Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 695

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 690

←

Archive 693

→

Where can I find an overview of editing 'flags' for articles

This is the 3rd time that my browser actions have discarded my edits (giving examples) so I'm going to keep this short. Where can I find an overview of the flags/templates I can include and where to indicate that 'more work is required'? For example: completeness, references, copy-editing, etc.

Thanks, Mikemorrell49 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mikemorrell49. You can find a full list at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. There are a lot! Twinkle is also a very helpful tool. It will add a menu to each page that allows you to tag an article by choosing one or more issues from a list. – Joe (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joe! Mikemorrell49 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a question about getting permission from someone to add a BioPic to an article.

I started the article on Maryn McKenna. When I first started the article I was very new to wikipedia guidelines. So I naively posted a biopic to the article without knowing I had to get permission. However, I am DMing Maryn McKenna personally for permission to add a biopic. How do I prove this so I can add a biopic to the article?

I have her permission, what are the steps I take to add the approved BioPic to the Maryn McKenna article? Book Portal & Talk 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC) 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I wrote an answer at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Archived.

Correcting redirecting links

Is there any tool to correct all redirecting links created as a result of page move ? When an article is moved, all links with former title becomes a redirect. If there are too many links, it will be difficult to manually correct them all. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Let There Be Sunshine, welcome to the Teahouse. If the redirect works then most links don't have to be changed per Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Do you have an example where you think changes are needed? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I have, but not at present. I will be soon splitting the page National Film Award – Special Jury Award / Special Mention (Feature Film) into two separate pages per this discussion. After that, all links directing to that article should have to be fixed as well. There are 117 entries in that list. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Let There Be Sunshine: you could use a semi-automated tool like WP:AWB which will help you make the necessary edits more quickly but there is no fully automated way. Nthep (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Article review

Please delete this article: Product based theory of economic cycles. I don't think it is useful after User:SPECIFICO review. Gevlare (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This request has been actioned.Nick Moyes (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Backlog

I recently became aware of the backlog and made some clean up edits to the first 3-4 articles here: Dead Links from 2008 However, I discovered that once the errors were corrected, I was unable to locate and remove the hidden category tags to remove them from the backlog in spite of my preferences being set to show hidden categories. Do I need to access a special page or have certain privileges to remove those categories from the articles/backlog lists? If so, what's the point in helping out with the backlog if the fixed articles are just going to remain on the list anyway? Thanks for any insight. Huggums537 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Huggums537 - welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for trying to address the huge backlog of minor issues to resolve. You do seem to have dived into rather a complex area for a relatively new editor. But there's nothing wrong in being bold, and you ask a good question. On the page Andor Technology I can see from its edit history that you successfully removed the red wikilink to Scientific Imaging Equipment which pointed to an internal page on Wikipedia that doesn't exist - and that was perfectly OK to do. However, that was not the issue why that page was flagged up in the first place. If you look again at the hidden categories, you'll see that it was actually highlighting a dead external link, not an internal redlink within Wikipedia. The work you would need to do to correct this is to identify the dead reference url (you'll see that within the article text it has been flagged as follows: "dead link|date=June 2008". This also flags up the issue in the references section when the page is displayed, as well as adding it to the Category page you have with dead links. If you want to address this issue, you would need to research whether an alternative url now exists to point to support the same fact within that article (i.e. about where EMCCD cameras are being used). If an alternative url can be found, you should update the reference and remove the template text completely, as the link is no longer a dead one. That would then remove Andor Technology from the category of pages with dead external links. Please do not delete old reference urls and warning notices if you cannot find a new one yourself - we would not find that helpful. (Maybe another editor might be able to enhance the article at a later date, having seen that the notice is still in place.) By the way, I note there are other issues on that page, relating mainly to out-of-date syntax used in the infobox. You might like to look up the acceptable parameters used in Template:Infobox company and change "employees = 450" to one that successfully displayes the numbers of staff. Having done that, the page name will then disappear from another alert category, too. Keep up the good work! Regards from the UK Nick Moyes (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much for clearing that up. I guess I didn't fix things properly or look in the right place for the tags. I understand much better now. Much obliged to you. Huggums537 (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Want to create a deleted page

