in the realm of Corporate speak, which can make the article appear to be written from a corporate insider rather than a disinterested third party. For just one example, certain words and terms, like "solutions", are giant red flags for Corporatese, and really don't match the tone expected of a Wikipedia article. A word like "solutions" is just a euphemism for what the rest of the world calls a "product" or a "service", that is it is something the company is offering for sale. Try to avoid using marketing euphemisms where plain English will suffice. Again, that's just one example, there are many many such words and phrases which make the article seem very "marketing" rather than "information" oriented.
  • The text of the article should make clear that the company is notable by Wikipedia's standards (note that this term is a bit of Wikipedia jargon itself. It just means "the world at large has written extensively about this company" and nothing else), but in places the article seems to instead be making its own defense that it is notable. For example, and entire section titled "Rapid establishment as a notable and stable industry source of reference" seems like a very unnatural way to do this, it's standing up and saying "Look at me! I'm worthwhile of an article at Wikipedia because I AM NOTABLE!" That's a terrible way to write. Look at other articles, George Washington doesn't have a section titled "Things George Washington Did To Make Him Notable", Gold doesn't have a section titled "Why the element Gold is notable", so your article doesn't need a section titled "Why my company is notable!" which is basically what that is (it also happens in a few other places in the text as well). Instead, notability should be blatant and self-evident and doesn't need to be screamed from the mountaintops. If it is being screamed from the mountaintops, its a red flag that "Hey, maybe this isn't really notable, since they have to go through such a big deal trying to make you think it is".
Again, this is just a few notes. Your article looks like it is well on its way, and it isn't all that far from something worth posting, but it still needs some work to make it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a marketing tool. --Jayron32 00:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron,
When I look at things from your perspective, it seems like what you're pointed out is nothing less than glaringly obvious, which makes me believe that I've been staring at the article so hard, for so long, that I've missed things that were right out in front of me.
Regarding your first point, I can easily address the issues in your first bullet for the obvious examples. It's the less than obvious instances that I'll have to look hard to find, before I can deal with them.
As for your second bullet, I think the whole section you're critiquing will have to be torn apart. Part of the content seems to have a natural fit with the History section so I'll see if I can find a natural flow for it, there. It looks like some of the material will probably have to disappear, altogether.
This all seems like it's more than enough to keep me very busy for awhile.
Thanks very much for taking the time to help. It's much appreciated.
Frank --FGuerino (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Frank. I'd like to acknowledge you for your approach, your humility, and your determination to do the right thing. I think the things Jayron has pointed out are exactly why editors are discouraged from working on articles where they have a conflict of interest: it's hard to see it from a different POV from your own. But as you are showing, it is possible to do it, if you are willing to seek and act upon others' feedback. --ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Okay, this is not a question, but as a Teahouse graduate and now Afc reviewer, I would just like to brag that I have passed my 10,000th edit this week. Thanks for the great start you gave me. At least half my edits in the first few weeks were questions at the Teahouse. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats Anne! And what a superb job you are doing.--ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I can testify that Anne is doing really great work at AfC. It's a real pleasure to "work" with you Anne. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Congrats, Anne! When I compare my number of edits to yours, I realize how far I really need to go and how hard I have to work to achieve what you have. My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow! It took me almost a year to get to 10,000 edits! You go! Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Your comment is so nice, Anne, that I will listen to some bluegrass music in your honor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, Anne. I am at about 12,000 and I have been here for over two years. Just remember, it's about edit quality not quantity (a general note for anyone who might read this, not directed at you, because what I've seen from you has been terrific!) Go Phightins! 01:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Coach and review

I've got two questions for the teahouse:

  • Why didn't I receive an offer by an adopter yet?
  • Does anyone want to review my article Uplace?

