Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 282

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 275

←

Archive 280

English version of the French version of an article?

English version of the French version of an article? Please can you help me. Things are not that simple for a new contributor. Many thanks Luc.arthur.michel (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the Teahouse Luc.arthur.michel. We appreciate your question because many other new editors have similar questions and when you asked the question, you probably are helping other new editors. One of the first places I suggest that you go is here: WP:Translate us. There are editors on Wikipedia both French and English speaking, who probably will help you out with this. If not, please return to the Teahouse and we will do our best to help you find your answer.

Bfpage |leave a message 17:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Bfpage, that page is for translating from English to other Wikipedias. Luc.arthur.michel probably wants WP:translation. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Colin, I appreciate your correction-it's amazing how much I still don't know!

Bfpage |leave a message 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Image for Wiki Page taken down...

Hi All!

I started a Wikipedia page for artist Louise Kramer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Kramer) and the image that I provided was taken down because of the explanation at the end of this message. I would still like to use this image because I feel that the photographer was also a member of the gallery and used that image as well as a series of other founding members of the gallery for one of her books. I know her very well and am sure I could get permission from her but I don't know how to note that in Wikipedia in order for the image to stay up. Is there a way that any of you know how I can keep this image up?

If not, is it possible to put an image up from the artist's permission (ex: a photograph that her son took and gave to me for use on the wiki page)?

Below is the text in which the image was taken down:

Replaceable fair use File:"Louise Kramer", 2007, 30in x 20in, Archival pigment print (Image by Judy Cooper).jpg Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:"Louise Kramer", 2007, 30in x 20in, Archival pigment print (Image by Judy Cooper).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

PS. If there are any other ways you believe I can improve the wiki page I would love some advice! I've never done this before so I feel I may need to add more 'reliable sources' but I don't know what is seen as reliable and how I can get them.

Thanks for the help!

All the best, Jacqueline Jacc117 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Uploading an image with the proper documentation can be tricky on WP. Since you admit you do not have written permission from the author of the photo I would suggest that you do not protest its removal. Instead I would obtain the written permission from the photographer (email is OK) and resubmit the image. Even that process can be tricky and you may want to consult someone more expert than me about this. User:Ronhjones has helped me in the past.

Regarding other things you can do. The article needs more sources and could be expanded by citing reliable sources such as books, magazines and newspapers. If you'd like more advice or would like to work on this article together you can put a note on my user talk page. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Keithbob's advice goes far enough, I'm afraid, Jacc117. The owner of the copyright (who is probably the photographer) may give permission, but needs to be aware that permission to use it on Wikipedia only is not enough. Wikipedia is intended to be a free resource, and all material on it (with the exception of material used under "fair use") must be licensed under a suitable copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to use it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as they attribute it correctly. If the artist is willing to license it in this way, she needs to follow the procedure in WP:donating copyright materials.

If the artist is not willing to license it in this way (and many artists are not, for understandable reasons) then the only way it could be used if it was uploaded and used in a way satisfying all the non-free content criteria (this is the "fair use" exception I mentioned). Unfortunately, this is hardly ever possible for pictures of living people, because in principle you or anybody else could take a picture of Kramer and license it, whereupon it would be a free image which could be used: this possibility makes the image you want to use fail one of the criteria. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree, that's why I suggested they work with someone during the permission process as the email permission has to be worded just right or it won't be accepted by Wikimedia for upload and use. The rules in this area can be complicated and nuanced. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Non free (while she is alive) is a non starter. I cannot see any free images with an advanced Google search, so the options are to either

Take your own photo
Get permission for that image - note that since she has her own web site, then OTRS will expect any e-mail permission to come from <something>@judycooperphotographs.com (things like gmail.com does not go down well!).

As the others have said the strictest license we allow is CC-BY-SA - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ - and the commercial re-use does put off a lot of professionals. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviving a deleted page

I said it. How do you revive a page that is deleted? I recently was cleaning up my talk archives page and used Twinkle to request for a CSD, stating "user request". However, my edit for the May 2014 archive page couldn't be saved due to intermediate conflicts and leaving it un-edited for too long on the edit page, thus I clicked "Cancel", forgetting all about my CSD request. At the deleted page, I have one message that has to be put in my May 2014. Although it is a message from DPL Bot for disambiguation link notice, I prefer to be complete at the archiving. I have also heard that you can request to revive a deleted page at a page in Wikipedia namespace, but I forgot. If there is such a thing, give me a link. It isn't that important, though. Ping me or leave teahouse talkback on my talk page. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Nahnah4: You can request to have a page undeleted over at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SuperHamster! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: I've restored the page. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: Thanks, and I CSDed it again. I just wanted to archive a message in there. Thanks anyway. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: You haven't made any changes to the page. Why did you ask for it to be restored only to immediately request redeletion? Philg88 ^♦talk 08:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: From the original comment, Nahnah just wanted to archive the content on another page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody help me to improve an article?

