Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 515

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 510

←

Archive 513

→

Wondering what's causing a weird map display in articles

I'm hosting an edit-a-thon tomorrow on the Anacostia region of Washington, D.C. and have made a list of all the existing relevant neighborhood articles. Almost of these articles have a map towards the bottom of the article that has some reference points and directional arrows, but no actual map displaying, for instance in the "Barry Farm" article [1], the coding is: {{geographic location |Centre =Barry Farm |North =[[Anacostia River]] |East =[[Buena Vista, Washington, D.C.|Buena Vista]] |South =[[St. Elizabeths Hospital]] |West =[[Naval Support Facility Anacostia]] }}

I was wondering if there's an easy fix that we could make to have the map display properly. Could you let me know what could be done to improve this feature, or is there another way to embed a neighborhood map that's more localized than the infobox map?

Thank you for your help! Uncommon fritillary (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Uncommon fritillary. The box is displaying properly. It's meant as a rough navigational aid rather than an actual map. I don't know about including an actual map; others can comment on that. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Anon126, I did wonder if maybe this was how the map (diagram) was supposed to look, although it seems like it ought to have some streets on it. The map didn't look different depending on which browser I used, which I thought might be the problem. Anyway, I'll leave the maps/diagrams as is in the articles, and maybe eventually we could add something from Open Street Map or another application. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my question! Uncommon fritillary (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Episode Guides

This discussion has been closed by Mz7. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed by Mz7. Please do not modify it.

Back in April of this year I tried making (fictional)episode guides on my sandbox page. But people here told me that I can't make on here. So If I can't do that, Where else can I make one. I heard that I could do it on MediaWiki, but it keeps on asking me to create an episode table template. Am I able to download something so I can make my (fictional) episode guide?BlueBloodiceking2555 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Try one of the services listed at Comparison of wiki hosting services. Nthep (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016/Archive. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueBloodiceking2555. Can I ask you something? Seriously? Do you care about other people? Can you put yourself in someone else's shoes, have empathy for them? I know at the other end of the keyboard, just seeing writing on some board like this, out in cyberspace, it can be easy to forget that there are real humans who are writing these posts back and forth, but everyone you come into contact with here is a real person. So I ask: why have you devoted yourself to wasting so many people's time? Do you do that in "real life" situations? What do you get out of it? What have you really accomplished? Well, you've succeeded at that goal. You have caused many different people to waste numerous hours dealing with your ±100 accounts and their edits. But I can't imagine it really fulfills you in any way. Think about what you could have done with that time. Really think about it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I do care about other people!

Ok, Fuhghettaboutit just to let you know, I do care about other people! I can put myself in people's shoes. I have a heart I care! You say I waste peoples time. Infact, I won't ask no more questions about episode guides since you're gonna say that I waste people's time. I'm wasting my own time asking millions and zillions of questions about episode guides to someone who's gonna get easily angered about it! I know what you mean. I could've did loads of other things other than other questions. But do you really have to be like that because of the dumb "fictional episode guide on my sandbox" question? Like really, I know I keep on asking the same questions. and it can get obnoxious and annoying at times. But do you have to take it to a whole new level by telling me who I am and Who I'm not? I care about other people! DO YOU HAVE TO BE MEAN ABOUT THAT! RiceKing3016 (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

RiceKing3016, the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. I don't really see how making fictional content contributes to that goal. If you are trying to do so in order to familiarize yourself with the formatting involved, that is the purpose of a sandbox. However, if the purpose is to create non-encyclopedic content for its own sake, then that is not in line with the purpose of the project, and is generally not welcome. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing discussion per WP:BE and WP:DENY. Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Next Step? Incorporation of concept in existing article for requested Article For Creation (Medicine)

Hi! In the requested Articles for Creation list (WP:MED), I noticed that a request had been made for 'bench research' (also known as 'bench science'). I added this term to the preview section of Medical research, which seems to provide sufficient coverage of the concept (rather than creating a new article elsewhere). What is the appropriate next step for removing the 'bench research' article request, or notifying the requester of the content addition? Thank you! Laatu (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laatu. I assume you're talking about the entry for it at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine#Medical devices; tests. This was originally added under the name "wet bench research" by an IP address on June 21, 2006 (that is surely defunct 50-times over at this point) in this diff, and then modified by User:Doc James in this diff to just refer to "bench research". There is little formality. The instructions simply say "Fulfilled requests should be removed from the list." But leaving a transparent edit summary would be good, say: "Remove "bench research"; I have created a redirect and added it to the lead of [[Medical research]]." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Added a redirect here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Uploading photo to Wikipedia

