Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 371

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 365←Archive 369Archive 370Archive 371Archive 372Archive 373→Archive 375

Writing a fictional article

Hi! I'm a novel author, and I've been trying to write an article of the character that vaguely details his life before the story began, as if he were a real person. I can't seem to cite the source (after all, it's fictional). How could I go about doing this? Admiral Sansky (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Fictional or not, you have to cite sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. For example, Falstaff is fictional but there are plenty of sources that discuss the character in depth to justify an article. If there are no such sources for this character, it probably isn't notable for Wikipedia purposes.--ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Admiral Sansky. So, unfortunately, I do not believe Wikipedia is the right place to do what you want to do, and I can explain why. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as such, we have certain guidelines in place on what kinds of content we want to write about here. In particular, we have developed a guideline over how we write about fictional works on Wikipedia—it can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. The main points to keep in mind are that fictional works should always be written about from a "real-world perspective", meaning that the frame of reference is always the real world, not the fictional one. Write about the book's publication, and write about the characteristics of the characters as aspects of the book, not as if they were real. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we have a core content policy which states that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so information about the fictional work should be derived from what other people have already written about the subject in reliable sources.
So to answer the question, I would strongly recommend against writing about the details of the characters of the story's life before the story began, because 1) no reliable sources exist about the subject (in violation of the no original research policy), and 2) it would describe an element of fiction from an "in-universe" perspective (in violation of the writing about fiction style guideline). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Mz7 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was pretty sure I was barking up the wrong tree. It was a long shot, a cool idea, but oh well. Thankyou for the amazing responses though! Admiral Sansky (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

INFOBOX: unable to add new category

hi - i am unable to add a new category to an infobox. for example I want to specify the statesman's religion:

|religion = Shia Islam

and it does not appear after I save it. any ideas what I can do? 199.79.165.2 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Info boxes have pre-set lists of parameters that they will display, different boxes have different selections available. Adding a selection would require editing the template code, which may be complex, and would require consensus to make the change. Remember that an infobox is supposed to summarize the information in the article, not include all details. DES (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I have examined your contribution history, but I didn't find any saved edits attempting to add a parameter to an infobox. It may be possible the edit simply didn't go through to the server. Could you perhaps try again or specify the article you want to change so we can take a look at it? Please be aware, however, that Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability regarding content, especially content regarding living persons. If you add information to the infobox pertaining to a person's religion, please be prepared to provide a citation to a reliable source supporting the addition, preferably in the same edit you add the information. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners or Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to do this. It is important that you do this because Wikipedia policy states that unsourced content can be removed by any editor and cannot be restored without a citation. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, the page in questions it that of Gholam Ali Oveissi. In addition to the religion category issue, the name on the title page needs to be edited. Specifically the spelling of 'Oveisi' to Oveissi. I'm not sure how to do that. thanks. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.165.2 (talk)
The religion parameter was added by User:Ghom110 and not the logged out IP address you post with here so we couldn't find it. Gholam Ali Oveisi uses Template:Infobox military person. At Template talk:Infobox military person#Religion field I wrote: "It would very rarely be relevant but if the field is there then some users will add it when it's irrelevant. I guess most uses would be irrelevant. Just write the religion in the article text if it really matters." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

mobile service

Please help me find an easy installment mobile service with mobile number2601:645:400:A76C:6111:5040:61F6:535 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a general advice forum. This page is for discussing questions about using and editing Wikipedia. While Wikipedia may contain information about mobile phone companies, it is not affiliated in any way with any of these organizations. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The Reference Desk may be able to help you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Image licensing

I got a question from a new user. He/she said he was having an issue. He/she wrote to some people asking for permission to use their photos, and they said yes. He/She has uploaded the photo for usage, but they do not know what do to with licensing. He/She have express permission from the photo's author, but have no knowledge of the proper license. Can you please help me? ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello ThisGuyIsGreat. When you say "express permission", do you mean permission to use only on Wikipedia? Because that is not enough.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, ThisGuyIsGreat. The procedure that the copyright owner must go through is outlined in donating copyright materials. It requires them to release the material under a licence which allows anybody to use the material for any purpose, including commercially, as long as they attribute it properly. Anything less is not acceptable for Wikipedia, because the aim of the project is that it may all be freely reused. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No Verifiable Sources I can Cite

I am the secretary of the Royal Aero Club Records Racing and Rally Association that competes for trophies, some of which have their own pages on Wikipedia. These same competitors are also competing for championships which also have Wikipedia pages. I have been able to update some of these pages with results in the past couple of years but last night I had an addition deleted because there was no verifiable source. My problem is that there is no other source of information than our own results gathered at the end of each weekend's racing. Is there any work around for this? Indeed, Wikipedia has become the de facto verifiable source!