Thank you, WjI-kop (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wjl-kop. There is a lengthy list of adopters available on the adoption project page. I suggest that you read a number of their user pages, and contact one that seems compatible with a request for adoption. Speaking from experience, this can be very gratifying but also a lot of work.
As for your article, what can be said about a proposed shopping mall that has had a permit application declined? Is this really an encyclopedic topic? I am unsure. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
WjI-kop, I agree with Cullen, take a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area and the list of adopters and if you see someone who you think you may gel with, approach them to see if they will work with you. If you sit back and wait for someone to come to you, you might have a long wait.
Your article, well someone thinks it isn't a notable topic and has nominated it for deletion here. NtheP (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Probably not which is why it is now being discussed at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uplace.--ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I am stupified it has been nominated, but one can't change it unfortunately... It is quite a story: Uplace is still in the race to get a permit and will very likely be built in the next years. It was a huge debate and scandal, though it only has an article on the Dutch wikipedia. What will work to keep it? About the coach: there is so much choice that I can't choose. --WjI-kop (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The article isn't deleted yet. If there is more, sourced information that can be added that would indicate why the centre is notable before it has been built, then add it and make a case for retaining the article. NtheP (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello WjI-kop, the way the article is written now I would agree that it fails to meet WP:Notability. However if as you say there is substantial coverage of the political issues surrounding the proposal, then that could indeed be Notable. In which case I would definitely suggest starting with "a proposed shopping mall that engendered a large political controversy resulting in..." rather than get into the proposed details of how many shops and so forth. As an extreme example, if it were to turn out that an important parliamenterian had illegally manipulated the approval process and it led to his ejection and collapse of a coaltion, then in such a circumstance an article would certainly be merited, though perhaps called the "Uplace Affair" regarding the conflict rather than the mall itself. You would just have to show that this proposed mall already has a significance greater than any thousands of run-of-the-mill malls on the planet. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, you need to write the article based on what the newspapers and other independent sources actually said about it. If there was a "huge dabate and scandal", that is what you write about, don't base the article on the bland material the subject's own PR machine produces. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Most sources are French and Flemish (because it is Brussels). Do these also count as sources? I copied two sources from the Dutchies (in Dutch) both from the Flemish state television DeRedactie. The rejection by the Council of State almost lead to the collapse of the coalition. The story (from the second source, you may try Google Translate):

Would it help if I added this (in better English) to the article? --WjI-kop (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you also review Ingrid Lieten? WjI-kop (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichfield_Gazette

The article is not a boast and is a concise statement of fact about a publication in my town of Lichfield. No one has written about it and it is not affiliated to any other group of publications. I am open to suggestions where I can improve or validate it to meet the notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulJOakley (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The trick is to find some reliable sources about the subject but not written by the subject. You may also want to read this. King Jakob C2 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Paul. I'm Theonesean, and I'd like to welcome you to the encyclopedia. It's obvious you're very passionate about the Gazette, but for the time being, I've moved your article draft to the space for Articles for Creation, which is a process by which new editors can have their articles reviewed by and collaborate with more experienced editors. You can find your article atWikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Lichfield Gazette. Please continue working on it, perhaps using the page about writing your first article as a guide. I look forward to your awesome article! Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me 02:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about images moved to the top of the page by --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy-editing v. Research

I'm keen to start improving Wikipedia articles through spelling, grammar and clear language, but the vast majority of the pages to which I get directed (through Wikipedia's Getting Started page or through the Guild of Copy Editors) are really in need of substantial research and source work.

Often, without good sources, it's impossible to know what you're trying to clarify, and you end up getting sidetracked into research work. Is there any way to find pages that only need copy-editing and specifically don't need more or better sources? I realise this sounds picky, but I'd like to contribute what I can, and at the moment I don't have the resources for library work. Any suggestions? Sallyrooney (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to copyedit Harry Yount, which I am preparing for a Good Article review. And you can copyedit any article listed on my user page. I think most are referenced pretty well, but additional input on clear language and grammar is always appreciated. Many experienced editors have similar lists and appreciate the type of work you propose to do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Extending the idea Cullen328 proposes, most good article candidates and featured articles candidates are already well sourced and logically organized but may need a copyedit (and often have reviews already making suggestions for the same). Also, such efforts are often very well appreciated. Maybe even better would be articles that are being prepared for good and featured articles, and are at the prior step of Wikipedia:Peer review. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both very much! I'll start looking ways to be of use right away. Sallyrooney (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Kindle books

