Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 237

Is it possible to transfer copyrights or add a co-author to an article?
Hello again,

Sorry to "pollute" this forum but I was wondering if it was possible to add an author to one of our article ? Thanks.

Lucie-boyer (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please would you expand your question? I have no clear understanding of what you mean. Fiddle   Faddle  08:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you're asking. You don't add "co-authors" to articles. Whenever anyone edits a page, their username is automatically recorded in the page history. Here is an example of a page history. --Jakob (talk)  13:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And don't worry about polluting this forum. Its here for you to ask questions! Zell Faze (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

How to merge two articles ?
Dear friends,

My article was rejected because there is already an article on my topic. In fact, it is not very complete. I've let a message on the article's talk page but no news. Besides, I've asked for the help of an administrator on my talk page and I am still waiting for a reply. What do you think about it ? Do you have any advice ? Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattha_Kaksekar_Limited my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lucie-boyer/sandbox

Lucie-boyer (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you feel enough time has elapsed between your placing the article talk page notice and today, simply go ahead and migrate the content of your sandbox to the extant article and retain as much as is appropriate of the extant article. Note on the article's talk page that you are starting and that you have finished. Then follow the instructions I left in your sandbox to consider if a history merge is required. This is a time simply to go ahead and do it. Obviously you do it by copying and pasting your content into the extant article, and you do need to put an edit summary saying that you are merging (in the edit summary box above the SAVE PAGE button). Fiddle   Faddle  08:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note a history merge should not be required. See WP:Parallel histories.  It is a mistake to request a history merge in these cases (though a common and understandable one). Zell Faze (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, you have had a reply from an admin precisely where you placed the request for help. These requests should be on your own talk page normally. Fiddle   Faddle  08:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much ! I will come back to you if I have any problem. I've seen the message of the administrator. Thank you Timtrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucie-boyer (talk • contribs) 08:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Move Page
I am unable to move my page...because i don't have move option in my page, so can anyone tell me that how can i move my page(title change) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Only autoconfirmed users are able to move pages. You will become an autoconfirmed user automatically once four days have passed since you created your account, and once you have made at least 10 edits (and it looks like you just made your 10th edit with this question!). In the meantime, you can request page moves at Requested moves. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanx buddy...Sadanand Brahmbhatt 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs)  Moved to correct section—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would advise caution here. I think the original poster was asking about moving their user page to the mainspace. If so, that would not be advisable because at the moment the draft does not cite any sources to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As soon as it is ready though feel free to ping one of us to move it for you! Zell Faze (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Language Conversion
How do I copy a page in one language to the same page in a different language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srusou (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you want to translate an article from one Wikipedia to a different language Wikipedia, that will be very welcome: see translation for translating from the English Wikipedia, or translate us for translating to the English Wikipedia. Please don't just copy a page into a different language Wikipedia without translating it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Teen wolf season three
Hi I've been trying to find out who the actor is that plays the "combined" werewolf of the twins, played by max and Charlie carver? Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.60.113 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm afraid that this is not the place for that sort of information: this page is for help with editing Wikipedia. If you post your question on the entertainment reference desk, you might have more luck. --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

== vs vs   == Many articles use  and or even. I want to know if there is a difference or if they should just use. 85.246.161.111 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both are perfectly valid in HTML5 - take your pick. See Line-break handling for more information. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 18:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi 85... I rarely use any of them, except occasionally in info boxes. I don't think they are needed in the main text. S Philbrick (Talk)  21:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is one difference - I have enabled a gadget called "Syntax highlighter" in my preferences. It colours tags in pink, templates in yellow, comments in green, links in blue, etc., and I find it makes finding these things embedded in the text much easier.  However, a   is interpreted as an open tag, and leaves everything coloured pink for the rest of the article. This is annoying, so when I am editing an article I usually remove any unnecessary ones and change the ones in the infoboxes to

Title Change information
How to change the title of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . Title changing for articles can be done by moving the article to that name.  If you think the change is uncontroversial, you can usually go right ahead and move it.  If you think some might object to the move, I'd recommend leaving a comment on the talk page of the article with your proposed move idea and why you think it's better and see if a consensus develops.  Can I ask what article you are planning on moving?  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion but i don't have 'move' option as you told me...so can you solve my problem?

please reply as soon as possibleSadanand Brahmbhatt 09:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs)
 * It looks like you can't move an article because your account is too new. You must have at least 10 edits and your account must be at least four days old (at this time, it's only three days old) to move an article on Wikipedia.  Maybe I can help you.  Can you tell me what article you want to move and what name you want to change it to and why?   I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I want to change my current page title 'Swarsadanand' to 'Sadanand Brahmbhatt' because 'swarsadanand' is my username and i want to make my name as the title of my page.Sadanand Brahmbhatt 02:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs)

Not appearing in search bar
I created a Wikipedia article today, but it won't appear in the search bar. It still exists though. Are only submitted articles shown in the search bar? Thatcurler (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It can take some time for new articles to show up in the search bar. Just wait, and it will show up in a day or two.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you!