I created this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varenucha/Forced_adoption_in_norway which I submitted for review. An article was rejected because of "not enought reliable sources". So I made some necessary changes but it is probably still not good enough. Since this is my first article and I do not have time to study all those extensive materials how to write a proper Wikipedia article I would like to ask anybody and everybody, who is interested in that issue to contribute to above mentioned article. I believe that it is a very important matter so it should be covered on Wikipedia. I always thought that Wikipedia is based on cooperation and collective work. Sometimes people publish just stubs which other people extends. 88.146.137.45 (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look. You do editorialise a little bit and make statements not backed up properly by the sources, which are more indicative of original research and essay-writing rather than keeping to an encyclopaedic style. As it's something that you are passionate about, you need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not somewhere to try to promote or campaign on issues like this; everything needs to be kept to the facts alone. Public/international objection to child protection services is a good subject for an article, but needs to be approached with care and circumspection on Wikipedia. That other less well-written articles exist is neither here nor there - what people care about when reviewing your article is what you have done. In general, new articles are more strictly policed than older articles are. Part of being a collaborative project is that other people will exercise quality control over your article, particularly if you send it for initial review rather than immediately launching it into the main Wikipedia project.

That said, if you could try to find some good sources for your assertions, particularly the first section of the 'Controversy' section, and document the cases and public response exhaustively, this is probably a reasonable article to have. You might also find that talking to WP:WikiProject Norway helps you find other more experienced editors who can help you with sourcing, wording etc.

For now I've simply corrected some of the style issues in the draft, such as putting citations in the body of the text rather than attached to titles. Copy-editing it right now would mean I took out your assertions, so please find sources which not only show your primary sources (the YouTube videos) but also places where reliable secondary sources have covered the situation in detail. You also need to read about neutral point of view, which considers the balance of source opinion rather than putting a personal slant on the article.

Also, another Wikipedia article (Child Welfare Services (Norway)) is never an appropriate source. If you need to link to it, use a wikilink like in the previous sentence from a reference in the article itself.

Writing an article that is within the guidelines for Wikipedia is, indeed, hard. Nevertheless, I think this is an encyclopaedic subject, so I wish you luck getting the assistance you need. LS1979 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not as passionate as it may seem :) This is maybe just my writing style. I created the article only because in Czech republic this case really fills headlines today. I am not personaly attached to it in any way. That is why I most probably would not work on the article unless some new information would find a way to me. Varenucha (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahoj, Varenucha. It sounds very passionate to me, and that's generally a good thing IMO. The emotive language in it, however, needs to be slightly toned down so it can go live. Since it involves Norway, and these stories are probably also of Norwegian media interest, obtaining Norwegian sources with the help of the Wikiproject might help you get some balance to the article in a genuinely collaborative style. I could post on the Wikiproject page for you, or you could ask them to have a look at it. LS1979 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could do the posting on the Wikiproject, since I do not know how :) All those processes at Wikipedia are rather too complex for a beginner :) Thank you in advance. Varenucha (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Should this have an article of it's own? It seems to me that it's best covered over in the CWS article, for the moment. Bromley86 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is an article "Forced adoption in UK" already. I think that separate article allows for more research about the subject. As I already wrote, there is much ado about it in Czech republic. Quite understandably, most information in Czech media present only one point of view. When I searched for more information online I discovered that it is really very difficult to obtain unbiased ones. There is for instance quite i big coverage in Russian media, but when I went through them I became very suspicious about their truthfulness - at least in some cases.

So I believe that a separate article on Wikipedia can by really helpful.Varenucha (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, @Varenucha: - if you can write one that conforms to the stylistic guidelines, then go ahead. However, where @Bromley86: has a point is that some issues may be current now but not important going forward. Not everything that makes headlines or creates outrage is notable. For instance, the recent Shirtstorm controversy surrounding the comet landing was judged not to be notable in the grand scheme of things, even though it generated a lot of headlines. The UK article you mention mentions that the people involved were going to take the UK authorities to the ECHR. You might use that article as a template for writing up a dispassionate assessment of the situation, but be aware also that the talk page suggests experienced editors (you don't get more experienced than User:AndyTheGrump) have had issues with the article's content and whether it should exist under that at all. One tip going forward is never to assume an article is OK just because there's something else there.

