Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 42

Library Digital Collections and copyright
Hi There, I am very new here. I work for the digital collections department of an academic library. We would like to create our own page and include images from our collection on it, and also share some of our images on Wiki articles that are pertinent to our collections. I have already experimented with uploading an image but it was rejected as an example of "blatant copyright infringement" (oops). We own the rights on all of our materials, but we only publish low-res images in our online collections with a rights statement. Is it possible for us to include our images on Wikipedia, or will we be limited to using only those images that fall under Public Domain? Is there a way for us to establish permission to use our images on Wikipedia? Thank you, Sopranojo (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can only post things which are free for other people to use. If you select a few of your images to release under a Creative Commons license (CC:BY) or (CC:BY-SA) that would be sufficient. But if they're not uploaded under a compatible license, Wikipedia cannot use them.  For specific answers, try asking Commons Help desk.--Robert Keiden (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sopranojo! Thanks so much for wanting to share your libraries holdings with Wikipedia! What Robert states is true - Wikipedia cannot use images and media content that is copyrighted. Public domain images, of course, can be used. Your organization would have to release their images under the Creative Commons licenses that Robert mentioned in order to be used on Wikipedia. We're always happy to help lend a hand, here at the Teahouse or at Commons. Also, we have an entire outreach program called "GLAM WIKI" that focuses on developing partnerships with galleries, libraries, archives and museums. In fact, I'm the former Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives! You can learn more about GLAM here. Feel free to stop by my talk page if you need further assistance. Thank you!! SarahStierch (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarah makes one mistake: copyrighted works are accepted here as long as they have what Wikipedia considers to be a "free license", and the Creative Commons licenses that Robert mentions are the best of the free licenses. Images under a Creative Commons license are still copyrighted, but you've irrevocably permitted everyone to use them in a wide range of ways.  What we don't accept are all-rights-reserved images or images with licenses that make requirements such as no-derivative-works, no-commercial-use, or only-with-notification-of-author.  Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, how can I add a picture of the map locator to Serbia-Cyprus relations page??
Serbia-Cyprus relations is a new article in Wiki that has a map of locating Cyprus and Serbia but I cannot place it in the article. Please if someone could do it for me it would be really helpful. Thanks a lot. IsrArmen (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IsrArmen, welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed the problem for you, its because the map you want to use is called   with a lower case "l" in its name rather than  .  By using the parameter map in Infobox bilateral relations I've forced the use of the lower case filename.  The long term solution is to ask for the file to be renamed on Commons - I've submitted the appropriate request. NtheP (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Help with cite please" section (below) is all screwed up!
What I see in the "edit" mode is very different to what I see in "read" mode! My most recent contribution is not appearing. Is it me, or is it Wikipedia? Eff Won (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A reply from another user was missing  around . I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's amazing the difference that makes ;-) Thanks. Eff Won (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Eff Won, even though it's not the best practice, I moved the reference for you (to the area after birth date). I placed it in the article in a way that's called "inline", so that the reference refers to the information in the sentence. If you wanted just to add the link to the article you could add an "External links" section, but this has information that should be used in the article. The references then show up on the bottom of the page and magically renumber themselves when more are added. Hopefully this explains a little about why we use a specific place and not for "the whole article". That particular article could use a lot more sources if you want to add them, that would be awesome. You can probably use that same reference a number of times. See WP:Referencing for beginners for some more info. Thanks for improving that article! heather walls (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah! Thanks, I'm with it now. And sorry, I think we've jumbled up the sections here a bit. Eff Won (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with cite please
I just tried to add a cite to the Johnny Servoz-Gavin article using the "Cite" item on the edit toolbar. It doesn't look quite right though, with the little "[1]" above it, is there a way to suppress that, that anybody knows about please? Eff Won (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Eff Won. No, there is no way to surpress that, and the [1] must be there, to show where the reference is referring to. Adam Mugliston  Talk  19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood that. You need to place the reference in the tags at the exact point, where you are using the reference for. The [1] should show up there. User:Adam mugliston
 * The reference covers the whole article, so I just wanted it at the bottom, without the "[1]". Is that possible? Eff Won (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Cite feature on the edit toolbar is designed for inline references and automatically adds  around the citation. You can also use the Cite feature for general references for the whole article but then you must manually remove the ref tags after clicking Insert. If an article has both inline and general references then they should usually be in different sections with different headings. See Manual of Style/Layout about that. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all good stuff! Thanks. Eff Won (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

timeline for company evolution
Hey can I ask you to explain how the timeline for "BAE Systems evolution" was formatted on the BAE Systems wiki page?

It's called from the wiki article by putting "BAE Systems Evolution" in double curly brackets. I'd like to create a timeline for another company's history using that as a template. It's a great tool that explains the merger history well, I'm just stumped re: how it works. 149.32.224.34 (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, 149. When some text is surrounded by double brackets this means that the code points to a page in the "Template:" namespace. You can find the the page that BAE Systems evolution points to by going to Template:BAE Systems evolution. This process is called transclusion, meaning the code from one page shows up on another page without reproducing the entire code. Any time you are looking at an Edit box and you see text between double brackets, this is what is going on. I wish you luck in using that template, it looks a little challenging!  hajat vrc  @ 05:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See also Help:Table for general help on tables. It explains how to use colspan and rowspan. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How do I find articles with specific problems, so I can help fix them?
I recently found an article with the section "This article is too technical for most people..." So I rewrote the introduction to match Wikipedia style guidelines.