Can kindle books be added to further reading section and sources on wikipedia? (Monkelese (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Monkelese. What is important is the reliability of the source, not whether it is printed on paper or published electronically. Is it published by a company with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Is the author respected in the field and have appropriate professional credentials? Do reviewers praise the book as an important contribution to literature on the topic, or dismiss it or ignore it? Do not insert links to draw traffic to a sales site. Links must be for the purpose of improving the article. I hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) I think they should be avoided because such a link is to a website of a commercial venture attempting to sell a product that can only be viewed by purchase. Though I know of nothing in policy or guideline directly addressing such additions, I think the ideas expressed at WP:ELNO, even if not exactly about further reading sections, are quite apt by analogy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
What Cullen and Fuhghettaboutit say about linking to Kindle versions of book as further reading is correct but if you want to use a Kindle version of a book as a reference instead of a paper copy of a book, because that is the only version you have, that is perfectly permissible. if you are using the {{cite book}} template then you need to set the parameter |version= to Kindle and use the Kindle location numbering system (if the book has it) as the parameter |at= instead of page numbers. NtheP (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Have I properly posted an article for review/approval?

Good morning. I THIINK I posted an article on May 20th via my Sandbox and submitted it for review. The title is: SpaceTEC National Resource Center for Aerospace Technical Education. I know it's too early to expect a response, but it is no longer on my watch list (timeout, maybe), and I just want to be sure I have indeed submitted it.

I also uploaded a company logo to accompany the article, but it appears not to have made it into the article - although it shows up listed on the right side in a box. Since I'm still new at this, I may not have done the upload or attribution properly. How do I assure that I've done it all right?

Thanks for any help you can give on either question.

AMKJR 14:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkoller (talk • contribs)

AMKJR, I do not see anything on your sandbox. Please give me the link to the sandbox you submitted your article from. How did you submit your article? Which tag(s) did you put? --JustBerry (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi AMKJR, do you mean this article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpaceTEC National Resource Center for Aerospace Technical Education)? I'm too busy packing in preparation for a move to provide a useful answer, but i hope this link can help someone else do it. good luck Ryan shell (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alkoller. Yep, the proposed article is correctly submitted for review. I've done a minor copyedit and fixed some matters that might keep it from passing such as removing the registered symbols, the self-reference ("Subject of my article is...", which is thoroughly tacit), adding wikification, fixing the formatting of citations, etc. but I don't think it will pass currently for two reasons. First, it has, to my ear, rather promotional language. Articles must be written using neutral language and details. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:PEACOCK and WP:PROMOTION. Second, It really needs better sourcing – citations to secondary reliable sources. I would use some of the sources found through searches such as this and this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi AMKJR! I went ahaead and declined your article. When you get it so it shows notability, just resubmit it. I would use an infobox on it and put the logo in it. A good one would be Template:Infobox organization. The reason the logo did not show is that you had it enclosed in<nowiki></nowiki> tags, which hide the stuff between them from the software. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it really OK to include a fair-use image in the WT namespace? -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Please remove it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The reason it was enclosed in nowiki tags was because I added them to keep the fair use image from propagating outside the mainspace.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing help

Hi, some editing help please.

I edited the page "MADUGULA" to add list of temples in my home town. A new item appeared in content list "Temples" before the last existing content item "References" and it was right and saved.

Then I continued to add more, and by mistake the existing "References" section got deleted. When I saved, it gave edit conflict error and the page is showing in red as protected. How can I correct it properly now.