Deletion
Hello, I created an article for my husband who just won two gold medals at the USKA World Karate Championships. I added the references as well as external links. However, for whatever reasons. it was deleted. Anyone has any answers what to do now? Thank you. (Tamas Nadas (Martial Artist) (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Tamas Nadas. What you may want to do is provide a source to show the notability of the tournament.  If this is just some local karate tournament, it may not be notable enough for Wikipedia standards.  But if you can show that it has some state or regional coverage (like being reported on by a newspaper or TV station) then you might have something. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse and congratulations to your husband for winning two gold medals. I think there are a few things you should understand about creating an article about your husband which might explain why it was deleted.
 * The first is your user name. There is nothing prohibiting you from using your real name. Some editors do. You should be careful, however, when using the name of another person, even if that person is a relative. It might be a good idea to read Wikipedia's Username Policy, particularly the sections "Improper Usage" and "Real Names" so that you know what kind of names you can and cannot use on Wikipedia. It may seem like no big deal, but your choice of username can effect your ability to edit and create articles in ways that may be hard to understand when you're new to Wikipedia. Your choice of user name is going to, unfortunately, make people suspicious of any article you create using the same name and is most likely going to lead to such an article being deleted each and every time because, rightly or wrongly, they are going to see it as some form of self-promotion.
 * The second thing I think you should be aware of is Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest editing. Wikipedia has lots of rules and it can sometimes be really confusing when you're just starting out; However, if you remember that all of these rules basically come from Wikipedia's Five Pillars, then you should be OK. One of the most important of these is "Neutral Point of View". Editors are asked to always try and edit articles in an unbiased manner to ensure that articles are a neutral and verifiable representation of their subject matter. When you edit an article about yourself, or someone or something that you're closely connected to there is a very natural tendency to make things seem as positive as possible. There's nothing wrong with being positive, but it can lead to a person unconsciously editing something based upon their own particular knowledge and opinions—which is not good at all-as opposed to editing based upon verifiable facts that are supported by reliable third-party sources—which is very good. That is why Wikipedia prohibits people from creating articles about themselves, their family members or their friends. If you, a family member or a friend accomplish something that is truly notable and which satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards for living people, then there is a pretty good chance that somebody will eventually create an article about you or the other person. Simply put, you just have to wait and hope that somebody else creates an article about your husband. If your husband is notable enough according to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), then there is a good chance that you won't have to wait too long. Please understand that even though anyone can edit Wikipedia that does not mean that everybody (or everything) deserves to have their own (or its own) Wikipedia article. It's natural that you are proud of your husband and feel that he should have his own Wikipedia article. If you really feel that he satisfies all of Wikipedia's notability requirements, then you can ask another editor to write the article for you by adding a proposal to Wikipedia's Articles for Creation page.
 * Good luck - Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my article and inviting me on Tea house.
I would like to thanks Eeekster for reviewing my Article and HostBot for inviting me on TreehouseKaranjulie (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing
Wow, I've just read the christina aguilera official page and im kind of upset. I dont really edit main biographical pages but i am shocked at the level of missing detail and the extremely bias edits being done especially by users(esp User HD).Even on the talk section other editors are complaining at how messy and bias the page has gotten. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but this page is an absolute mess from start to end, with large sections of inforamtion removed without any valid reason(..e.g legacy section, removing the impact of dirrty >>reason cited = redundant information). However, no impact of dirrty was previously mentioned.A biographical page should not read like a hate or fan page, but notable achievements and failures should be cited and included in such articles. I have also just viewed HD's talk page and seen several other complaints of their bias editing.I have also seen that they have admin friends who have users blocked when entering into an editing conflict so I am scared to edit the page despite having WR reliable references/sources.

How do I go about this? Regards CJBXT720 (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teashouse, CJBXT720! The best way to go about this is bring it up at the talk page. I am sure that also Christina Aguilera is also part of a wikiproject. So what you do if you think the editors on the page are to bias is to also make a post on the wikiprojects that the person is a part of. This way there will be more eyes on the article and probably on the talk page. Furthermore though do not forget that wikipedia is not about truth but about reliable sources that can be verified. Also wikipedia is not without bias. Read NPOV to understand that. I hope that helps, and never forget to assume good faith of all editors, even if they seem bias. NathanWubs (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A Bot Request for Approval
We are a group of researchers at the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, working to find practical ways to motivate academic researchers who have published a number of research papers in various domains, to review Wikipedia pages and improve them.