How do I: a. find other articles that suffer from this same problem (I'm good at rewriting technical material) and b. work on other "Projects" that I see mentioned from time to time? I realize I can edit any page, but I'd like to FIND those pages that have been tagged as part of a "Project".

Thanks,

TheRealJoeWiki TheRealJoeWiki (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the TeaHouse, TheRealJoeWiki. I believe what you're looking for is the hidden category Category:Wikipedia_articles_that_are_too_technical. Most tags used for wikipedia clean up add the pages to hidden categories so that they can be tracked like this. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of categories that hold pages needing specific types of cleanup, and they're all supposed to be hidden. If you want to help us by cleaning pages, you can find these categories more easily if you toggle a switch to view hidden categories.  Click the "my preferences" link in the top right corner of your screen, select the "Appearance" button, and when that comes up, enable the "Show hidden categories" option.  These categories aren't hidden to keep them secret; they're hidden so that they don't distract people who are only coming here to read.  Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe
 * Looks like you'll now have plenty to work on. Rewriting overly technical material is a nice skill, and I hope you will apply your talents to some of the articles in the list. If you feel you succeed, don't forget to remove the cat when you are done, so we can whittle down the list.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How do i prove a source?
I have a source that is a repost of an article uploaded onto a blog. I have emailed the author of the original article, and have her confirmation response that the article in question was written by her and was published in her newspaper. The article is no longer available on the newspaper's website.

How can I go about confirming the validity of my source for use on wikipedia?

thanks Goldendelicious1 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Goldendelicious. Welcome back!  If you can provide the name of the newspaper, the date it was published, the author and the page number, that should be enough to back up your citation.  The volume and edition numbers would be useful as well.  Perhaps the author could provide you with this information?  Remember, though, that not all newspapers meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, so you should review these requirements against the paper's status before inserting the reference.  Good editing to you, and thanks for your work here at Wikipedia!  Ebikeguy (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. One last Question which I have not come across yet; what is the format for that info? Do i just place it in parentheses after my post? Goldendelicious1 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Formatting references is covered in two guidelines. If you read Citing sources it has all the details of how to cite just about any source.  It can be kinda daunting, however, which is why the page Referencing for beginners was made.  It has a simplified overview, which covers the use of the citation tool (called refToolbar) you have access to in the editing window.  Please read some of that over, and come back if you have any questions.  -- Jayron  32  02:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe I have succeeded in my efforts. Am I able to link to the page here to get feedback? [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldendelicious1 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like you have the bare minimum. Without assessing the quality of the sources or anything else about the article, you have used the "ref" and "/ref" tags correctly.  It would be nice if you expanded the references to include more bibliographic information like the author and publication information and dates and stuff like that, but it looks like a good start for a beginner.  -- Jayron  32  02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. Unless I am incorrect, i believe I have included the author's name, article title, publication name, date of publication, and page number. Goldendelicious1 (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Judy! You did. All the basic info is there, but I went ahead and put it in the "cite news" template that is available on a pull down tab in the edit screen.  Open the section in edit mode and take a look!  Good work!  Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's helpful to see the proper template. But my name is not judy :)? I also have a question about challenging an entire paragraph in that article based on a citation that doesnt affirm the claims. I'm researching how to go about that, but any direct nudges in the right direction are always appreciated. Thanks all. I'm learning. Goldendelicious1 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can use Template:Dubious immediately after the statement you are challenging. Just put  in the text immediately after the text you are challenging, and then start a discussion on the article talk page explaining, in detail, what is the disconnect between the source material and the Wikipedia article.  It is very important that you don't just "tag and run" but that you explain the problem on the talk page and give others some time to respond to your concerns.  If a statement remains in dispute for some reasonable amount of time (give it a week or two for people to respond to the issues you raise) then the statement can be removed.  But tag the statement, start a discussion, and see if the problem can't be resolved by working it out on the talk page.  -- Jayron  32  03:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank You. I'm currently reading up on the various tags. Dubious works. I'm not sure i get how to see/interact with the pages talk page, though. Goldendelicious1 (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When viewing the article, select the tab at the top that says "talk". From there, select the "new section" tab, and that will allow you to start a new discussion.  Give it a title and explain the situation.  -- Jayron  32  03:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Someone please hit me with a trout! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've apparently located the article online (ID 100D366266DE9585), but unfortunately it's behind a paywall. Anyway, you can at least pass the message on to the author that it does still seem to be available. -- Trevj (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there merit for leniency? - Internet challenged source validation
(Sidestepping -vs- Ethics)

Wikipedia Tea house, Q&A

May I humbly interject,

Are source origination; Title and copyright details alone, considered fair and reasonable accreditation, when there's no on-line ability to verify a source, based on written, published text, that best personifies the defining attributes of encyclopedic worthiness?