Maybe consider whether this will be important in ten years' time. It may help to leave it a few months and revisit it then when there's some perspective on the issue - whether the particular crisis changes anything within the Norwegian child services, for instance, or provokes international action from the Czech government. As you say, there is some doubt as to the Russian media's reliability - so I would also assess whether the headlines in the Czech Republic etc are also reliable. LS1979 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Lstanley1979: and thank so much for all your advice so far. I've digged out some more information and it actually seems to be bigger than I originally thought. I made some edits and added references so would you be so kind and look at the article? Do you think that it is ready now for resubmitting? Regards Varenucha (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Varenucha: - I've had a quick look, although I've been a bit busy today. I think you need to be careful with the language, but it still needs to be pruned back. It still sounds like an essay (e.g. 'Officially it is said that children are only removed and adopted out without parental consent...'; 'There are for instance very disturbing videos on Youtube of crying and fighting children being forcibly taken by police from their homes'), which is not right for an encyclopaedic article. The Youtube source is a primary source; per the guidelines I linked in my first post, you would need to use a reliable secondary source to substantiate that it really shows one of these particular situations. Remember, this isn't an opinion piece on a scandal; this is documenting what happened and needs to be neutral.

Although it's not a reason to decline an AFC submission, you also need to cite your sources properly rather than leaving bare URL links - please see WP:Referencing for beginners. At this point, I think you need to look at the guidelines I linked in my first response to you, make sure you cut out all parts where you are stating your opinion or personal slant on the issue (and although you are not personally involved with any of these crises, to a neutral observer it still comes across as way too passionate), and just provide us with the facts from what other people have written on the issue.

Sorry this isn't better news. It's really hard to get an article like this which arouses strong feelings from people into something that could go into an encyclopaedia. Remember, you're not writing a journalistic summary of a scandal; you're trying to provide us with the notable facts for a neutral observer. This is probably why User:Bromley86 above suggested the situation wasn't substantial enough for a Wikipedia article. Not everything is. LS1979 (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As you say, the main reason was that there will (hopefully) be interested editors monitoring that article who can help determine whether something has enough weight etc. to be in there. Should that section grow to such a point that it looks to be overshadowing the article, it can then be split off into a separate page.

@Varenucha:. Had a quick look at the current version. References need to be done correctly, as LS1979 suggests. Also, what he says about Youtube. The first cite in the Michalak brothers case section does not support the point (point says "huge public outrage", cite says "raised attention" (admittedly it's diplospeak, but then find a source that does say it). Which means the entirety of that section is (a) controversial and (b) uncited. One or the other of those is perhaps acceptable, but where both are the case the information will be cut. The Bhattacharya case is only partly cited: that quote on cultural differences came from the BBC source, so cite it (using ref name); the final sentence needs a cite.

ScienceNordic (or, perhaps more accurately, any source it draws from) may or may not be reliable. Ditto the NordicPage.

Most importantly, as has been mentioned, the tone is off (i.e. too partisan, not neutral, etc.). Rule of thumb (not, I suspect, endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation!): if it doesn't sound boring, it's not right. Bromley86 (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Notes and References

Do notes go in front of references or before?--Hinmatóowyalahtqit (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hinmatóowyalahtqit: Hi Hinmatóowyalahtqit. Usually the order is explanatory footnotes → citation footnotes (either short citations or full citations → Full citations to sources, if short citations are used in the footnotes → bibliogoraphy or General references. See WP:FNNR, which does not explicitly say that is the order, but provides them in that order, probably because that is the way it's normally done. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How to upload an image to a Wikipedia article I have written and posted but not yet published

How do I upload an image to a Wikipedia article I have written and posted but not yet published?Nancy Bordier (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nancy Bordier. Image policy can be complex, so if you give us a detailed description, we can be specific. In general, if you took the photo yourself, and it is of something in nature, or a landscape, or a common object not itself copyrighted, then you are the copyright holder and can upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license. If you photograph a copyrighted item, use is greatly restricted. If you found the image online or in a book, then it is almost certainly copyrighted, and probably can't be used except in very narrow circumstances. There are all sorts of exceptions. For example, If the image was published before 1923, copyright has expired, and it is OK to use. If the image was created by the U.S. federal government, it is in the public domain and OK to use. So, describe the image and where it came from, and we will do our best to give you specific information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nancy. If the article in question is this, you need to work on the article itself before worrying about illustrating it. Most of your references are to Wikipedia itself. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference for a Wikipedia article. Since you and I and every other Joe Blow in creation can edit Wikipedia articles at any time, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. You should familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, the general requirements for an article to be published; and with WP:RS, the policy on what constitutes a reliable source. Wiki documents can be very confusing so feel free to come back here with any questions you may have. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nancy Bordier: (e/c) Hi Nancy. It very much depends on what the image is and its copyright status. If the image bears a free copyright license compatible for our use, or is in the public domain (which has nothing to do with whether it's "publicly available" – a common source of misunderstanding), you would upload it to the Wikimedia Commons so that all Wikimedia projects have access to it. If it is non-free, it still might be able to be used under a claim of fair use upon upload here (not at the Commons), if it meets our strict non-free content criteria. If you tell us the specifics we can be less general. Please note that even if the image is non-free but could be used under a proper claim of fair use, it could not be used in a user sandbox or while the draft article was in the draft namespace or at articles for creation. It could only be used once the article was in the article mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've had to delete the article Nancy. See the message I left on your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

images deleted

Hello, yesterday I uploaded a number of images for an article still in draft form and today I find that those images have been deleted. The images came with Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA

cheers JohnHillmontj (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hillmontj. We do not allow a "non-commercial" limitation on a Creative Commons license. To the maximum extent possible, our content may be re-used by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any purpose including commercial purposes, with attribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Right. They were uploaded at Commons so see also commons:Commons:Licensing. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Online Encyclopedia Britanica a good ref to establish Notability?