As academic researchers typically do not have time to learn to edit Wikipedia pages, we will ask their comments on pages in their domain of expertise, and post these comments to the corresponding talk pages, which can potentially help active Wikipedians on those pages to take advantage of experts' feedback and apply them as they see fit to the main article.

To this end, we need a bot which posts experts' feedback as new sections on Talk pages.

We Implemented the bot "ExpertIdeas" and requested for an approval at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ExpertIdeas

We really appreciate suggestions about this bot and possible improvements.

Thank you so much for your help.

I.yeckehzaare (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

changing date of death
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F._F._E._Yeo-Thomas The above page gives a different date of death than the book "Between Silk and Cyanide" by Leo Marks According to Marks- date of death is 1972. I am a newbie, and not sure if this is enough information to edit the page. momohiggins14:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momohiggins (talk • contribs)


 * I see what you mean. From the book at this page over here, it says that tommy died in 1972. But on the other hand, over here  it states that  he died in 1964. I would go more for the web sources. Perhaps it is a different person the author is referring to in Between Silk and Cyanide? I'll do some more research and see what comes up. Cheers,   TheQ Editor    (Talk) 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . Since the BBC source linked above includes a photo of the blue commemorative plaque with the 1964 date of death, and also mentions 1964 in the story, I would stick with that date. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  18:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tying a ribbon around this, there are multiple pre-1972 sources, reporting his death in 1964, e.g., this, and this is Time Magazine in 1964 listing him among notables who died that year--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you all

momohiggins Momohiggins (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

How do I change the Title of the page?
I need to change the name of the title page for my boss who has recently legally changed his name. How do I do this? I've gone in and changed his name in the info box and the bio but cannot figure out how to change the title. Help please. Foxsicle (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC) You appear to have worked out how to move Rick Schneider-Calabash to Rick Calabash by yourself. However, please read our policy on conflict of interest before editing your boss's page any further. Arjayay (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Tea-house Foxsicle.
 * (after edit conflict): Hello, . I see you have figured out how to move the page. Please note that 1) you are strongly discouraged from editing any article about your boss, because you have a conflict of interest; 2) the article as it stands has no reliable sources whatever, and thus is likely to be deleted at any time. If you are concerned to get the article into a form that is more likely to survive, you should find reliable sources, independent on Calabash (iMDB is not regarded as a reliable source, because much of its content is user-contributed), for every piece of information reported in the article, and post them on the article's talk page. If you find enough to establish notability, then an uninvolved editor can add them into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding references
Hi,

I'm re-constructing a wiki-page about swedish music writer/producer Fredrik Thomander that got deleted a while back. How do I add references? Can I just insert websites about him? Like: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/fredrik-thomander-mn0001950018 http://www.discogs.com/artist/348512-Fredrik-Thomander etc?

Best /D Dragonflyerz (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The best simple guidance is at Help:Referencing for beginners which explains the different types of references; for web-pages, books, news etc. how to date them and how to use the same reference several times on one page, without duplicating all the information. It also includes some useful videos, as referencing can be rather confusing at first - Arjayay (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Dragonflyerz. After you add information to the article, include your reference as follows: .  Also when you finish the article, make sure to include a reference section at the end, and include this template  so all your references will be listed. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dragonflyerz.
 * Creating references that consist only of bare URLs is considered bad form on WP and creates tedious annoying clean up work for other Wikipedians. Please dont' do that. Instead create proper references like this: for more information see WP:CITE or even better the link Arjayay has linked above. There is a citation helper tool bar that also makes it real easy. Please take the time to learn how to make proper citations. Thanks!!-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename username
After clicking on the 'move' option, what is the way to make a request for renaming the username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I am not quite sure what you are asking. If you want to change your username, please see Changing username. If you are meaning that you want to move your draft article from your user page to somewhere more suitable, you simply give the destination in the MOVE screen: for example "User:Swarsadanand/Sadanand Brahmbhatt" if you want to move it to a user subpage. Please be aware that at present that article is not at all acceptable, as it contains no reliable sources at all (user-created sources such as blogs are hardly ever acceptable). Also, the language is promotional (phrases such as "high repute" and "noted especially for" should be used in Wikipedia articles only if they are directly quoting reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