Hi, I would like to create a page which has been once created but deleted stating "credibly indicating the importance or significance" as the reason. If I want to create the same page again can I do it without any objection? How do I do it? What is the meaning saying {create=require administrator access}? Kindly guide me on this. Thanks in advance. Nagsail (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nagsail: What is the title of the page you would like to create? If it requires administrator access to create it, the title has been locked for some reason, and non-administrators are not free to create it. Perhaps you can create it as a draft, but it really depends on which article it is. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My advice in such a case would be to use the AFC process to create a draft, Nagsail. Actually, that's my advice in nearly all cases, but especially here: you won't need to worry about the previous deletion. When a reviewer accepts the draft, they will look after moving it to the right name. Have you read your first article? --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Photograph rights

Hi! I had a question about licenses for photographs. I have a bunch of photos I put on Robert N. Zagone's page. They are all by different photographers, but they all were given as gifts to Zagone and he is able to use them as he wishes. I'm not really sure how to express this is the photo adding process, and they were removed recently as a result. I had a dialog with the person who removed them, but I was still a little confused on how to still credit the original photographers while expressing that Zagone has given permission for them to be used on this page. Thank you! Cauldroncakes (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cauldroncakes. In almost all cases, a photographer retains copyright, even if they give away a print with a verbal comment of "do whatever you want with this photo". In such a case, we need a written legally binding statement from the photographer that they released all rights, and a written, legally binding statement from the current copyright holder that they license the photos under an acceptable Creative Commons license. This cannot be handled casually. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 Hey Cullen328, thanks for your prompt response. I have scans of copyright files for two films that Zagone directed. They show that he owns the films and the publicity stills from the set. would this be sufficient to upload the shots from the two films? Thanks again for your help. Cauldroncakes (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Cauldroncakes. If Zagone is the owner of the copyright, then Zagone himself (no one else) can upload them to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. Be sure that he understands that those images can then be used by anyone for any purpose without permission or payment. In other words, I could print and sell posters and not give him a penny. Attribution is the only requirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

Wikipedia - relax and enjoy

How do you add a picture and caption to an article? Thissecretperson (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thissecretperson - welcome to the Teahouse. I am assuming you have already found an image on Wikimedia Commons (like this one of a cup of tea) that you want to use, rather than are asking how to upload your own photo from scratch. If so, click on the link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks.

Of course, if you use the Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps. If you need advice on actually uploading your own image first, that requires a slightly different answer and a mention of copyright issues. Let us know if you need further help on that. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting,very interesting...I give my thanks! Thissecretperson (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It worked! Thissecretperson (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocking edits

How can you block editing on a page? There’s one page where people are vandalizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemsongirl07 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clemsongirl07. Please make a detailed report at Requests for page protection. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Placement of <ref> </ref>

Hello. I assumed I should place these marks around the portion of an article pertaining to a given source material citation. However, looking at the sandbox version, all the material between the marks was instead exported into the References section. Where should I start and end the marks in order to leave the cited material in the body of the article? Byron Laursen (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC) The marks to which I refer are <ref> and </ref> Byron Laursen (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm putting spaces between the keystrokes so the marks don't turn into footnotes. What I'm talking about are < r e f > and < / r e f >.Byron Laursen (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Byron Laursen. The numbers in square brackets that you are talking about are generated by the wiki software, and not by human editors, if they are functional and used properly. The software creates that number which links to the display of the reference material which is enclosed in the opening and closing ref tags as you indicated above. The software numbers the references automatically in the order that the references occur in the article, and displays them in the "Reference" section which contains the "reflist" template. The only material that should be included between the opening and closing ref tags is the bibliographic information, such as author, title, name of publication, date of publication, page number and so on. You can find the technical details in Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Declined page

Hello , I'm trying to figure out why my page oohs N coos has been declined. The message said its an issue with notability. I am open to suggestions on how i can make it better. Thanks Oohs N coos 00:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jabayie. Welcome to the Teahouse. Your problem is that the first two references are just the publicity material for the subject, and the third is just a certificate. They establish that the organisation exists, but not that it is notable in the Wikipedia sense. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the organisation has been written about by others. Dbfirs 00:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jabayie. I agree with Dbfirs here. The references in the article are completely insufficient to show that this organization is notable. The first reference is to the group's own website and is not an independent source. The second is to a website consisting of user-submitted reviews, which look orchestrated to me. This is definitely not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. The third is a compliance certificate which expired five months ago, and is not significant coverage. What we need are references to significant coverage in several reliable sources with professional editorial control that are completely independent of this group. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

getting an artist page approved

I am trying to get a page for an artist created. He is failing the notability test despite his many accomplishments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nereusproject/sandbox <--- this is the wiki I wrote on him. Can you help? Do you agree/disagree Nereusproject (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nereusproject: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if your username is that of an organization or group; group usernames are not permitted per WP:USERNAME. If you wish to change it, please visit WP:CHU.