I'm trying to help a tea house guest with his first article about the church of the nativity of our lady in novgorod. So far he has only Russian references but I did a quick google search and this seems notable to me. My question is about Encyclopedi Britanica online. Specifically this article: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421188/Veliky-Novgorod Is this a good ref to establish basic facts and notability? I think yes but just want to double check. MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on second look that article doesn't mention the church much but there are others that do but I'm still curious about the encyclopedia in general if it's considered a good source. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello MadScientistX11! Secondary sources are usually preferred to tertiary sources, but the Encyclopædia Britannica is generally considered a very reliable tertiary source. You can assess the consensus about this source reading the results of this search in the reliable source noticeboard. Of course, they can make mistakes too. Cheers! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks very much. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is a good source, of course. But, remember, the wp:significant coverage is always needed to establish the notability. If Britannica just mentiones something in passing, that is not a proof of notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasons greetings MadScientistX11. I would give you a more proper welcome, but you are such a familiar face here. You probably already know how much we appreciate you as a host. Regarding using the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a reference, I would think that every article in the encyclopedia also contains a list of references. This can be very valuable for following up on reliable sources on the subject. When I am researching closely related topics on Wikipedia, the first thing that I do is to go to the end of the article and take a look at the references. Many times those references also can be used in the article that I am writing. I often tell people that Wikipedia should almost read like an annotated bibliography since every statement should be supported and cited.

Bfpage |leave a message 17:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Festivus! (and all the other holidays). Thanks for the kind words and the good idea of using the refs in Britanica. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How to engage in direct conversation with an editor of my contribution

I have been learning quite a bit about how to properly create and edit a Wikipedia document via the feedback/corrections received from the various editors who have commented on my work. What is the best way to ask a question for a specific editor regarding a change they have made to one of my pages? JonnyPositive (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)JonnyPositiveJonnyPositive (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@JonnyPositive: Hi JonnyPositive. A few people have posted your talk page and every time they have done so, you've gotten a prominent notification that someone had posted there. Every user you've ever encountered also has a talk page, just like you do, and if you post a message there, they will receive the same type of prominent notification. That's where and how to "ask a question for a specific editor". Most user signatures provide a link to the person's talk page. If they don't, you can always click on a link to their userpage if presnet and then, once there, click the talk link at the top of the page. Also, all pages histories, which show edits to any given page, also provide links to the talk page of every editor whose shown. You can also copy a user's name, and place "user talk:" before it in the search bar to navigate to their talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Factual errors; how to get them corrected.

Hi, I recently edited a page (Finland by Materialscientist) because it had an incorrect historic fact included. It claimed that Finland was the 1st country to pass universal suffrage into law in 1906, when in fact New Zealand was the first country to do so in 1893. Even though this is officially verifiable the writer has sent me a message and returned the text to its original form......Is there any way authors can be persuaded to correct factual errors of this sort? 202.27.236.155 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Internet user 202. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Even you. So, find a reference that verifies what you say, such as a worldwide history of women's suffrage, and make the change yourself, citing your reference. See Referencing for beginners for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings 202.27.236.155 BTW, if you plan to contribute more to Wikipedia (and we hope you do) it's a good idea to get a user ID. Did you try raising the issue on the Finland talk page? I've just taken a quick look but from that look I think you may have a pretty good argument. According to the Wikipedia article Universal_suffrage: "In 1893 New Zealand became the first nation in the world to grant universal, male and female adult suffrage" and the reference for that fact looks pretty solid. Feel free to point this out to the other editors on the Finland page or if you don't feel comfortable with Talk pages let me know and I'll follow up. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

202.27.236.155 I just checked the Finland article and I think it was fixed already. Someone did revert an edit that removed the claim that Finland got there first but someone else reinstated the change and as of now I think it is correct and does not make a claim that Finland was the first nation to adopt universal suffrage. Thanks for pointing out the error. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was my Article deleted without notification?

Hi, my name is Zucat. A few months ago I created an article entitled 2 in the AM PM. (Which is a short college film from JG Quintel for Regular Show). And just a 4 days ago, I searched for the Article on Wikipedia to see if anybody had edited it. But when I DID, the website told me that the Article didn't exist ANYWHERE within the website. I have a feeling the article was deleted. But if it WAS, I would have gotten a notification on my talk page telling me so. But didn't get one at all. Why is this? Please Help!!!