How can I get the picture for Michael Sweet's Touched album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryperfan (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Title for new article
Hi. Got a translation in progress of the spanish article on Marismas de Isla Cristina (to be mentionned in the article Mummichog which is also found there, not just in US). Should that new article be titled "Marismas de Isla Cristina" or "Isla Cristina marshes"? Basicdesign (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Isla Cristina marshes" as per WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." "Marismas" is not even a commonly used/understood foreign word - Arjayay (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your question. Let me add in my own two cents to what  has said above.  Article titles for non-English topics are not always straightforward for naming.  The basic idea is that you should use whatever term is most used in English-language sources that provide coverage of this particular place.  So, check out the sources you've found for the article and use your best judgment, and perhaps do a little more research if you're not sure.  Translating a foreign name into English is possible, but I personally wouldn't recommend it if it's not described that way in sources.  If you need a second opinion, feel free to ask me or another host here if you'd like.   I, JethroBT  drop me a line 08:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you much to you both for your attention and input. In the quasi-absence of 'reliable English-language sources' on the topic, I'd title it in en. because this is an English-spkng context; and right at the begining of the text I'd have the sp. name so people looking for it but not too good in Spanish can actually know how to ask about it. It's not ready yet, no ref has been translated so far. So there's still time for protests over this proposition: Isla Cristina marshes... Anyone? Basicdesign (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * on the other hand, what about Marismas de Isla Cristina nature reserve? the sp article es:Paraje natural redirects to es:Reserva natural. Basicdesign (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me make the Michael Sweet: Touched album better?
Michael Sweet Touched(album)Stryperfan (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Another user has added a cleanup tag to the page Touched (Michael Sweet album), which highlights an important way you can improve the article—that is: add citations to reliable sources. A core content policy we have on Wikipedia is called Verifiability. In a nutshell, it says that readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Try doing a Google search for Michael Sweet's Touched. If you find a reliable source that contains new information, add the information to the article. Be sure to include a citation. For help on doing this, see Referencing for beginners. WikiProject Albums has a Album article style guide which you can use to figure out how to structure your article. Include information such as critical reception, charts, and certifications. If you find that there are few or no reliable sources available to use for writing an article, then it is possible that the subject may not be suitable for an article on Wikipedia at this time (see Notability). If you need further help, feel free to ask again at this Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Resetting forgotten password
I just registered yesterday. I was in a hurry and either have a typo in my password or don't remember it correctly. Is there any way to add an email address without the password handy, or do I have to go ahead and start from scratch? I seem to remember reading somewhere that Wikipedia doesn't allow multiple accounts, though. Please provide an answer before I am automatically logged off. I just registered yesterday. Thanks PoolGuy7.5pH (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello PoolGuy7.5pH, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, without an email address, there are no feasible ways for you to reset your password. To further the bad luck, I don't believe you can add an email address without the password handy. I think the only option is to create a new account for editing - be sure to confirm an email address when you sign up for the new account. Sorry about this. Mz7 (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, PoolGuy7.5pH, Wikipedia does not allow multiple accounts at one time, but if for any reason you lose access to your current account or you have a legitimate reason to create a new account, it is allowed, so long as your old account doesn't come back. Thanks, Dathus  ( Talk  |  Contribs ) 22:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, users are allowed to use multiple accounts at once, per the link you provided - the most notable reasons being editing from public places, bots, and testing. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sparking discussion
What can I do if my edits are getting reverted but no one is discussing the issue I'm addressing on the talk page. I made an edit to the History of iOS page a few days ago but my edit got reverted. So I started a new section on the talk page, posted my opinion regarding the issue in question, then made the edit again. Afterwards, my edit was reverted again (by the same user) and the talk page is still right where I left it. I'm reluctant to call RfC because I feel that it's a process to be used during a discussion, not to begin one (but I may be wrong). What can I do get people to start discussing my edit, and what can be done in similar situations in the future?  Event horizon51  (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, if no one is willing to discuss on the talk page your only option is to attempt good faith edits. If they continue to revert and it any a single editor over a 24 hour period and has reverted more than three times, you could report the violation of the WP:3RR rule at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but then you should not revert, just add content or you could be seen as edit warring yourself. Be sure your edits are constructive, sourced and as well written as you can.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you tried contacting the user who reverted your edits directly on their user talk page? Let them know of the discussion and explain why you made the edits. The last thing you want to do is start an edit war (in which you constantly undo each others' edits). If leaving them a message doesn't work, you could also try leaving a note at interested WikiProject talk pages, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject iOS. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Eventhorizon51:  Hi Eventhorizon51. The material you removed was unsourced. Any material you challenge the verifiability of, and remove, cannot be returned to an article without an inline citation directly supporting that material. Please see the section of the verifiability policy known as WP:BURDEN – in my view is one of the most important policy sections for maintaining encyclopedic integrity; it is what gives the verifiability some teeth. The trick is to make clear you are challenging the material. Often this is done by first adding a citation needed tag next to the disputed material, and if no source is provided after some time, then removing. You can just remove, but your reasons for doing so and that it is a challenge to the material should be made clear, either by stating in the edit summary accompanying the removal to see the talk page, where you've posted, or in the edit summary itself. You might even state in the edit summary something on the nose referring people to the policy itself (example). The corollary to this is that once you've made it clear you are challenging, and the person keeps returning it, and you explain to them what the policy provides—that the burden is on them to provide a source or they cannot return the material—you know longer have "equal sides" just reverting each other but one operating within policy and another knowingly not. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

uploading a picture file
Hi,

I created the page "Monika Kapil Mohta" over a week ago and I've been trying to upload a picture file but I keep getting the message that my account is not confirmed or I've to wait for 4days. It's past 4 days, but I still get the same error message.

