Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 349

Archive 345

←

Archive 347

Archive 348

Archive 349

Archive 350

Archive 351

→

Archive 355

Capitalisation

On Kalimpong Girls' High School#Achievements the entire section is written in CAPITALS LIKE THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT IS SHOUTING. I was wondering if there is a quick way to turn capital text into lower case text without having to type it out again, as I would like to do this as a part of cleaning up this article. Thanks, Rubbish computer 12:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: As the achievements section was entirely unencyclopedic, I removed it- the only source was to their own website, and most of their "achievements" were just stating things already in the article. In answer to your actual question, I don't think there is a tool for doing this. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It was crap, so it's been removed, so end of problem. But if you see it again, copy the offending text into a word doc, ctrl+A, then shift+F3. This allows you to shift between ALL CAPS, no caps, And Every First Letter In Caps. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. It was indeed crap. Rubbish computer 12:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Create a page on my school

Hi, I am a teacher at an international school and I would like to create a page on my school with my students. However it is recommended that the authors should not be closely connected to their topic. Is this a counter indication? Lfvhenglish (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know too much on the matter, but I'm almost certain that you are allowed to do so. However I'm pretty sure that references to secondary and tertiary sources are needed, and you must write in a neutral tone. -PotatoNinja^(talk) 14:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

What type of school is it? Because primary schools (elementary schools) are usually not notable enough for Wikipedia, secondary schools (high schools) and unviersities (colleges) usually are notable enough, per WP:NSCHOOL. If it's a different type of school, then it might be notable enough, the guidelines are WP:GNG.

@Lfvhenglish: Also, the COI guidelines, WP:COI, discourage people from creating articles where you have COI, however you are allowed to, in which case I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:My first article and creating a draft via Wikipedia:Article Wizard. The best practice would then be to submit it for review by adding {{subst: submit}} to the top of the draft- this allows you to get feedback and help with it, before it gets created in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lfvhenglish: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm going to add on to PotatoNinja's and Joseph's comments above. The general rule is that you can write about subjects you are connected to so long as you follow the conflict of interest guidelines. In short that means that you should put a notice on your userpage that says you are employed by the school and create the article through the Articles for Creation process. Additionally, schools have interesting treatment in Wikipedia in terms of which schools merit their own independent articles. Secondary and higher educational institutions generally receive independent articles while primary schools are generally covered in articles about their school system/district (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

One other thing, Lfvhenglish: I suggest that you do not think of it as a 'page' but as an 'article'. The difference may be slight, but I believe that making the distinction helps to guard against putting the kind of material on it that would be more appropriate for social media, such as promotional and unsourced material. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be (individually) cited to a reliable published source; and apart from uncontroversial factual information such as places and dates, it should all be cited to a source unconnected with the subject of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Referencing page numbers for a single book

I'm currently building up some content from a single book, and ideally would like to have references to page numbers every few sentences. How would you advise doing this the best way? I can only think of repeating the entire citation a few dozen times, but there must be a better way surely. SocialDem (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Jumping in because I would like to know the answer to this also. Jadeslair (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several methods of doing this. The one I favor is to have a named reference that gives the citation to the book, and then use {{rp}} after each citation to give the page number(s) for that cite. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers and Help:References and page numbers for more info and examples. I hope that helps, SocialDem and Jadeslair. DES ^(talk) 19:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. SocialDem (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Making a copy of part of Wikipedia entry without the hyperlinks

How do I copy something from a Wikipedia article without having the hyperlinks in it?205.178.54.6 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi IP 205.178.54.6
The simplest way is to click "Printable version" under Print/export in the LH column - Arjayay (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Friendly note, pings don't work on IP's so don't forget a talkback message on their talkpage :) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiBreak

Please can someone remove the WikiBreak text from my commons.js? I cannot login (TeaLover1996) 31.51.193.9 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Done. That'll teach you!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I have discovered if you login via the mobile site (https://en.m.wikipedia.org) and then you can remove it yourself, by typing User:TeaLover1996/common.js into the search bar. Yeah I'm a good break evader EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive and Bots

Is there a good Talk Page Archive Bots? or may is there a list of them?

Thanks! Hans5958 / Hans T.M ║ Lets Talk! ║ Sign my Guestbook! 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

H:ARC. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Hans5958 / Hans T.M ║ Lets Talk! ║ Sign my Guestbook! 03:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Change username

hi iam not shure if iam right but i wannt change my user name is thadt possible? and does my edition here on wikepedia deleted ?thank in advance T — Preceding unsigned comment added by King muh (talk • contribs)

@King muh: To change your username, you need to go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, and choose a new username not already in use. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate Article

May I create a page about my dad? Pbowen1 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pbowen1: Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, WP:COI, discourage people from writing articles where they have a COI, but you are allowed to. If you do choose to write an article, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article and using Wikipedia:Article Wizard to create it.