Hi, Zucat, and welcome to the Teahouse. (Please sign your posts on discussion pages with four tildes - ~~~~). This is a bit complicated, so hang on.

If the page had been deleted by one of our regular processes, you would have received a notification; but it was not actually deleted: User:Trivialist converted it to a redirect page. If you go to 2 in the AM PM it takes you, as you have found, to the section "Creation" on Regular Show; but at the top of that page it says "(Redirected from 2 in the AM PM)", and you can pick that link to go to the actual redirection page, and look at its history - which includes earlier versions, that have the whole text in.

Trivialist did not give a reason for the redirect, but looking at the last version before they redirected, I see an article with no references whatever: this is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, and Trivialist might have nominated it for deletion; instead, they decided that it was more appropriate to redirect it to an existing article.

It would be possible for you to simply edit that page, and restore the previous version (just pick the version off the history, and save it). But I urge you not to do that, but to discuss the matter on Trivialist's talk page. I suspect that the subject "2 in the AM PM" does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so no article on it can be written; but I know nothing about the subject and I may be wrong. Please discuss the matter with Trivialist, and see if you can reach agreement according to Wikipedia's policies. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

capitalizing Valerie jean lester (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, My name is Valerie Jean Lester, but at the top of my Wiki page it is written as Valerie jean lester (no capitals on Jean and Lester). Please tell me how to fix this. Thanks Valerie jean lester (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Valerie. Since that's the capitalisation of your username, you would need to request that your account be renamed with the appropriate capitalisation. Alternatively, you could use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template; add the code {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:Valerie Jean Lester}} to your userpage to make the title appear differently when viewed. You can also alter your signature in the same way in your Preferences. Personally, if it bothers you, I'd suggest getting your account renamed; it's less hassle in the long run. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks to you, Yunshui. VL

Valerie jean lester (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Valerie jean lester: {{DISPLAYTITLE}} will not work here. It can only make certain changes such as displaying the first letter as lower case. You can alter your signature but that only affects signatures. Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple is the way to go. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do I find the page with articles that need improving?

Hello, My name is Mbcap and I am very new. Before I joined, I stumbled across a page that listed things that needed improvement. These included pages that needed spell checking, those that needed grammer improvement, others that needed referencing and so on. I cannot find the page after hours of searching. Please would someone be able to provide me a link. Also could you advise on how to go about improving overall knowledge of editing . I have few areas of interest and one area of expertise but I want to learn the ropes before I commit to those areas so I can edit responsibly. Any help would be appreciated. Mbcap (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: Cleanup (you'll kick yourself when you google wikipedia pages needing improvement :) ). There's also Articles for Improvement or Wikiproject Quality Article Improvement, which may be a more interactive experience, if that's what you're after. I see you're interested in biographies (BLPs); mid-importance BLPs (i.e. don't jump in with someone like Obama) are a good place to start, IMO, as they tend to be fairly well patrolled and have the most stringent neutrality requirements. But best advice is just to do what takes your fancy. Bromley86 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Mbcap There are a lot of resource to help do this. In addition to all the good links provided above there are a couple more I think you might like to know about. If you look at the community portal page: Wikipedia:Community_portal (there should be a link to that on the left hand navigation bar when you are in Wikipedia) there are always articles listed there that need work. Scroll down to where it says "Help Out" and you will see various kinds of issues: Fix spelling and grammar, Fix wikilinks, etc. And the nice thing for new editors is next to each category there is also a link that says "Learn how" that has tips to help you make the appropriate changes. Also, you might want to try User:SuggestBot A "bot" is a semi-autonomous program that analyzes Wikipedia pages. User:SuggestBot provides you with suggested articles to edit based on your edit history. The more you edit the more SuggestBot has to work with and the more it can provide you with articles that need editing and match your areas of interest. SuggestBot also breaks the articles up into various categories as well. I use it a lot, here is an example of the suggestions it gave to me recently: User_talk:MadScientistX11#Articles_you_might_like_to_edit.2C_from_SuggestBot_4 To request SuggestBot look here: User:SuggestBot#Getting_recommendations --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the policy re: technical linguistics articles?