Is it possible for you to upload a picture file to "Monika Kapil Mohta" page? and how can I send you the file? Emkay.s (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If the picture has been explicitly licenced or placed in the public domain by whoever owns the copyright, then it may, and should, be uploaded instead to Wikimedia Commons, which has no autoconfirmation requirement. But if the picture has not been so released by its owner, then it almost certainly may not be uploaded or used in Wikipedia.
 * But, frankly, a picture is the last thing you need to be worrying about at this point. At present the article Monika Kapil Mohta has not one single reliable independent source (a press release is not independent), and so is very likely to be deleted. What matters for Wikipedia is references to reliable sources, much more than pictures. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

3RD PARTY SOURCE EXCLUSION
Dearest Wikipedia,

I respect your desire to be irrefutable.

But what do you do with topics that no media organization or author will touch?

DIMOJABE (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My dear DIMOJABE.  We do nothing at all, the same as everyone else...-- Jayron  32  22:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That was priceless. I had to fwd to my distribution list.

I'm cool with it. Wikipedia is limited.

By definition, it cannot break ground in the perceptual zeitgeist, and is therefore doomed to simply regurgitate the production of a corporate-controlled media and publishing machine.

If the day ever came that Wikipedia could afford to perform verifications to satisfy it's own requirements - it would become an awesome powerhouse for the truth.

No worries.

DIMOJABE (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on that day it would not longer be an encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One must seek other outlets for such material, such as Wikinews. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, the essay "Verifiability, not truth" discusses your concerns in some detail. Although it is not Wikipolicy per se, it is something commonly cited when discussing "truth" versus "verifiability". For specific policy, "What Wikipedia is not" might provide you with more specific information as to what can and cannot be added to Wikipedia. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what they want me to do with "The named reference $1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."
Ndla (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I believe you're referring to the article Richard Jencks, right? The post left on your talk page was made by a bot just informing you that one of the edits you made contained an error. If you click on the (help) link that the bot left, it will take you to another page explaining the error in further detail and telling you how it can be fixed. If it all still seems to confusing after looking at that page, you can add the Template:Help me to your talk page or click on "(Ask for help)", and other more experienced editors will be happy to help you with your problem. At first glance, it seems that you changed an existing template that was used to cite a source, and the bot is telling you that you did not do that correctly. The bot is focusing on the format used for the citation, but the edits you've made are problematic for other reasons as well.


 * Regarding those other problems, you mentioned in that you are Richard Jencks' daughter. I think it would be really to your benefit to carefully read through Wikipedia's policy regarding conflict of interest if that is truly the case. Although editing articles about yourself, a family member, a friend or something you may be closely connected to is allowed in certain uncontroversial cases (See WP:COS for specifics), it is generally something that is highly discourage because of the potential problems it may create. In such cases, a person who has declared that they have conflict of interest is instead encourage to post the suggestions or concerns they have about an article on the article's talk page. This allows other editors to assess whether the suggestion, etc. has merit and satisfies relevant Wikipedia policy. More specifically, you've changed information cited by a third-party source because it was incorrect to something that you "believe he [your father] would want there" instead. In doing so, you've tried to cite yourself as a source simply based upon your relationship with your father and what you believe he wants. Unfortunately, this is considered to be original research and, therefore, not something that is considered to be either "verifiable" or "reliable" and is pretty much counter to what Wikipedia strives to be. This type of edit most likely would be considered "controversial" by many editors and is something you should avoid making (see WP:COIADVICE for further details). Please do not take this personally as if I am admonishing you for knowingly doing something wrong; I realize you were just editing in good faith. I just think familiarizing yourself with the various policies and guidelines I've linked to above will help you avoid others questioning your edits, especially with respect to "Richard Jencks", in the future. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons
Greetings, I'm starting to find it a bit insulting to notice a number of files that I uploaded (some which I spent significant time working on) deleted then moved to Commons each time I check my uploads log or my watchlist, just like that. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the image use policy and Commons, but I believe there has to be a good explanation to this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. The pictures being moved to Commons is actually a good thing! For one thing, images on Commons can be used on any Wikimedia project. Also, Commons is really our main repository for free media, so the vast majority of the files are over there. It's probably a good idea to upload any of your own work directly to Commons in the future (fair use pictures should stay here though). You can use your Wikipedia account on Commons. If there's a reason why you don't want any specific picture moved to Commons, you can add Do not move to Commons to the file page. --Jakob (talk)  18:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it's just the fact that I don't get any credit for my work, since the files that are moved to Commons do not appear on my uploads log there either. It might not be too big of an issue for most editors here, but I have come to find it a bit discouraging. Maybe that's just me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Fitzcarmalan, and a welcome to the Teahouse from me as well. If you upload your pictures to the Commons yourself in the first place, you get the same credit as you get here when editing an article, and you can put whatever kind of license on your pictures you want: make them totally free, or the recommended setting, upload them with a license to use if you are credited. There are several to choose from. Best, w.carter -Talk  19:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Some people object to the idea of things being moved to Commons, and/or to the idea of people being encouraged to upload things to Commons instead of to the English Wikipedia. I can't remember who all those people are, but, from memory User:Giano may have some of these views, and might wish to comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another ongoing battle I was unaware of. Thank you Demiurge1000 for so kindly pointing it out. So Fitzcarmalan, read all the advices you get here and then make up your own mind about what to do. Cheers, w.carter -Talk  08:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Links where the URL is behind a login wall.
A very helpful librarian showed my how to use their tool for searching journals, etc which are not otherwise available - it is wonderful, but it does lead to a problem. After it locates and displays the article I want, there is a link to give me a "Permalink" (a permanent URL to that article). I tested and it worked perfectly - for me. Unfortunately, other users who don't have a login to my local library cannot use that link; they just go to a login page.

