Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 605

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 600

←

Archive 603

→

Photos of art work - rights inquiry

Hello! Art photograph & Commons question. What's the word on an editor taking and uploading photographs of a work of art -- how about a large installation -- at a museum. Let's say the installation was made by the artist in the mid-1980s and acquired by the museum in the 1990s. Who has the rights to taking and distributing images of that piece of art? Can someone help me find information to suss this out a little? Thank you! Monikasj (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And an addition to this, I'm having a small world moment right now because I believe User:Bfpage -- the teahouse host right now! -- I'm actually inquiring about this because I saw the photo you took and uploaded to Commons and it got me thinking that I wanted to understand copyright better ... I'd like to take this a sign that I shall invite you to a conversation -- because you're doing awesome things and I'd love to tell you more about what I'm up to -- would you be up for that?? Monikasj (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Monikasj. Copyright is complex so any brief answer will not be complete. First, no photos should be taken unless the museum allows photos. If the art is copyright free, usually because it is very old, then photos can be uploaded to Commons for use by anyone for any purpose. In the case you describe, the artist or their heirs probably still own the copyright although the museum owns the physical objects. So, such images can only be hosted here on Wikipedia and used in a limited way in the context of critical commentary about the art work. Please see our policy on use of non-free images #7 for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What does tag mean?

I mean in the sense that in some edit summaries of admins who block users, they simply write "tag" or "tagged". What exactly does that mean? RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 9:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, RockMusicFan 2002 (I see that your signature is still accompanied by an incorrect timestamp). It would help if you could provide a link to an edit where such a summary was used, but the context that springs to my mind in which I have seen this term used is the blocking of sockpuppets, where it is used to refer to the placement of the {{sockpuppet}} template on a user page. Does that sound like what you've seen? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The timestamp is also missing the leading 0. I don't believe it's made with four tildes. Please sign posts with ~~~~. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I previously asked RockMusicFan 2002 about that at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_602#Why are "good hand" accounts blocked?, PrimeHunter, due to this edit, which wouldn't have been needed if four tildes had been used to generate the signature, but RockMusicFan 2002 replied that they had used four tildes. Strange. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked from Wikipedia

No, this noob is an Vandalism-only account Yunoselect5 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Blair Imani

Is Blair Imani notable enough for their own page?

Jazzybell (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jazzybell Do you have any particular concerns? The relevant guideline for the notability of the subject of a biography is Wikipedia:Notability (people). If I were to review he article, I would look for a couple of things: Is there significant coverage? Are there multiple sources? Are those sources reliable and independent of the subject? I would say yes to all of those. The coverage she has received is significant, because the articles you cite are primarily about her, and not mere mentions of her. The sources are media outlets that are under editorial control, are know to fact-check and are independent of the subject (unlike, for example http://equalityforher.com/, which is not a reliable, independent source). Is she known for only one event? No, she's known for several things. I think notability is not an issue here. Thanks for your contribution! 01:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs)

how to create a page for a musician

having a hard time making this a success...any help would be great!:)Kross2017 (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kross2017 and welcome to the Teahouse. An article you created, Kathy ross was deleted shortly after you created it under the Speedy deletion criteria A7: No indication of importance and G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Also, your username may have raised the suspicion that you tried to write an autobiography. If you're not Kathy Ross and you want to try again, while getting some feedback from other editors, you can use the Article wizard. I recommend that you click the link Learn a bit more about creating articles first. Please make sure to include references to reliable (mainstream) sources (books, newspapers, magazines) that provide substantial coverage (i.e. discuss the subject in-depth) and are independent of the subject, not written or controlled by them. Mduvekot 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Kross2017, I recommend that you read our Notability guideline for musicians. Please be sure that any future article about this musician complies with that guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kross2017: Please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising or social media service. (See WP:WWIN.) Our articles are not for any musician or whomever, they are about them. That means in general we're not interested in what specific person, company or society thinks or says about themselves; we are interested in – and we base on – what other, independent and reliable sources, say about them. (See WP:SOURCE.) If there's not enough coverage in such sources, the subject is not considered notable enough (in a specific, Wikipedia sense) to get an article about them. (See WP:NOTABILITY.) --CiaPan (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Business Services

Can i provide our business list of services in a company wikipedia page or not?

