Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 213

How to get permission to upload a picture in plain English.
I'm trying to upload a picture from my magazine. I did not take the picture. Somebody else took it. The photographer has given me full permission to get the picture up on my wikipedia page. Now how do I do it?

Here is the link to the picture on my website. http://vegasrocks.com/?p=1757

Here is the link to my talk page where the picture got deleted.

I'm sure I put in the wrong type of content license because I am not a copyright lawyer. I just need whatever works to get the picture up.

TIA

Rocksinnerqueen 14:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are Sally Steele then please have a read of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY before continuing to work on the article about you. We generally discourage writing about oneself. --LukeSurlt c 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Rocksinnerqueen. Unfortunately we are not able to take your word that the photographer granted you permission to use the photo on Wikipedia - even if he/she has, that level of permission is not sufficient. The only pictures we can use here are those that have been released under a CC-BY-SA licence - that is to say, they are free to reuse, alter and sell, by anyone at any time, inperpetuity. If the photographer is willing to release their picture under these terms, they will need to contact Wikipedia directly and confirm that they are happy to use this licence. Details of how they can do so can be found at Donating Copyrighted Materials. Yunshui 雲 水  14:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, this is not Sally Steele. I am a volunteer for her website that was given the project of writing an article for her.

Rocksinnerqueen 14:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)


 * So can I just put a copyleft notice on the picture on the website to get it up then? If so, exactly WHAT copyleft notice should I use?

Rocksinnerqueen 14:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License Yunshui 雲 水 14:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the HTML: 
 * As regards the picture, we cannot allow the picture on Wikipedia unless the copyright holder explicitly agrees to release the image under a free license. This would not only allow the image to be used on Wikipedia, but also by anyone in the world, for any purpose, with no commercial reimbursement. It is quite rare that professional photographers wish to do this, for obvious reasons. If the photographer has given you permission to use the image on your website, please check with him/her that they are OK with this free license. Reclassifying the license of an image you do not own would be illegal.
 * The image was deleted before because you tried to claim it as what we call "fair use", i.e. a photo that is in copyright, but is essential to the article and could not possibly be replaced with a freely licensed image. For portraits of living people this is almost never permissible, as a new photograph could be taken of the individual tomorrow and released under a free license.
 * It would be entirely permissible for you to take a photo of Ms. Steele and upload it under a free license.
 * Sorry if this seems byzantine. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, as if it didn't it could find itself being sued or shut down by the State of Florida (where the servers are located). --LukeSurlt c 14:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks you for your help Yunshui 雲水

So...

If I cut & paste that code and put it on the website with the pic, I can reupload it and it shouldn't be a problem? Correct?

Rocksinnerqueen 14:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)
 * Please check with the photographer first. Your permission to use their photograph on your website does not give you legal permission to then permit anyone in the world to use the image for free for any purpose, which is what the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License means. Please check that they are aware what rights they would be surrendering. --LukeSurlt c 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you have suitable permissions from the photographer (and any other contributors to the website), then yes - if not, adding that code could in theory leave you personally liable if they choose to pursue legal action for copyright infringement. It is up to you to ensure that your website is legally licenced; Wikipedia editors - myself included - cannot and will not offer legal advice. Yunshui 雲 水 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggested a name change (move) for an article, I'd like to finish the process
Hello,

last week I suggested a name change for an article. According to the protocols, the request must stay in the discussion board for a minimum of seven days until the discussion can be closed and the name can be changed (if it is approved of course).

Today is the seventh day, and I'd like to know what the next step is to change the article name. If I asked for the change, can I also be the one to close the discussion? How do I go about doing that?

Many thanks,

SRLMSRLM (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me know here or on my talk page. What is the title of your page, what should be the new title.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The page is Confederación Andina de Fomento

I requested the name to be changed to: CAF - development bank of Latin America

SMLRSRLM (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've checked, to me "CAF - development bank of Latin America" sounded more of a common name, page title has been changed, check it.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @OccultZone thanks a lot! do I have to post another suggestion on the talk page if want to change the name of the page in a different language (Spanish and Portuguese)? I want those to have the new name in those languages as well.