An example is Reference 7 at User:Gronk_Oz/Astronomical_Society_of_Victoria.

So the question is how to cite these journal articles. I can just have the journal details without a URL, or I can add the URL knowing that it won't help people. Does anybody have any suggestions? Gronk Oz (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing you can try is to search for a more direct URL to the article that even if it's behind a paywall, is not just a redirect to a login page. If you find that, then you can link to that URL and then add to the citation template something like  |format=subscription required  or  |format=fee required  You will even sometimes find that a link is actually available for free, once you look for it. For example, the footnote 7 article you pointed to as an example above is available for free and linkable directly at this URL. Note that I did not find this using a search engine, but rather went directly to the Age's archives, searched by its title, then, once found, took the search string out of the URL. If you can't find a better link, then I agree that redirect URL to a login page is pretty useless and would just leave it off. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, - as always, you have given me just the information I needed!  --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to help!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletions in an Article I Am Writing
Hello. I have been editing for a while now and feel I know what I'm doing, but the article I'm working on is being nibbled-at while I'm in the midst of writing it and a picture that I took with my own personal camera and gave to the commons has been deleted "for copyright violation".

I know I can use a sandbox to write, but I did a minimal article which was launched immediately and which I have been picking away at. I like contributing this way, rather than writing an article and putting it in cue and waiting six months for it to appear on line. But as I write, someone picks back-- removing bits and causing "edit conflicts" and this wastes my time. I tried to explain what I am doing in "talk" at the top of the article.

The article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.N._Morris_Canoe_Company

The article is about an historic canoe company that operated prior to 1920. I submitted a picture I took with my own camera of a canoe belonging to a personal friend... WHERE is the copyright violation in that? I said I owned the picture. I do own the picture. Should I also own the canoe? Kathrynklos (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I need to add that I see I'm supposed to add a category to the article and am unsure what to do there. It is about "canoe history"-- is that a category? Discussion of this company used to be in the "canoe" article and I only recently noticed individual articles were splitting-off from there (i.e. there is an article for Old Town Canoe, White Canoe, Chestnut Canoe, etc.) Kathrynklos (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . It can sometimes be really frustrating when other people edit articles I am working on, but the nature of the beast is that Wikipedia can be, in principal, edited by anyone and that I don't own or have any exclusive control over any of the articles I create or spend a lot of time improving. Personally, I wish everyone would just discuss the changes they want to make with me first so that I can decide whether they are good, but I know that is not the Wikipedia way. Once an article has been added to the encyclopedia, it is there for everyone to edit for better or worse. One thing I do when creating a new article is make a user subpage and add user sandbox template to the top of the page. Most editors who see this realize that this is my work in progress and, therefore, pretty much leave it alone unless there is problem that needs immediate fixing. Unfortunately, I think that it is too late to convert B.N. Morris Canoe Company to a user subpage since some other editors have already been working on the page, but maybe that would be something to consider for future articles you intend to create. One other possibility may be to add an "in use" template or an "under construction" template to the article just as a way of letting other editors know you are working on it and as a way to avoid edit conflicts. However, I don't think these are really intended to prevent people from making good faith edits to an article once it has been added to Wikipedia. Anyway, sorry if I couldn't be of more assistance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse Kathrynklos. Nobody has actually changed your article apart from moving a stop and adding some tags. If you go straight to mainspace other people will want to help out. As for the picture there should not be a problem if you followed the licencing process during uploading. It is best to upload photos to Commons using the wizard.Charles (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for your advice. It was late when I was working on this, and I was tired and that's mostly where the frustration came from. :) Kathrynklos (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Independent reliable
Is the independent (British newspaper) a reliable source like news, opinions for wikipedia? (Monkelese (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard e.g. here where it was agreed that The Independent is a reliable source. I don't know if it still does it, but the Independent sometimes used to have two opinion pieces on the same subject, printed facing each other, so people could read both opinions, and make up their own mind. This makes citing it for an opinion more difficult, as you should avoid WP:Cherry picking one side of the discussion, and ignoring the other. However, this is no different from the Op-ed articles that appear in many "quality" newspapers, except there are two opinions and not one. Whenever citing an opinion, you need to be clear that you are quoting the author, not the newspaper:- "Fred Jones said" not "The Independent said" - Arjayay (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse Monkelese