The main issue is whether your Dad is notable enough for a Wikipedia article- we require significant coverage from independent reliable sources about them, per WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources tells you what reliable sources are, they include newspaper/magazine articles about them, books, web content about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What should be done with this?

I clicked on recent changes, found Askal dog and I am actually at a loss as to what to do with it. I think it needs Speedy Deletion, possibly but I can't tell. Rubbish computer 01:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Put up for speedy as an A10- duplicates an existing article, Askal. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Rubbish computer 01:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Oh, I didn't realise you'd already done it. Rubbish computer 01:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just redirected it to Askal as it is a plausible search term. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: Thanks. Rubbish computer 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Singlechart template not linking to a song page properly

On, the Secrets (Tiësto and KSHMR song) page that I recently created, I had some trouble figuring out how to link the song's page on the chart website using the singlechart template. I have done it with other songs before, and I'm pretty it has something to do with the way the collaboration and featuring is expressed. Also, what else should I add to the page? Thanks, PotatoNinja^(talk) 15:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

PotatoNinja123 hello and welcome back to The Teahouse. For the purpose of documentation, so this will not appear to be an unanswered question, I see Thexperimentalist appears to have made the necessary changes to the article, so I assume you have solved whatever problems you were having.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright release; permission to print photos

The photographer of an image sold an image to the subject and sent her written permission to use the photo. Is submission of the photographers permission sufficient for use of the photo on Wikipedia?

Sparklingwater0121 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sparklingwater0121, and welcome to the Teahouse. That depends on how the photographer worded the permission, but probably not. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. In short, the permission must be a compatible free license, one that permits not just the subject but anyone in the world to use it for any purpose, and to make modified copies or derivitive works fromm it. If it seems that the permisison might be broad enough, send a copy to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and see what they say. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

About 6 months ago, my first effort at a Wikipedia page was bombed with a speedy deletion. I was charged with plagiarism, which I now understand because much of the language lifted from my group's website. I was the author of the website copy, and therefore it was not a case of plagiarism, but I'm so new I didn't understand that I could cite the website as a reference.

I'm still in need of friendly mentoring. First issue is whether my organization is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. If it's not, I won't waste my time. If it is worthy, I will pursue.

Appreciate your help!

Titantenor2601:D:3781:2F21:D9E4:E6E9:9D93:73E7 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Titantenor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry you had a frustrating experinces with Wikipedia in the past. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted content, such as text copied from a website, even from the author, unless an explicit free license is granted. Moreover, most group and corporate web sites have content that would not be at all suitable as a Wikipedia article even if a license is granted. (If you think of it as an article, not a page, it helps keep the proper tone in mind.)

As to your organizatiuon, it is not a question as to whether it is worthy but wheter it is notable. "Notable", on Wikipedia, primarily means a subject that reliable sources have written about in some detail. Remember that Wikipedia does not publish original content, it reports and summerizes what has already been reliably published about a subject. If the group hs been covered by independent published sources in some detail, an article would probably be apropriate. Otherwise, it would not.

Please read our guideline on notability of organizations. If it seems to fit the organizaion, an article might be created. Also, you appear to have a conflict of interest, as you say "my group". Ideally, someone uninvolved would write the article. But if you choose to go ahead, please use the articles for creation process that will guide yu and provide reviewers, and so will make speedy deletion less likely. also, please read your first article and referencing for beginners before going ahead. Feel free to ask further questions here, or on my talk page. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 18:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

Hello, today is my WikiBirthday and I was wondering if this is important or not. (And yes I'm aware of the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee) Paleocemoski 00:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Paleocemoski: and happy WikiBirthday. Thank you for contributing for 2 years, have some Wikicake. Rubbish computer 01:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paleocemoski. If the anniversary of when you started contributing to Wikipedia is important to you, and motivates you to continue contributing, then fine. Congratulations! But the only thing that is truly important here is improving the encyclopedia. Keep that in mind, and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry or simply tendentious editing — which?