The code of ethics in journalism - by virtue, dictate Sidestepping this issue, by means of selective aversion-reference denotation, as moderately deceptive at best and in potential, unilaterally diminishes the heart of ethics in journalism. Especially in regards to a collective works such as Wikipedia.

Wikipedia however, is deserving of praise, for exhibiting a common observable patience and leniency toward it's voluntary contributors. Of which, I believe, builds upon social confidence, stability and social continuity.

I am both humbled and compelled to contribution, by the living embodiment and intellectual contribution of Wikipedia, and it is to my pleasure to welcomed serve, set apart from that which I primary endeavor. Maya`Tae Heno (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Maya`Tae Heno, and welcome! Thank you for your kind words.  I think Wikipedia is a pretty great thing as well.  Answering your first question, the answer is an unambiguous yes.  The only thing that is required for a source is enough information for a person to find the source the same way you did; that usually means that for print sources you need at minimum the "bibliographic details", which means title, author, publisher information, and page numbers where the text was found.  Now, thanks to the internet, many sources are availible online (even old books, newspaper articles, and journals thanks to Google, which has scans of many old books, newspapers, and journals through its Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar services), so if something is availible online, it is a courtesy to link to it.  However, there is no requirement that a source is availible online, and if it isn't, it should still be reasonably availible, for example, from a well stocked public library or university library.  There's a guideline called Citing sources which has lots of details on exactly how to cite various sources, and what information to provide at a minimum, and how to format it.  There is also Referencing for beginners which has the basics for the new user.  I hope this was helpful to you.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask!  -- Jayron  32  16:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dearest kind Jayron, Your consideration, is appreciated and further exemplifies the humble, giving nature I have observed here most frequently! My concern, is based primarily, as I write and am published in person, among others of whom keep intimate globally significant knowledge for many, that though ongoing copyrighted, few are permitted to gain access. Both ethics, humility and discretion want for dissuading direct personal notice. (Using my own name, as author, siting valid source accreditation.) Perhaps offending validation. Making apparent, the dilemma of revealing authorship, as well as Title, page number and copyright details, in consideration of freely offering disclosure, to the heightened sums in prudent intellectual evolution. Your standing kindness, is ample consoling to reply.

PS: Do also forgive my feigned acquaintance, with this interface and certain of my English and grammatical unfamiliarity. My contribution here is expected to be limited, but most deserving, according to the wealth freely offered by Wikipedia and it's generous sojourning contributors. Thank you and God be with you Sir, Jayron. Maya`Tae Heno (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Maya`Tae Heno (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Maya`Tae Heno, if your first language is not English, then it is likely that there is a Wikipedia in your native language, which could use your help. Though English Wikipedia is one of the largest versions, there are well over 200 different languages with their own active Wikipedias, and many of them could use additional interested people such as yourself to contribute to them.  The full list of all 285 or so Wikipedias is at this page, if you can find your native language you may find that your help is as appreciated there as it is here, if not even more so!  Good luck!  -- Jayron  32  17:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am where I belong. Thank you.

Regretfully, I am corrected by one Daniel J. Leivick, in reply to my adding to the present definition of Virtue, according to the Christianity faith. He was most rash and harsh in reply. Not at all, as I had observed any other or less comprehensible entries, posed only by timely request to revise.

Virtue, subjugated by evident source validation, "in parallel," according to the Christian faith, is singly the most powerful, tangible substance, known to all that exist; capable by a little known, simple process of absolutely anything. No worries. Elsewhere calls for my undivided attention (respit first) lol and I have written Daniel in reply, commending him for his diligence and discriminating servitude.

I had to return in laughter Jayro! Considering the Irony, of an reply received painted with in anger, siting another's perspective definition, as "incomprehensible," regarding the definition parallel of Virtue. lololololo

I suppose it true, that Virtue's greatest opposition, is born of conflict and lacking in understanding, kindness, patience and a poor demeanor. lolololololololol My own is perfectly in tact and I have no hard feelings, other than not considering the irony of this sooner.. Have a perfect day friend... Maya`Tae Heno (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings Maya`Tae Heno. The Wikipedia community is the beneficiary of your being compelled to contribution. You have chosen to stand erect; in the humility of near perfect posture that only the meekest can attain. I am familiar with the peace you will know, for I comprehend the faithful and true words; and I know the hour. Because you endeavored to improve understanding of the concept of virtue, you have instead found a brother. With gladness, I am willing to help as you sojourn this place; beseeching the entire measure that you remain steadfast in faith. Our tormentor is pathetic; and weak! Obligated to walk by command, he remains at station; behind, though preferring the fore. I am sincere and I am 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Upload Image
Okay...I created a page and I wanna upload a picture in the imbox as a profile picture. Vijay3006 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Vijay, welcome to Wikipedia.