In order for this artist to merit an article here, his accomplishments must be written about in independent reliable sources with in depth coverage of him. That doesn't seem to be present yet. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit suggestions?

I've been practicing for a while and getting a feel for how the community works. Other than current events, where would one find suggestions for articles to edit? I would like to start making larger changes. Uhtregorn (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Uhtregorn. Take a look at the Community portal, which includes links to a large number of tasks needing attention. If you have specific interests, mention them and we may be able to to give you more specific recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Uhtregorn (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

page deleted why when it is more or less identical to the others

Albertdelgeo (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Hi, was trying to make our first page about Desygner and replicated the page Canva but it was deleted? I am really lost to what I did wrong? Albertdelgeo (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Albertdelgeo: Welcome to the Teahouse! I assume this is about the deleted page Draft:Desygner. I can only give you a general response, since I can't view the content that was deleted - only an administrator can see that. When a page is deleted as unambiguous advertising, it means that if all the promotional text were to be removed, there would not be enough text remaining for even a very short article. You could go to the user talk page of Jimfbleak, the administrator who deleted the draft (his talk page is here) and ask for more specific reasons. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Albertdelgeo: I would add to the above that Wikipedia is not social media where every company gets a page; companies must merit an article in order for there to be an article about it here. Wikipedia calls this notability. Companies have notability guidelines that all such articles must meet, you can read them by clicking on WP:ORG. If you believe the business you are writing about meets the guidelines, you will need to have independent reliable sources(read about at WP:RS) that support the content of the article; that is, sources that were not authored by this business and are authored by third parties. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You may also wish to read WP:OSE; each page is judged on its own merits and the existence of other similar pages does not mean yours automatically is acceptable. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Yes the company is notable I believe as is the solution.

Albertdelgeo (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@bonadea could you pleas ehelp me to understand why it was deleted as it passed the notability tests mentioned herein? Kind Regards, Albert

Albertdelgeo (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, Draft:Desygner was deleted (twice) for being promotional, not for any reason to do with notability. A draft would not normally be deleted on notability grounds anyway. Even if a company is notable, all advertising text has to be removed, and if nothing remains, the whole page will be deleted. As I said above, I can't see the deleted page so I can't tell you more than that. --bonadea contributions talk 07:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wanting to replace a poor quality free image of an art work with a professionally produced 'non free' image?

Hello all,

Can someone help please? I have just taken the trouble to get permission and I've uploaded a GREAT photo, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Section_of_the_Oran_Mor_ceiling_mural_by_Alasdair_Gray.jpg#filelinks

It's explained in the licensing information: I have the consent of the photographer to use this image to replace a poor quality one in the Alasdair Gray article. The problem is, I can't figure out how to do that. Can someone help me please? Thanks!

[next day]

This is an evolving situation. I'll be visitiing Mr Gray later today. I am sure he will endorse the use of the good photograph over the other. I will post his consent and opinion soon.

Heartoftheworld88 (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Heartoftheworld88. I am sorry, but we cannot use a non-free image when a free image of the same thing is available. That will never, ever happen. If you want to use that image, it must be freely licensed. Either convince the photographer to freely license it, or forget about it. Or take a better photo yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also worth considering, Heartoftheworld88, is that non-free images must be low resolution. A bot has already radically compressed your image to 387 × 258 pixels. The free image now in Alasdair Gray is far superior to the current version of the image you uploaded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Is social media okay to cite if the (directly) cited post/tweet/etc is by a direct source in relation to the subject i.e. an author?

If I'm making an article, is it acceptable to reference social media posts by the creator of the subject of the article? Like if they (the creator of the subject) was answering a question and they said something like "the setting is not based on a real place" could I reference that, assuming I put it in the right context? (I apologize if this has an obvious answer, I just wanted to double-check.)