ThanksArgrao (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You had an opening ref tag without a closing tag. Therefore everything after the opening tag was presumed by the software to be part of the reference information. I fixed it. A easy way to fix an error that you introduce is to simply undo your last edit. Or go back several edits and restore the version prior to the error. This is all done from the article's history.--My76Strat (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Setting up a company page.

Hi Guys,

I've been trying to submit articles on two renowned companies here in India. I'm in no way affiliated to the companies but would like to share information on them. Since I'm new to Wiki and there's always a first time, I gave it a shot. Undoubtedly they both were rejected.

I was looking to understand what are the do's and don't's of setting up a company page on Wiki.

Awaiting your response.

Thanks.

Mitchellez 07:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellez (talk • contribs)

Hi Mitchellez and welcome. The pages were deleted because they both appeared to be purely promotional. The articles need to be encyclopedic and the companies must be notable, written in a neutral manner and reliably sourced.I suggest you make yourself familiar with WP:CORP. Most importantly, If the company has not received attention from independent sources then it is not notable and will not succeed. I am happy to help further. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Review my article?

Does anyone want to review my article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Christopher_Moloney?

Vjtod (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  Done, Vjtod.--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on an article about an obscure root vegetable with no standard English vernacular name (Plectranthus rotundifolius). The vegetable is available in packaged frozen form from some suppliers in India, the only country where it's grown commercially. (I've found two so far.) I think it might be useful to some readers to include links to these suppliers in the external links section of the article, but I'm wondering if this would be considered overly spammy or commercial and likely to be deleted.

Including these links is not essential. I plan to mention in my edits to the article that it is available in this form and the vernacular name it's sold under, so interested readers could easily use this information to search for it. It would just be a matter of convenience for readers who might be interested in trying to obtain some. Naŋar (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Naŋar, welcome to the Tea House. The content guideline for what may or may not be included as external links states that "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" should generally be avoided. With this in mind, and as you say yourself that the links are "not essential", I would say that you ought not to include them. Keri (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Keri, thanks for linking to the appropriate guidelines. I'll just try to be sure to include enough information in the article for readers to find the products if they want. Naŋar (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Naŋar, Keri gave you some good advice there. However, I wouldn't be too worried about your article ever getting deleted. In my experience, "tree-of-life" articles are almost never taken down. The only example I can think of was an article on a species that turned out no to exist. Also, have you considered joining a wikiproject such as WikiProject Plants? good luck with future editing, Ryan shell (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ryan shell. I wasn't worried about the article being deleted, just whether the external links I was considering would have been reverted if I included them. The Tree-of-Life and Plants WikiProject pages both have useful information I hadn't seen before. Thank you for linking to them. Yes, I may consider joining a wikiproject if I become more active on Wikipedia than I am now and think I can be a useful member of the project. Thanks to you and Keri for your help. Naŋar (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How to create info box??

When i follow the guidelines to put an info box on my user page, i fill it out the way i want to. Then, when i veiw the page, nothing happened. all there is is a box with three dots in it. PLEASE HELP. ?_? Pangaearunner (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Pangaearunner! I've gone and replaced the generic infobox (which is fairly complicated to use) with the more specific {{Infobox user}} which is appropriate for your user page. I've used it on my userpage and you may see how it looks when mostly filled in. If you need any help filling it in at all, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :) Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

how to remove "broken" links from an article

Was looking at an article which I was about to edit and decided to start by removing two links in the notes section which did not work. I could not find how to do this. On clicking on the edit button above the notes section, the two links did not appear. Wasozed (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the teahouse. Generally, it is preferred that you mark the link using {{dead link}} after the dead URL and just before the </ref> tag. Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Link rot, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online. A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. Keri (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Wasozed. The reason I suspect you did not see the links is that in many notes sections the text you see there when reading is not actually in that section, but called there by certain types of code or templates. Thus, when you click edit on that section you will only see the template or code that calls the text there. The text you are looking to edit is actually placed in the body of the article, next to the thing it refers to. For example, when you see in an article a footnote indicator, e.g. [1] the way that was placed was by typing in edit mode the text of the citation using reference tags, such as <ref>citation text</ref> When you save that, the footnote indicator is shown, and the text you typed is displayed in the section for the footnotes by a template which collates all the footnotes throughout the article in a dedicated section for footnotes/notes/references. The visual guide below might be an easier way to see what I'm talking about.
Visual inline citation guide
Formatting references using inline citations
All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article.