 * Do you have an appropriately licensed image or were you planning to upload a fair use image? If so, I can help tell you how to proceed in either case, although I see that the article has been nominated for deletion, so your first priority should be addressing that. Do you understand the concern that was expressed?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes...My article was nomited for deletion and i provided the references that the news is true.Can you provide me the info for keeping my page alive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay3006 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I delete some empty articles that I created?
I created a few empty articles (well, with just a #REDIRECT in them) because I thought it was a good idea to help tidy up some complex hyperlinks. As it transpires though, the project seems to prefers the links as they were before. I can't see an option though to delete the new, empty, articles that I created - does anyone here know if there's a way to get rid of them? Eff Won (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Eff Won. Yes no problem. If you are the only editor you can request speedy deletion by adding the template to the page.--Charles (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Charles, thanks for that. Do you mean type that into the top of the article? And will the page then automatically delete itself? Eff Won (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Eff Won, it tags the article for the attention of an admin who will delete the article. NtheP (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I type that text into the top of the article? Eff Won (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Charles (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Eff Won (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How can I Publicly Upload an Image?
I uploaded some images Publicly but they were deleted showing the reason Copyright violation. But I could not understand my mistake. So can anyone tell me the way of uploading an image Publicly which won't be deleted and will not go against the Copyright violation?Sourov0000 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourov, welcome to the Teahouse. As the images have been deleted it's difficult to tell exactly what the issue was but I suspect you uploaded images without establishing that the appropriate permission to upload them to Wikipedia or Commons existed.  By this I mean that the images were either in the public domain or the copyright holder has given express permission for them to be used on Wikipedia.  Just because you find an image on the internet does not mean that it is in the public domain, being made public and being in the public domain are two very different things.  Many, if not most images on the internet are the subject of copyright and the onus is on you to establish that they can be used on Wikipedia not to assume they are public domain and for others to disprove it.  The simplest rule to apply it to assume that something is not in the public domain unless it is expressly stated that it is. NtheP (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy, Sourov0000. I would like to add that sometimes an image is copyrighted under a free license that gives automatic permission for reproduction (such as Wikipedia's license!). Many other non-free licenses can be used under "fair use" because they permit repoduction for educational purposes (such as for Wikipedia). But without knowing the image you want to upload, I cannot advise as to whether the image can be used or not. If you think that your image may fit into one of these categories, you can give this information by replying to this thread and we will help you figure it out.  hajat vrc  @ 16:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that you have uploaded any images to Wikipedia. Did you upload them to Commons? (I thought I would look at them to help explain the problem, but I'm not seeing any).-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Title Change
I need to change the spelling of the title "Luccinum Atrostipitatum" to "Leccinum Atrostipitatum". I created the page so I hope it's not a big deal. ThanksJwright000 (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Made the move for you. I don't think you have enough edits of your own yet to move items. NtheP (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

picture help
hello can anyone help me about how to put the company logo on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2_Power_Solutions from top to into the infobox thank you Satyam.kapoor (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Satyam! Welcome to the Teahouse. I've slightly changed the code, I hope it's more what you wanted. If you would like the picture lower, then simply place the code lower. Adam Mugliston  Talk  08:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Satyam. Welcome to the Teahouse.  At this point, what you have in your article is a Wikitable showing the same information as a Infobox Template would show.  to get the logo into it, you would need to remove it and replace it with an appropriate template.  I would suggest Template:Infobox company.  Don't worry about all those fields.  The only ones that will show in the article are the ones you put data in.  To answer your question, once you have an infobox on your page, you would simply put the filename inside the brackets where it says  .  Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Adam and Gtwfan52, I tried the infobox template but instead of the pic, the logo only shows the text P2 Power Logo.jpg, this is the name I gave to the pic. please help Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyam.kapoor (talk • contribs) 09:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Satyam, it's fixed for you, you had put a space in the file name which was causing it to show incorrectly. NtheP (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanx a lot Nthep, It's perfect. thankyou Satyam.kapoor —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for an actor, I keep asking but nobody answers
Hi! the show's Task Force doesn't answer my question and I'm eager to contribute. I'm fan of Canadian actor Cory Monteith and I was amazed to read his story of alcoholism and substance abuse and how he turned his life around. I just love him. He became a good person. My question is, would categories Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics and Category:People self-identifying as substance abusers be suitable for his article? Thank you! Timothyhere (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Timothyhere.
 * I'll confess I'm not an expert in the area, but my understanding is that once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, so even if one stops drinking, one is still considered an alcoholic. However, the term "substance abuser" implies to me an ongoing abuse. I haven't read the article, but I infer that he has stopped that. I don't know that we have a category for former substance abusers. My initial thoughts are that the first cat is fine, the second one, I'm not so convinced.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would add the category, but I love him so much that it may be offensive to categorize him as alcoholic. Isn't it? Timothyhere (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree with Sphilbrick on a few points, and give a different perspective on the matter. Per WP:BLPCAT, though similar guidance applies to ALL articles, not just articles about people: the categories for an article need to have a reason to exist beyond the fact that they may be true (see also WP:UNDUE for a related set of ideas).  That is, when a category (any category, but doubly so for a category which may put the subject of an article in a negative light) is applied to an article, it needs to be related to the reason the subject is notable in the first place, and NOT just a trivially true fact about the subject.  For example, is the person whom you are trying to apply the category to primarily known for being an alcoholic?  It needn't be the only reason they are famous, but it should be one of the main reasons.  Would people know less about them if they weren't an alcoholic?  Is the fact that they are an alcoholic a large part of what people know about them?  If the answer to these questions is not a loud YES (and it needs to scream YES, not just be "well, kinda") then the category should not apply.  I hold every single category to every single article to these standards, because the category system needs to be usable, and too many categories makes the system inefficient, however when we're dealing with real living people we need to be extra scrupulous about how we treat them at Wikipedia.  Just for example, Bill W. is a good article to catagorize in the "alcoholic" category, because Bill W. not only self-identified as an alcoholic, it is also the only reason anyone even knows about him.  For people who self-identify as alcoholics, it wouldn't merely be enough that they self-identify as such, it would also be necessary that their notability, their reason for having an article at Wikipedia, is in some way tied to that.  If not, don't use the category, even if it is technically true.  -- Jayron  32  13:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayron and I are closer than my answer might suggest, although we aren't in complete agreement. As I mentioned, I haven't read the article, so I was answering in the abstract. I repeat, and clarify, the first cat is fine, if it is relevant, but the second doesn't appear to be. I agree with Jayron that we aren't obligated to accept any category that might happen to be true, however, I think Jayron goes to far to suggest that it "needs to be related to the reason the subject is notable in the first place". If we accept that, we need to remove about a million "people from location X" because they are almost never notable for being born in a particular place. I don't know of anyone (now that Dick Clark has passed), who is notable for simply being alive, and I don't think Jayron truly is advocating the removal of the living people cat. I inferred from the post by Timothyhere that the overcoming of alcohol issues was an important aspect of his life, which would support including it. On the other hand, if it is a minor aside, then I agree with Jayron that it isn't as clear that it belongs. The goal of categories is to help readers find related articles. If you were doing some research about people who were alcoholics, would it be helpful to find the Cory Monteith article? If so, it should be so categorized. -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  13:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