On a similar theme, I am trying to develop a page for the organisation but this has been refused publication based on the same principle of lack of verifiable sources. My organisation is referred to on the Wikipedia page of it's parent organisation, the Royal Aero Club.

Any advice?

Petechilcott (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Petechilcott. I'm afraid the answer is that if you cannot find any reliable published sources for some information, then that information should not appear in Wikipedia: full stop. If you cannot find any substantial and independent reliable published sources about a subject, then that subject is not a proper subject for a Wikipedia article: full stop.
The fact that you can easily find information, and whole articles, that do not comply with these principles is an indication that not all of Wikipedia is up to scratch; but the appropriate response to that is to improve or remove the unsatisfactory material, not to add more of it. Please see WP:42. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hey Pete. While secondary sources are generally preferred to verify most claims, primary source can be used. Note though that have to be used carefully—they can be self-serving, and should not be used for synthesis, analysis, or evaluative or interpretive claims. But for sourcing straightforward facts – which seems to adequately describe something like racing results – they can be cited. I mention this in case the results are being published somewhere, such as at the website of the Royal Aero Club Records Racing and Rally Association. If so, that could be cited (you might look at the first citation in Royal Aero Club, where I've just cited that website, to see how you format the citation; tailor it of course for the specific use). Anyway, I went through this on the possibility this had not occurred to you but such results are actually posted. If they are not, then there is nothing you can do and nothing you should do. Wikipedia is by its nature a tertiary source. Encyclopedias are never the appropriate place for first publication. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Will this page be deleted

I just made my first article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Connell and I'm pretty proud of it, however I'm well aware of the strict rules about new articles on Wikipedia and I was hoping if any of you reading this would tell me if you think it'd survive the night.Quesadalejandro (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Quesadalejandro. I'm afraid that as it stands, the article has little chance of being accepted, and indeed would be under risk of being deleted as non-notable (see below). So I have moved it to Draft:Jacob Connell, where it will not be summarily deleted, but you have a chance to improve it, and submit it for review when you think it is ready.
The main problem is that there are few or no independent sources. Roughly speaking, Wikipedia cares very little about what a person says about themselves (or what their friends or relatives or associates say about them). A Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have said or written about it, and published in reliable places. If enough such sources do not exist, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article on the subject, and it is a waste of time to try (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the subject is not notable).
It's a bit hard to be sure, because you haven't annotated your citations with useful information like author, publisher, title, date; but my impression on a quick look is that the CarsonNow is the only independent reference; but it is hardly substantial, being only three paragraphs in total. To make the article acceptable, you need to find places where people who have no connection with Connell have written or spoken about him at length, and been published in reliable places (such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers), and base the article almost entirely on what they have said, not what he says ot thinks, or what you think. The writing is required to be neutral, so if there are articles that are critical of Connell, they should be discussed as well. Please have a look at your first article, and WP:42.
When you think that you have got the article to a state where it is ready for review, please edit it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top: that will put it on a queue of articles awaiting review. --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

free images

Can i modify free images uploaded by others by cropping, and use it in an article? Does commons has any pre-loaded tool for photo editing. Aero Slicer 04:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Aero Slier, and welcome to the Teahouse. As to your first question, yes. If an image is under a free license, then anyone can modify it, including cropping it, and can then upload the modified version. Be sure to credit the original creator and image, and upload under a different file name. As to your 2nd question, I don't know what kind of tools commons provides for such purposes, but I would think it was better to download, modify and then re-upload the modified image. That keeps the chain of modifications clear. There are many good free and low cost tools for image editing. I myself favor Irfanview. DES (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Cropped image of a flower.
Cropped image of a flower.
There's no need to use a tool to do the cropping, or to upload anything. Just display the image cropped, like the one to the right. You can click on it to see the full original. Maproom (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Aero Slicer, if you want to crop on Commons, the best thing is probably CropTool. Eman235/talk 03:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've put images of Wikimedia Commons but am unable to find copyrights to them, what do I do please.--Dominoooo's (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dominoooo's. Wikimedia Commons is a separate project, but I went over there and saw that you uploaded some photos of dogs which seem to be from an animal rescue website. Those photos are marked to be deleted unless you can show that you have the right to license them freely. Did you take the photos? What do you know about their copyright status? The website they came from is marked with the copyright symbol. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