SRLMSRLM (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a previously edited article
Hi, i'm inquiring about uploading an article that has already been edited and professionally reviewed (it was supposed to be a monograph on White Spruce), but i've been asked to upload it to Wikipedia. It's quite long, about 600 pages and 127 pages of references so i'm just wondering what the best way to upload it would be. Perhaps I should create a user space and subpages for each of the 6 chapters and then when I have formatted everything correctly I could get assistance to make it live on Wikipedia? Thanks Nmcke (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. However, while I can't tell without seeing it, I'm immediately wondering whether an article you have written for somewhere else is likely to be suitable for Wikipedia. In particular, you need to be aware that original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a scholarly journal, and articles should draw all their content from published sources (though they mustn't violate copyright): any kind of argumentation, synthesis, or conclusions which are not found in the sources should not appear in a Wikipedia article.
 * If your monograph does meet the criteria I've mentioned, then you can use it: but you need to be concerned about copyright. When you submit material to Wikipedia, you irrevocably license it under a CC-BY-SA licence, which allows anybody to use it for any purpose. If the material is your own work and has not been published anywhere, you can choose to submit and license it in this way; but if it is not your own work, or if it has previously been published anywhere that (even implicitly) claims copyright, then you would need the copyright holder to explicitly licence under one of the acceptable licences: see donating copyright materials for the procedure that must be followed.
 * Finally, the paper as you have described it is far too long for a Wikipedia article: it would need to be split, but each part of it must stand alone as a Wikipedia article.
 * My advice to you, from what you have said, would be to abandon the idea of submitting the paper as it stands, and instead see if you can improve existing articles (such as White spruce) - remembering that you must not insert original research. --ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Maybe your article would be suitable for Wikisource. I haven't used it myself, but you could start with their Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource and see where it gets you. As ColinFine mentioned, you'll have to solve the copyright issues. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Changed an article name in English, now I want to do the same thing for Spanish and Portuguese
Hello.

I changed an article name in english, but the same article is translated in multiple languages. I'd like to know if there is a way I can change the names of the same article in multiple languages without haveing to go through the "article move" process all over again.

Many thanks,

SRLMSRLM (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, SRLM, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, decisions about articles in the English Wikipedia don't effect articles in other language Wikipedias.  What may be appropriate here is not necessarily acceptable elsewhere, and must be discussed there.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Copy that. Thank you very much!

SRLM (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Newbie.
Hi. I am pretty new here but I am a fast learner. I have already read about vandalism and page deletion. Is there any other important policy's I should be aware of? --BarsofGold (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarsofGold (talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, BarsofGold, and welcome to the Tea House! Signing your communications is one thing to be aware of. Just add four tildes ( ~ ). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a welcome banner to your talk page with some helpful information. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall start reading right away.--BarsofGold (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)--BarsofGold (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, BarsofGold. I have also added another list which I was given when I joined Wikipedia.  Careful; it's addictive, and there is no end to it....  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

ADDING REQUESTED CITATIONS TO ARTICLES BY OTHERS
Hi there,

I've recently gotten side tracked adding requested citations to other peoples articles, and wonder if, rather than leaving them for (perhaps) months (years?) for the references to be approved, is there any agreed procedure for presenting the articles for approval/disapproval, after adding the citations?

Thanks,

Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Wikipedia doesn't really have a concept of approving articles, other than the "review" process (which is available, but not required, for new articles). If you can fix a problem, just do it: you don't need to get anybody's approval. If you are not sure about your change, there are various places you might ask: the article's talk page, the user talk page of some people who have edited the article (or the person who added the tag you are responding to, if you can be bothered to trawl through the article's history and find them); or a relevant WikiProject. But none of that is required. --ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine, that's very helpful! Should I remove the little [citation needed] tags, or leave them in place, once I've added the ref.'s? Beryl reid fan (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, : when you've fixed a problem you can always remove the tag alerting the problem (but make sure you give a meaningful edit summary, so that nobody will mistake the removal for vandalism). If somebody disagrees that you've fixed the problem, they can always restore it (or, preferably, open a discussion with you). --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, ColinFine, thanks very much. Beryl reid fan (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

References clarification
Hello, I signed in and did the tutorial (missions) yesterday, as I noticed a page was lacking in some (if not a lot) of information that has now come about. I see the references have to be from written books, but the information I have is from a new TV programme with some newly declassified military documents (or it was just not widely reported otherwise). Is it therefore worth me gathering all the information or am I wasting my time, if the references have to come from books, articles, etc.? Thanks for reading and any advice. Wawtip (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Books written by acknowledged scholars in the particular field are perhaps the best sources, but we quite commonly settle for less. Template:Cite episode would allow you to cite a TV programme by specifying the TV company, producer, title of the programme, how many minutes into the programme the particular piece of information is, and so on.