Thanks.

Shanmuki (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shanmuki. Probably not, is the simple answer to your question. Wikipedia doesn't host "company pages" - only encyclopedia articles about notable businesses, as judged by the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Such articles should cover the business concerned in a neutral manner, which sometimes means including criticism of the company. Moreover, as an employee or owner of the business, you would need to comply with the requirements set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you wanted to write about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

article

how can i write a biography about a artist an upload it to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.235.194.26 (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please start by reading Your first article. If you are the artist in question, or in any way connected with them, please also read about Conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Create an article

Hi for my sandbox, I don't have create, or create source. I think I'm stuck in Editing user and I need to be a creating user. How do I change this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nbuend/sandbox&action=edit Nbuend (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nbuend. I'm afraid I don't understand your question. There is no such thing as a "creating user". You create a page by editing a non-existing page. You appear to have created your sandbox User:Nbuend/sandbox, so perhaps that is all you were trying to do. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Which part, in exact, is promotional or looks like advertisement?

Hi,

I have recently wrote an article but was rejected, reason being it reads more like an advertisement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PR1ME_Mathematics_Teaching_Programme

No matter how many times I read through the article, I am unable to point out which parts reads more like an advertisement. Please help me!

Thank you so much. Shingggg (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shingggg, it's not about any particular part, the entire draft is written like a promotional brochure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Shingggg. For that particular issue, I got as far as the third sentence. No Wikipedia article should use words like "innovative" or "effective" or "top-performing", unless it is directly quoting from indepdendent published sources. Please read and study your first article, to understand that Wikipedia articles should be based nearly 100% on what reliable published sourcces with no connection to the subject have said about the subject. You also need to rad about referencing for beginners to understand that Wikipedia may never ever be used as a reference, since it is in inherently unreliable (though many of the words you have tried to reference should indeed be WP:Wikilinked, but that is different), and that we require substantial treatment of the subject in reliable published sources independent of the subject, and that is what almost the whole of the article should be based on. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How to get license for images?

Files

etc need license.So I and User:Abishe are in tremendous confusion about it rupa$$$ (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rupalavanyan, I'm not sure what you are asking, but you probably need to understand that most images that you find on the Internet are protected by copyright and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Please read WP:Image use policy. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rupalavanyan, I have formatted your post to avoid displaying these problematic files directly on this page - as ColinFine mentioned, such files are copyrighted and can usually not be used without explicit permission (more info in the linked policy). Please use [[:File:xyz.jpg]] to link files in talkpages and other forums outside of articles. GermanJoe (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Attributing copyright on pictures

I am an academic presently working on H G Wells and thought I'd use the opportunity to tidy-up and edit some of the H G Wells entries on Wikipedia. I think I understand the protocols of doing so, but would like to upload better quality images of some of the covers of first editions of Wells's books. I own some of these myself and can upload my own photographs, but don't know if that's permitted (in effect posting my personal photos of book covers to Wikipedia) and if it is how I attribute and assign copyright.Dracascot (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dracascot. Unless the covers are out of copyright (or the copyright holders agree to release them under a free licence like WP:CC-BY-SA), they cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in the usual way. However, book covers are one of the items which are commonly used under our non-free criteria. As long as the image, and the way it is used, satisfies all the criteria in the non-free content criteria, then you can upload it to Wikipedia (rather than to Commons). --ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dracascot. ColinFine covered most of it, but I will add a bit.

First of all, the copyright status. If your photographs are (fairly) faithful reproductions of the covers (no significant new artistic touch - e.g. this is a faithful reproduction and building-related copyrights apply, that is not), the copyright status of those cover arts matter; you do not own the copyrights just because you own the physical book.

In the case of H.G. Wells' books original covers, it is quite tricky because the cover art could be public domain. This tells us that in the United Kingdom where HG Wells' books were first published (and the cover art with them), the copyright length of published works is 70 years after author's death. So Wells' writings are public domain (he died in 1946) but the cover art is probably not Wells'. One would need to know who the artist is and at what date they died.