Repeated removal of warning templates from an article, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jur%C4%A3i&action=history — where should a request go to have this anonymous editor be banned. There is also an indication of WP:Sock puppetry, with two IPs being used for the same kind of disruptive editing. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is normal, these days, for IP addresses to be dynamic, so one should expect an IP editor to have multiple IP addresses over time, this is not WP:Sock puppetry unless there is an attempt to make it appear that these are separate people, as by !voting twice in an AfD. As for tendentious editing, on a quick glace the edits by the IP editor other than removing the tags appear to be valid, or at least well intentioned, so it is possible that the IP editor simply thinks the tags don't belong and doesn't know to check his talk page. I would not be inclined to block, much less ban, at this point. You could report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI, but I would advise waiting a bit. DES ^(talk) 00:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks for the cool head. I think many of us editors tend to jump in with both feet. I will keep this on my watchlist, but I believe I will also seek other editors at a Wikiproject to take a look at this article, which seems to have only one watcher (me). What do you think? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, BeenAroundAWhile. You might also post on the article talk page about why the tags are present and what improvements would be needed for them to be removed. DES ^(talk) 07:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Date format

On my user page, at the bottom of the page, I have a nowiki reference layout for ease when citing sources while editing. I also have an automatic date changer, however I want it in MDY format as opposed to the standard DMY format it currently reads as. Anything I can do? All answers appreciated, thanks! Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)date

Hello, Azealia911. Nearly, but apparently not quite. The {{date}} template you are using has an optional second argument to specify the format. So {{date||mdy}} displays as November 9. But (as is documented there) when you don't specify a date, meaning 'today', it does not display the year, and I can't see a way to get it to do so. I'm sure it would be possible to add a parameter to {{date}} to tell it not to surpress the year, but that would require editing a widely-used template, so if you're contemplating that, you should make the suggestion at Template talk:Date. --ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I can deal with adding and changing ", 2015" to my template once a year, thankyou for your help! Azealia911 _talk 10:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How to reverse an edit that went wrong?

I was reading the article about Mahler's "Resurrection" symphony and noticed that two quotations were treated as one, with only one set of quote marks; "Rise again…../My dust" is a quote from a poem; "It struck me…."etc, is Mahler's own words. But on the Edit page, it was correct already, so I thought that someone had tried to correct it but it hadn't worked. So I tried to make it clearer by separating the two quotes with a new paragraph. Then the whole thing went crazy; the Mahler quote appeared in a different font, in a single line about a metre long! What did I do wrong and how can I put it right? Hoffoholi (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hoffoholi: I have undone your edit for you. Next time something goes wrong, just go over to the "View history" tab and click on the link that says "undo" after the edit summary.

The reason it looked like one long line is because you started the new line on a space. As to why it appeared wrong in the actual article but correct in the source: someone tried to fix it by adding '' (two single quotation marks) after the end of one quote and again at the start of the next. However, wiki-markup treats text surrounded by two single quotation marks on each side as italicized. Thus, the software read it as "that period between the two quotes should be italicized", rather than "here ends one quote, there starts the next". I've fixed it by replacing both pairs-of-single-marks with a double quotation mark each. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hello @Hoffoholi:: and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't panic; any edits that go wrong can be immediately reversed. Your own edit has already been undone here and it has been addressed that you were trying to help.Regarding the problem you had, it sounds like you made a space at the beginning of a line like this;

• Example

Which causes this;

−

Example 

− For future reference, if something goes wrong and you haven't pressed Save, the edit hasn't been saved and you should close it or press Back. If you have saved it, click 'View History' next to the Search box and you will be able to see your edit at the top of a list. You can press Undo next to this and proceed to undo your edit. Rubbish computer 22:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, "Witty" and "Rubbish" It's great to know that help is at hand! Hoffoholi (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

How do I put pictures on Wikipedia Editing? (50.180.165.79 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The standard reply is:

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you use a picture of a picture in an article?

Say you attended an exhibition of a famous photographer's work and you took pictures of some of the photos on the walls. The pictures that you took show each image encased in a picture frame up on the wall. Is it acceptable to upload one or more of those pictures to the Wikimedia Commons, for use in a Wikipedia article? The article itself is not about the photographer or about the exhibition, but about the person in the pictures. Lupine453 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Lupine453: Welcome to the Teahouse - great question. Assuming the photograph on the wall is copyrighted (which it most likely is if has been taken in the last several decades), taking a photograph of it would be considered a derivative work, and you would not be able to upload it to the Commons under a free license due to a major part of your photograph being another person's copyrighted photograph. If the image is in the public domain (if it is, it would most likely be from the copyright expiring), that would be fine.

Now if the image is indeed copyrighted, we can only use non-free pictures to depict people who have died and there are no adequate freely-licensed pictures available. If the person is alive, it is assumed that a freely licensed photograph could be taken of them, and we generally would not use a non-free picture. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the information, SuperHamster. Lupine453 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Where and When is articles getting reviewed?

Hello guys,

So I recently wrote my first article on Ishai Golan, an Israeli Actor but it is not yet reviewed. Can anyone tell me where can I see my article is going to be/is being reviewed?