Many of the articles about linguistic theory, or of smaller/less well known languages are extremely technical, and though helpful to a linguistic are probably confusing to general readers. Articles on more common linguistic subjects have reasonable introductions, discuss the subject in general terms and then become technical but many are not. What is the policy regarding such articles? Telmac (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Telmac. This is an excellent question, which applies to many technical articles, not just those in linguistics. Our articles should be written in accessible language as much as possible, especially those which are broad overviews of topic areas. Every effort should be made to write in a clear, accessible style, avoiding jargon and convoluted wording. But inevitably, the bodies of articles on highly technical topics will be difficult or impossible for newcomers to the field to understand on a casual reading. That is why the lead section of the article is so important. In four paragraphs or less, the lead section should explain in simple, clear, accessible language why the specific topic is notable, and summarize the contents of the entire article, avoiding complex technicalities. It takes real talent to summarize highly technical topics in this fashion. Please see the description in our Manual of Style about how lead sections should be written for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Telmac I don't really have much substantive to add to the excellent answer Cullen328 gave above. I just wanted to first give a shout out about Linguistics: I'm a computer science guy but I've been reading some linguistics lately: specifically Chomsky's The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory and it's really amazing how much overlap there is between computer science and computational linguistics. Anyway, back to the topic: this is a problem we face with a lot of technical articles. It's something I grapple with all the time because I edit a lot of computer science and AI articles and it's always a trade off. The thing is on issues like this: the devil is in the details. It's really IMO not possible to provide general answers to the question "how technical should a wikipedia article be". You need to focus in on the specific articles and specific issues. The place to have those debates is on the wp:talk page of the various articles. If there are specific articles on Linguistics you think are too technical drop me a message on my talk page and I will take a look as well. I don't know enough linguistics yet to do any detailed editing but I think I have just about the right level of knowledge to judge if the overview stuff makes sense to a non-expert and possibly to edit a bit of the high level stuff to help make it better. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I cam across an article that has a tag stating "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." Are there different types of NPOV tags? Is there one that just one person can label vs one that is the result of an actual nomination process? How does addressing and removing each of these tags differ? Rustandbone (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey there @Rustandbone: You can find a directory of the extensive list of maintenance tags over at Wikipedia:Template messages (WP:TM). There are quite a few tags for non-neutral articles, which can be found here. For the most part, tags can be added or removed by anyone. If it's not obvious, it's also nice to describe the reasoning behind tagging an article on the article's talk page. Some tags, like the one you specified (Template:POV-check), do call for an actual discussion on the talk page, which the tagger should initiate until input from multiple editors is provided and/or the article is improved. There's a lot of tags, but luckily there's one for almost any situation. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Would this considered a reliable source? -Hinmatóowyalahtqit (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hinmatóowyalahtqit. That appears to be a self-published website, similar to a blog, and so would not be a reliable source for factual statements. The content there may help lead you to more reliable sources, such as reputable books and academic journals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Hinmatóowyalahtqit. Welcome. The page you linked looks like a personal web page of a person named Don.Cardoza. Self-published sources are usually not considered to be reliable because "anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field" (see: WP:SELFPUBLISH). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Hi Hinmatóowyalahtqit. Since it is an Angelfire website, it could have been created by anyone, meaning that, in general, it would not be an acceptable source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The thing is that even websites could be created by anyone. I'm wondering if elements like the longevity (easily verifiable), regular updates, or if it features on consistent published material (books, records) can make a difference. I see often websites created on domain names that look even less accurate and "trusted" than others on Wordpress. Can someone clarify on this subject please? Journalist astronomist (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Journalist astronomist There is no single right or wrong answer to these kinds of questions. Each case is specific to the context of the article, the references, etc. But for the most part personal blogs are never good wikipedia:references. The issue is what kind of quality control and editorial review goes on at the site. A personal blog has zero such control. A site like nature.com has a lot of it. Of course there are a lot of sites that are in between and that's why we can't give a general answer for all situations. If you have a specific example in mind we could give you more detailed feedback. But some sites are clearly not appropriate references for just about any Wikipedia context and the site linked to in the initial question is IMO such a site. BTW, that doesn't mean the info at the site is wrong. I took a quick look and the author seems to know what he is talking about regarding native american culture. The thing is the rightness or wrongness of the text is irrelevant if the site doesn't meet the minimum standards for a Wikipedia reference. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrator

when one user is promoted to administrator of wikipedia .Can i become administrator?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ47 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No user is promoted to any higher post automatically. All Wikipedia users can contribute to the encyclopaedia without any restriction unless they vandalize. Administrators are also like other Wikipedia users but they have ability to carry certain actions limited to system operators. They can block/unblock any user, can delete/restore any page, can protect/unprotect pages and can rename any page without any restriction. A user who want to be an administrator need nominate themselves or ask someone to nominate them. Then there is a consensus and the very outcome decides whether they can be made administrator. As far as you're concerned, I am sorry to say but you cannot become an administrator. You have been blocked previously and have evaded block as well. You've been involved in disruptive editing. You were clearly not here to contribute per block. You were also unwilling to engage in discussion. This might have been an issue of competency. SAMI ^talk 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Change USER:_____

How in the heck do I change my page name URL as well as my page to not say: USER:Friedman_mark? Thank you in advance. Friedman mark (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

~~Hi Friedman mark. If you mean, how can you get rid of the _ in the URL of your user page, the answer is, you can't. That symbol stands in for a space in the address bar.~~

~~If you want to change your name to something else entirely, you will need to request that your username be changed. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)~~