In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />.

In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code </references> or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in 2 or 3 columns using {{Reflist|2}} or {{Reflist|3}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.

Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'
What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref>


Multiple<ref name="multiple">Citation text3.</ref>citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" />


==References==

{{Reflist}}

Two separate citations.[1][2]



Multiple[3] citation[3] use.[3]




References_________________

  1. ^ Citation text.
  2. ^ Citation text2.
  3. ^ a b c Citation text3.
Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references

{{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I initiate an article?

It is years since I created a new article. Where do I get a refresher on how to do so? A minor problem is that the font has changed so that, on my desktop at least, I can hardly read the script. This includes what I am typing now.

Many thanks.

82.5.123.0 (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Back! The font issue is probably controlled by your computer so I don't know how to help with that.... For a guide on starting an article --- see the Article Wizard <-- click here. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

how to replace an article with a revised version in sandbox?

Hello, I need your help. I've written an article on the Illinois Woman's Press Association. One version is posted. The revised version is in my sandbox. The sandbox version received the comment: Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Illinois Woman's Press Association instead. I'm the author of both versions. How to replace one with the other? It;s a little confusing. I'd also like to like existing articles to the one on the IWPA. Example, Elizabeth Reed who was a president. Jan Huttner, who is a member and award winner, National Federation of Press Women which the Illinois Woman's Press Association founded. I haven't figured out how to link these together yet. I'd appreciate any help to straighten this out. I'm a newbie. Blondewolf (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blondewolf and welcome to WP! Thanks for asking about your proposed article which can be seen here. It seems that there is already a better version of the same article at AfC (articles for creation) according to the reviewer: User:FoCuSandLeArN. I would suggest: That you communicate directly with that User on theirtalk page to see what your options are. I don't think replacing the other version with yours is an acceptable one at this point. It would be better to improve the version at AfC and then get that version published on WP. Alternately you could ask a question on this [[Wikipedia+talk%3AArticles+for+creation%2FIllinois+Woman%26%2339%3Bs+Press+Association AfC question page which is specific to the AfC process and your proposed article. I hope this is helpful. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Blondewolf and welcome to The Teahouse. I have dealt with this before. I wrote an article that I was afraid wouldn't pass the notability test so I held off on submitting it until I had better sources. One day I found another user had submitted an article on the same subject. I added information from my version that wasn't duplicated in the other, and mentioned to the other user what I had done.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BLPPROD and Editor review

I've got 2 questions:

  1. WP:BLPPROD says that "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.)", but Template:Prod blp/dated says that BLPs must have at least 1 reference to a reliable source. Which is true?
Hi King jakob c 2, If I understand you correctly, both are true. A BLP must have at least 1 reliable source, and if it doesn't it therefore has none and WP:BLPPROD can be used. I hope that helps Flat Out let's discuss it 02:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
What he means I think is, that to apply BLPPROD, BLP article should have no manner of reference at all (note that reliability is not explicitly stated). But to remove BLPPROD, one need to insert a reliable reference. So the question is "What about the articles who has all unreliable references". I think answer to that may be that reliability of the source may be implicitly assumed during the process to place PLPPROD. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. King Jakob C2 01:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This has caused confusion many times. I have just tried to clarify the language of the policy with this edit (we'll see if I get reverted).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


  1. This isn't really a question, but since my editor review hasn't gotten any comments in about 3.5 months, would someone mind commenting? You might want to check on some of the stats I mention in the editor review, as they are really outdated.