Thank You -Komchi^✉_☆ 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Komchi. I have moved your draft to Draft:Ishai Golan, because it is far from ready to be accepted, and as it stands is likely to be deleted if it remains in main space.

The main problem is that there is a complete lack of reliable sources, and hence the article does nothing whatever to establish notability (in Wikipedia's special sense). Note that IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source, because much of its content is user-contributed; and while National Geographic is certainly a reliable source, the cited reference doesn't say anything about Golan other than that he fronted that series.

What you need is several substantial pieces of writing by people unconnected with him, and published in reliable places such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. Not blogs, social media, IMDB, or press releases from him or his agents or employers. The sources don't have to be in English, by the way.

The lesser problem with the article is that it doesn't say anything about him: it is just a list of appearances.

When you have improved the draft to the point that you think it is ready for review, edit it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top, and that will submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: thanks for your reply, it is appreciated. Komchi^✉_☆ 22:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking plurals

As a copyeditor, I see a lot of this kind of linking: [[genotype]]s

Should I fix and turn it into this kind of linking/does it not matter? [[genotype|genotypes]]

Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Brandon. Just use [[genotype]]s It works perfectly, displays perfectly, takes up less bytes, provides less clutter and is easier to understand when looking at the code. See the text under Plurals and other derived names at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Piped links (MOS:PIPE). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Brandon. There is nothing to fix. They render exactly the same: genotypes and genotypes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Piped links hints that [[genotype]]s is preferred. Please don't change it to [[genotype|genotypes]]. I and others sometimes change the opposite way. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about my rejected draft for Vegenaise

Hello,

I submitted a draft page for a product I represent. It was declined because of its similarity in subject matter to mayonnaise alternatives. This page is meant to be about a specific product, how can I go about getting this approved and live?

Thank you, FYH Oscar FYH Oscar (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, FYH Oscar. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion (which is what your draft clearly is, and also what your question above sounds like to me). Your draft was not declined because of "its similarity" to mayonnaise alternatives, but because there is nothing to show that Vegenaise is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). If you can find substantial writing about the company or the product, written by people who have no connection whatever with it and published in reliable places such as major newspapers, then an article could be written. Such an article should be based almost entirely on these independent sources, must not contain a single word that is either marketing-speak or is in any way evaluative, (unless it is directly reporting what an independent writer has said about it). --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, thanks for the response. I'll take this all into account when editing my article.

FYH Oscar (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FYH Oscar. Since you represent the product, you have a conflict of interest which you should declare on your user page. The draft article is written like an ad or a promotional brochure, instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. In order for a product to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, it needs to have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I noticed a New York Times article, but when I read it, I found that it was a general article about mayonnaise alternatives, that briefly mentioned 13 brands, including yours in passing. That is not significant coverage. Then there is stuff from the company website which is not independent, and a opinion post from a defunct vegetarian website, which is not reliable. At this time, you have not shown that the product is notable as Wikipedia defines the term, so unless you can produce much better sources, perhaps the product can be mentioned briefly at Mayonnaise alternatives along with all the others mentioned in the New York Times article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thank you for the detailed answer. I do work for them, but I'm sure I can make these edits and submit a neutral article. FYH Oscar (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you go ahead with this, FYH Oscar, do please read our conflict of interest page and follow its reccomendations. Also, please be sure to declare your affiliation on your own user page, and on the talk page of the draft article. That will help other editors to be aware of and allow for your connection. DES ^(talk) 01:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct way to destub an article

Hi, I have just finished a fairly long edit to fill out an article, it was more or less empty previously and so was marked a stub, I'm fairly sure its as good as it can probably be made now. Anyway Its now far larger than a stub, what do I do and how do I go about getting it reclassified as whatever it is now?

Zachary Hawson (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. It looks like someone already came along and removed the stub template from the article. In the future, you can always be bold and remove it yourself. If someone disagrees, the worst thing that could happen is it gets put back, and then you can discuss with that editor what they feel the page is missing. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 01:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hi Zachary Hawson, removing the stub template on the article is only half of the process. You should also change the "class" parameters of the WikiProject banners on the article's talk page. If you're not sure what the new class should be just remove the "stub" so that "class" is unfilled. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Greetings Zachary Hawson, Thought I would chime in with my two-cents worth. There is an article at Wikipedia:Article development that clarifies the stages of an article beginning at Stub all the way to the ultimate Featured article.