 * If the newly broadcasted TV programme conflicts with more reliable sources, that is where you may have a problem, especially if the programme is something like a more speculative (or just downright suspicious) production from something like The History Channel. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, thats helpful. I already figured out if it was a go, I would have to have the time things were said and make a list, etc. The template will help in creating any list. Wawtip (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What Template is it?
I have been expanding Ljugarn by translating the Swedish article and added it to the English. In the Swe article there is a chart/template/diagram called "Befolkningsutveckling" which translates approx. to "Population development". I have been looking for the Eng equivalent of this, but no luck. Does anybody know the what this Template is called so I can translate it? - W.carter (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The closest I know of on en-wiki is Historical populations or Demography, though this does not include the bar chart. However, I don't recall ever seeing a bar chart used for population on en-wiki. Asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities might be appropriate. Chris857 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't think the bars are that important, so I'll just use the template you suggested. - W.carter (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

New corporate name - redirect or edit old page?
Hi - I am corporate writer that has been asked to update a company's wikipedia page. In the last few months the company rebranded itself with a new name. Do I create a new page with the new corporate name and edit the old page to redirect to the new page, or do I simply edit the old page with a new title and new name?

Thanks, Mary Harpmary (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Harpmary, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be best to edit the current page and move it to the new title, since I'm assuming not much has changed other than the name, slogan, etc.
 * However, since you are writing for a company (presumably under pay), I strongly advise you not to. By writing for a company, you have a strong conflict of interest with the subject. To keep Wikipedia neutral and non-promotional, editors should avoid editing articles with which they have with a conflict of interest, even if they believe that they are doing it in a fair and balanced way. If you'd like to suggest changes for the article, I recommend using the article's talk page and request the edits to be made there. When you make your request, use Template:Request edit to notify editors that you have a request pending. Another editor will be able to review your request and implement them as appropriate. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SuperHamster. Appreciate your quick response. If I use the 'talk page' and the 'template; request edit' pages how long does it typically take for edits to appear? Thanks. Harpmary (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It honestly depends on the nature of the edit, who's watching the page, etc. Requests can take anywhere from less than a day to a few weeks. Usually if it's a simple, to-the-point request, it shouldn't take long at all. In this case though, if you make your request, I'll be happy to keep an eye out for it and review it for you in due time :)
 * If you have any questions about making the request or using the template, just let us know. Template:Request edit's documentation explains how to use it pretty well. Thanks, ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad to have met you SuperHamster. I will definitely let you know when the page is ready for inspection. Again - appreciate your assistance.
 * Regards - MaryHarpmary (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for reaching out about this! I've also left you a welcome message on your talk page that has some other helpful links that you might find helpful. Good luck, ~Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Made changes to article - do I wait for same editor to review?
Hello

I made changes to my article upon request from editor, what is the process now? Do I wait for the same editor to respond and do further edits or do I forward it to someone? If the article is okay will the editor let me know? Thanks in advanceAdBCWi14 (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that your article, Canadian Registered Safety Professional, is not in Articles for Creation? It is already in article space. So, if it turns out to not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article, it will be deleted (the reverse of the AfC process). If you fix the problems it is tagged for, the tags can be removed. I'll have a look at it, and tell you my thoughts at Talk:Canadian Registered Safety Professional. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, your article meets notability and other requirements. That being said, I'd do some major revisions on how the wording is.  Avoid lists if you can, look at similar articles on Wikipedia and observe how they are laid out.  If you need any specific help, feel free to ask me :-)  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Creating a cool user page?
Hello everyone!

First of all, thanks for spending your time helping new editors like myself. Onto my question: I've noticed that some users has some very nice looking userpages, with special templates and whatnot. How do I get one of those? Should I base it off of one of theirs? Or is there a central repository of some sort?

Thanks!