fixing a mistake

so I am an actor and I see that my parts have been attributed to someone else (we share the same name eric trautmann ) he is a comic book writer and I am a realtor and actor. I have tried to fix them but to do so I have to create a wiki article about myself and I tried then realized you are not supposed to. I am lost I don't know how to fix it any suggestions or anyone who likes fixing these things is greatly appreciated! Thanks Bige11378 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Eric. Since the article on the comic book artist does not mention any acting roles, I am assuming the issue is that there are certain articles that include mentions of you, and the name is being linked to the existing article on Eric Trautmann. You can see all such links by invoking the "what links here" feature of the interface, while at the comic book creator's article (link) I am going to see if I can clear up the issue using that link. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Following-up, I only found one link in an article to you and not the comic book creator, in Alpha House. It no longer links at all. (There is a way it could be linked to a non-existent article, but I don't think that's proper here.) Was that the issue or was it something else and if it was the issue, did I miss any other links that point to the existing article that are actually about you?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I have replied to some of Eric's further concerns at the Articles for Creation help page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Helpppp!!!

I feel like an administrator just wronged me by revoking my early confirmation with me doing nothing wrong. Please Help! TheEditorOfAllThingsWikipedia (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Theeditorofallthingswikipedia. I recommend that you concentrate on learning our policies and guidelines, and on improving the encyclopedia. I also suggest that you read the essay Wikipedia:Hat collecting. You do not need advanced user rights in order to be a useful editor, and appearing too eager to gain such rights is not a good idea. Take things slow and steady. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If I click a picture with my own camera and upload it, can it be turned into a featured picture?

Is it allowed to take printscreen of a Youtube video and then uploading in Wikipedia with low resolution: using it only for infobox of an article? Aero Slicer 07:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hrm- I don't think the screenshotting would be allowed if the video was created by the uploader OR the original video that the uploader took from is non-commercial/use with permission/etc.
Not sure about that camera thing, though. -Kurousagi 09:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Check this screenshot --Aero Slicer 10:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That screen shot is used under the very restrictive Fair Use criteria. Whilst Wikipedia can, in some instances, use copyrighted content in this way, the non-free images policy is extremely strict. Unless you have a good understanding of fair use and can justify your use of a screenshot under the criteria, you are likely to be infringing copyright if you upload such an image to Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲水 10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Aero Slicer you can't de-copyright something by taking a picture of it or screenshoting it - the original copyright status still stands. So just as in the attached case it would require a valid Non-free use rationale and can only be used on the one stated article. As such If the source was copyrighted then I can't see how it could be a "featured picture" as that would then be using it in more than one article. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There were two questions together, i should have given some extra details. If i click HD pictures of food items, birds, insects, plants, mountains, not copyrighted things- then can it become featured picture? Most featured pictures are snapshots of old paintings. Aero Slicer 10:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to address the FP bit. Featured Pictures can be of just about anything, as long as they meet the Featured picture criteria. Assuming your images do so, there's no reason they can't be put in for FP. Yunshui 雲水 10:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Hi Aero Slicer, thanks for asking about featured pictures. Speaking as someone with a fair bit of experience in the area, I'd say that you are certainly welcome to nominate any pictures you take at WP:FPC. Before doing so, however, please note that there are certain criteria that have to be met. To see how those criteria are applied in practice, feel free to have a look at the current batch of nominations or the archive of previous nominations. I've found that technical standards can be very difficult—and often very expensive—to meet; mere "snapshots", especially those from camera phones and smaller pocket cameras, will have difficulty in the candidacy process. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