But his alcoholism was a key part of his life, he has even said that he's 'lucky to be alive'. Timothyhere (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Timothy! My view on catagories has always been, is the article important for the catagory, not is the catagory important for the article.  Hope that helps.  We are glad you have joined the ranks of Wikipedia editors, and urge you to come back here if there is anything we can help you with in the future.  Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded a DYK nomination for him, even though his article has not been recently created nor expanded. Could it be an exception since he never appeared on the DYK section? Timothyhere (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As discussed on my talk page, the point of DYK is to encourage creation and expansion, so it wouldn't make sense to make an exception, sorry.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I create a page myself?
Can I create a page myself as a new user? Or is there a probation? Architech4176 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Architech. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia.  You certainly can create an article as a new user.  I see that you are building one in your sandbox.  When it is ready, look for the "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation,  click here ." in the template at the top of your sandbox.  Just click and your article will be sent to the Pending Articles for Creation.  In another two days, you will become an autoconfirmed editor and will be able to move your article directly to article space.  Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 01:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's just what I was looking for! Architech4176 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to step on Doctree's toes here, but as someone who has recently entered into the realm of new pages, I thought I would also add that new articles need to cover notable subjects. You can view the guidelines here: Notability. I thought it best to share this with you, so that you do not end up putting a lot of work into an inappropriate topic (however, you will always receive feedback and pages can be adjusted for notability).--Soulparadox (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How can I possibly love Wikipedia?
I joined Wikipedia amidst the debate regarding Talk:Yosemite_National_Park. I've spent hours looking and through pages of rules and regulations, trying to figure out how to complete the simplest tasks and trying my best to help make others more aware. The people here are lovely. There are a few voices of disapproval as always, but that is no different than real life.

However, I'm convinced the system is too old, too complicated, and in the end... well, heart-breaking.
 * "I've read too many anecdotes of people quitting work on Wikipedia after getting sick and tired of the politics spoiling their contribution experience" —Wingman4l7 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me think otherwise? Because I believe it's my response to the comment above on my Talk Page that lead me here. Thank you. Airelor (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Airelor, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! You can do as much, or as little, as you want with Wikipedia. It is indeed a complicated beast with plenty to discover, but the basics are quite simple. Enjoy it while you can and, if you find you're not enjoying it then it's quite okay to step away. Life will go on, after all. As you say, most of the behaviour on Wikipedia is similar to real life, dealing with real people, with a variety of values, experiences, knowledge and priorities. Sometimes we will disagree, but most of the time we're pushing in the same direction :) Sionk (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

why an accepted article is not showing up in a browser search
i feel kind of stupid asking this but, hey, gotta learn somehow. i had an article accepted  and can reach it by typing in the full web location  or by coming in via links through some of the photos associated with the project