SCorneliusB (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * User page design center might be up your alley in terms of a central repository. For myself (if you think it's fancy), I ripped off some of the styling code from someone else's page ( who, I can't for the life of me remember, but it's a relatively simple table ) and then added to it. My one piece of advice is: if you base off someone else's, ensure that you change it enough that it does not look like you are trying to impersonate the other user. User pages is a good guide as to what kind of things are appropriate in user space. Chris857 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And remember, when you use the work someone else has created, in the edit summary please attribute the work to them by clearly stating that you copied the content from ...and then add a link in the edit summary to the page that was copied from and the link to your own page so that others who see it pop up on watch lists or the new edits watch that editors can just go direct;y from the edit summary.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Need help - confused on sandbox space - can I remove content
Hello

I recently created an article & I'm working on editing the tone in the article space. However, I still have the old content in my sandbox space. Can I delete the sandbox content? If I do that will it wipe out my article that I'm working on? I recently received a message "This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the User sandbox template" I'm confused on the sandbox vs the article space. I'm trying to fix my article quickly with tone and need to do some major edits to remove the flag from editor - please helpAdBCWi14 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Another editor seems to have thought that you were submitting the draft to AfC, so he moved it to Draft space. I have moved it back. You can do what you want with the content - it won't affect the version in article space in any way. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Your sandbox pages are for you to experiment and work on developing articles to your heart's content, as long as the content is for the ultimate purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Your sandbox pages are not highly visible and no one will confuse them with actual encyclopedia articles. Article drafts submitted to AfC are presumed to be close to finished encyclopedia articles, so are subject to active and stringent review. Anything in article space, which is the main publicly visible part of the encyclopedia, is immediately subject to aggressive editing by any editor acting in good faith. So, be careful where you place articles being developed.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright policies regarding uploading an image of a company logo
I am doing research/work with mostly defunct asbestos product manufacturing companies, I am currently working on Keasbey & Mattison and I noticed they had a small wiki page. I have in my possession an image of the company logo (abet low quality), and I would like to contribute this logo to the wiki page, however I do not want to trample on any copyright/rights issues, therefore my question is, what are the policies surrounding this scenario? I would like to contribute to the community, I am just not sure of the steps I need to take. Thanks for any help you can give.Gmanjake (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When was the logo published? Were different logos used by Keasbey & Mattison in its history? Because of the age of the (U.S.) company, if the logo in question was first used before 1923, then it would be WP:Public domain and have essentially no issues on Wikipedia. If the logo dates from after 1923, we would need some more information (to ascertain if it is PD), or we could upload it under the WP:Non-free content criteria. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to ask. Chris857 (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * PS, could you upload the logo to some external site (like imgur.com, for example) so we could see if perhaps it is simple enough (WP:Threshold of originality) to be PD? Chris857 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCI is the simple operational guideline for company logos. If you follow that guideline, you can't go wrong.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Related to wiki policies on music
Hello! At Sorry I'm Late (Cher Lloyd album), I once added the explicit cover of the album as it is different from the clean version, but here comes that Wikipedian who said explicit covers can't be used. I just want to ask, is it a Wiki policy, or is it just that an explicit cover can't be used? I just want to know and hope you guys reply asap. Thanks! -- Nahnah4 |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting question - I've never heard of such a requirement, and I'm pretty sure there is none. Explicit covers would certainly not be banned just because they are explicit (per WP:NOTCENSORED), but as for the preference between explicit vs. non-explicit covers, I'm not sure if there's a consensus on that. Hopefully someone can prove me wrong. If you don't get an answer here, I'd recommend asking the editor who reverted your edition (if you haven't already). ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 07:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because album covers are non free, it should be one or the other. the issue is that all non free content must pass criteria and one of those criteria is to be used on at least one article. If you upload a new album cover of any kind and replace the one already in the infobox, you are orphaning someone else's upload and it is then deleted. Always have a clear consensus about what image to use before changing non free content. If there is extensive discussion about the explicit cover it could be placed in the section that discusses it.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I know nothing about the specific case, and will discuss general principles instead. In such cases, we should use the most common cover art. If there is a controversy about "explicit" alternate cover art, that should be reported in the article, referenced to reliable sources. If that explicit cover art has been the subject of significant commentary in reliable sources, then an image in the article may well be appropriate, but this is a matter for editorial judgment. Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason in a well-referenced case, that an article can't contain two WP:NFCI images if supported by in depth discussion in reliable sources.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  07:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The problem is, firstly, I found that cover on iTunes and Cher Lloyd's official Twitter page and Google Images and here and there, so obviously it is an official one. And, the more popular cover is the explicit cover for sure. I don't bother asking that user, as we both just somehow have a very bad relationship. In the edit summary, he/she said: "Once again, EXPLICIT COVER CANNOT BE USED." I don't get that, because the clean cover is not the popular one, so what is that user saying? I seriously don't get it. I have a feeling that the user is stalking me by looking at my contributions like EVERY SINGLE DAY he or she logs in, because I'm pretty sure he/she don't live in my country but still dropped a template at a logo for my country's shopping mall. I really don't know. If I ask that user, that user will go angry again. Not offence, but really. -- Nahnah4  |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  07:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I'm not in any position to make any judgement calls since I haven't analyzed the situation from both sides, but what you describe sounds like wikihounding. If you consider it to get to the point of being disruptive, the page I linked to describes the process to take care of it, if you feel that the situation gets that far. However I stress the difference between wikihounding and making corrections, improvements, etc. with good faith. Again, I haven't properly analyzed the situation to determine the case.
 * Back to the subject on hand though, at this point I can say with certainty that there is no "ban" on explicit covers as the user implied. As Mark and Cullen mentioned, if there is ever a discrepancy about which album cover to use, that's something that can be discussed on the article's talk page. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 07:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh for Pete's sake, I researched this and the only difference I can find is that smoke is coming out of her mouth in the supposedly explicit version. Both versions show her in a bubble bath, with her breasts and all other private body parts fully covered by bubbles. If you think that this is explicit then please plug your ears and avert your eyes from what I consider explicit at my age.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  07:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually thought I couldn't find the explicit version at first because all that was showing up was that smokey one. But hey...think of the children. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 08:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I meant. I meant the explicit cover is the cover that contains explicit content like vulgarities. I am not saying about the cover, because, actually, I'm not so sick to even think about that. And what "think about children"? There seems to have no link. Anyway, this is a misunderstanding. P.S. Please ping or teahouse talkback or mention me so I know you guys replied. Thanks. Cheers! -- Nahnah4 |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  08:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, Cullen and I were just joking around and commenting on the cover itself being silly; we (well, I assume Cullen too) understand what you actually mean by the explicit vs. non-explicit covers :) Sorry for the mixup! ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 08:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So is it actually a "ban"? -- Nahnah4 |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  08:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, certainly not. I'll re-iterate what I wrote before to clarify:
 * I can say with certainty that there is no "ban" on explicit covers as the user implied. As Mark and Cullen mentioned, if there is ever a discrepancy about which album cover to use, that's something that can be discussed on the article's talk page.
 * To add to that, I would recommend bringing up any future changes of album covers on the article's talk page, to see if any users agree or disagree before doing so. This can help avoid future problems. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 08:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Big lengthy thread, and still no explanation of what the real issue is here. What's up with that? Please be frank for once.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  08:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock
What do you mean by a Rangeblock ?. Hg  andVenus  09:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:RANGE; basically, a range block is used in extreme cases of disruption, when a large "chunk" of IP addresses need to be blocked. Let us know if you need more clarification! ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 09:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response and the next time when you are about to answer a question I asked, please ping or talkback me. Hg   andVenus  09:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, and sure thing. Still have to get used to pinging as a habit ;) ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 09:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo error in file name
At File:Don't Tap the White Tiles promo art.png, the "Tiles" should be changed to "Tile". Even if you changed it, the file was copied to Commons. Have to change in Commons too. Hope you guys can help. Thanks! -- NN4 |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  09:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nahnah4, I suggested that change myself as soon as I knew how, quoting your name. Jodosma (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