AutoEd

I have just started using AutoEd and on some articles it has an automatic edit summary, but not on others, even when it changes stuff. Is this a problem? Thanks, Rubbish computer 06:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Which edit summaries aren't provided? I can take a look into the code for the said function. Dakaryammer
stuff done 10:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dakarias: The general cleaning up with AutoEd. Rubbish computer 10:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hrm- after installing the code in either your skin.js or common.js what exactly did you do? AutoEd's auto edit summary function certainly seems to work as it should. Dakaryammer
stuff done 10:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dakarias: I put on the simple version first, then backspaced it and put on the full one in its place. Rubbish computer 11:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Try using a diff browser. That will (hopefully) fix the issue. Dakaryammer
stuff done 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dakarias: Sorry I don't know how to do that. I also am unsure as to whether I am using it properly by using it on random articles. Rubbish computer 18:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What browsers do you have? If you use Windows, you probably have both Chrome and Explorer. Try logging into Wikipedia with the one you aren't using currently and see if it works. Another solution might be to completely delete your browser's cache. Dakaryammer
stuff done 00:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This happens to me too, on IE11 (I haven't tried it on different browsers). You might want to post this at WT:AutoEd. A sort-of workaround would be to add
importScript('User:Equazcion/CustomSummaryPresets.js');
 var customsum1 = "Cleaned up using [[WP:AutoEd|AutoEd]]";
To your common.js. This is Equazcion's custom edit summaries script and will put that summary in a dropdown box for you to select if necessary. Eman235/talk 03:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dakarias: @Eman325: Thank you. Rubbish computer 12:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello editors, Is it ok if I add mentioned reference link to the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parshuram_Temple? That is a link from my personal blog. sharadatanay.blogspot.com/2011/01/gods-own-village-parshuram.html Sharadatanay (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:Reliable. -Kurousagi 13:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Writing in a more formal tone

Hi,

My draft submission of the article 'SMU School of Accountancy' just got rejected. I'm really new to this so I'm wondering if anyone can help tell me how to use a more formal tone for this article or give me any other suggestions on how to improve my article?RachR310 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what you call 'formal'. The types of formal I can think of are a neutral point of view and no slang/etc. -Kurousagi 11:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Having had a quick look at Draft:SMU School of Accountancy, the problem doesn't appear to be a lack of formality, but rather a promotional tone. Take the following sentence, for instance: "Students pursuing a Bachelor of Accountancy will be exposed to a seminar-style approach to teaching". That could be plucked straight out of the school's prospectus. The article needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone, based on secondary sources. I suggest having a read of WP:NPOV, RachR310, which is a page explaining Wikipedia's policies about neutrality. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I created an article but now I cannot find it anywhere.

I created an article today, previewed it and made extra sure I saved it a few times, but now I cannot find it under "contributions" or anywhere on my page. Did the draft not get saved somewhere? Thank you!Margot Slabbert (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Margot Slabbert, but South African Rooibos Council has never existed on this wiki, nor has Draft:South African Rooibos Council. DES (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the prompt response. I will create the article from scratch again now, but how do I make sure that this does not happen again?Margot Slabbert (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
A good option is to make it as a subpage of your userpage- such as User:Margot Slabbert/South African Rooibos Council. -Kurousagi 13:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Margot Slabbert your edit history shows you made no edits prior to posting here - so maybe you were not logged in at the time. If you find your IP address by using http://whatismyipaddress.com and then enter that IP address in the User field at Special:Contributions and search then you'll be able to see if this was the issue and find your edits. Another option that has happened to other users is they had links to other Wikis and had edited on another site. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Margot Slabbert. Some new users click "Show preview" instead of "Save page", or after clicking "Save page" they overlook or ignore a message saying the page could not be saved for some reason. For example, new users like you will be asked to fill out a CAPTCHA when saving external links. You can keep a copy in your browser or another program like a text editor until you have checked the edit shows up at Contributions or the "View history" tab of the page. After a little experience you will probably learn what a saved edit looks like and not have to make such checks, but for time-consuming edits it can still be good to keep a copy in a text editor if something goes wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Margot Slabbert: If you click "filter log" at the top of Special:Contributions/Margot Slabbert then you can find a "details" link to an edit you tried to save an hour before posting here. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I need to remove a redirect by cannot find it on the parent page

I'm trying to get my article approved, but there's a redirect in place. I've tried following the instructions on the Wiki Redirect page and remove the [redirect] on the parent page, but there isn't one.