Hi all, I have sent in a permissions request through OTRS regarding a photo that I have uploaded to Commons. I did use "OTRS pending" for that upload. I want to use the photo to replace one in an infobox that is outdated. Do I need to wait to use it on the Wikipedia page, or can I change the picture while it's pending approval? I'm 99% sure that I can't use the photo yet, however, the subject person of the Wikipedia page wants the photo changed asap. Thanks! Sharfari 13:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharfari (talk • contribs)

Hi Sharfari, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, until an OTRS volunteer reviews your email and verifies that the file is free to use, we should not use it on Wikipedia. I took a look at your contributions, so I believe you are referring to this image, which you uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons today. It appears that the image was originally published on the official Twitter account of the subject, so OTRS volunteers will want to see proof from her (the original publisher) that you are the copyright owner (and thus authorized to freely release the work). If you know the subject personally, then have her send OTRS an email from her official email confirming that you are the copyright owner and that the image is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license you have selected.

Please note that the folks who review permissions emails through OTRS are all volunteers, and they receive numerous requests daily, creating a backlog. Unfortunately, according to COM:OTRS, there are still outstanding permissions emails from 122 days ago, so you will likely have to wait a similar amount of time for a response. If you know the subject personally, one way we can bypass OTRS is by having her publicly state that the photo is available under your Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, for example on an official website or social media page. (Make sure she understands that releasing images under this license allows anyone to use it for any purpose, not just Wikipedia, as long as the author is credited.) I apologize if this explanation is confusing—if you have any further questions, we would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

How to get attention regarding an erroneous article

Over one year ago I tried to give a heads up on a very misleading article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Shipping As this is the company I work for, I have not edited anything myself, but hoped it would be enough to provide easy access to information elsewhere for someone else. But the problem remains: the article is outdated and full of errors. Any ideas on how to fix it without breaking any guidelines and rules? Sveinung Tvedt 09:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveinungtvedt (talk • contribs)

Hello, Sveinungtvedt. Thanks for respecting our guidelines about conflicts of interest. I suggest that you use the article's talk page to request revisions, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit requests. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you already raised the issue on the talk page. I would suggest adding the {{Request edit}} template to your post there, which will attract the attention of editors willing to make the appropriate revisions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the{{Request edit}} template to their post. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please Improve my article

Hey, could anybody please try to improve my article YAC Reader. Thanks!HighnessAtharva (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HighnessAtharva. I am sorry, but your article has been deleted under WP:G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting a venture, so I suggest that you try Facebook, LinkedIn or many other social media sites for that. Please read and study Your first article to learn how to write a neutral encyclopedia article about a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@HighnessAtharva: If you believe your article could be improved so it doesn't read like an advertisement (or anything else that may have been wrong with it), I suggest you ask DGG, the deleting administrator, to move the article into what we call "draftspace" so you can edit a bit more safely with almost no risk of deletion. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Minh Quan Phan wikipedia page

Hi Wikipedia, My name is Minh Quan Phan. I'm a composer and pianist which can find out in some media and music network like iTunes, Spotify, Vevo and MTV. First, I wish you all the best. However, I write this message to you because I saw that you're require my wikipedia page "Minh Quan Phan" adding reliable sources of biograpgy living person. I just do it by adding more source about my work, videos, musics of me and some article. Nowadays, Internet an Media is something very important for all musicians like me to help our audience know about their favourite artist and musicians information. That's why I create myself a wikipedia page and also a wikidata to help my audience indentify my music and some of my biography. By approve my wikipedia page, you're help me alot of my career by now and future. If there is any information need to adding, please let me know. Thank you for your time by reading this message. I'm looking foward from you. Best Regards, Minh Quan Phan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minh_Quan_Phan Minhquanphan (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

There are several problems with the page that was created, unfortunately. For Wikipedia articles, we pretty much need to cite everything that is in the articles. At the moment, almost nothing is cited. (See WP:RS.) Also, it's highly discouraged for users to write a new article about themselves or even edit an existing one about themselves. (See WP:AUTOBIO.)

However, your most pressing problem at the moment is that someone has requested speedy deletion of the article. This means that your article could be deleted at literally any moment. You can continue editing the article to improve it, but just know it can disappear at any moment. You should also go to the page and click "Constest this speedy deletion" and give a very good reason for them not to delete it. Perhaps ask them to move it to draftspace instead. Even if the article is deleted, you can still ask for it to be undeleted and moved to draftspace for you to work on. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the speedy deletion was successful. Your next step, I believe, would be to create a draft using our Articles for Creation process, which allows experienced editors to give you feedback on the article and move it out of draftspace when it seems ready. Keep in mind that, because you are the person who the article is about, you must (and I cannot stress this enough) declare your conflict of interest and possible paid editing from the very start! (A normal conflict of interest and paid editing are declared in two different ways. Click the respective link to see how to declare each one.) Not declaring any paid editing you do is a violation of our Terms of Use and is likely to get you at least a temporary ban from at least Englsh Wikipedia. Not declaring your conflict of interest (paid or not) is likely to leave a bad taste in the draft's reviewer's mouth and lead them to decline the draft. Also keep in mind that, if you do successfully get your draft moved out of draftspace, you should then refrain from editing the article yourself and instead request an edit. This is all done to avoid bias in articles and to promote a neutral point of view. I apologize if this is hard to hear, but it is my attempt at making the next part of the process as clear as possible. I've also left additional information about your conflict of interest on your user talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