Otherwise, the default is to consider the work non-free; in which case, one of the non-free content criteria is minimal usage which means that the images should be of low quality. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you: that's helpful, and clear. Dracascot (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How to edit

How do i edit proper stuff.Dacraz (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dacraz. The page Help:Editing gives lots of information on how to edit. Take a look at that, and if you still have questions, please do ask them back here at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Submission of an article in my sandbox

Hello, I’ve just translated from French (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Kongo) into English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:F%C3%A9licie/sandbox) an article about French street artist Kongo (I am the author of the French article). I would like my English translation to be re-read, first because I am afraid my English is not as colloquial as it should be. And also because I am unsure about the references I chose : should I prefer a reference in French from a famous French newspaper, or a reference in English from a source I never heard about (or both ?). Thanks a lot to anybody who might help ! Félicie Félicie (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Félicie. From a quick look at the article, it looks decent enough for the mainspace, no need to worry about the English (if there are mistakes, they can be fixed afterwards). There is a bit of borderline promotional language here and there but that is easily fixed.

The English Wikipedia guidance about non-English sources is found at WP:NONENG: basically, foreign sources are OK, though everything else being equal it is better to use an English-speaking source.

I encourage you to template the article with {{translated page|fr|Cyril Kongo}} to provide attribution.

Finally, if you want a reviewer to look at the draft, you can add {{subst:submit}} to it, it will make it go through the Articles for Creation process. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)~

Hello Tigraan, and thank you for your answer. I'll try to correct my article so as to make it as neutral as possible before I publish it and I will follow your tips regarding how I should proceed. Thanks again ! --Félicie (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Félicie

@Félicie: Some more information may also be found at WP:Translation, and regulars concerning translation(s) are usually hanging out at WP:PNT. Lectonar (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank your very much for your help Lectonar, and for publishing my article into the mainspace.--Félicie (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If the subject is your stepson you need to read Wikipedia's advice regarding conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello David, I have read those very carefully when I wrote the French article, and carefully followed advice given to me to avoid any promotionnal talk (he is my stepson, but he nonetheless has notability !)--Félicie (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Tennessee Williams nasal spray bottle?

Tennessee Williams did not use a nasal spray. He used drops to lower the pressure in the eyes which was then the way to prevent glaucoma. Robert Carroll 07:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Carroll (talk • contribs)

Hello Robert Carroll. As far as I can see, the article Tennessee Williams does not say that he used a nasal spray. It says (referenced to the NYT) that he "had choked to death from inhaling the plastic cap of a nasal spray dispenser.". If you think that this is wrong, the place to discuss it is on Talk:Tennessee Williams. But you will not make much headway unless you have a reliable published source for whatever information you wish to introduce to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that the NYT source states that he "choked to death on a plastic cap of the type used on bottles of nasal spray or eye solution". Cordless Larry (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reworded with this edit, Robert Carroll. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't care about making 'headway' because I know the facts and have just posted an explanation of circumstances that make me believe otherwise. Think about it. I knew the guy. Regards, Robert

73.85.203.133 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Colin, I just got a msg some time ago that the page had been changed and finally got around to making a reply. Each night Tom would read in bed and once he was finished, he'd unscrew the top of his eye drop bottle with his teeth, tilt his head back and do the drops. I didn't see either the autopsy or police reports but was just replying to what I thought had been a change to his page. I was tempted to detail this in my bio, 'Chez Nous - My Intimate Life with Tennessee Williams' but prefer to avoid the morbid. Edgar Allen Poe died in a gutter addicted to laudanum (sp?) and Charles Baudelaire ended in final stages of syphilis. Hemingway used a shot gun but ends are insignificant when it comes to detail. One thing I'd like Wikipedia to correct is the spelling of Miss Rose's name - it was Isabel, not what they have on that cheap-### brass plaque Dakin could afford. She was named after her maternal mother, Rose Isabel Ott, who was of German descent. Oh, well, things do tend to come right in the end. Best wishes, Robert 73.85.203.133 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robert. I moved your reply to the right section, and I reformatted both your replies to get rid of blank lines. The problem Wikipedia has is that, because anybody can edit it, it is fundamentally unreliable. In order to make it useful nonetheless, we require that (in the ideal) every piece of information in it is referenced to a reliable published source. Your personal knowledge, like mine, is not acceptable, because a reader has no way of verifying it: even if I, in this discussion, accept that you are somebody that knew Williams (and, without wanting to be rude, I have no reason to accept that: On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog), that doesn't help a reader next week or next month or next year who finds information in the article which they have no way of verifying. Unfortunately this does sometimes mean that we privilege verifiabililty over truth. If your version of events were published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking, then it could be put in the article. The same applies to the name (though as far as I can see, the article says Isabel, which is what you are saying it should be). In any case, the right place for discussions like these is the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How to translate a page I created into Spanish for the Spanish Wikipedia?