An editor who's approving my page said I may need administrative action to remove the redirect so that the article can be added. Cbdig (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Which page is it exactly? -Kurousagi 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, found it- but isn't the actual request declined? -Kurousagi 13:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, just removed the redirect. If you get your article approved you're welcome to move it there. -Kurousagi 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe that you'll find that, as the original question said, it would need an administrator to remove the existing page to allow the draft to be moved into its place. A cut-and-paste move would not be permitted, as that would lose the attribution. The existing redirect shouldn't be replaced by a blank page. Unless & until the new draft gets approved, the redirect is the sensible content for that page. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

my article

hi teahouse, I have created an article titled Hope rescue (dogs charity) please could you tell me the copy right issue, I think it may be the part titled core values. I don't however see how this is copyright when it is a company's core value that I am writing about.--Dominoooo's (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If you copied and pasted content from a webpage (as CorenSearchBot indicates) it is copyvio unless the site explicitly states it uses a license that allows reuse. -Kurousagi 14:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. When quoting material, it is crucial to make it clear that is what you are doing with quotation marks and an inline reference. Also, long quotations must satisfy fair use criteria. For that section, I would summarize by writing a few sentences about their core values, particularly any that might be different from other places. This is probably more informative to readers. No need to copy the whole thing!
However, there is a more serious problem with the article. The whole thing is in a very promotional tone. I understand this is a charity that does good work and you care about them, but articles have to be written from a neutral point of view, based on what people not related to the charity have written.
The first thing to do is definitely to fix the copyright issue by seriously summarizing, in your own words, the section. However, once you have done that, you really need to clean up the tone of the article. If you find you are too emotionally attached to the subject, moving the article to draft space and going through Articles for Creation may be a better option. Best of luck. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a very common misunderstanding that copying material from an organization's web site into an article is permitted, especially if the author is associated with the organization and has its permission. If the author is not associated with the organization, there is a simple copyright violation. There is also the fact that the copied material is probably too promotional. If the author is associated with the company and has its permission, there are tree problems. The first is a more subtle copyright violation, which is the nature of the permission, because permission to copy to Wikipedia is not sufficient, because we require a copyleft that permits reuse from Wikipedia. The second is that, in that case, the author has a conflict of interest for the entire article. The third is that the copied material is probably too promotional. (If the amount of promotional material is small, we can probably use it within quotes in the voice of the organization.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thanks Happy Squirrel, I will go back and try and make the changes you suggested, that's a lot of things to change though of changes to have to do but I'll try. thanks for the useful information though happy squirrel it was very helpful--Dominoooo's (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, user sandboxes are not exempt from copyright restrictions, so that will have to go too. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my advice was to fix the copyvio first, and then userfy. The other way around is not particularly useful, I agree. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I add an image?

Howdy fellows! Do anyone know how to add an image from URL or upload? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEGOlord208 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you have to sign onto wikipedia commons, the link is towards the bottom of the wikipedia home page. Then look for the button or tab or something to upload a picture from there. The account used on there is the same as wikipedia. Then once you upload/publish a picture, it will have a title at title at the top. It should look like File:ImageHere.png then put two brackets directly on each side of the text facing inwards and the picture should show up. Of course put the real image name in the brackets. TheEditorOfAllThingsWikipedia (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's technically correct, but the picture has to be free. Non-free content isn't allowed except in certain situations. Eman235/talk 15:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

wiki

Hi! I am trying to have a Wikipedia page about the company I work for. Is that something allowed? I am focusing on the history as it's quite a long-established one and products but keeping objective. Do you have tips to get it published? Thank you (Moderngentleman80 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your commitment to doing things properly. You have what we call a conflict of interest, and the best idea would be to go through the Articles for creation process. This will make sure your article is reviewed by a more experienced editor before posting. The most important thing is to make sure your article is based on independent reliable source. Ie, what people unrelated to the company have said in trustworthy places. If there are no such sources, the company is probably not notable enough and it is not possible to write an article on them. Neutrality is also important, but you know that. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
You need to read about conflict of interest, as well as about notability, and particularly about notability for companies. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox document

Why is there a redirect in my Sandbox? Should not my document which I submitted be returned to my sandbox? Will my document from my Sandbox eventually be deleted? I'm afraid of losing the work which I already did. I am under wikipedia user: thedistinguishedlunatic

Here is the message I received: 

   Draft:John Homenko

   This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. For more information follow the category link. Thedistinguishedlunatic (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Thedistinguishedlunatic/sandbox now redirects to Draft:John Homenko because MatthewVanitas moved it there. It's fine in the draft namespace; that's preferred for drafts, which is why it was moved. Eman235/talk 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the redirect at User:Thedistinguishedlunatic/sandbox to a simple link. If you wish to you can blank the sandbox page, or reuse it for whatever you want to use it for. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


deactivate account

please could you deactivate this account for me. Thanks. --Dominoooo's (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(replied on user's talk page, directing them to WP:RTV Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC))

Wikimedia-remove information?