two pages
I have a question or two re my pages David Webb and Terence DuQuesne; I won't be contributing much if at all to this site in future as I have other things to do.

Can someone do the following?

Correctly capitalise DuQuesne in the title page?

On the David Webb page can someone link to the Evening Standard cutting here

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ncropa/ncropa-1976-1.jpg

rather than the paper

I also want to add a photo or two of each. Some can be found here

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/webb/webb_photos.html

and here

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/djetc/duq.html

There is no problem with copyright but check with me first.

Anyone wants to add any links to either man, feel free. Webb has an entry in the IMDB which should be linked.

VennerRoad VennerRoad (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello VennerRoad, welcome to the teahouse. Sadly, two discussions have been started about possible deletions of these articles. Wikipedia doesn't have biographies about everyone interesting, but only about people who have been discussed in significant detail in multiple independent reliable sources, or who have competed at certain levels in sporting events.


 * The existence of an IMDB page about an individual, the existence of extensive writings by the individual, or the decision by major newspapers to publish a letter or letters written by the individual, do not suffice to prove the notability of that individual by Wikipedia's standards, either together or separately.


 * , I saw this and thought of you! - you might find Articles for deletion/David Webb (anti-censorship campaigner), or the suggestion to create an article about the organisation National Campaign for the Reform of the Obscene Publications Acts, of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the two articles seems to be heading for Keep at AfD, so the OP's request is not stale. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Copying non-free images from this wiki to another language wiki
Is there a policy page on the rules when it comes to copying non-free images from this wiki to another language wiki? I'm translating an article for another wiki but I don't want to complete it until I can do something about the images. Thanks! -- t  numbermaniac  c  08:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Each version of Wikipedia has its own policy regarding the use of non-free (fair use) images. Most Wikipedias have a fair use policy similar to that of the English Wikipedia, while some are more lenient, and others more restrictive (for example, the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't allow for any non-free images). Check on the fair use policy of the version of Wikipedia in question, and you can then go ahead and upload the file if policy permits you to do so. The structure should more or less be the same in regards to sourcing, authorship, etc. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 12:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mechanically, to check, see if the language Wikipedia you are translating is on the list of language links on the left hand side of Non-free content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks guys! :) -- <sup style="font-weight:normal; color:#00E">t  numbermaniac  <sup style="color:#00E">c  08:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference problem
I have written different references on the page Nerf Recon CS-6. As I saved the edit, and tried to click on the reference number, there was no title coming. I would like to know how to add references properly, and which references are reliable and which not. Please answer. -NerfersUnited — Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, NerfersUnited and welcome to The Teahouse. The references look fine to me. Some could be better, but you've done more than a lot of people. If you want to ask about reliable sources try the reliable sources noticeboard. Ideally, you want a book or magazine or journal or newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking. Some web sites are also good enough. For help with formatting references, see WP:CITE.—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  13:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * NerfersUnited is actually referring to the (currently) redirect page Nerf Recon CS-6, not Nerf Blasters. NerfersUnited, the sources you are adding - source, actually, since all the references are to the same site - is a wiki, and since anyone can contribute to a wiki, it is not considered a reliable source. Please stop edit-warring to create the page. If you believe that the CS-6 merits its own article, please create a draft first and then submit it to Articles for creation for review. You will need to provide substantially better sources before it is accepted, however. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

have i done okay in editing?
hi there,

i am very in experienced in editing wikipedia and i was wondering if i edited everything nicely according to your standards. i edited the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming#Islam

i added a few more information regarding the second coming of jesus via quranic verses. Is it okay or do i have to change anything else?

thank you!!