Secondary reliable sources

Hi there, I am trying to create an article on the artist T. H. Cayne, but my submission has been declined, with the hint that I should add citations to "secondary reliable sources". In fact, I had the impression that I had already done that, so can anybody help me here ?

Thanks Artcollectorgirl (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Artcollectorgirl. Welcome to The Teahouse. Your T.H. Cayne Article for Creation was indeed declined again due to problems with the given sources. Let's go through the sources on the article currently:
Let me know if you need help or have other questions related to notability or about finding sources. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Artcollectorgirl. To warrant an encyclopedia article, a topic has to have been the subject of substantive treatment in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. Please see WIkipedia:Notability. The reason for this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, that properly only has articles on topics that have already been significantly published about—that the world has taken "note" of, and from which published material an article can be written with verifiable information. Thus, if a subject has not been sufficiently recognized by mainstream, reliable sources (books, magazines, etc.) by their publication of significant content about that subject, Wikipedia should not have an article about the subject. The vast majority of people are worthy, valuable, unique but not a proper topic for an encyclopedia article. Again, we need reliable, secondary sources, that are independent of the subject, and discuss the subject substantively. Think article by journalists in mainstream respected newspapers, magazine writeups, discussion in books, all completely unconnected to the subject. With that in mind:
  1. The first source is an interview – the subject talking about himself; a non-independent, primary source;
  2. The second is the Cayne's own website with his own writing, so it's also non-independent and a primary source;
  3. The third is just a listing at some website of something Cayne may sell there. It's not a source for anything really, much less a reliable source with substantive treatment;
  4. The fourth is just a listing of erotic photography taken by Cayne. This, like the last is used to verify that some item the proposed article mentions, exists. It's not about the subject;
  5. The fifth is the same as the third;
  6. The sixth has no mention of Cayne I could find at all;
  7. The seventh is the same as the third and fifth.
So, the article appears to have no independent reliable secondary source supporting it. I performed searches of Google Books and News Archive and the [lack of] results indicate that the world has not yet sufficiently taken note of Mr. Cayne in order to support an encyclopedia article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This may seem petty...

Sorry if I'm asking this in the wrong place. Right, so I added an episode summary to a 'List of episodes article' (this one), and I thought it was good and factual, but this other guy's replaced it virtually word for word. All I can see he's done is rewritten it in his own style, it's not better English or more factual as far as I can see. Now, there's no citing for any of these episodes, and it's highly subjective how to write these things...basically I'm annoyed that it's been rearranged for no reason, like he owns the article. Naturally I can't take it up with him, what can I say? I can't cite anything, I don't own the article any more than he does. What I want to know is should I be annoyed about this, or is this just something that editors have to accept will happen? Leemorrison (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lee, welcome to The Teahouse. Thanks for your question. Your question about style is definitely in the right place, and having all your contributions changed can understandably make anyone feel slighted. Probably the best resource for you to use is the style guidelines for writing TV episodes. These are not hard-and-fast rules, but they are generally agreed upon by numerous editors, so defer from them with good reason. There's also nothing wrong with contacting the editor directly, or placing a comment on the article's talk page regarding the changes. I also noticed that your original edit that added in the summary is problematic because it appears to taken from other sources. You'll want to avoid copying episode summaries from other places in the future because of potential copyright issues. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, I'm glad I posted this in the right place. I want to point out that all those sites you linked to copied from me- presumably because the easiest place to find an episode summary is Wikipedia, and I posted that summary very soon after the place where I got it hosted it. I know the dates beside the Google results appear to contradict this, but that's an issue with those updating; I typed that summary out word for word straight onto Wikipedia from my own head, from my own account of the episode. I don't appear to have infringed any of the guidelines on that page you linked to, so I'll ask the editor himself. Thanks. Leemorrison (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, we sometimes see that and call it "backwards copying". It has tripped up many a user including yours truly into thinking a copyright violation had taken place when it had not. (We actually have a template to flag the issue: {{Backwardscopy}}). Probably not useful here, but the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing these matters out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_108&oldid=1147946001"