Hi, Recently I uploaded my first picture on Wikimedia, but I accidently clicked on 'More information' and now everyone can see which camera I used to take the picture which is something I didn't want. Is there a possibility of removing it? The Count of ZielinThe Count of Zielin (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello The Count of Zielin. Most modern digital cameras embed what's called Exif data in the JPEG files that includes details about the camera and the picture. It is possible to edit this data using certain tools—see commons:Commons:Exif#Editing Exif fields for more information. I believe you can edit the Exif tags of a file on your computer to how you want it, then re-upload the file to the Wikimedia Commons. Once this is done, ask a Commons administrator to delete the old file. Additionally, if you ask this question at the Commons help desk, you may receive a more well-informed answer. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@The Count of Zielin: Yes, the metadata has not become visible because you clicked something. It is part of the file and automatically displayed by our software. If it wasn't displayed on the file page then anyone could still display it with their own software. That applies anywhere you make the digital photo available to others. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, The Count of Zielin. You are, of course, entirely entitled to your feelings on this issue. But I am curious why you want to conceal which type of camera you used for a freely licensed photo? I have written several biographies of notable photographers, and in my experience, most of those photographers happily disclose which equipment they used, and often discuss the pros and cons of their cameras in great detail. What are your thoughts on this? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all your kind answers! Thanks also for your clue, Cullen. I didn't consider that. You know, I live in Central Europe and people there (including me) prefer to keep much personal information (such as which mobile phone model you use or what your real name is) private (when it comes to internet issues). I'll now think about what I'm going to do with this information. Greetings, The Count of Zielin (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 given the case of User:The Photographer (who is now in exile) we need to accommodate reasonable requests of anonymity. we need to think about a strip EXIF option on upload. (yes it is that serious) Duckduckstop (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources of notoriety for language software

Hi,

I'd like to ask for some help on how to improve an article I've been working on. Here's a link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:InqScribe

I’ve tried to comply with the Golden Rule (“significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic”) by citing relevant published sources. How else can I establish notability? Are there any issues with the sources I’m currently citing? By citing published resources, including an academic review of notable transcription tools, I believed I was following Wikipedia's citation guidelines.

Before creating the article, I looked at some similar language software entries like MacSpeech Scribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacSpeech_Scribe), VoxSigma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VoxSigma), and Transana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transana). I’d like to document InqScribe alongside these similar language tools. Thanks in advance for your help!2601:240:CA02:AB00:2034:3EC2:3305:8988 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC) (For reference: Draft:InqScribe (edit | [[Talk:Draft:InqScribe|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views))

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the citations currently provided: the Garde cite is top-notch, and should be almost enough on its own. The Strong & Wilder reference I can't asses, because the part of the book cited does not seem to be online. However the small snippet that is online looks good. Paulus et al also looks good. Part of the problem here is that for once, the sources say more than the article does -- all too often new editors try to say more than the sources support. Add additional facts clearly supported by the sources. Of course the cites to nqscribe.com do nothign for notability. A few additional sources of even close to similar quality and expanding the article text should do the trick, IMO. DES (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently submitted the page Yottaa, Inc and it got rejected- I am in process of fixing it, but wanted to thank you for your feedback.

I tried to upload my company's logo last night but it said I didnt have enough credibility to upload, then I tried to do so through the upload files section but I couldn't figure it out. Is there a best practice for uploading company logo's as a new editor?

Thank you! Hayleyhudson717 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about the logo yet. Concentrate on getting the draft into shape. The logo can be uploaded and added later, if the article is accepted.--ukexpat (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a header notice that the page needed copy edited...