I created the English Wikipedia page Brainvoyager a year ago.

Now I have this page translated into Spanish.

I don't know how to realize the Spanisch version on the Spanish Wikipedia and link the English and Spanish to each other in the left sidebar.

I can provide the full translation in Spanish upon request.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Kind regards,

Deirdre Ross

Deirdre Ross (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Deirdre Ross. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own rules and procedures. But I think the answer is that you create the article in eswiki as a new article, and insert the text you have translated; but as required by the licence conditions, you must attribute the source. You can link the two articles together using WikiData: in enwiki there is a link "Edit links" under the list of language links in the sidebar which you can use to link a foreign-language article to that one. I think you will find WP:Translate us covers most of this. --ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this song relevant?

Hello Everyone!

I am wondering if I should create a page for the Birdy single "Words". You can see it on youtube. It has almost 3.8 million views and it is mentioned on the Wikipedia page "Beautiful Lies", with release date. On the page "Wild Horses (birdy song)" it has a kind of a link, only it is covered in red. Is it worth my while creating an article of this kind, or would I be wasting my time?

Thank you very much! Pianoguysfan (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pianoguysfan. Please read our Notability guideline for songs. If you can provide references to significant coverage in reliable independent sources that show that the song meets that guideline, then you can write an article about it. Please be aware that X number of YouTube views by itself is not enough to establish notability, nor is being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to add on to this: I checked the song in question and cannot find it on any major chart listings. If a song charts, say on the Billboard Hot 100, it is presumed notable. Without that, it needs to pass GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How to stop these editors

Pls advise re the most appropriate procedure to follow. There has been interminable fruitless discussion of wording choice at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. An October 2016 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) stated “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident …”; the January 2017 DNI report stated "high confidence in these judgments”. Per National Intelligence Estimate, the term 'high confidence' indicates "still carry a risk of being wrong”. Some editors insist on saying "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that …” rather than “concluded with high confidence” (or alternatively, “alleged that”) relying on RS's that 'unreliably' say "concluded". Such editors have been in the majority and refuse to allow an NPOV bias tag on the article page. How does one proceed toward preventing these or any similarly inclined editors from making these changes? Humanengr (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I would solve this not by NPOV, but rather by OR. Consider that those other editors are inserting their own interpretation of the known facts. It is true what you have said about "high confidence" being a hedge against implying "dead certainty."--Quisqualis (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Humanengr. What you are essentially saying above is "I am right and they are wrong. How can I stop them doing their wrong thing?". The answer is that Wikipedia does not work like that, and you can't. Wikipedia works on consensus, and we have a dispute resolution procedure to help us reach that consensus. You need to follow the steps of that procedure - and posting an entrenched position here is not part of the process. (Please understand that I am not saying that you are right or that you are wrong: I have deliberately not read the meat of your argument above: I am advising you how to proceed within Wikipedia's policies and processes). --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx, ColinFine. Yes, my q was re WP policies and processes. Will proceed through DRN. Humanengr (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Follow-on q if I may: Given the large number of editors involved (20 on the 'wrong' side and 11 on the 'not wrong' side), should the DRN identify all these editors so they can be invited to write summary positions? Or should only a selection be so invited and the remainder simply notified of the DRN? Humanengr (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