My edits are not showing up on my page

I edited my page and once I was finished I could not find the "save" button and none of my changes are showing up on my page. Is there anyone that can help?

debbie David Hoffman CA (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey David. It looks like XLinkBot automatically undid one of your edits because it included a YouTube link in the body of an article. It's sometimes ok to link to youtube as a reference, but there are very few, if any, circumstances where putting the url of a website in the text of a an article is allowed.

Also, you probably should check out guidance at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Editors are generally pretty strongly discouraged from doing work on an autobiography. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And, as mentioned at the help desk, you don't own the article- it's an article about you on Wikipedia, the enyclopedia that anyone can edit. Joseph2302 17:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that Debbie is not David Hoffman, but rather somebody who works for him, using an account with his name. The account has been blocked as an impersonation. --Orange Mike | Talk 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

About copyright permissions

Hello! im just a newbie here, Last three (3) days ago, I uploaded an image that fit in the article, it has an sources and authors because i do not owned that image.

3 days after, i found a deletion tag on my uploaded file for it has a missing permissions and it will be deleted in seven (7) days if i could not find, So my question is, How or where should i get my permission and where should i present it? thank you! JournalmanManila (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The images appear to be c:File:Philippine-gold 04c.jpg and c:File:Golden-tara.jpg. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JournalmanManila. I took a look at the first image and its source. It came from a museum website that contains the notice "All rights reserved 2015." The only way that this image could be used on Wikipedia is if you can convince the copyright holder which is either the museum or the photographer to agree to stop reserving all rights and instead release the image under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Although anything is possible, I consider this highly unlikely. If the museum allows photography, you could go there and photograph the object itself, and upload your photo to Wikimedia Commons. I have done just that myself quite a few times, and photos I have taken at museums are used to illustrate several Wikipedia articles about artists and works of art. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I see thanks, But for whom i present my permissions? to the Admin/ member who put deletion tag on my files? JournalmanManila (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And i should email them to grant a permissions i think

Or is there another options? since it shown in "public", should i just simply change the license to the public domain or its not that easy? JournalmanManila (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not what public domain means. The museum owns the rights, and putting the pictures in public does not diminish their right to control the use of the image. --Orange Mike | Talk 10:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up question.

I asked this question and got useful answers:

"Logging into and linking between various WP platforms?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&oldid=733351874

I experimented inserting this photograph into my own user page: File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth) wb edit.jpg (surrounded by square braces). It worked, except that it came out at the largest size available for the image. Waaaaaay too "bigly"! Are there parameters that I can add to the file name in order to control the size of the linked image?

Moi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wordreader#Interplatform_linking_experiment.

Thank you again, Wordreader (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wordreader, and welcome back to the Teahouse! I believe what you're looking for is WP:IMAGESIZE, which explains how to set an image to a size other than its original size. By the way, to link to an image instead of displaying it, all you have to do is put a ":" before "File:". An example: typing [[:File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth) wb edit.jpg]] creates the link File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth) wb edit.jpg. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wordreader. Please see also the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. There you will see, among other things, our standard image markup, which uses the "thumb" parameter – that when used, automatically sizes images to 220 pixels (usually). In short (outside of use of images in infoboxes), most images are placed with the syntax: [[File:NAME.Extension|thumb|Caption text]] How to vary placement, size, etc. is explained at that page. For really involved stuff, see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Lastly, for our policy as to images and our style guideline for usage, see respectively, Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Host