reg- references & links
Hi all, I would like to know what all references and links does wiki accepts? I gave some blog spot references and it is rejected by wiki. why is it so?

pls send me guidelines for the same. Manjujanarthanan (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * please read WP:RS which ought to give you the majority of the information you need. Fiddle   Faddle  11:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

How can I fix the issues that Wikipedia has with my article?
Hi, I we are mildly confused about the issues raised by Wikipedia on our submission of Text-to-Pledge. Can you please assist us in making it Wikipedia friendly?

I understand you have issues with my ties to the company. I am simply trying to post facts about the company, it is by no means an advertisement. All the information posted is factual, and not based on any opinions.

Text-to-Pledge is, in fact, a major and established organization that deserves a place on the Wikipedia site. We are happy to make any necessary changes to comply with your standards. Any guidance would be very much appreciated. For you convenience I have included a link to the page in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text-to-pledge

All My Best, Dani Drichmand (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Dani, welcome to the teahouse. A first point to note would be that of the seven distinct sources that your submission currently has, five or maybe six of them are material published by the organisation or by entities connected with the organisation. Therefore the submission does not have sufficient references to independent sources that discuss it in detail, in order to prove the notability of the trademark, technology or organisation (it's not quite clear which the article is about). CORP is the notability guideline for companies. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi,

Thank you so much for your suggestions. We will change it to some to other sources.