As an article is improved in quality it goes through stages of development. Here is an example of the evolution of an article. If you look over the Statistics section is shows a breakdown of Wikipedia articles by Quality. Cheers, JoeHebda (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Add Back or Not

Could anyone with pending changes rights review this edit a lot of information has been removed by an IP who claims the content is outdated, I am not sure whether to revert the edit and put the information back or to accept the revision. Thanks TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@IMHO the removal is correct, the poll map is unsourced and the caption does not specify the what, when, why, where or who of the poll(s) thus rendering it meaningless. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:TeaLover1996 The above ping didn't work due to an error in the link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Article declined, "not notable subject" re:Infegy

I recently posted an article about a company here in Kansas City which does social media intelligence work. I stumbled on their information on researching the topic across several of their competitors, noting specifically that the competitors are hosted while this particular company is not. Is there any way I might revise the article to improve its acceptance at Wikipedia?

Virilia (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Virilia. Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm basing my answer on the assumption that you are talking about Draft:Infegy. The problem is in the reliability of your sources. Many of the sources you listed are sources that specialize in printing press releases (PR Newswire, Businesswire) and hence are not the reliable independent sources required to show notability. Additionally, you have cited some blogs. They do not show notability. In order for a reference to show notability it has to have:

1. Evidence of some sort of fact checking process.
2. Complete editorial independence from the subject of the article (i.e., not press releases, vendors, clients or the subject themselves).
3. Discussion of the subject in detail.
4. Additionally, for businesses, sources must be from a geographically diverse area. Being written up in the local paper, no matter how many times, does not show notability.

Generally, most web content is not acceptable for showing notability. What is acceptable is:

1. Newspapers (and their websites)
2. General circulation magazines (and their websites)--not trade journals, as they generally base their content on material provided by the subject of their articles.
3. Books (as long as they are published by mainline publishing houses, not vanity press houses or self published books).
4. TV or Radio news (and their websites)
5. Respected academic journals

Hope this helps. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

One more point, Virilia. You refer to other companies being "hosted". Not one company in the world is "hosted" on Wikipedia, because that is not what Wikipedia does. It contains articles about many companies, where there is enough independent reliable material published about the company to ground such an article (that is what we mean by notability), but those companies have no ownership or control over the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Article declined "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement"

Dear community members,

I tried submitting an article about the company that does some ecommerce services for developers. The reference sources I found are mainly PRs and blog posts, so I used the very objective non-promotional ones. The article got rejected eventually and I'm wondering what can be done in such cases.

ShevcK (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ShevcK. There are two separate but related questions here. Every Wikipedia article must be based substantially on information published by people unconnected with the subject, in reliable places. This excludes social media, most blogs, press releases, and anything published by the subject themselves. If such sources do not exist, then there is nothing to ground an article on (in Wikipedia jargon, it is not notable), and no article will be accepted, however it is written.

If a company is notable, then an article may be written. But it must be neutrally written, based almost entirely on those independent sources (i.e., on what other people have written about it - the company's own publications and websites can be used only for uncontroversial factual data like dates and places). It must contain no marketing speak, no evaluative language at all (unless directly quoting from an independent source), and should be a dispassionate summary of what people unconnected with the company have published about it - bad as well as good. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rollback permissions

I applied for rollback rights and had my submission declined due to apparently having little recent vandalism experience. I took that into consideration, making two-hundred or so edits, and asked for rights four days later, which obviously wasn't too smart. My application was once again declined by a different user, stating that I needed to wait a few weeks before asking again.

What do I do in a case like this? Do I wait the full amount of time? I honestly think I know what to do and believe I can use this feature responsibly.

Also, is there anything that I did wrong, e.g. in the reversion process, or in my request? Thanks, PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 11:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rollback really isn't a big deal - you already have Twinkle, which gives you the same functionality (plus a bit extra) and so it's not going to make your anti-vandal work noticably different. From a purely technical sense, "old-school" rollback is a little faster (meaning that if you and a rollbacker both try to make the same revert at the same time, you'll be the one with an edit conflict) but even that doesn't make it a substantial step up from Twinkle; nowadays it's basically just a status symbol. There's therefore no rush to get the right - carry on doing what you're doing, apply again in a few weeks and you'll probably get it. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the help! -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 11:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Names of children

Hi, on the article Judi Patton, I am unsure as to whether or not including her children's names is necessary or notable. What are the guidelines concerning this? Thanks, Rubbish computer 12:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:BLPNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ukexpat: Thanks. Rubbish computer 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The default answer is "No". There has to be a really strong reason for naming non-notable minors in articles. BTW I remember that WP:Privacy used to contain guidance specifically about minor children of BLP subjects, but it's no longer there. Don't ask me when last I saw it, I've been here far too long... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Thanks, I've already got rid of the names. Rubbish computer 12:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