Who are hosts? Am I eligible to become one? Tom (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thomas Sawyer44. Teahouse hosts are volunteers who regularly answer questions here. This requires some experience of editing Wikipedia and knowing its rules and policies, so I would suggest that you get to know how things work for a year or so before volunteering your services. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Tom, and welcome to the Teahouse! Hosts are people like me that answer new users questions. Unfortunately for you, to be able to answer people's questions thoroughly and helpfully, you need to become familiar with Wikipedia's policies. The best way to do that is to edit articles of topics that your interested in. Be sure to cite reliable sources when doing so. You can read WP:Citing sources to help you put them in correctly. Generally, editors will notice if you do something wrong (don't worry, everyone, even administrators here, makes mistakes) and help you to do it right next time. Another way to get familiar with our policies is to ask questions. Two good way to ask questions are to either type {{help me}} (including the curly parentheses) followed by your question on what's called your user talk page or to ask questions here at the Teahouse, which you seem to already be familiar with. If you have any more related questions, be sure to reply directly below my answer here. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You might see User:Fuhghettaboutit/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host requirements. Don't take this as the last word on anything—it has not been adopted. It was proposed, and received some support, but was not discussed much for any sort of consensus. But the information may be helpful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That is to say, it is not an official guideline yet. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I need a page amended that is about me

There is a page under the name Milos Sarcev and I need some editing to remove text. This is a important matter and I need it to be done immediately.

I need this deleted very urgently: He was married to fitness competitor and actress Ursula Sarcev until they divorced in 1997.[citation needed] Šarčev nearly died when he struck a vein in one of his triceps while injecting Synthol, a popular site enhancement oil.[2] As of 2011, Šarčev is shooting the documentary film Get Big, Get Cut produced and directed by Alex Ardenti of Ardenti Films.

As well I need the Stats changed to this: Off-season 128kg (281lbs) Competition weight 107/116kg (235/255lbs)

Milos sarcev ifbb (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: The source cited in the middle sentence:

Conte also had brought along his pal Milos "The Mind" Sarcev, a Yugoslavian bodybuilding legend, personal trainer, and self-described "anabolic expert." Sarcev had nearly died a year earlier when he struck a vein in one of his triceps while injecting a drug known as "synthol," popular among bodybuilders because it expands the muscles.

To prevent others from having to look for it. TimothyJosephWood 17:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes but want this deleted!! is this so much to ask for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milos sarcev ifbb (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Milos sarcev ifbb, I'm afraid it is too much to ask. If information has been published in a reliable source, then it may be included in a Wikipedia article. It may be deleted only if the consensus of Wikipedia editors agrees so: the subject of the article has no special rights, and no control over what goes into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

We are neutral here on Wikipedia; that means if an unpleasant fact about something is published in a reliable source, we include it in that topic's article. Therefore, the info you want deleted is included. We don't leave out facts because they are unflattering. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine and White Arabian Filly: I have not fully reviewed this case yet, but I feel obligated to mention that we do have a rather important policy of writing biographies of living persons conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. What may be relevant in this case is WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The subject appears to be low-profile (to the point where there is currently a {{notability}} tag on the article). The policy advises us, in the case of low-profile individuals, to exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. If the synthol injection is trivial relative to the subject's overall reason for notability, then I would be inclined to support deleting the sentence if the subject wants it gone. With regards to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT is an issue to consider as well. It's a short article, and this single sentence makes up half of all of the sourced content (there are only two sources). That being said, I'm still reviewing, but my initial impression is that this is a request we should take seriously and have a discussion over. The fact that information has been published in a reliable source certainly doesn't guarantee that that information may be included in Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Milos sarcev ifbb: Even if your article is changed to your satisfaction, this discussion here will remain. Although the timeline will soon push it off this page, it will remain archived and therefore searchable, should someone choose to do so. I thought you should know. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: The account Milos sarcev ifbb (talk · contribs) has been soft-blocked as a precaution against impersonation. The blocking admin subsequently received an email from the account operator, who stated that he is not actually Mr. Sarcev, but someone "trusted to take care of his social media". I think that the article should still be checked for its neutrality, just in case. It's not a neutral article if there is lots of other information published in reliable sources that we could write about for a biography, but we instead write only about the synthol injection. I will take a look soon. Mz7 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Are we allowed to provide a brief description with resource documents, like an annotated bibliography?

I will be working on the entries about woodturning in the next few months to add documentation and fill in some gaps. I would like include the most comprehensive printed resources in an annotated bibliography, so that readers know what to expect from listed resources. I'm new to Wiki editing, so I am not certain this is part of the Wikipedia style of working.KayLiggett (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KayLiggett. I think that most of your questions will be answered by reading WP:WikiProject Bibliographies. Also, read WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY for coding details. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions here at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

KayLiggett, your obvious enthusiasm on this topic is what makes the encyclopedia great! Thank you for stopping by the Teahouse to ask this question. Many articles contain a "Bibliography" OR a "Further Reading" section in addition to the references section. Here is one example. As long as the bibliography information is not one-sided or given undue weight, readers on the topic would probably find the information that you insert to be valuable. Having said that, it is also entirely possible that another editor might not like what you add and delete it...that is how editing works. If that occurs and you encounter other problems with adding information, come back to the Teahouse. We would love to see you keep adding content! Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 19:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

How reviewers discern 3rd party, primary and secondary references?