@Friedman mark: Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse. You actually cannot remove the User: designation from User:Friedman mark because it is in a namespace called the user space. Pages in the article space do not have this designation and just appear as the title of the article. If you were intending to make the contents of User:Friedman mark into an article, you should understand that writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ball Road Anaheim, Ca

I'm Interested in writing an Article about Ball Road Anaheim, Ca Named after Hezekiah Wright Ball born: March 1, 1824, died September 1, 1896 in Anaheim, Ca A Farmer-Teamster Military:Civil War CSA Frontiersman owned his own Freighter company 1863-1880 Freight wagons with several 20 mule teams pedaling good in Arizona and California. I have much more information, However most of it has been published? Not knowing what I am able to write in a Wikipedia Article.Ballroad (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Ballroad (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Ballroad Welcome to the teahouse. When you say "I have much more information, However most of it has been published?" I interpret that to mean that most of the information you have has not been published. If that is correct then I'm afraid the answer is it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is to document things that are already published in good references Examples are newspapers, journals, magazines, etc. Publishing new content is what Wikipedia considers original research. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

HEY ARTICLE!!!!

help make the List of Pulitzer Prize WinnersSonictheHedgehog99 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@SonictheHedgehog99: See #help! and please don't start new sections about the same. Click "edit" at the existing section heading to add a post. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ball Road Anaheim, Ca

I have the published sites Desert Magazine August 1950 Marion Beckler San Diego Historical society documents on the land he owned in Anaheim, Ca Public plot maps, Articles on his family by Orange County Historical society? Katella Rd Anaheim, Ca is published on Wikipedia The article I was referring to are NOT published on Wikipedia. They were published in Book form or MagazinesBallroad (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ballroad. The purpose of citing sources is to establish notability, reliability of sources, and verifiability of facts cited in an encyclopedic article. I think you are asking whether your sources meet the criteria for reliable sources. Books may certainly be referenced, even if they are not published online. Citation templates are available to provide the necessary information, and the template for books is what you will need. Magazines are often archived online, such as the August 1950 Desert Magazine. The requirement for notability is that the subject of the article is covered in multiple reliable secondary sources, so unless the documents on his Anaheim land and plot maps have been published in a secondary source, these items are considered primary sources for original research, not allowed on Wikipedia. The Orange County Historical society articles can also be referenced, provided they have been published by the society. The template for journal articles shows the information to be provided, and you may need to use the "quote" field to provide annotations for publications that are not readily available in a university or public library. Does this information answer your questions? Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, Grand'mere Eugene; I'm not even close to being a writer, this is in fact the first time ever entered any discussion. This is in fact my Great,Great grandfather, I was trying to let my grand-kids know via the internet who their Great, Great, Great Grandfather was. I guess I'm completely over my head and apologize for my ignoranceBallroad (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a tool to help fix common spelling errors

I have not used tools before, so please bear with me if this is a dumb question. Lately I have been fixing some common spelling mistakes (e.g. "glamourous" instead of "glamorous"), and it's a rather slow process to do it manually. Is there a good tool which will:

search for the mistake (glamourous) across all articles,
show them to me in context so I can verify that it really is a mistake (e.g. I don't want to change a URL or something deliberately quoted that way), and
replace it with the corrected version where I say to?

Gronk Oz (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't help you with the general question about tools, Gronk Oz, but I do urge caution. "Glamourous" is an accepted alternative spelling, so is not really a spelling error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! If English variants are what you're looking for, there are several user scripts out there, however User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB seems to be a good user script on WP:ENGVAR. I think WP:AWB can do the job as well. ///EuroCarGT 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Gronk Oz, welcome to the teahouse. You may know this already but most browsers have some basic support for spell checking. Usually just highlighting in red words that aren't spelled properly. That should work with Wikipedia editing as well. You can find out more and about other spell checking tools (not much though, unfortunately) here: Wikipedia:Spellchecking#Implementation --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz and welcome back to the Teahouse. As Cullen328 says, these aren't spelling errors. British, American and Indian are all acceptable English variants for use on Wikipedia and changes shouldn't be made unless there is a very compelling reason. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everybody. My intention was just to fix outright errors, not to change legitimate variants (it was late at night and I was looking for something that didn't require too much thinking). EuroCarGT - I will give that one a try. Cullen328 and Philg88 - I am puzzled about "glamourous" being an accepted alternative spelling - it's not in my English, American, or Australian dictionaries, so where else should I check for accepted alternative spelling? MadScientistX11 - I use Chrome as my browser, which does have a spell checker that I find useful sometimes. Unfortunately it only supports US English, so sometimes it is more of a distraction because of all the false hits. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, "glamorous" is the preferred spelling among English speakers worldwide, but the other spelling does occur rarely, more often in the UK than the US. Here is a discussion of the issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Gronk Oz On Chrome from the top level menus look at Chrome>Preferences That should bring up a page of settings. At the bottom of the page click on "Show Advanced Settings" Then scroll down to "Language". Click on the button that says "Language and input settings" That should bring up a new window that enables you to add languages from a drop down menu. On my computer there were a lot of languages in that list. I think the language(s) in that window control the spell checker. I'm not sure how it works if you can have more than one language or several; I just stick to US English but it might be worth a look for you. You might also try the Chrome web store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore They have lots of apps there. Perhaps there is a spell checker tool. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ADMINS! HELP!