With 31 editors expressing opinions, if this dispute were brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard, I would decline it for having an unworkably large number of editors. It would probably also be difficult to take it to formal mediation. With such a large number of editors, the most workable dispute resolution mechanism is a Request for Comments. However, it is likely that the RFC, starting with the already listed editors, will result in something like 40 to 22. There is already a rough consensus, so that an RFC can be used to formalize and finalize the consensus, but it is unlikely to change anything. Sometimes a majority disagree with you, and sometimes the best action is to accept an opinion with which you disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine and Robert McClenon: This issue is deserving of more critical treatment. 1) Editors are refusing to allow NPOV tags on articles that are clearly viewed as problematic by a substantive fraction of editors 2) A report issued with terms of art with clear plain language definitions is rephrased by a large fraction of RS's in a manner that obscures and perverts the clear meaning, but those RS's remain classed as 'reliable'; 3) Editors don't check 2ary sources against 1ary sources for cited claims or, if they do, do not understand plain language therein and are therefore not qualified to edit contentious articles. I would think this a matter of grave concern for the viability of WP. Which forum is appropriate to adjudicate such issues? I don't see how to address these within the confines of a single article. Humanengr (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If any brave Admins happen to read this thread, the article is in sore need of some tough love Discretionary Sanctions enforcement. The 20+ editors of the consensus have repeatedly asked the handful of complainants to drop the stick, but they seem to reach for bigger and better sticks each time. Nobody has the stomach for AE board drama, but many recognize the need for enforcement, imo. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources are the ones we generally use per policy. If a user thinks this is wrong raise it at the police page, not an article talk page. Also for (at least) 4 da§ys the lead has said that " (ODNI) expressed "high confidence", I will say it again, in the lead. Why do we need a POV tag when the article says this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Slatersteven: Kindly read my proposal that JFG asked me to put in the Survey section of the RfC. (JFG offered a further mod in the Discussion section.) I believe that will obviate the need for further discussion here. Humanengr (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of behavior that's disrupting the article. Forum shopping and repeated RfC's on the same subject and then temporary respite and retreat when the community says "no thanks." Your POV tagging ally JFG also warned you not to WP:CANVASS partisan support to the article talk page. [1] SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

With apologies to the admins, but SPECIFICO misrepresents in significant part. (My intent as I indicated to SPECIFICO was to invite SPECIFICO and others opposed to prior edits. And this proposal arose from discussion with one of those editors.) Humanengr (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but yes this does rather look like forum shopping. Hell you even say we do not need to discus this here, so why did you raise it here? I addressed the points you raised here, not on that articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thx re referral to policy page. And thx for responding on article talk. Humanengr (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The article is under WP:1RR and discretionary sanctions. If you feel that editors need to be sanctioned then open an AE request instead of posting vague complaints in various places. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I would do. What I was trying to say was that we need more editors who would do as you have done -- keep an eye on these articles so that they stay on track and formal AE discussions are not necessary. I may be wrong and it could just be that I don't understand how Arbcom intended it to work, but I thought that an important purpose of DS was to avoid formal AE insofar as possible. In my opinion, AE threads have repeatedly devolved into ANI-like food fights recently, consuming a lot of editor and Admin attention and deterring enforcement requests. That's intended to be a general statement, not a vague accusation. Anyway, this may be the wrong page for extended discussion of AE matters. Thanks for your feedback. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not archive lengthy discussion pages more frequently?