Before I resubmit my article,AEDP, I hope to get feedback on how best to use the primary and secondary references. Also how, aside from identifying the 3rd party references upfront, which I do, which I do, will a reviewer know a reference is a 3rd party reference. Usually when writing a literature review or a general article I would be able to indicate the type of source by stating, "according to so-and-so...," or something like that. I have not seen a wikipedia article written in that manner, so I have tried to follow the encyclopedia style. I think I am ok with 3rd party sources, as long as it is ok that I identify them as I stated above. However, I am using secondary sources to validate accuracy and consensus on some of the statements, instead of the primary source, for purposes of notability. These references generally have page numbers. However, how would a reader know that the statement does not originate with the secondary source unless they read the reference?Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carrieruggieri. You're right to stick to an encyclopaedic style and avoid in-text attribution ("According to..."). There is no need to explicitly identify the type of source you're using; it's up to the reviewers at AfC to check them and determine whether they're independent, primary or secondary, and so on.

As for using secondary sources, it sounds like you're very familiar with referencing in an academic context, so you'll know the cardinal rule: cite information where you read it. If you do the same here at Wikipedia you can't go far wrong. If your source uses another source then it's not necessary to reference the latter, that's something the reader can find out for themselves if they care to.

Also, don't worry about using secondary sources at all. In fact, secondary literature (or tertiary, i.e. other reference works) is the preferred source of information for Wikipedia articles. You should avoid using primary sources unless you simply cannot find the information elsewhere, and in that case you must use them carefully, making sure that you don't add an original interpretation or synthesis that is not in the source. I've had a quick look at your draft of Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy and it does seem to make an awful lot of references to the primary literature. If possible, you should try and replace some of those references with secondary sources. Remember, you're aiming for an encyclopaedia article that a general reader can understand, not a scientific review. Joe Roe (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that opinions should be attributed in the text, though, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank You Joe. Carrieruggieri (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually Joe, only 8or 10 out of 48 references are primary. Why does it seem to be a lot? Or, does it appear that some references are primary when they are not? The only primary reference source is any reference that includes Fosha. If you could please have another look? I will make changes I need so that I don't waste a reviewers time. Thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake – you're quite right, those references look fine. Joe Roe (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

How to use the "Unsigned" template properly

I've been trying to slap the {{Unsigned}} template on some unsigned comments, but they end up with info unfilled, or just display "Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address". I'm assuming the process is different for anonymous users and registered users. How do I do this so that neither happens? Verified Cactus (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Verified Cactus. It's {{subst:unsignedip|x.x.x.x}} --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

And for named editors {{subst:unsigned|name}} --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Verified Cactus (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Verified Cactus. I apologize for being late to the party. Anyway, if you happen to know how to install user scripts, I would recommend you try this user script, which, when installed properly, adds a button labeled {{unsigned}} to the "Edit source" window just above the edit summary box at the very end of all those symbol buttons. It'll automatically add the unsigned template with all the required info. (There are a couple minor caveats, as mentioned on the linked page.) The user script works for signing both logged-in and IP users. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Very useful! Thanks for the pointer, Gestrid! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Who knew the "See also" section could be so helpful? -- Gestrid (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

How to change the title of my draft page?

Hi, writing a page for the first time. It is still a draft and I wish to change the title (name of the page). I have no clue how to. Please advise... thanks!Melbourneeyeresearch (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Melbourneeyeresearch, unless I'm mistaken, there should be a "More" option at the top of the page, and an option to move the page. Also, judging from your username, you may want to review Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest. If you have a financial interest in a topic you want to edit about on Wikipedia, you should disclose that relationship, usually by putting it on your userpage. If you have any question about how to do that, feel free to ask away. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Melbourneeyeresearch. You rename pages by moving them; but I really wouldn't worry overmuch about the name of a draft page: when you have submitted it for review and it is accepted by a reviewer, they will move it to mainspace under an appropriate name. Much more pressing is finding reliable independent sources which discuss the subject, without which a Wikipedia article will never be accepted. Until people who have no connection with Zamir and his associates have thought it worth publishing information about his technique, Wikipedia will not host an article on it: see Notability. --ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Can an editor make their sandbox visible to others?

Good morning all. Thanks and apologies for this noob question. Is my sandbox visible to others or is there a way to grant access to other users?BlueDuffy (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Good morning, and welcome to The Teahouse BlueDuffy. Your sandbox is visible to everyone by default. — RainFall 11:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!BlueDuffy (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

More generally, BlueDuffy, every page in Wikipedia is visible to everybody in the world, and nearly all pages can be edited by anybody in the world (some are semi-protected, so that only people with an autoconfirmed account can edit them, and a few are fully protected). There is a convention that people don't edit pages in your user space (apart from talk pages) unless invited, or unless there is a serious problem like copyright violation. --ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

However, if by "visible to others" you mean appearing in search engines such as Google, your sandbox, and other user pages, are not normally indexed by search engines, so will remain "invisible", to these. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

My recent articles created by me doesn't have verified ?