Can I also ask you about changing the title of the article? It should read "Text-to-Pledge", rather than "Text-to-pledge."

Best, Dani

Drichmand (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've moved the article to the new title. The old title now redirects.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Any comments on my new article?
I've created a new article but have not yet gone live with it. I've saved it on my user page. Any comments/improvements are welcome.Jack Orion (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Jack, welcome to the Teahouse. Just did a quick run-down through it (nothing thourough) and fixed a few formatting things (namely bolded and italicized the title, and placed inline citations after punctuation). In regards to the Other section, at the moment is reads more like a random trivia section. If you can find a way to incorporate the content of that section elsewhere into the prose of the article, it will flow better. Articles on books typically have a section summarizing characters (e.g. All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front). If possible, that might be a good place to elaborate on characters and merge some of the content from the Other section to. Good start though! ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 06:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't really the place to ask for an article review - you can submit your work at articles for creation and go from there. That aside, I've had a quick look and the referencing looks weak at the moment. Have a look at Referencing for Beginners and/or Yunshui's excellent guide. Philg88 ♦talk 06:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there was anything wrong with asking at the teahouse for others to take a look at their new article. It is done all the time. We are here to help. But I did move the article off the user space and into the sandbox as the user space is not for article creation. It is located here: User:JackOrion217/sandbox.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with asking Teahouse hosts to take a quick look at any draft article. This is a friendly, non-bureaucratic place, and if a host is interested, he or she will comment and in most cases, offer suggestions for improvement. If no one is interested, so be it.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  08:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have included the word "full" before "article review", hence my subsequent suggestion for improvement. Philg88 ♦talk 09:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the comments. I'll do some more work on this. Jack Orion (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A question of grammar
Because AC/DC is a featured article, I am reluctant to change what otherwise seems like incorrect grammar. The article's opening statement says: "AC/DC are an Australian hard rock band ..." which seems like an error in subject/verb agreement. Additionally, Queen (band) says: "Queen are a British rock band ...", raising this question. Are these examples grammatically correct? Anne F. Figy (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , welcome to the Teahouse. No, they are not correct. Someone is confusing the band (singular) with the members of the band (plural). RockMagnetist (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That was an impressively quick response; thank you for that. Because I am unable to edit either of the articles mentioned, it would be great if someone who is able, would make those corrections. Thank you again. Anne F. Figy (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have been too quick. Apparently in British English, it is often acceptable to use the plural: see American and British English differences. Queen is written in British English, so I'd better leave that one. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My change on AC/DC has already been reverted. You learn something new every day! RockMagnetist (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Anne F. Figy, RockMagnetist:  This is a common attempted fix because it sounds so grammatically discordant to American ears. For that reason, numerous British and Australian band articles have a commented out note directly in the first sentence stating

Both AC/DC and Queen (band) have this note in the text. See also Comparison of American and British English and WP:ENGVAR. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can thank me for the note in AC/DC. In researching this issue, I came across an article with the amusing title Are England plural? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an inconsistency in the guideline at American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. The general intent, which seems to make sense to me, is to choose "according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual members respectively."  But then it gives the band example, which is inconsistent with that - and it sounds so terribly wrong (not just to American ears!)  Add to that the observation that this is the only section which is not supported by any references, and I am starting to wonder whether that guideline should be changed.  --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting discussion here. My take on this is that since ENGVAR says that we should try to pick the form that complies with the most nationalities, then we should use the singular uses of the verb because en-uk/en-au optionally use singular or plural but en-us uses the singular only. This would mean that it would be most internationally correct to use the singular. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be worth trying this argument out on one of the pages. Some relevant info is at English plural. However, there have been multiple discussions of plurality at each of Talk:AC/DC and Talk:Queen, and some people seem to think the singular usage is strange. So I don't know how discretionary it really is when we're talking about bands. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd love to hear what might offer this discussion. :) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 01:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting – that at least in some circumstances the singular is acceptable in British English. Raises at least the possibility that WP:TIES does not necessary trump opportunities for commonality (as I think it would, were this simply incorrect in British English). However, my impression, and mind you it is only anecdotal, is that band are always introduced with the plural 'to be' in BrE (no idea about Australian English).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem like things were easier "back when"? Like back when RockMagnetist first answered me. Things will probably never be so clear again. Anyway I've now read WP:ENGVAR, and have one question about that. Under the section, "Consistency within articles", does such consistency imply that in designating the first occurrence as a plural noun, that all other times the noun is used, will also be plural (unless exempted)? Or would it be fine to once say "AC/DC are ...", and perhaps in the next paragraph, or sentence, to say "AC/DC is ..."? Anne F. Figy (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ( PS: this reply was made, somehow, without seeing all the above ) No, they are correct. American English treats such things as AC/DC and Queen as singular, while British English (and presumably Aussie English) treat them as plurals. Compare Pink Floyd (British) with Kiss (band) (American). See WP:PLURALS. Chris857 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You may want to consult Linguistic prescription and Linguistic description to give this discussion some context. Like dialectic or spelling differences, grammatical differences between British and American usage (such as the collective noun/verb agreement discussion here) are similar to a discussion of whether it's better to drive on the left or right side of the road...the Wikipedia policy of deferring to the grammar of the origin of the article just acknowledges that US and British English differ on some points.  Grand'mere Eugene