but when i do a google search, it will not reference the main article. again, maybe it's not supposed to or there's something i need to do beyond what i've done. can anybody give me a tip on this  thanks. Abearfellow (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Abearfellow. Don't worry, you just need to give the Google 'bots' a while to find the new article. It doesn't always happen straight away. Sionk (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Abearfellow: that article looks like a great contribution for a new user (or anyone). Congrats and welcome. Regarding Google, it will appear there; it's just a matter of time. In my experience Google usually reflects changes to Wikipedia really quickly, but not this time. -- Update: I just searched for that article name on Google and it shows as the first result. If this is not the case for you, it must have something to do with Google displaying different results based on location, though this seems unlikely. Have you tried searching very recently? Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks to both of you.  really,  i know that there are difficulties, controversies, frustrations with the whole wikipedia process but the nice people who make up this process far outweigh any of those troubles.   seriously;    what a nice group of people.  i wish there were a real teahouse (actually wish there was a real cocktail bar) to celebrate the folks who put time in on this. Abearfellow (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

how to ask for a rating on a quality scale?
Hi everybody,

I added several references to the article Ernst Horn. Since I am very new to WP, I am not sure, whether it is okay to remove the note "This biographical article needs additional citations". Can somebody have a look and tell me?

On the talk page of that article there is a note with "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography" and that it has not received a rating on the project's quality scale. How do I get in touch with the people working on the project to ask for a rating? Does it make any sense with respect to the shape the article is in?

Thx for your help, CarbonWoman (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, CarbonWoman! Welcome to the Teahouse.  If you look at the box on the talk page you will see that article is actually covered by the Wikiproject Musicians, a subproject of WikiProject Biography.  You would go to that projects page and see if they have a specific place to list requests for review.  If not, leave a note on their talk page.  While you are there, be sure to check out the guidelines for articles on musicians at WP:WPMAG.
 * Your addition to the article is very well referenced. But since you only referenced what you added and didn't reference any of the existing content, I would say that the ref problem is still there and you shouldn't remove the "refimporvBLP" tag.  We are very glad you are here.  Many new editors don't take the time to provide good references like you did.  Keep up the great work!  Wikiediting is fun, no? Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the quick answer, Gtwfan52! I will do as you suggested. --CarbonWoman (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What Does It Mean???
On my "My Contributions" page, after each of my contributions, there's a number in parentheses with a "+", or "-" symbol after it. What does all that mean?

(18:46, 16 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+840)‎ . . Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Left column ‎ (→‎RainbowZen1: new section) (top) 22:52, 15 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . Snow globe ‎ (→‎Film and television) (top) 22:47, 15 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Snow globe ‎ (→‎Film and television) 22:43, 15 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+111)‎ . . Snow globe ‎ (→‎Film and television) 21:44, 16 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+204)‎ . . Snow globe)

"Ring the bell that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there is a crack...in everything, that's how the light gets in." 18:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowZen1 (talk • contribs)


 * Hello RainbowZen1. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse.  That refers to the change in length of the article you edited.  So, if your changes caused the article to be longer by 840 characters, it will read (+840).  If it caused the article to be shorter by 5 charcters, it will read (-5).  Does that help?  -- Jayron  32  19:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse, the numbers are the size change of the article (in bytes) made by that edit. So looking at the article on snow globes your earliest edit had a net effect of increasing the article size by 204 bytes (incidentally a byte roughly equates to one character), the next an increase of 111 bytes, the next an increase of 12 bytes and the last reduced the size by 5 bytes.  Don't make the mistake of assuming green is good, red is bad.  A lot of very beneficial edits reduce the overall size of an article because they tidy the article, remove rubbish, using better syntax etc.  You can read a fuller explanation at Help:Page history. NtheP (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The number describes the difference between it and the previous version in terms of an increase or decrease in size, measured in bites(?) (I think bites is correct, it could be bytes, or even characters) . 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum - To elaborate on the fine point made regarding assumptions, you should make no assumptions about the number except that it reflects the existing size of the article at that time. For example changing chicago to Chicago will show the change as (0), though a change has occurred. Or an entire paragraph of encyclopedic content can be replaced with scandalous slander and simply result in a (-3). Hopefully this can be helpful as well. Good question by the way, thanks for asking it here. 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all, you've answered my question nicely. "Ring the bell that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there is a crack...in everything, that's how the light gets in." 19:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowZen1 (talk • contribs)

How to create a box for table of content and the date line box under the photo and Superscripts
Developed the article on docx (on going) and when pasted into wiki, the superscript disappears. How to get the superscripts back? using special characters?