(Betrayerofhope (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed that you did not leave an edit summary for either of your edits. In some cases, such as minor edits, the reasons a change was made are pretty obvious; In other cases, however, they are not always so clear. Therefore, it's good practice to always leave an edit summary every time you make an edit. One of the that you made was a major edit. You should always leave an edit summary for such edits regardless, explaining your reasoning as clearly and concisely as possible. A good edit summary does not have to be long, but it should be easy to understand and cite the relevant Wikipedia policy whenever possible. If you are not sure whether an edit you want to make will be an improvement, then it is usually a good idea to post on the article's talk page first and ask for the opinions of others. Doing this helps ensure that whatever edits are made are "good" edits and reached through consensus so there is less likely of a chance of their being undone. It may take a little more time this way and is not as exciting as being bold, but it might help you become more familiar with good editing practices which will help you avoid possible problems with other editors. Another editor has already recommended the Wikipedia tutorial on your user talk page and I think you could benefit a lot from doing that. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi ! To complete 's answer, I'd say your edit respects the core content policies and that's the most important thing( well done ;) ). I would just delete the word "famous", which threatens the neutrality of point of view for no gain (I advice you to read this article about the words to watch). Regarding the style, I can't say as I am quite a newbie and rarely use quotations in my edits. This section of the MOS could be of some use for you, maybe. Hope it helps ! Happy editing KaptainIgloo (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Updated article - do I remove 'stub' status?
I just added a lot to the article Banting (crater), and I believe it is no longer a stub article. Should I remove the stub tag? Thanks! Helmholtz19 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say you could definitely remove the stub tag, nice work! Sam Walton (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How to submit an article for review?
I have an article I would like to submit for review. I worked in Wikipedia talk:Articles for Review area and am wondering if I should place the article in another location, as I don't see a SUBMIT option. Thanks for clarification.Vivre101 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am assuming you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paula Bourne on which I have taken the liberty of placing a banner which has a submit button. I have not submitted it for review, believing that to be your prerogative. Fiddle   Faddle  18:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, I appreciate your help. Vivre101 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Using a Video Clip
Hello, I recently had a draft declined due to weak referencing not demonstrating the page's notability. After researching I found lots of new references including this clip of the subject being featured on channel 4 news. The user who reviewed the draft said this would certainly prove its notability, but warned me to check copyright laws. I'd really like to include this reference, but don't want my draft declined again. I've got lots more references than last time, so maybe I shouldn't risk it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Offstage_Theatre_UK Graciefields (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't fully follow why there is a concern for copyright in a citation, you are not embedding the video in the article, or uploading it to wikipedia. It could certainly help if you found this on the news site, instead of a 3rd party. I checked WP:CS, and I don't see anything of the sort listed. Other hosts, please let me know if otherwise. Jab843 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Graciefields, Jab843:  Hi Graciefields. You can cite the video, but you should not link it (and I have removed the link above) as it appears to be a blatant copyright violation (at the external site), and we are  prohibited by policy from linking to copyright violations. The reason it appears to be a copyright violation is that just like many videos of this sort at YouTube, Scribd and elsewhere, it appears to have its origin in some random person uploading a video (that is almost certainly copyrighted), without any indication of permission from the copyright owner. (Note that we assume content is non-free copyrighted, unless we have affirmative evidence to the contrary.) This is quite different than, say, linking to content that is copyrighted, but uploaded by the copyright owner, e.g., linking content from BBC News, uploaded by BBC News to its official YouTube Channel. Getting back to use without linking, of course you should link when the linking is not improper, as it does provide much easier access, but we do not require that sources be available online, only that they be verifiable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. You would of course be citing the source as Channel 4 News, and not Vimeo. A grey area is that you learned about the material and accessed it through the copyright violating source, and would not have cited it but for finding it and thereupon viewing it through that means of access. That fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree issue is a bit a thorny. I remember seeing a few discussions of it years ago and as best I remember to the extent there was any consensus, it was that we can only go so far in our efforts to avoid this problem; that it's simply not feasible to self-ban ourselves from using a reliable source once its applicability and content is known to us just because the manner of access was through a third-party's improper conduct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your help, what a minefield! So to clarify, I certainly can't put a link to the clip in the article itself, but I can say that it was featured on the news, and put the episode title in the citation. I might be able to argue using the link but there's no consensus so it's difficult to tell. It seems like a bit of a risk either way, so I'm going to resubmit my draft without using this news coverage as a source. Thanks for your help and advice. Graciefields (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yes, if you cited the source you would simply not include the link, and cite the source just as you would no matter where you found it: its publisher its title, its air date and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)