Artie1helps (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Artie1helps. Because impersonation is such a problem on many social media platforms, we must be very cautious about using such posts. Verified accounts can be used in a limited fashion. Please read WP:SELFPUB for more details on using self published sources including social media accounts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If IP address is shared by more than one persona

[[With grace and glory of the God who owns every thing great and small,i therefore request that shared IP address be solved:Why should we share this sin/baden of warning masseges such as bannings from editing reverts and total deletions from administrative gurus and warlords feeled with pure hatred aggresion rage and limited injustice?:We see encouragement than rage for goodnness sake:to prosper in knowledge in these Perelious/critical times hard to deal with:WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE so great? ]]41.190.244.14 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Simply signing up for an account will end all the problems associated with IP editing. This is optional, but why complain about the problems of IP editing when avoiding those problems is so easy? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous IP address. You seem to be looking at a different version of Wikipedia form the one I read. I seldom see warning messages or bannings, and I have never yet had problems with "administrative gurus and warlords feeled with pure hatred aggresion rage and limited injustice", though occasionally I've had to engage in discussion to explain strange reverts. The above is the only edit from your IP address, so we are at a loss to understand what experience you are complaining about, but, as Cullen advises above, just WP:create an account to avoid any such problems. Dbfirs 07:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How can I make my bio a part of wikipidia

FaizanBashir (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FaizanBashir. Welcome to the Teahouse. Put simply, you cannot. That's what social media is for. This is an encyclopedia of notable things. However, perhaps you are sufficiently well-known, or written about that there are books, newspapers or media coverage about you? If so, you might then meet our notability guidelines. But the only way for there to be a page about you here on Wikipedia is for there to be reliable, independent articles about you that other people (not you) can use as sources of information to create that page. Sorry to disappoint. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this ready for resubmission?

Hi. I submitted a Draft that was declined with the feedback "Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format", etc. I've made a fair number of changes earlier today; but want to be sure before I formally resubmit.

Do have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anuraag_Saxena

Appreciate any SPECIFIC feedback/suggestions will improve it. Thanks in advance. Rams100 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello RAMS100, welcome to the Teahouse. Sit down, pour yourself a cuppa, and here are a few "specifics" I think you should address if you want this draft article to go live on Wikipedia:

Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to understand how to write about living people;
- Read WP:NOTINHERITED to appreciate why 'notability' is not inherited by a person connected with a notable group. So, consider enhancing India Pride Project instead, adding a brief section on its founder there;
- Read WP:NBIO and the requirements of establishing Notability for people. Then find references written by independent, third parties about him. These need to show in-depth coverage.
- Having done that, then consider whether it is still worthwhile continuing with this draft. If so . . .
  - Delete all the references to sources written by the subject himself;
  - Remove the quotations - they're irrelevant and are just about his own stated opinions;
  - All your references are just bare urls. You should provide better details for each source. The easiest way to do this is to use the "Cite" tool in your editor (it took me months before I first discovered it and makes the task of stating source name, author, date, publisher, etc so much easier than doing it by hand);
  - Don't use Wikipedia as a reference as you did in the lead sentence. Use a Wikilink instead.
  - Do not embolden anything in the article that is not part of the title.
  - Finally, though less specific, read Wikipedia:Your first article for guidance on how to go about writing an article that will be acceptable for an encyclopaedia.

I hope this is specific enough. It really can be daunting for new editors to create new pages, which is why we always advise people to learn how Wikipedia works by doing a lot minor editing of exisiting articles. (Seven years on and I'm still learning!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How to get the URL of a page created by own.

Dear Sir,

        I had submitted a contribution named :"GOOD WORK CULTURE".
        But I am unable to get the URL of this contribution . Pls help me how to find the URL.112.110.32.213 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Searching for "GOOD WORK CULTURE" does not bring up any results. Looking at the contribution history of your IP address, there is no indication that such a draft or article was created under that IP address. That would mean that you created it under a different IP address or you created it under a username and are currently logged out. Unless you return to that username or IP address, it will be difficult to help you. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It is possible to search for keywords present just in draft articles and/or their Talk Pages. (See this search - notice how the 'Draft' and 'Draft talk' checkboxes have been selected and all the rest deselected). But, like 331dot has already said, there's nothing under that name, nor with the words "work culture" in draft at the moment. Maybe you could try searching for other word combinations that you definitely know you used? Oh, and there's also nothing matching that name for draft articles recently declined over the last 24 hours or so. Checking which account/IP address you were logged in with is definitely the best way forward. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Try Special:Contributions/Pranjal4kumar. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Self interest - can I edit copy if a magazine I've worked on has contributed something relevant?

Hi all,

I have read the guidelines with regards to self promotion / conflict of interest but I am still slightly unclear on whether it is acceptable to add quotations / links to relevant articles if they come from a source that I have worked on? For example, I recently wrote something about Punch & Judy which I think could add something to the wiki page on that subject - would I be allowed to add to that page? I am not employed to work in SEO or marketing in any capacity, I'm a freelance writer.