I updated the Photographic film page the best I could with what little experience I have here, and checked the spelling, and looks okay to me. I think the problem is having to use web links in my lists of manufactures and resources that are outside Wiki? How should I edit this page to make it conform to MoS and still have the links in the lists?Xo-whiplock (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are seeing is an article maintainence template. It is not automated at all, someone added it to the article at some point because they believed it needed fixing. If you don't see any more problems, you are free to simply remove it. (it's the little bit of code right at the top that looks like this in the edit window {{copyedit}}) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I posted this question and now someone removed my intro paragraph explaining the current state of film??? Who did this and why???Xo-whiplock (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong as doing the edit to Photographic film wiki and removed an entire paragraph that presents the current state of photographic film as of 2015. It is not a "personal essay" as he stated for the reason of his deletion of my work without talking to me first, it was simply to remove anything positive said about photographic film. I will not be drawn into an editing war with this person. Is there someone I can contact to protect my interest and prevent vandalism of the page I'm working on?Xo-whiplock (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Your edit removed the lede section and replaced it with a personal reflection on the current state of photographic film in 2015 and entirely unencyclopedic content including …”Branding is fundamental. Branding is basic. Branding is essential. Building brands builds incredible value for companies and corporations." What on earth is that about? Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't describe the edits by User:Theroadislong as vandalism. He understands Wikipedia's processes and conventions, and you haven't learned them yet. If the additional section is required at all, it certainly shouldn't be before the lede. The other point which was being made by another editor is that it is not permitted to scatter external links in the article text. You were given a number of useful links on your user talk page a week or so ago, so please take the trouble to read them. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Will do. I accept the edits now and understand better what's going on. I moved my addition of the current state of photographic film under == Currently (2015) == and removed the cited quote about branding. I placed this info just above == History ==. I'll work on changing the outside links in my lists. What's the best way to state these manufactures that don't have Wiki pages and still have the link? Type the name and add a citation number? or is there another formula to use?Xo-whiplock (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
A rule of thumb (not absolute policy, but will keep you out of most trouble) is to prioritize items with articles in lists. This helps limit lists to the most notable elements and avoid endless lists which are hard to read. If none of the things you want to list have articles 1)ask yourself if the list is useful to readers of the articles 2)ask yourself if the list is encyclopedic 3)list no more than half a dozen to start with, each with a reference, not to the company website, but an independent source showing the relevance of the item in the list. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is woefully lacking sources in the really important sections so I have added some section maintenance templates.--ukexpat (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Are editor patrollers assigned to specific nubes, such as myself. Can a different reviewer be requested?

Actually, the summary says it all. I'm new to Wikipedia, but by no means new to writing, both professionally and academically. I wonder why the same editor/patroller keeps coming back to each new iteration of my first article. Is that usual? My article has been rejected twice with no further comment than "use footnotes," which, of course, I have. I've read a lot from Wikipedia on what standards for references should be and I agree with them and believe I've followed them. I think the patroller, himself, may be the issue. Can I request the opinion and or assistance of another? Thanks. Rmark1030 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No, patrollers are not assigned to people- that person may simply be online more than others. -Kurousagi 00:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
A quick glance at your draft shows me that you have indeed used footnotes very nicely. I believe the issue the reviewers have is that there are not enough of them, or not near facts that need special verification. For more details, you can contact one of the reviewers to maybe tag places they would like to see footnotes. About the same editors coming repeatedly to the same pages, that probably just means they have it on their watchlist. It is pretty typical. Anyways, happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Where to get feedback about notability before creating/translating an article?

Subject: Bernadotte Perin (1847-1920), an American ancient philologist. After a successful academic career, he translated Plutarch's Lives for the Loeb Classical Library. There are enough reliable sources to write a short yet decent bio article on him (see German wikipedia entry here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadotte_Perrin), and his works are widely available until today.

I think his contributions are significant enough to warrant notability, but I don't want to waste time on writing an article which is likely to get rejected. If this is not the right place to ask such a question, please redirect me to a better one, thanks. Rh73 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If the person's already written about in another language Wikipedia and it hasn't been deleted I'm sure he's notable :) -Kurousagi 00:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dakarias: Not only do many other language Wikipedias have lower standards than we do, such that articles that have actually been assessed and accepted there would not be allowed here (I'd note though that the German Wikipedia in particular maintains high standards compared to many), but we have thousands of articles here on non-notable subjects that just haven't been deleted yet. The same is true of other language Wikipedias.