How to insert a table of content and the date line box into the article? Can I do this directly within wiki? Sarah, I hope you are reading this. From you input, I have embarked on a more interesting journey in developing this article. More fun and educational for me too! Thanks. This is a work in progress and I hope to wrap up in a couple of months. There is a lot of ground to cover and more references to be had. Your input is always valued. CHHistory (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC) How to change color of the text? When copy and paste article from docx into wiki, the result is quite different. Thanks for your help. CHHistory (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Superscripts are easy:  Superscript text .
 * The Table of Contents is usually done automatically in articles when you have multiple sections.
 * I am confused as to what you mean by "date line box". Could you give an example?
 * Colored text is produced like this: red But colored text is rare in articles unless you are doing a table. I would be careful when it comes to using colored text and make sure that it is used in a way that is accepted by the community. If you are not sure about this, you can ask here.
 * On a side note, it is much easier to edit a Wikipedia article in a plain text editor such as Notepad++ because full-featured word processors have a tendency to reformat your text in ways that might not translate to Wikipedia articles. In a plain text editor, you can write your code in the same way that it will be typed in Wikipedia's edit box.  hajat vrc  @ 20:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll echo the advice to use a text editor, rather than Word. I always use NoteTab Pro.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

hajatvrc, as always, many thanks for your advice. Without help from the senior editors, how would one know about all these codes?? In docx, I have changed all to black for text, including references. When they showed up in dark blue, I was quite surprised. So, if I write in Word, saved as txt would this work? Or better to use Notepad? Under the photo, I normally see a box where information such as education, spouse, children ... were included. How to create this box under the photo? Sphilbrick, thanks to you too. CHHistory (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The box you are talking about will be one of the infobox series of which there a lot. You should pick one, perhaps infobox person? and copy all the parameters into whatever editing programme you are working in.  Then you can add the specifics. I'd reiterate the comments of the others above and use a text editor rather than a word processing programme. NtheP (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nthep, thanks. Will look into that. I find all these codes daunting, and not quite understanding how the strings of coding work for color change extra ... so will redo the write up in txt and reinsert into Wiki to see what happens. Sorry folks for being a slow learner on matters as such, though I have high hopes that once my first article is done, I will have sufficient knowledge to do other history based articles. Please bear with me. Again, thanks. CHHistory (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't worry about the coding in detail. Write the content of the article then pop it into your sandbox and invite us to have a look.  The wikignomes among us can "tart" it up for you and then you can see what we have done by comparing the various edits and use that knowledge in future articles. NtheP (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, sound like a plan. Many thanks!CHHistory (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting Information for an existing article
I would like to add the following to the dice page at Dice

I have tried to test this in my Sandbox, but when I click preview the image does not appear. I am not sure how to do this properly. Can another editor post this properly? I really do not want to post incorrectly onto Wikipedia. Can someone edit below and possibly post with the proper image (The image is found at http://www.polydi.com/images/Polydi-Black-White-Sketch-2012.jpg ). Thanks.