When I caught sight of the Sections scrollbox on the Teahouse page, I realized that this was a bridge too far. I cannot scan through a heterogeneous list with only chronologial order as an organizing principle. Whatever space constraints are forcing the use of the scrollbox simply should not exist, in light of the option of archiving. I am a fast scanner, but not in segments, not to mention my computer has scrolled jerkily since I got Windows 7. Somehow, my short-term memory is exceeded by the scollbox list format, making navigating sometimes gigantic Talk and Teahouse sections (over 17 screenpages) and pages (uncountable screenpages) nearly impossible. Is this the best page to mention this? Suggestions?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Quisqualis. The Teahouse just recently changed to a bottom posting arrangement, as is common on Wikipedia. At the top of the page is a convenient link that allows readers to jump to the bottom with a single click. The decision about how often to archive a page is a trade-off between keeping the page size manageable and keeping conversations on this page for the benefit of new editors who asked a question and may not check in every day. I agree that the number of unarchived conversations is now somewhat excessive, in my subjective opinion. The best place to discuss this in detail is Wikipedia talk: Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I think top-posting will be less of a problem for the infrequent editors, going forward; given that the latency of Teahouse email feedback has shortened dramatically in the past several days.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting is that the oldest unarchived conversation here goes back only eight days. There are many discussion pages on Wikipedia containing stale conversations going back months or years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You're not kidding! Here is an option I've considered: Could there not be a search box at the top of the page for an editor to enter their username, and the software would then jump to their most recent contribution, with a "next button" somewhere nearby? Then it would be fine to go back to top posting, which, as you implied, allows a shorter page length. I will post this on Wikipedia talk: Teahouse , as you recommended, as well, with my original comments. Is my logic OK ? (I don't want to propose the impossible).--Quisqualis (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Many browsers have that search feature on Ctrl+F. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have Firefox.Quisqualis (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Quisqualis,Cullen328: Questions are archived by the date of last comment, not the date the questions were asked. So the oldest are only four days old. The list is not normally this long. Some questions, such as the first at the moment, have had long discussions. And there was a large influx of questions on Sunday. Things should get back to normal since archiving takes place daily. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's xx:xx where this user lives

i can't find this userbox, can someone please help me? Lil Johnny (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lil Johnny. There are several at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Time. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Hostbot

What is this exactly about? Theiod (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Theiod. This is a forum for anyone but especially new users to ask questions. Hostbot is a bot that gives welcome messages with invites here to new users. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so how do i let my page appear to google search? Theiod (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What did Hostbot tell you? Do you want to see your WP article on a Google search? I am assuming you can pull it up on WP.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your article isn't found on Wikipedia. Google can't find it.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

My wikipedia gets deleted every time I make it live

My article has content that sounds like promotion but actually are facts. Every time when I put it live it gets deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.41.218 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you give us a wikilink to the article concerned, or a diff to the relevant edit, then we can check and advise you. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If your article contains facts, then these should have been obtained from WP:Reliable sources independent of the subject. If you didn't include such references then you risk deletion every time. Dbfirs 12:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the article in question is Webkul, previously deleted twice for unambiguous advertising or promotion and no credible indication of importance. Funcrunch (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your use of "make it live" indicates that you think WP is a place for self-expression or self-promotion just like MySpace and YouTube. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Is MySpace not working for you? Wikipedia is a hopeless venture, if promotion is your aim.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In which case, advice was given at User talk:Cloudkul. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Further advice: when an article is nominated for deletion, rather than removing the AfD template, you should state your case for keeping the article on its deletion discussion page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webkul in this instance). Repeatedly doing the former will get you blocked, as you have just found out. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Why encourage people to be confusing and ignorant

Nothing to see here

Trolling. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is it encouraged in WP to create situations that create rules and policies that can only be explained as encouraging people to be confusing and ignorant.

I hope you have a refreshing beverage and have visited the facility because this just might take a white; although those with lap top and convenience capabilities may be able to take their machine just to wherever you may need to be although they do say that if you can smell it then you are encountering it and are thus open to exposure of just what you may only want to go down the drain rather than in a space that you rather be clean of disease and sickness.

I am not one to take on things that have at the start to involve leaps and bounds or even a slip of an attempt to set the bar or clarify just what is best for a longer period of time than a human life or endurance of a statement.

I do not do remembering as well as I probably should but I hope that I do not do confusion as well as I have seen it at times in WP. There is an advantage of technology in that as it develops its phases can bring about technology that has a longer shelf life than other formats. I am not particularly at one with technology but do what I can to get along with it when my orbit encounters it and my self-assurance rises to the question of its use.