Hey Rh73. That article has no inline citations, which is something you would need to remedy in a translation. I've just had a look for sources and I think an article can be sustained. As with many people who were prolific in books, it can be difficult to search because there's so many mentions of him as translator, rather than things that are about him. Anyway, since I took a look I might as well post a few sources I noted along the way that might be of use: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Don't forget to comply with mandatory copyright attribution, when you post the translation. By the way, the citation tool for Google Books might be useful here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually had no idea about that. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. -Kurousagi 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Anytime. It's an unfortunate fact. Just click random article 100 times, count the number of article you see of pretty questionable notability; found two? that's 2% of 4,936,301 articles = almost 100,000.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

CSD A7 criteria

Just wondering- is a general CSD A7 enough for a book with questionable notability? -Kurousagi 05:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not. WP:A7 says very clearly "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." Note also that A7 doesn't refer to "questionable notability"; it is for articles (on the relevant subject) that make no credible claim of significance or importance. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal Contact Information on user page

Hi, Can editors have the personal contact information on the user page (like phone numbers). I found this at one of the user page of a new editor. Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally it's a very bad idea. Wikipedia gets regularly crawled by spambots looking to pick up contact details (primarily emails, but phone numbers are targets as well). Wikipedia isn't a social network; there's really no conceivable reason to post your telephone number or other contact details here. Email contact can be made via the Wikipedia email function, for discussion of any topic that's not suited to being brought up in a public forum. In many cases, especially if the user appears to be a minor, we will suppress such information. What's the userpage in question? Yunshui 雲水 08:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Yes, I too thought of the same that its not a social network platform. The page in question is this : User:Arslan Naseer. Well when you take the appropriate action, please do let me know of the policy related to this. Will be helpful in future. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I've hidden the relevant diffs. See Wikipedia:User_pages#Personal_and_privacy-breaching_material, WP:USERBIO and the oversight policy. Yunshui 雲水 08:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Peppy Paneer: If you come across a new user who seems to be a minor, it is also useful to post a kind message on their talk page inviting them to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Even if the WP is a rather safe site, it is still the Internet. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Puffery

I reverted this edit believing it to be puffery was I correct TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind what I just typed- I accidentally read it as 'I was'. It was correct! -Kurousagi 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi TeaLover1996 you can refer to the guideline WP:PEACOCK to get a good idea about what we mean by puffery on Wikipedia. Cheers! -- Chamith (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

will I get notification if my page/article is edited? 74.219.14.114 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

will I get notification if my page/article is edited? 74.219.14.114 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You have already asked this, and it was answered in this section below - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't ask the same question multiple times. First, check whether the question has already been answered. You can also search archives for answers. -- Chamith (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note also that if anyone wishes to communicate with you they will usually do so via your user talk page. A notification was placed there when your previous question here was answered, and it had a link to the section with the question and the answers. Please, therefore, keep an eye on your user talk page, whether you are editing as an IP or as a registered user. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What is Gamergate account?

In Wikipedia gamergate is very popular. I read the Gamergate controversy page. It is related to video game harassment. In news and media, i haven't heard much. Even arbitration has gamergate restriction. Which topics come under gamergate? I want to stay away from gamergate topics. Are misogynist users called gamergate? Aero Slicer 09:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The restrictions apply to All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. As a rule of thumb, if you're not sure whether the restrictions apply to a given article, they probably do. The exact wording of the restrictions is here; although they're written in fairly technical wiki-legalese, they can be summarised as "avoid getting into fights on the subject of sexism or misogyny, even if you feel something is seriously wrong, without discussing it". – iridescent 09:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, avoid getting into edit-wars about Gamergate, even if you know that you are on the side of right, because Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. However, you already knew that, so, as Iridescent said, the basic rule is to be very careful in discussions about sexism or mysogyny. That doesn't mean don't edit them, but be very careful that your editing is collaborative and not tendentious or disruptive. ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions are not meant to prevent editing. They are meant to provide a quicker mechanism for sanctions against editors who edit disruptively; that is, they make it easier to punish bad editing, and are not intended to discourage collaborative editing. Editing anywhere should be collaborative. Just don't try to push against consensus. The problem in GamerGate is that consensus is elusive and there are editors who are determined (sometimes with a great deal of off-wiki discussion) to push minority POVs. I hope that this clarifies. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_371&oldid=1142564651"