Hi, my account is Giangkiefer, my recent articles that I created, such as the article: Papillon (upcoming film) and Milton's Secret, I didn't see it verified, please can somebody explain it to me, Thanks ? Giangkiefer (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Giangkiefer. I am not sure what you mean by "verified". Your articles are in main space and it is up to you to provide the references needed to verify the content. I do have a concern about Papillon (upcoming film). According to our Notability guideline for films, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." I suggest that you move this article to draft or sandbox space until actual filming begins. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Giangkiefer. As Cullen said, Papillon doesn't seem to meet that notability guideline. Because of this, I've gone ahead and put a notice at the top of the page saying as much. Also, neither article seems to cite very many references, so I've also put a notice at the top of both pages saying so. I suggest you go ahead and do as Cullen said with the one article (We can help you with moving it.), and that you go ahead and add references to both of them. On Wikipedia, we pretty much have to cite everything we say in articles here or risk getting the incited content removed. I have not done anything other than adding those notices to both articles. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Help making pages

I need help. I'm trying to make a page about the Irish Song "The Streets of New York." It's about an Irishman who emigrated from Ireland to New York City. The problem is: Every single page I make gets deleted.KimiFinster123456789 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your deleted contributions log indicate that you were trying to create a page called "Old MacDonald had a Deformed Farm."

Just because something exists does not mean it deserves an article. All articles need to be based on reliable sources that are unaffiliated with but specifically about the subject. Reliable sources typically include professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

See WP:42 for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced contributions without explanation.

This relates to information I have provided together with high quality references (i.e. established journals) on the "David Cote" page. The contribution has been undone by two users today, but no reason given. I don't want to risk falling foul of Wiki's policies, but what can be done if there's a concerted effort to stop legitimate information that is of public interest being published.

Thanks WH WHetzenauer (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, WHetzenauer. The article in question is David M. Cote, where you have repeatedly tried to create a "Controversy" section saying that Cote enjoys hunting. Personally, I do not like hunting but our own personal opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles. Why do you think that Cote's hobby deserves a controversy section? Lots of people dislike gambling, liquor and tobacco. Does that justify a controversy section if reliable sorces mention that a person enjoys Las Vegas casinos, bourbon whiskey or Cuban cigars? I do not think so. Please read WP:BLP and discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead of repeatedly trying to add the disputed content witout consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Quotation from a published book review

This question is about the entry for author Rachel Cusk and relates to content in the Biography section, specifically the quotation from a NY Times book review. This paragraph feels to me like a promotion, despite it coming from a legitimate secondary source. It also seems to me to be providing little/no encyclopedic value as it's a reiteration of a book reviewer's opinion. Overall, the inclusion gives me a non-NPOV impression. Other technical problems(?): the quotation itself is copyright protected (but maybe fair use applies?), there is no direct citation for it, and finally the content, even if acceptable in every other way, does not belong in the Biography section. My question is, are these concerns (any or all of them) well-grounded and if so might they be sufficient grounds for deleting the paragraph in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKeenEye (talk • contribs) 02:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AKeenEye. All quotations must be properly referenced, so either a reference must be added or the quote must be removed. I will leave that choice up to you. There are no copyright concerns about a brief, properly cited quote clearly indicated as a quote. I agree that the quote seems out of place in a biography of an author though it might be appropriate in an article about the novel, which may well be notable. In my opinion, a quote about the person's literary accomplishments as an author would be better in this article than a quote evaluating one of her novels. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV, encyclopedic value, and its place in the Biography section are open to interpretation and editorial judgement. If you carefully read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, you will find that it's not an absolute. It's not "neutral" to purge an article of all views, rather, it's neutral to fairly and proportionately represent all major views about the topic in reliable sources. If many reviews praise a work (or its author), then this praise should be represented with due weight. It's of course difficult to assess whether a single quotation represents a widely held view or if its a minority opinion. Knowledge about the coverage of the topic in reliable sources is needed to assess this.