Well, one day I saw a movie, not a movie society top 100 classics example but one I saw earlier and subjected by passing time to seeing it again. Then I decided to use my critical time and consult WP to see at what level was this article developed since what is done at the beginning can be very different that what is done toward the end of developing a WP article.

For some reason my attention was drawn to the word bathroom because in the US when we have need to use a facility of the nature of a bathroom we really are seeking out a restroom since we really have need to defecate and urinate and wash the hands rather than bath the entire body. And, maybe because of the development of housing and public conveniences in the US is so different than in other parts of the world we may colloquially call a restroom, a place without bathing facilities, a bathroom instead of a restroom if by mere habit of one reference over the other. Yet, in our mind understand full well that the absolute term for a facility of defecation and urination needs is not a bathroom such as would be found in many a home in the mass of US tract homes but a restroom in the sense of what is commonly found in many US office complexes that do not including showering conveniences. Instead locker rooms and a private gym would have a commercial bathroom rather than a domestic bathroom.

Then I was told by someone who I imagine was well meaning about WP policy but who expressed this policy in an air of absolute rather than based on previous standing conditions of reducing or eliminating confusion.

It has to be accepted and encouraged that there are in life values and terms that are more true and appropriate than making it possible to open up to far greater confusion and community disagreement establishing guidelines and policies and rules.

At what point is it that WP recognizes that it is not always a good idea to encourage reliance on some of these developed guidelines, policies and rules if what comes froth is encouraging people to use words or expressions that although voiced really are never intended to supplant the idea that would encouraged the use of the wrong word and thus was not the intention of WP and in an expressive society understanding just what is it that what one expresses means particular ideas or actions is paramount.

The issue was about the use of words that if found in the source is encouraged to be used in the article. This is setting up a situation of confrontation instead of minimalizing a situation of conflict. Mind you, there is a right word for a situation-- the action took place in a public convenience in the US usually called a restroom because the purpose of that room is not to bath or shower but to defecate or urinate. In fact, the language used in the charge of arrest was restroom so there is a preponderance of recognizing that in the world of restroom versus bathroom terms restroom was correct as no bathing facilities were included. But then an officer of the law in his report about the incident said bathroom instead of restroom and I would venture to say that if there has been the need to sidebar the issue it would have come down to come linguist consultation that the word bathroom was incorrect and thus not appropriate. But now that the word had made it into the source bathroom was an available term although the incident occurred in a restroom.

Making bathroom available did not better clarify the situation as the incident was not at a home or a facility that could be confused with a home and thus more conducive with an expression of bathroom than restroom. Basically, the WP policy set up a situation of conflict instead of neutral resolution. There was not approach made to limit how the place of incidence was described appropriate to its function but instead insisting that a term that by all accounts was a mistake and by using bathroom was an acceptable falsehood because the incident never took place in a bathroom; instead it was in an international airport restroom.

Does WP reduce the occasion of conflict by incorporating the relevance of term use or encourage mal-term use by overstepping on what is truth and what is a falsehood. An apple will always be an apple and never an orange regardless how many times someone makes reference to the apple as an orange. Yet, with what WP has instituted there will be encouraged misapplication.

I will not even get into the issue that could be made about insisting that the use of the tern bathroom be done so as to exacerbate potential emotional issue of sexual activity related to the incident. WP is not the appropriate body to measure just what manner is best to make it all the more possible for particular views to be more accepted than others.2605:E000:9152:8F00:308A:228A:B0E0:AE28 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Wikipedia articles use the terminology most commonly used in the reliable sources that we summarize. We also use the variety of English that corresponds with the topic. The word "bathroom" may well be illogical, but the word is widely understood by speakers of American English.