Thanks

MrRaffles (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MrRaffles, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen the specific section of the conflict of interest guideline at WP:SELFCITE? That has some good general advice, but please do give more details here about what exactly it is that you want to add to the article, if you need a second opinion on what might be considered excessive. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of plagiarism being posted on Derek Michael Besant page

Artist Derek Michael Besant is currently being accused of plagiarism on Twitter and comments are appearing on his Wikipedia page. Should this be controlled or is it valid reporting? RLamb (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It will need reliable source and that won't happen unless a newspaper picks it up from social media. Until then, all edits should be reverted. NZFC^(talk) 21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the guideline.RLamb (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't get what is happening with making pages!

I have been trying to make a page for "Autophone", but when I search for "Autophone" on google, then click on the page, it goes to a page I edited called "Autophone", but then under it says the page does not exist. Could some tell me if the page actually exists as a Wikipedia page before I edit anymore, or if not, how to create it? Thanks! Markarchil (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Markarchil: there was a template on the Autophone page which caused that message to show up. It was really confusing at first - I'm not sure I have seen that template before! In any case, it's been removed now so you are okay to edit the article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 22:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Company Information Page Creation

Hello,

Can i receive information about how to create an informative company page as one of american corporations?

Please advise.

Your sincerely,

Sam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.130.246.45 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first let you know that successfully creating an article on Wikipedia is probably the hardest thing to do here. It takes much practice and effort. Those who are most successful started small by editing existing articles to learn how Wikipedia works. To avoid disappointment at your work being mercilessly edited and perhaps deleted, you may wish to learn more about Wikipedia before diving into article creation and possibly end up disappointed. You should read Your First Article to learn the process involved in article creation, and you may also wish to play The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial structured as a game, which will also help you.

I would close by stating that Wikipedia articles must do more than merely provide information; they must indicate with independent reliable sources how the subject is notable. In the case of a company, the company must be shown to meet the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG. Please read those before attempting to write an article about a company, as not every company merits an article here. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add that you may find it helpful to create a page through Articles for Creation, which allows you to submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add to what 331dot said, Sam, that if you (or anybody) creates an article about the company, that article will not belong to the company, the company will have no control over its contents, and it should contain very little information which comes from the company itself. It should be mostly based on what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about it. Also, if you are connected with the company (you haven't said you are, but questions like this regularly come from people within a company wishing to have a presence in Wikipedia) then you are discouraged from creating the article about it because of your conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

So, I’ve written my article and I think it looks pretty good. What’s the next step? Level55art (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Level55art. This is the Teahouse talk page. Your question should really be at the main Teahouse page, but I'll answer it here. Someone might move it to the correct page. I note that this question is your only edit under your username. If your article has been written on a word processor, you will need to check that the layout and markup works in Wikipedia software. The best place to try it out is in WP:Draft space. I assume that you have read WP:Your first article for guidance. Dbfirs 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved to correct page, ping Level55art. NZFC^(talk) 23:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the procedure to report / block a fake news site from referencing?

Hi, I have come across a fake news site from India whose stories are being used to reference the articles. What steps should be taken? I have done a thorough research and found that many reputed Indian news sites / journals have termed that site as fake. I even tried to remove it but an editor reverted it and became aggressive. Edwige9 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Edwige9. You did the right thing by simply removing the reference and the material it supports. Information that isn't from a reliable source doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. Since another editor has objected to your edit, however, you will need to engage with them on the article's talk page to reach a consensus about what to do. I would also recommend posting to the reliable sources noticeboard to get the opinions of experienced editors on the quality of the source. – Joe (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. I will explore it further. Edwige9 (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Help! I can't place logos on our Wikipage!

Hi anyone who can help with my organization's page The Dorian Awards. I've placed our two logos, one for The Dorian Awards and one for our group (GALECA: The Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics) on Wiki Commons, granting the appropriate free use and explaining origin in box where asked for both, but when I try to upload to our page under edit, nothing happens or I get "file is a copy of a previous file" or something. I'm at a total loss. Help? Please? The directions are not clear, I'm afraid, at least not to me. But then again it's 2:37 a.m. - John Griffiths :) Blurbadeeblurb (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Blurbadeeblurb: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. My knowledge of image uploading is limited, but I would like to point out that if you are editing on behalf of an organization, you need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and formally declare a COI on your user page or user talk page. If you are paid by the group to edit Wikipedia or doing so as part of your job duties, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(again, only if you are paid).