I'd say this has encyclopedic value (given that it's in line with neutral point of view as explained above). Its location in the Biography section is bit difficult: the quote starts with describing a book but ends up praising the author. I think in this case the quote could be trimmed, giving its context in your own words and concluding with a verbatim quotation being "one of the smartest writers alive". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Convert images to .svg

All of the characters I uploaded to the page Cirth are .png (Gondolinic runes and Additional Angerthas Erebor cirth) or worst .jpg (Runes from The Hobbit) format images.
This causes size issues when using Mobile view (i.e. some the caracters are displayed too small to be read).
I would therefore these images to be fully converted in .svg format.
I am looking for someone who would like to do this as I am not able to. Regards, ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) | Talk 19:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Asþont. You can use a free program like GIMP to do this, and I'd do it if I was sure these images were okay, but I'm wondering if they're not all copyright violations. The answer to that does not seem straightforward to me. I did a little research, and found Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alien decoder Futurama.svg – which at least contains some indication they might be okay, but there's only surface analysis there; the link to the copyright office refusal posted there is no longer working; and such a refusal might not be conclusive in any event. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Archive link to U.S. Copyright Office refusal: here. Also, compare this case with cases at C:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States, particularly File:Prince logo.svg which the U.S. Copyright Office thinks is original enough to warrant copyright. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating reading. So, the conclusion I would reach is that, because Tolkien actually constructed a usable language system, the symbols are not copyrightable in the U.S., where, counterintuitively, taking the cue from the symbol for the artist formerly known as Prince, had Tolkien not constructed it as an actual and usable rule-based writing system for a language with defined phonemes, the alphabet symbols would likely have had sufficient artistic expression to enjoy copyright protection.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Those nice people at Paramount are about to settle the question of the copyright status of invented alphabets for us, as one element of the Prelude to Axanar lawsuit is the claim that they own the copyright to the Klingon language. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Asþont! First of all, thanks for your work on the Cirth article. I hope to translate it into Swedish at some point. Regarding the images: The glyphs come from a font, right? If so you can easily do the work yourself.

Download and install Inkscape (it's free!).
Open Inkscape and create a new document.
Use the text tool and write the largest glyph you can find at a reasonably large font size. Make it center aligned.
Adjust the document size to fit the glyph (File > Document properties…). I used the same size for both Tengwar and Cirth which is why there's so much space above and below each certh in my SVG images.
Center the glyph within the work area.
Repeat the following step for each glyph:
1. Select the text area and type the glyph you want to export.
2. Switch to the arrow tool and make sure the text area is still selected.
3. Convert it to a path (Path > Object to Path).
4. Save the document using Save As….
5. Use Undo to restore the text area.

As for copyright: As far as I know single glyphs are considered too simple to be copyrightable. The complete font files (TTF or other format) are still copyrightable though. Wikipedia:Public_domain has some information. I hope that helps. —Tasnu Arakun (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is everyone deleting my page?

Hello I am JakobTheDaddy. I recently made a page on Wikipedia about a Rugby League player I really like. His name is Jakob Tait and I really like him because he has the same spelling of Jakob as his first name (which is very uncommon). So i am writing away and people keep giving me speedy deletion notices. I do no know why. The reason is that apparently he is not noticable enough but he played for the kiwi's but then moved back to his home town of Tamworth NSW. Everyone is deleting it so I just want to know why?

ThanksJakobtheDaddy (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JakobtheDaddy. The reasons for the speedy deletion of the various iterations of your article are explained in the notices placed on your talk page. For a subject to have a Wikipedia article, it or they need to be notable, which is defined according to whether they have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Kids who play under-12s rugby generally won't be notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah but there you are wrong. Jakob Tait has competed in international competitions shown on Foxtel. Thankyou for answering my question though.

JakobtheDaddyJakobtheDaddy (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Only full internationals and players who have "appeared in at least one match of a fully professional club Rugby league competition" are deemed notable - age-group matches do not count - see WP:RL/N for the full list of criteria - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

For young atheletes WP:NHSPHSATH gives additiona guidance about not relying on sites like foxsportspulse.com and the need for sourcing from much broader sources. Nthep (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi JakobtheDaddy. Another thing to be aware of is that continually re-creating an article after somebody else has deleted it is likely to get you into trouble (that's what the warnings on your talk page are about). I appreciate that it's frustrating to see someone do something you disagree with, especially when it results in your work being deleted, however the way we resolve disputes on Wikipedia is through discussion, not edit warring. If someone deletes or "reverts" your work in future, you should contact them on their talk page to discuss the matter and work out a solution, rather than simply re-doing it. Joe Roe (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou guys so much for your answer's to my questions. I did not know that they had to be full NRL Players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobtheDaddy (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Can everyone see the sandbox or only you?

Can everyone see what you do in the sandbox or only you? If anyone has answers I would love to hear them, I am just very curious on what the sandbox is all about like whether other people can see what you do or if it is like your personal page. Thanks

JakobtheDaddy (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@JakobtheDaddy: please see the previous question on sandboxes, #Can an editor make their sandbox visible to others?, below. Nthep (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally marked some edits as 'minor'. How can I change this?