I saw that at Template:Flagcountry, there seems to be an encoding failure or a layout error. However, only admins are allowed to edit the page. I need admins to fix the layout. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

They said the template is widely used so admins can edit only; but this is how it looks like now:

{{country data {{{1}}}|flag country/core|variant=|size=|name=}} DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Nahnah4: Looks fine to me - the page actually hasn't been touched since 2010. What you're looking at is the actual code of the template. This particular template doesn't have any default values, which is why you're not seeing how the template will actually appear when the parameters are filled out correctly. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Oh thanks, no wonder someone nominated for deletion. I see. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft page deleted copyright

Trying to draft a page and it was immediately deleted because of copyright - can page be reinstated so i can change what might be seen as copyright violation? Can i get specific example?

Creating User:Leman2010/IB Career Related Programme

Leman2010 (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Leman2010 welcome to the Teahouse, Copyright violation is copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed. (content snipped from Wikipedia:Copyright violations). You should not copy-paste content from the Internet to Wikipedia. Doing so is a serious copyright violation. You have to write articles in your own word and content must be properly referenced. Article will not be restored if it has copyrighted content without compatibly license. Like I said you have to write article in your own words. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand and respect copyright but if you are describing contents of a course it can only be done using the 'official' wording from the website (I work for the organization and was trying to be as neutral as possible.)

Leman2010 (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

so best is to recreate, changeas much as i can. do it in my sandbox and submit. any problems it wont get deleted but just refused?

Leman2010 (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Using a website's "official" wording is not acceptable on Wikipedia; such content is almost invariably biased in favour of the subject and violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. For the same reason, we actively discourage editors from writing about their employers or organisations; the resultant conflict of interest means that articles created by such editors usually have to be substantially rewritten or deleted. Copyright law prohibits the inclusion of copyrighted text anywhere in Wikipedia; this includes sandboxes, so you absolutely cannot copy the content to your sandbox and try to make changes to it there. If you want to contribute an article about your company - and I reiterate that you are advised not to do so - you will need to write an original piece of text, from scratch, in your own words. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unnamed

I guess what I need to know, with the information I have can it be published on Wikipedia? How?Ballroad (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ballroad welcome to the Teahouse, your question is really unclear. Can you explain what you need to know? On further note we only answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ballroad are you saying that you have a bunch of historical documents and you want to publish them on Wikipedia? If that is the question you are asking the answer is a very definite no. Wikipedia does not publish things like that. It's an encyclopedia. Think of the stuff that goes into a traditional encyclopedia; those are the kinds of articles that go into Wikipedia. If you do have historical documents you think would be useful for the world to know about I think a Wikipedia companion site called Wiksource might possibly be appropriate: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource can include historical documents. From the inclusion criteria at Wiksource: "These documents may range from constitutions and treaties to personal correspondence and diaries. This category may include material not historically available, such as historical telephone calls, judicial proceedings, and transcriptions of military operations" If I'm understanding you I think the things you want to publish may possibly fall into that category. I'm not sure though. Partly because I'm still not sure what you want to publish and also because I've never used Wikisource. I just looked at all the Wikipedia companion sites and it seemed to me the best fit if you have important historical documents to publish. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Ballroad. Your article has to meet the verification standards, and references must be stated clearly. If you read the Wiki policies, I guess you will know if your article deserves an article in Wikipedia. Cheers! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 05:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ballroad. Don't forget to reply (should you choose to) to this rather than starting another section, as it makes it easier to follow the conversation. I had a look at that Desert article and I'm afraid I don't think the subject meets notability (especially as the actual article that you've suggested is for a road that isn't mentioned in it). I couldn't find the example you gave of a similar road that does have an article on it (Katella Rd Anaheim, Ca) - when referring to Wikipedia pages, it's good practice to take the name and surround it with double square brackets, like this [[Anaheim, California]] (which will display like this - Anaheim, California).

The other thing to note it that it's often not a good idea to start articles on things that are related to you. There's conflict of interest issues, but even more than that is the risk of the article going in a direction that you don't want because, once created, you won't own it. I've recently edited an autobiography that someone uploaded to make themselves look good and, once all the non-notable puff was removed, the only notable facts remaining were that he'd spent time in jail and been fined a staggering amount for environmental damage that he's caused. That's of course an extreme for illustration purposes; I'm not suggesting that anything like that would happen to any article on Ball Road. Bromley86 (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)