I do see that you did upload the file to this file name. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I somehow deleted the "info box" - I can't seem to figure out how to insert the logo into the info box format. Blurbadeeblurb (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I restored the infobox to the article and added the logo for the awards to it. I'm not sure but I think the infobox only allows for one image within it. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

so who here lieks mudkipz? :)

who here lieks mudkipz? :) anyone else here have some history with pokemon? :) 95.128.118.58 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is meant for asking questions related to using and editing Wikipedia, and is not meant for general conversation. If you visit Talk:Pokémon there is a list of WikiProjects there that likely have members who are interested in Pokémon; however, such comments there should be within the context of Wikipedia editing as Wikipedia is not social media for general communication. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How do i progress in The Wikipedia Adventure?

I got to the part where it takes you to your user page and tells you to click on edit page. I did that and edited my page but then nothing happened. I went back to The Wikipedia Adventure page and it restarted the adventure. Do i just need to move on to the next step manually?BlakeKbelt (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, BlakeKbelt, if I remember correctly when I did it, the Wikipedia Adventure doesn't always work properly from a mobile or a tablet (see note on its front page). But all you need do is follow each of the seven Mission links on your Talk page. This should result in about 19 success badges appearing on your main user page by the end of your journey. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I was using the viewing editor instead of the source editor. Once I changed back to the source editor it worked fine.BlakeKbelt (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

what do internal links mean?

Hi, I am writing a wiki page on philopatry and am supposed to have 2 internal links on my page for my class. I am not sure what the means and how to even do that! If anyone can please help me do this or lead me in the right direction that would be greatly appreciated. Cjott (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cjott and welcome to the Teahouse. An internal link in Wikipedia is one that is enclosed in square brackets -- [[ ... link ...]] like this link to Philopatry, where you will see that we already have an article on that topic. I wonder if you ought to clarify where you are being asked to create a page and on what topic. Ask again here if you need further guidance on creating articles, or read WP:Your first article. Dbfirs 20:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing you could do, Cjott, is to familiarise yourself with a few of the basics by nipping off on a short interactive journey into space with The Wikipedia Experience. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Dbfirs, the editor's userpage says they are a student at University of Alabama, so this is presumably part of a class editing project. Roll Tide! 😉White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I found the sandbox afterwards, where they are creating an article on the same topic as the one in Wikipedia. I'm not clear about whether the task was to create a real article, or just a pretend one. Dbfirs 22:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with opposing publications?

If, for example, if an article is about sustainable logging of trees and there are 12 books published on it and then there is one book written by a person from Greenpeace that is totally against cutting any trees (published by a university press), can that book dominate the article? Can it be not allowed in the article? Or just how much weight is it to hold?

If the opposing view dominates the article, what steps can be taken to change it if most editors are believers in the Greenpeace opinion or does the majority of editors rule on Wikipedia with no opportunity to challenge their decision?