 * I don't think the consistency is meant in such a narrow sense. I think they just mean, if you start with Australian English, stick with it; and any variations that are compatible with Australian English are o.k. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I understand. I appreciate the many thoughtful replies offered here. I learned quite a bit. Mostly that I've got quite a bit to learn. Anne F. Figy (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Before commenting any further, please read and study the lyrics of Oliver's Army, a brilliant song in which Elvis Costello plays with this very issue, among others far more profound. As AC/DC, though world famous, is are an Australian band, Australian usage is always to be preferred in this and all related articles, even if my American ear rebels.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the strict rules of English grammar, "band" in this context is a collective noun and thereby inherently plural. Ergo, as both are bands, "Queen is" and "AC/DC is" are the grammatically correct forms. However, that sounds weird to my English ears, unlike Oliver's Army, which is a seminal song. Philg88 ♦talk 06:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather that continuing an abstract discussion based on our opinions, I went to the library and checked all their British books on grammar. They all agreed, although none specifically mentioned band names. The best and clearest source was: - "When you use a collective noun, you can ... choose a singular verb if you think of the group as a single unit, and a plural verb if you think of the group as a number of individuals." They gave examples for other (non-band) organizations; their example "The BBC is sending him to Tuscany..." uses the singular verb because it is considering the BBC as a single entity, whereas "The BBC were not able to agree on their approach..." uses the plural because it focusses on the individuals. This agrees beautifully with the intent of American and British English differences, as stated at the start of it. I cannot see why a band should be treated differently from other organizations. And I don't think individual bands' Talk pages is the best place to resolve it. So I would like to propose the following approach for discussion:
 * remove the special case of band names from American and British English differences, because it is unreferenced and conflicts with the rest of that section;
 * where the group name X can meaningfully be swapped with "the individual members of X", use the plural;
 * where the group name X can meaningfully be swapped with "the whole group of X", use the singular. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * However, it's odd. My country (Singapore) uses UK English but it does not use 'are' for this kind. -- Nahnah4 |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  08:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the mark of a true Wikipedian - look it up! I did a different sort of investigation and came up with a somewhat different answer. My thought was that we should see what they say in the sources that are used for an article. After all, grammar guides can lag behind usage. I looked up the first six obviously British sources in Queen and none of them referred to the band in the singular. However, the usages didn't grate on my nerves like "AC/DC are a band", so I decided to try searches of "is a band" and "are a band" at bbc.com. The result is that both seem to be used. A couple of examples: "SuperHeavy is a band that shouldn't work" and "First Aid Kit are a band full of contradictions". That being the case, my recommendations are:
 * replace the example in American and British English differences by two properly sourced examples showing that both are o.k.✅
 * request that articles on bands use "is a" instead of "are a" per COMMONALITY. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That approach sounds great to me. I also checked the Times of London, with similarly mixed results, such as "the seven-strong electric band is a groove monster" and "Metallica are one of the most successful groups on the planet."  --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, requiring articles on bands to use "is a" instead of "are a" would be entirely contradictory to COMMONALITY, which clearly states:- "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." Other than your personal preference, there is no reason to choose "is a", it would be equally "logical" to require all articles on bands to use "are a" instead. - Arjayay (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the same because "are a" is definitely wrong in American English while "is a" is not wrong in British English (but feel free to do the research and prove me wrong). Keep in mind, I am saying "request", not "require". I am also not advocating wholesale replacement of the plural in these articles. But in the first line, where the subject is introduced, it is hard to come up with alternatives to "X is a band" or "X are a band". That is where I would like editors to consider using the singular if the band name is not pluralized. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If ""are a" is definitely wrong in American English" - why do we start New York Dolls "The New York Dolls are an American hard rock band" or the New York Jets article "The New York Jets are a professional American football team" ? - Arjayay (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The names are plural, and different rules apply (ditto for sports teams). Have another look at American and British English differences, if you haven't already. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point, we can't make sweeping statements like "request that articles on bands use "is a" instead of "are a"". Arjayay (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * True, I didn't lay out my proposal in all its detail - for a couple of reasons: 1. Some of the caveats would be clear to someone who had been following this discussion closely; and 2. The Teahouse isn't really the place to do it. I don't know yet whether, or where, I will make any such proposal. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