I will assume by your answer that you want WP to be confusing and its writers supporters of lying. No need to reply as that is already expressed in WP articles. I will miss your discussions regarding this article.2605:E000:9152:8F00:CD8D:52CE:EE24:FF5D (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On another point, this is a volunteer project and we have a strong ethos in favor of direct, succinct expression. Your section header and your text are far too long for the point you are trying to make, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You tend to repeat yourself. Just in case you do not comprehend, I will miss your discussions on this subject. All the best with your work.2605:E000:9152:8F00:CD8D:52CE:EE24:FF5D (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Original editor: Please read Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I can understand that you are unable to contribute if you are unwilling to explore. All the best with your wok.2605:E000:9152:8F00:CD8D:52CE:EE24:FF5D (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I shortened the 620-character heading which is now the two first paragraphs in the post. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for what you did although I would suggest that it might be better for WP if less is proposed rather than encouraging people to be confusing and ignorant.2605:E000:9152:8F00:CD8D:52CE:EE24:FF5D (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Cullen328" If you have concerns about understanding something without reading it then I wish you all the success you can make of not joining us in the discussion.2605:E000:9152:8F00:CD8D:52CE:EE24:FF5D (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I do look forward to learning about the benefit to WP of having people use words merely because they are there in the source rather illogical. All that this will do is encourage people to use words in their expression that confuse so that later when these misused words are found in a source those misused words continue to confuse the reader. It is one thing to in a quote to use the same words that are found in a source but to create new text based on sources and use the misleading word just because it is in the source is rather useless. In all probability the reason the misapplied word is in the source is from the damaged character of the writer. They are in the source is because the person did not know any better. It would seem of better benefit to WP that instead of allowing a wrong word to be used in an article merely because its wrong use existed in the source; it would be better for WP to avoid confusing people than clarifying a situation.

If an incident occurred in a restroom, a room of particular qualities and traits, then to use the word bathroom, another room of particular qualities and traits, that to interchange them just because they have been found interchanged in a source encourages people to be confusing and thus display ignorance. For WP to agree that a word that is not the best example to be used is called for it to be used just because it was used in the source just confuses people particularly when the two words have minimal shared traits and thus appropriate use in the expression. A restroom is not a place one showers or baths although I believe the expression "golden showers" would be appropriate to explain what one is doing in a defecation or urination facility and said to be using such a convenience correctly by having someone urinate in a gold color on someone else and thus achieve a golden shower in a defecation or urination facility? But a shower stall normally would not be found in a facility that was for defecation and urination and any stall to be found in a restroom for defecation or urination would be a defecation stall or urination equipment attached to the wall of a restroom. I would not expect a stall for defecation or urination to be found in a bathroom where one would expect to find a showering or bathing stall. Even a locker room or private exercise gym would have facilities closer to that of a home bathroom where defecation, urination and bathing could be accomplished. But then as WP has made a judgement on this very narrow instance nd then has brought its full force to be applicable on instances that had best be found applicable under different conditions had best be changed as inappropriate, confusing and a display of ignorance.2605:E000:9152:8F00:CD8D:52CE:EE24:FF5D (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous IP editor, I actually read your comments, and you are either trolling us or you lack self-control. Please drop the stick and move along. Thank you, and I wish you well with whatever is going on with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Sir, How to How to show my wikipedia listing on google.

Dear Sir, How to How to show my wikipedia listing on google. Yjangir (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yjangir. The only other page you have edited is your own user page, which is User:Yjangir. Google does not index user pages on Wikipedia. If you want to write an encyclopedia article, then please read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

After you edit awhile (several years), your user page may come up on DuckDuckGo. :) The Transhumanist 06:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for your knowledge, the difference between Wikipedia and social media is nearly infinite. Wikipedia is a project which accumulates knowledge for the benefit of society.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I cite Twitter?

There is a claim on an article saying that an author of a series confirmed that there will be 9 books in the series on Twitter. It had no citation.

I've found the tweet, but I don't know how to cite it. VerifiedCactus 100% 00:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, VerifiedCactus. A tweet is a self-published source which must be used with extreme care. Please see the shortcut WP:TWITTER. Avoid citing self-serving claims in a tweet, and it seems to me that an author's claim about unpublished future books is self-serving. Since Twitter is a website, I suggest that you use Template:Cite web in cases where referencing a tweet is appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We do have {{Cite tweet}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished books may be mentioned by citing a published media source, mentioning that a reliable media source (not a PR agency) said on such a date that books were to be published, by a named publisher, or that they existed in unpublished form.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)