{{}}'s, where to find them

Where can I find the list of {{}}'s (such as {{welcome}, {{Orphan}--Ababcdc1 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ababcdc1. They're called templates. Any time you see one in the code – some title surrounded by doubled curly braces – the template itself will be at Template:Name inside brackets (it's good to know how to navigate to the template page itself because there you will usually find documentation telling you necessary things about the use). Anyway, the majority can be found through Wikipedia:Template messages. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks--Ababcdc1 (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're wondering how to express templates without displaying the outputs, simply enclose the code with nowiki tags. (<nowiki> and </nowiki> -PotatoNinja^(talk) 10:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

PotatoNinja: there is also a family of templates for mentioning templates, that include a link to the template pages; for example {{tl|welcome}} displays as {{welcome}}. --ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Never knew that. Does that apply to all templates though? -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 10:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also the {{tl}} template is useful to show a template and link to it. {{tl|copyvio}}, for example, renders as {{copyvio}}.--ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Permission to copy information from website

Hello, I am an intern and my boss wanted me to create a page for the non-profit organization that I'm working at--mostly to post basic information like history and location. I've read up on not copy-pasting information from other websites and neutral POV, but I feel like the information from the organization's official website is factual and (maybe with some few tweaks) neutral. Since I am working here, I have been told that it is fine to use the text from the website. Would that still be allowed? Corinna.jpg (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corinna. Copyright immediately looms here. Text of any sufficient length to constitute unique expression is automatically non-free copyrighted and could not be used here unless an affirmative release of the material was given by its owners – either a public domain release or under one or more free copyright licenses that are compatible with the free copyright licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content. If the organization is willing to give up the rights to its text to the extent necessary, the release would have to be done in a verifiable manner, such as posting this notice at the website:

The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Another method would involve sending an email from an address including the domain name of the organization and containing a release using the text from Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and following the rest of the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

The text could then be used here legally – if it is otherwise suitable (I'd guess that about 80% of the releases we get is for material that is unsuitable for other reasons, such as it being promotional but you've said it isn't). However, the articles' content would still need to demonstrate notability by citation to published, reliable, secondary sources, that are independent of the organization. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Corinna. I'm afraid that your boss does not understand what Wikipedia is, so you can tell them. Your boss wanting you to create a page in Wikipedia is one of the worst possible reasons for doing so, because it almost certainly means that they are wanting to tell the world about the organisation. They might call that "raising the profile": we call it promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If other people, unconnected with the organisation, have already written about it, then we can have an article (which must be based almost entirely on what those independent people have said about it). If they haven't, then we can't. Your boss's wishes don't enter into the matter, either way. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A question about my rejected page for Vadivu

Hi There, I had submitted a page for the Vadivus, the basic techniques or movements used in Kalaripayattu, the ancient martial arts of India for a review which has been declined for the lack of subject's notability. I have tried to bring two printed books as reference for the present topic. In fact the images for the page were released by the author of one of the books I have referenced.

Here I would like to bring to your notice that there are only a few authoritative reference works for this martial art form. It is usually taught by gurus and not much substantive literature can be found. Gradually, in this particular art form people are coming out to publish blogs which are somewhat repetitive in their content and hence cannot be referenced here. But then, it will certainly take some time for any scholarly publications.

In such a situation how shall I bring the notability to the subject? Will my adding the page numbers for these reference sections for their respective books suffice? Please do let me know how to go about this grey area.

Unlike other popular martial arts forms, where the knowledge is widespread and ample media to read and refer to, there are hardly any authoritative places where anyone interested in learning about Kalaripayattu can find knowledgeable information. I was contemplating to fill this lacunae by trying to add basic techniques and details in a format that anyone who reads can understand and relate to.

So, please help me here.

Thank you. :) Aymym (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Aymym:: and welcome to the Teahouse. Please state the name of the draft so I can find it. Rubbish computer 16:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found it at User:Amymy/Vadivu. Rubbish computer 16:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aymym: This article needs to be verifiable through referencing. If not much literature can be found for this subject then this is unfortunate but a lack of reliable sources means a subject cannot become an article. Concerning your query about books, references do not have to be online or even written in English. However they are required in order to establish notability; that a topic has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and without this a Wikipedia article may not be made about a subject. Blogs are usually unsuitable for use as references. Concerning general notability, a topic needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources also must have been published, meaning "made available to the public in some form". You need to also use secondary sources that are reliable. Secondary sources provide an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, as opposed to primary sources which are original materials that have not been changed. You need to use sources that are independent of the subject, such as somebody reporting on Vadivu in a newspaper as a reporter, without being connected to the subject. These sources are necessary to establish the subject's notability. Rubbish computer 17:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

These pages may also be helpful; Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:GNG. Rubbish computer 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the regulations Wikipedia has put in place to ensure authentic information coming in. Would the two books I have cited as sources and references not suffice? In fact, one of the book's author himself has released the pictures to be used for the article.