I've just edited a page for the first time and accidentally checked the 'minor edits' box when submitting the changes. The changes weren't big but I realise now that they didn't count as 'minor'. Can I go back into my edits and unselect 'minor'?

Thanks Leyhart (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Leyhart. There's no hard requirement to fix anything if you made a mistake and marked an edit as minor. It is good that you went and read up on what constitutes a minor edit, and you should apply this knowledge going forward. The only time "minor edits" are really a problem is when someone misuses it to try to hide what they're doing, and refuses to follow policy when someone points out their error. TimothyJosephWood 12:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! Leyhart (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Leyhart. The short answer is "no", it is not technically possible to undo this. But, as Timothyjosephwood's said, there isn't a problem here. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks LukeSurl.

Leyhart (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Are Google Books copyrighted?

Hello ! I want to ask whether google books available for preview are copyrighted or not? Terabar (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Or whether I can use the content in them in Wikipedia or not? Terabar (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Terabar, and welcome to the Teahouse. The vast majority of books on Google Books are copyrighted. You cannot replicate their content verbatim on Wikipedia, except for brief quotations. As with all copyrighted material, you can paraphrase them (present the information given in those books but in your own words). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But I find many pages on Wikipedia which uses Google Books as their source. In what circumstances I can use Google Books? Terabar (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

When Wikipedia articles use Google Books as their source, they do either of the two allowed things I described above. They either offer brief quotes marked by quotation marks. Or, more typically, they convey information in that book but in different words. Remember, it's not information or ideas that is copyrighted, but the exact verbatim textual expression. If you can present information given by a book in your own words, then you are citing the book properly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Article/topic

Virksaite (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Hey,I would you like to ask your help about my topic.I would like to create a topic like INTELLIGENCE OF CORVIDS,but I can't because there is already similar article like crows ,do you have any suggestions how can I changed it?Virksaite (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Virksaite. I would suggest helping to improve the article Bird intelligence rather than creating a new page. Existing articles can be edited by anyone. Having multiple people improve an single article is how Wikipedia works. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Virksaite. In addition to the more general article Bird intelligence that LukeSurl mentioned, we also have a lengthy section at Corvidae called Corvidae#Intelligence. That is quite detailed, written in an encyclopedic style, and includes about a dozen good references, most of which are to books and scientific journal articles. Your draft article is written like a homework assignment and your references are mostly to pop culture sources like Cracked.com. You must write on a much higher level using better sources if you want to contribute to Wikipedia articles about scientific topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Category sorting

I placed a page into a category but it isn't sorting alphabetically on the category page. anyone know what could be causing this? Unconventional2 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Unconventional2. The article had a bad DEFAULTSORT. I have fixed it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Thanks much! Unconventional2 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about Cupping therapy? Someone has set its default sort order to "Fire cupping". That's quite unusual, so unless there's a special reason to sort it that way then you can go ahead remove it: either in the categories menu in the Visual Editor, or by removing {{DEFAULTSORT:Fire cupping}} from the top of the list of categories in source mode. Joe Roe (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:Cullen328, Will I request Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License? I see two different email templates. Thanks! Deedeefleur (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. Wrong discussion. Deedeefleur (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Deedeefleur (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Image Copyright Permission from Company

Hello. I would like to be sure I follow the proper guidelines when asking a company for permission to use an image found on their website & submitting their permission to Wikipedia Foundation. Could you please advise me of the necessary steps? Thank you. Deedeefleur (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Deedeefleur. Complete details can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The most important thing that you must understand and convey to the copyright holder is that they must allow free use of the image by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Releasing the image for use only on Wikipedia or for non-commercial use only is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. I appreciate your guidance.

Is this boiletplate letter acceptable? I would like to email it to the company contact person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission#Semi-formal.2C_Polite.2C_Concise

And, is this release of rights acceptable? Does the company contact person submit it on behalf of the company? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Deedeefleur (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are fine, Deedeefleur. I find the prose in the letter a bit stilted, and you should take that wording as a guide, and modify as you see fit as long as the meaning remains intact. Another possibility is that the copyright holder could upload the image to Wikimedia Commons themself. That is very quick. Another possibility is that you could take an equivalent photo yourself, and then upload it. What is the subject of the photo? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It is the photo provided here: http://www.southwings.org/pilots/south-carolina/thorne/

It is for the aviation section of a biography current in draft. Deedeefleur (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Which license do I request? Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License Deedeefleur (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

For images, you can use any free license currently accepted by Wikimedia Commons, and there are several accepted there, Deedeefleur. Personally, I use Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported for my own photos, because it is the default choice for the Android app I use to upload photos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Deedeefleur (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)