Also, does a book published by a university press hold more weight than any other publisher? Sorry, but I'm a newbie and just need general information. Danpeanuts (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2017Danpeanuts (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Danpeanuts, is there a particular Wikipedia article you are talking about, or a particular draft you are writing? That would help us analyze your hypothetical question by making it more specific. Broadly speaking however, Wikipedia's Neutral point of view and Undue weight policies and guidelines specify that Wikipedia reflects information neutrally based upon the amount of weight of any opinion in reliable sources. So in your hypothetical example, a minority opinion – if it is truly minority – would be given less weight (and less text) than the viewpoint of the majority of reliable sources, and the minority viewpoint would be directly attributed, whereas the majority opinion need not always be directly attributed, as long as it is cited to several sources, and as long as it reflects a truly consensus opinion of independent (that is, unbiased and without conflict-of-interest) reliable or scholarly texts. I hope that makes sense. In the end, things can be hammered out by seeking consensus on the talk page of the article in question. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The article in question is William M. Branham, and the talk page discussion there answers Danpeanuts' questions at some length. This is a fringe topic (miraculous healing) and WP:NPOV is very clear about not giving equal weight to fringe/minority opinions on topics like that. The sources have also been discussed at WP:FTN, so there has been a great many different editors weighing in, and the consensus is rather clear. Unfortunately, DP's analogy about sustainable logging does not work here, as that is not a fringe topic, and is not covered by WP:MEDRS (any claims about faith healing fall under that requirement.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason I didn't mention William Branham is because religion and politics are very hot topics. All I want to know is basic facts, which I can't get from the opposing side and Bonadea. 1. Does one book with an opposing view to the majority of other books have the right to dominate an article? 2. Does a book printed by a University Press hold more weight than books printed by other presses? 3. Is there a way to challenge editors with opposing views on Wikipedia? The main problem in this article is that one man who doesn't believe in divine healing wrote a book with a strong bias against a man who could pray for the sick and have positive results with many other books verifying it. One man changed the whole article 3 years ago using mostly the opposing view and I am asking if there is anything that can be done to revert at least some of the article back to what it originally said. It could have some of the opposing views in it, but it shouldn't be mostly the opposing view, since the majority of books written on this man are positive. Danpeanuts (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2017Danpeanuts (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There are no "opposing sides". If twelve sources do not meet Wikipedia's requirements, they are going to be ignored in favour of one source that does meet the requirements. Claims regarding medical matters have stonger requirements for reliability, as do extraordinary claims. Faith healing falls into both categories. --bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time in the arena of WP:MEDRS. It is a different standard from book versus book, or presenting opposing views. Claims for healing have to have strong, independent evidence for healing, faith or otherwise. I did look at the Talk content for WMB, and so do not expect my two cents here to have much of an impact on the debate. David notMD (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a warring editor can follow you into the Teahouse. Could a neutral person please answer my questions? Also, what can be done about warring? I am new to Wikipedia and there's a lot I don't know. Danpeanuts (talk)Danpeanuts (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input David notMD. I still need help. Danpeanuts (talk)Danpeanuts (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And what I am saying is it's not going to happen. As an example of the high standard set for a health claim, a well-designed, well-executed, placebo-controlled clinical trial can show a benefit - say, curing the subjects of arthritis pain much better than in the placebo control group. That is not sufficient. It is considered Primary research. What would be accepted is a review that compiled evidence from several-to-many individual trials and concluded there was a benefit. Faith healing lends itself to none of this, and thus cannot meet this standard of evidence, regardless of how many people write in books and newspapers that a healing was observed. Each item counts for naught. A multiple of naught is naught. P.S. Edit warring is when you write something, someone else reverts that, you revert them.... It will lead to a Warning, and if continued, a temporary ban. David notMD (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your added comment, David. As I said at the beginning I am new to Wikipedia and really don't understand the way things work here. I have only asked 3 questions and would really like to get an honest answer to each of them. Could you or someone please answer them? or is there another place besides Teahouse where a person can just ask questions and get answers?

Does an article about Christian Religion fall under the guidelines of Medicine? I thought they were completely different. I am very grateful that there are so many checks and balances on medicine, because when I was a child I was given cortizone a few times and it worked wonderful. Later on it was discovered that too much of it would poison your blood.Danpeanuts (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Danpeanuts (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a warring editor can follow you into the Teahouse." Danpeanuts, (1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a personal site. (2) Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS, and the Teahouse does not over-ride consensus or handle content disputes. If you do not like the current consensus on the article in question, you may attempt to engage in some form of dispute resolution. Given the fact that at present you are a single-purpose account, and are editing and posting fairly tendentiously, it is somewhat likely that you may eventually end up warned or blocked for disruptive editing, or topic banned from that article, if you continue as you have. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

- Again, I'm sorry that I don't understand all the rules of Wikipedia. I've obviously made a mistake, for which I'm sorry. Please don't condemn me and give me another chance.

I really would like to be able to edit an article like others can do but all my edits lately have been rejected by those who control this article, while another person was able to make the same addition that I wanted to make and it was allowed. Is there somewhere that I can get an answer to my 3 questions? When I'm referred to a WP page, there's so much writing there that it is hard for me to understand. Please, would someone answer my questions: 1. Does one book with an opposing view to the majority of other books have the right to dominate an article? 2. Does a book printed by a University Press hold more weight than books printed by other presses? 3. Is there a correct way to challenge editors with opposing views on Wikipedia?Danpeanuts (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, your questions have been asked and answered. Please refrain from badgering people or repeating the same question or approaching multiple people to try to get your way. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts I agree with Softlavender, you've gotten answers to your questions. Please take the time to slowly read the pages you have been referred to so that you can learn what you are being told. The article you are attempting to be involved in isn't going anywhere; you have the time. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Softlavender and 331dot. I did spend a half hour or so reading through the pages you gave me and the answers to my questions were there. Whenever I install a new software there is always lots of stuff to read and I just click "agree", but after spending time reading I now understand why truth is not acceptable on Wikipedia. "Veribility--Not Truth" is the rule. I notice a scathing report on the famous Dr. Joseph Mercola, who is an authority on alternative medicine, on Wikipedia and understand why he says it's "Tyranny made easy". Wikipedia is the Astroturf's dream come true.Danpeanuts (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

RE: Mercola, you are conflating being famous with being truthful and not misleading. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are in the wrong online encyclopedia, Danpeanuts. There are several competitors including Citizendium, Everipedia and Conservapedia. They all have different ideas of what belongs and what doesn't. They also have fewer active editors and are less famous than Wikipedia, but you might find one or all of them more receptive. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim.Danpeanuts (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the procedure for removing an incorrect redirect?