Aymym (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymym (talk • contribs) 09:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC) 

@Aymym: The draft was rejected due to its referencing so I'm afraid not. The fact that one of the books' authors has provided the images is irrelevant. The sources will have been found to be not reliable enough or not independent enough from the subject. Rubbish computer 12:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer Thank you for your explanation. I will try to find a better way of referencing. Aymym (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Awards section

I was thinking of creating a user subpage for wikilove stuff and any barnstars or other awards I may (hopefully!) get in the future, without wishing to come across as extremely vain. How would I go about creating this? Rubbish computer 13:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You title it your user name and then /Barnstars or /Awards e.g. User:Rubbish computer/Barnstars or User:Rubbish computer/Awards- the / makes it a subpage. Also, lots of editors have one, I have User:Joseph2302/Barnstars. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

He'll need somewhere to store all those cheeseburgers _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Rubbish computer 14:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As a note for the archives, User:Rubbish computer/Awards did not exist when this question was asked and was created as a result. Rubbish computer 15:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Another option is a collapsible box on the main user page like I have. Readers without JavaScript don't have collapsing so it may look very vain to them. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If you like to keep it clean on the UP, but still show 'em off you can transclude the page you created, maybe into a collapsed box. I have mine transcluded on my UP. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer it how it is but thanks anyway. Rubbish computer 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I missed the deletion discussion - now what?

One of my pages was up for deletion and since I was not notified that there was a discussion I was unable to partake. Now my page has been deleted and I don't know where on wikipedia I am to submit my discussions points. Do I start a deletion review? Please help. Thanks! SeaSalt7 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You were notified of the deletion discussion. The notice of the deletion discussion is right there on your talk page. It is true that you took a long break from editing and may not have seen the deletion discussion, but you were properly notified. You can start a deletion review at Deletion Review, but that would probably result in the conclusion that the closer used proper judgment in deleting the article. My suggestion would be to request that the article be moved to your user space or to draft space via Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@SeaSalt7: Yes, talk page posts like User talk:SeaSalt7#Nomination of Rosemary Rawcliffe for deletion is how we notify users. You were notified a minute after the page was nominated for deletion and had seven days to join the discussion. The first time you logged in after the nomination you got a notification at top of the page that you had new messages. The notification stays at top of all pages until you click it to view the new messages. You haven't specified an email address for your account but if you do that at Special:Preferences then you can choose to get email notifications at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Make a check mark under "Email" at "Talk page message" and click "Save". Mobile users may instead have the option "Email me when my user talk page is changed" under "User profile" at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon and PrimeHunter for your suggestions. The email notification would be very helpful to stay up to date on Wiki matters. Thanks again!SeaSalt7 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Public Domain

The Website named Project Gutenberg stores books which is in public domain. In that case if i download a book, and i find pictures in the E-book. So can i upload those pictures? As if the book is in public domain, the pictures should also be in public domain.Cosmic  Emperor  15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CosmicEmperor. Many but not all of the books at Project Gutenberg are free of copyright, so you must check each individual book's copyright status. A book free of copyright is usually a book whose copyright has expired. For example, copyright has expired on any book first published in the United States before 1923. This applies to photos, drawings and other original images in those books that were published before 1923. Care is always needed, though. If a 90+ year old book is republished with newer illustrations, the text is free of copyright, but the images are still copyrighted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Submission declined: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability

Greetings,

My article on the musical artist Morgan Ganem was declined because the "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability."

Along with other accomplishments listed in my article, Morgan Ganem has written and performed music for the National Football League's Kansas City Chiefs football team. His original music was also aired in the United States by Fox Sports on national television for the National Basketball Association. I appreciate any help from a fellow Wikipedian on editing my article so that it will be accepted when I resubmit.

Thank you for your help. Here is the link to my draft article. Draft:Morgan Ganem

PaulGX2 (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi PaulGX2 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article appears to be about a local artist, rather than one who is nationally known. To be notable a performer has to have been noticed, that is, written about, not just aired. Read Wikipedia:Notability (music). Does Ganem meet at least one of the criteria (1 to 12) at the beginning of that article, and do you have published references from reliable sources that show it? StarryGrandma (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I edit a reflist?

I wanted to remove an unnecessary source, but I could not. All I saw was a reflist template. Can someone please help? ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Already asked and answered at WP:VPT in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Article was deleted under speedy deletion category. Would like to understand reasons

We have posted an article titled - Seer Akademi. It was our first experience on writing article on Wikipedia. It was deleted under Speedy Deletion category with G11 - unambiguous promotional material. We are absolutely certain that we neither were promoting the organization, individual or product or service. We have provided the following:

1. Evolution of an organization to tell the path it had taken and it served as a background or context to the article. 2. A unique pedagogy or teaching approach that has been innovated we wanted others to learn from it.