restoring formatting in upper right of an article and image
I am new to wikipedia and was attempting to contribute to an article that was a stub on a Tuscan hilltown called Radicondoli by adding more references and text. I recently visited this tiny village and have photos I hope to contribute as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicondoli

In doing so I lost the formatting and image at the top right and don't know how to restore it. Thanks for your kind help. CandiceCandice lopez (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed your problem. Do you know that you can look at all the changes using the View History tab? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why am I up for speedy deletion?
I use unbias language. Can someone take a look at my page and let me know? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Elements Thank you!! Nat.kerns (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nat.kerns, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem with the article (Cloud_Elements) is not the language, but the WP:Notability. Wikipedia has strict policy on notability: Only subjects that are notable enough may have articles in Wikipedia. Notability is proved by citing reliable, independent sources that discuss the article in depth (see: WP:42). You do cote some reliable sources, but you should use WP:footnotes. On the other hand, some of the sources you used are totally unreliable (like Twitter and Facebook). See more about citing sources here: WP:CITE. Personally, I believe the article should not be speedy deleted as it has potential. Anyway, I tried to explain you what is the main concern. I hope I helped. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, . That speedy delete was inappropriate, and I have removed it. I do recommend you make more use of the four independent sources in your external links. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Table legends
Hi :) I am beginning creating tables and I face one annoying problem: I don't know how to create "legends" related to a table. For instance: the following table. I would like a note just below it precising that "TVET" refers to Technical and vocation institutions etc.

Could someone please give me the trick ? :( Many thanks in advance ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. How does this code work: TVET ? It produces TVET. It's not exactly the same thing, but I hope that helps. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 12:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it does not solve my "TVET" problem, because I want to go, in my explanation, beyond the meaning of the abbreviation. Still, I didn't know this template and it will help me to make the other columns clearer. So thanks a lot :) KaptainIgloo (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

One option is to simply add a small table with the legends (I'm not aware of a cleaner option, but maybe someone else will weight in)

Legend -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper name is red in reference
At the Granite Flats page I added a reference to a Christopher Lloyd interview. I copied the syntax from a similar reference when doing that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite_Flats#cite_note-hds-4

I notice that Hollywood Daily Star, the name of the newspaper, is in red in the footnote. Do I need to do something else? Should I have used the publisher tag instead of the newspaper tag? Is it fine as is? What is the right way?

Thanks!

Robin Rowe (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Robin Rowe, it just means that currently there is no Wikipedia page. on the Hollywood Daily Star, the same as why your username appears in red. Nthep (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. I unlinked it for you. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

How do i add an infobox template with a picture of a logo to an already created article?
I am trying to add an infobox to the article i created, "postural restoration" and include a website, founder info, and logo of the science method discussed. I have searched some templates that are close to the layout i wish to use but would love recommendations on how to modify these templates to fit my needs and add a logo. Thanks. Alex.e.miller (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The generic infobox is Infobox. That gives you plenty of flexibility. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed non-free content
Hi, i created a new article and added some non-free screenshots. Today i logged in and i saw that all screenshots were removed from the article. Could anyone tell me what the reason is?. Krokuss (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Krokuss, welcome to the Teahouse. They were removed because the screenshots were excessive, according to WP:NFLISTS. That is, in articles with lists of related things, it is not a good idea to use a non-free image for each thing. Perhaps you could find a single image that includes different kinds of vehicles and use that instead?  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. Unfortunately I could not find any single image that includes different kinds of vehicles. Could i at least keep one screenshot showing the gameplay?. Krokuss (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A first step towards doing that, would be finding multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the gameplay and how the graphics enable that gameplay. Work on that first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)