Typing Bill Bivens into the Wikipedia search box brings up the article Billy Bevan via a redirect. The problem is that the two names do not refer to the same person. Bill Bivens was a long-time radio announcer, whereas Billy Bevan was an actor and vaudeville player. I considered the possibility that the actor might have used the name "Bill Bevins" at some point, but that name does not appear in the Billy Bevan article at all except in the redirect message at the top. What can be done to correct the problem? Eddie Blick (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eddie Blick, I would be inclined to be bold in this case and remove the redirect. There isn't an article for Bill Bivens and the redirect was created back in 2007 but you are right in the fact that it doesn't appear that Billy Bevan's has every used that spelling or been known by that name so not sure why the redirect was put on in the first place. NZFC^(talk) 22:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, I don't know how to remove the redirect. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the following topic qualify as "notable" for a wikipedia article?

Is an Hon. Consul of a country who is a leading self-made entrepreneur in Western Australia a "notable" topic for a wikipedia article? What criteria should one possess in order to qualify as notable for a wikipedia article?Methma Atapattu (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Methma Atapattu: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for asking. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Please see WP:N and WP:BIO for more detailed explanation. RudolfRed (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. What implies significant coverage? is there a quantitative value that can be given?Methma Atapattu (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Methma Atapattu. According to the guideline, "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

This is a qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative one. Experienced editors who have assessed the notability of hundreds of topics usually do a good job analyzing the sources. An honorary consul will not be assumed automatically notable, since biographies about full ambassadors are often declined. It is the quality and depth of coverage in reliable sources that it is the determining factor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Need to delete a banner photo and can't figure out how

Hello,

I've been very busy with Alasdair Gray's page. Success! The photographer has granted CCA status to a wonderful photo of the Oran Mor murals, and now I want to delete the one now in place as a banner. Thing is, I can't figure out how.

I have written to permissions about the new photo, and the photographer will be soon. I have asked Mr Gray, and he would like the new photo to be used.

Can someone advise please? Or just take down the old photo. Thanks. Heartoftheworld88 (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Heartoftheworld88, I have moved and replaced the photo of Oran Mor mural for you. I hope you have done the copyright correctly when uploading the image if it is a photographers work. NZFC^(talk) 20:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand Footballs conscience, completely appreciated! The CCA accreditation for this photo has been properly handled by the photographer. I have copy pasted his consent, that he sent to permissions, below. Can you help with one more thing? (I love NZ by the way, spent some months there).

I just refreshed the page, and there is a nude in the banner position. I doubt that will last (!); and it isn't totally appropriate for a male artist/writer. Can you instate the new Oran Mor photo in the banner position? Would be great if you could. Again, thank you (and I hope you see this).

Heartoftheworld88 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I hereby affirm that I, Mark Wild, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MWB_1335.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Mark Wild 2017-11-29

Hi Heartoftheworld88, I'm glad you appear to have the copyright sorted. I'm not much for what would be censorship on Wikipedia so don't believe the painting should be removed. I would suggest taking it to the talk page and discussing the removal there, maybe a suggestion would be to replace it with some of his other work. With the Oran Mor, I believe it looks better where it is and is talked about in that section as well. You don't really want to overload the other section with a lot of his work but again you can discuss it on the talk page if you like. NZFC^(talk) 21:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Continuing, I actually see the nude picture is due to be deleted so I have removed it and moved the Oran Mor down. NZFC^(talk) 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Good morning NZ! Step by step... we'll get there. Nude on a Red Chair was due for deletion on the grounds that Mr. Gray had not approvedit's use. I contacted him about that and I believe he has sent in permission for it to stay -- I'll contact him again today to make sure that has been done, but I think it has. Can you therefore reinstate the picture? I think the three paintings show a nice balance in terms of his work. Regarding positioning: I'll be happy when all of the visual content is there (so much work sorting out these licenses!) and then over time I guess things will find the most appropriate positioning. Thanks again! Heartoftheworld88 (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Continuing: I really like the way you have positioned the reamining three side by side -- much better! Thanks for that.Heartoftheworld88 (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)