Would like to understand in detail the reasons so that we can either make the improvement or drop the idea of publishing an article on Wiki.

Any mentoring will be highly appreciated.

Seer A123 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Seer A123. I cannot look at the deleted article, so I don't know what was in there. But I must observe that every word of "A unique pedagogy or teaching approach that has been innovated" is empty marketing speak, with no purpose but promotion. If there is indeed something innovative about your pedagogy, and somebody with no connection with the academy has written about it and published the writing in a reliable place, such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher, then an article about the academy may mention this, with a citation to where an independent source has said so. Otherwise (even if the academy's own website says it), it is mere advertising puff, and not acceptable in Wikipedia. Please take note of the various messages on your talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I can look at the deleted article(s), and I can honestly say that if you think describing your company as a worldwide pioneer...incorporated with a vision...to bring affordable & quality education to every nook & corner of India...through continuous innovation and so on for 12,000 bytes is a neutral way of writing then I fear you have spent far too much time working in marketing. The discursive nature of the text is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia, and with the paucity of sources, there is virtually nothing salvagable there. I'd suggest you edit on other topics for a while, at least antil you have a handle on what is expected of a Wikipedia article; you clearly aren't going to be able to write a neutral, encyclopedic page about your company. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Colin, all of "1. Evolution of an organization to tell the path it had taken and it served as a background or context to the article. 2. A unique pedagogy or teaching approach that has been innovated we wanted others to learn from it." is just promotional marketing-speak, whereas Wikipedia requires neutral tone articles. Assuming you wrote the article in a similar way, this is exactly why it was deleted.

Also, you say "We have posted an article"- are multiple users using this account? Because that it not permitted, Wikipedia accounts may not be shared between people. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, "our first experience... We are absolutely certain that we..." etc etc...! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Seer A123: You can find out about the mentoring program at WP:MENTOR .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

about my edits

How can I make a good edit in pages so other people won't undo it? Ethan Lvw (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ethan Lvw. Welcome to Wikipedia. First, stop making any edits!. The one you made just after this one was not right! Then read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia carefully, and other articles like it. Only then, find real information that needs adding to an article, with the reference to where it comes from, and add it. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ethan Lvw:} No one makes edits that are not changed. If you want to make edits that are not immediately reverted, you should make sure that your edits comply with the major content policies:

• make sure that your edits are Verifiable as having been published in a reliable source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (major news outlets or major book publishers, for instance. Not random web pages) and cite the source
• make sure that you are not introducing any new analysis or perspectives that are not explicitly in the source
• make sure that your edit - in presentation, tone and weight - is Neutral and appropriately reflects the mainstream views of the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and you need to be more careful so that [1] in edits like this, you are not moving the bolding from the legitimate position at the beginning of the word, to inappropriately inserting it into the middle of the word. You can use the "show preview" button to see what the effects of your edit are going to produce. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

about my edits

How can I make a good edit in pages so other people won't undo it? Ethan Lvw (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ethan Lvw. You can make a good edit by reading and understanding the information and the links that people have put on your web page. By creating articles only about notable subjects. By not putting silly pieces of vandalism into articles. By learning to use wikilinks properly, and not inserting external links to Wikipedia into random places in an article. We appreciate that there is a lot to learn in editing Wikipedia; but you do not seem to be learning from what people have told you. Also note that there is a "Preview" button, so that you can look at your changes to see if they look right before you Save the Page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

but it looks right to me all the timeEthan Lvw (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Symbols on userpage

Hello again, on some users' userpages there are Good Article and/or Featured Article symbols representing them having helped to make such articles reach this quality. To what extent do you need to have contributed to this to display one of these symbols? I worked on Sandakan and following this it has been classed as a Good article at Talk:Sandakan. However, I only worked on some copyediting. Am I entitled to display a GA symbol on my userpage? Also, how do you actually make them? Thanks, Rubbish computer 22:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey RC. There is no formal standard I know of. I personally think a simple copyedit would not warrant taking such credit – if you can't say you were a "major contributor" it would raise eyebrows at least in some people, though others' mileage may vary. Sorry, just the way I see it. As for how to place them, you could just use something like (placed with [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]]) and (placed with [[File:Cscr-featured.svg|20px]]), but see also {{User Featured Article}}, {{User Good Article}}, {{User FA}} and {{{User GAw}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Fair enough actually; I don't think I should use one. Thanks for the help. Rubbish computer 00:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)