Polydi is a new dice shape invented in 2012. The die has two semi round sections (top and bottom) and triangular sections around the body of the die. The triangular sections allow for the random roll. When the die is rolled or spun, it will come to rest on one of the triangle sides. The Polydi design was submitted to the patent office in 2012. (FashionIndustry (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the first answer to your question is that you can't add the image to the article.  To assist in ensuring that images used on Wikipedia meet copyright concerns, direct links cannot be made to images that are not hosted on either Wikipedia or Commons.  The only way to add the image is to upload it to Wikipedia or Commons but before doing so you must ensure that the image you use is in the public domain or that the copyright holder has given express permission. NtheP (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We all appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia.  However, before I answer your question, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's rules on notability.  In order to be included in Wikipedia, "Polydi" would need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources.  If not, then inserting information about it could be considered spamming, and your edits are likely to be reverted.  If you can provide evidence that the Polydi is notable, then you can read all about uploading images in this article. Thanks again for your work here and happy editing!  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please investigate the noteability of Polydi? It is a "new" invention. In my opinion, it is of importance to people interested in "dice". The history of dice has only a handful of designs because a die must maintain a random roll. The fact that Polydi is not yet on TV, magazines, or newspaper, should not make it not important to people researching dice. Anyway, I can not spend all the time learning the Wikipedia processes. I only know that this is an important discovery for "dice" and it may be a good idea to be on your dice page. If anyone thinks this item is of value to people researching dice, please add it on Wikipedia. If for some reason, you do not think a newly invented randomly rolling die does not qualify for the Wikipedia dice page because it is not yet in the news, that is fine too. If you would like to see the item spinning and landing randomly like a traditional dice, you can search Polydi spinning dice on Youtube. You can also see the actual produced product at https://plus.google.com/u/0/111005562018814133811/posts/QcJwrd5Fmry FashionIndustry (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again. You write, "The fact that Polydi is not yet on TV, magazines, or newspaper..."  If that is, in fact, a fact, then I am afraid that Polydi does not qualify as notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  If you can find reliable sources that cover Polydi, we would be happy to help you format and insert the language and citations in appropriate articles.  Also, if you have any kind of financial interest in Polydi, I strongly suggest that you stop trying to add related information to Wikipedia.  I see that you have already had issues with Conflict of Interest, and I would hate to see you banned permanently from editing Wikipedia for continuing to promote items with which you are financially connected.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I have invented the product. However, that truly should not exclude me from suggesting the item for review. Believe me, I have no interest in "writing" the article update myself. My intention is to alert an editor/writer at Wikipedia to the fact that they should research the product. Again, regardless of my involvement, or the fact that I have not seeked placement in the press, the item is infact very relevant to the "dice" definition. According to Wikipedia, a "die is a small throwable object with multiple resting positions, used for generating random numbers." Polydi is EXACTLY that. If editors at Wikipedia, look at the image of Polydi and look at the actual video of the "dice" spinning and landing on a random section and still determine Polydi is not a valid die, I completely give up. Again, Polydi is an entirely new dice shape that 100% matches the definition of a die. Regardless of being in a magazine or not, and regardless of the fact that I have invented the die, Polydi is VERY clearly a small throwable object with multiple resting positions, used for generating random numbers which matches exactly to your definition. Again, I respect your rules, but I really should not have to beg for a legit die to be added to a "dice" definition. The dice definition includes standard variations, and rarer variations, to not include "Polydi" you do not have a thorrow description of the subject. Think about people researching the subject of dice shapes. The Polydi shape clearly exists (even if their is not an article about it). The wikipedia dice definition is not accurate if it does not contain "all" dice shapes. Anyway, I have given my best effort to explain my concern of the fact that the dice definition is missing the Polydi version. By the way, being published in a newspaper as a criteria should not validate a product. I happen to own the Fashion Newspaper. It is not hard for me to have an article about Polydi. PLEASE have someone other then me, investigate the product. I truly think you will agree that it is valid and appropriate for your dice definition. Again, thanks for you time. FashionIndustry (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, FashionIndustry! Looking at the picture you linked, it appears you have created a new design for a 12-sided die.  Twelve-sided dice are covered in the article as it exists.  Brand names are not and won't be.  Wikipedia is not an advertisement.  There are some articles on Wikipedia on products, but to write one of those you need substantial coverage in reliable second party sources like magazines, newspapers and books.  You stated here already that isn't the case. So, I am sorry, but I really don't see any way that there will be an article on your invention any time soon.  Maybe in a couple years, if your marketing goes well. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Again. If you feel strongly that your die should be mentioned in the Dice article, your best course of action would be to bring up that suggestion in the article's talk page.  Explain why you think your die deserves to be covered, and let the experts consider the matter.  Unfortunately, I wouldn't get my hopes up, if I were you.  Wikipedia's rules about notability are pretty strict, and you admit that your die does not meet these requirements.  The worst thing you could do at this point would be to try to add information on your die to articles directly.  Given your previous block due to conflict of interest (COI) concerns, it is highly likely that the Wikipedia community would frown on any additional COI editing on your part.  I encourage you to help improve Wikipedia by editing articles you are interested in, but in which you have no direct, financial involvement.  Ebikeguy (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Inquisitive!!! Can someone please check my article's page and see if the references are reliable and enough?
LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Haider_Rifaat

Thanks!! Sorry for bombarding the forum! RingerHere! (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ringer. I guess I have to have a sad face, because I got to tell you that you do not have one single reliable source on that article.  See WP:RS and especially what it says about YouTube.  You should also check out the notability requirements for musicians, because generally, artists only known by their works on YouTube are not considered notable by Wikipedia standards to have an article here.  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.  Perhaps you may wish to try adding some referenced content to some existing articles here on musicians? Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you add images to your article? HELP!
I am unable to apprehend the links concept! How do you add images into your article? It is so complicated! Help!! RingerHere! (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ringer.


 * Adding images can be tricky, partly because it involves getting the image loaded as well as added to the article, which is done differently, depending on where it should go. This link Help:Images_and_other_uploaded_files covers a lot of material, but it you identify which image, and which article, we can be more specific.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do YouTube links work as references? I
There is thi guy on YouTube for whom I am making a wikipedia. He is dope! I was just wondering if YouTube links with his name would work as references or not? RingerHere! (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * YouTube links are rarely acceptable, but occasionally are. One of the problems is that they often violate copyright, which we do not permit. Another issue, a big one, is that most people upload material to YouTube using the standard YouTube license, which is incompatible with Wikipedia. If the material does not have copyright problems, the licensing issues can be address, if the author is willing, although it is only fair to note that I haven't covered all the issues. YouTube video rarely qualify as reliable sources, so we would have to review that as well. However, this is abstract, if we know more, we can give more specific advice.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How can I archive my talk page?
Hello! Can someone help me archive my talk page? I've discovered one can archive one's talk page with a bot, however after following the instructions all I have is the same page but with the archive tags on it. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Focusandlearn! I use ClueBot for my talk page archiving, so I'm not an expert on Miszabot setup.  But IIRC, it looks like it's the   that's the problem.  I think that means that Miszabot will always leave up to four threads up on your main page, even if they're old enough to be archived.  Since you only have three threads on your page, Miszabot leaves it alone.  If you had two more threads on your talk page (which would total to five), then Miszabot would archive the one oldest thread, bringing it back down to four.  Does that makes sense?  Hopefully, someone with more knowledge of Miszabot will come and confirm/correct. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That does make sense! Thank you very much. I guess my OCD will have to be kept in check, haha. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I create an Author Page about myself?
Hello... Over the past two years, I have published three books. I am not looking to advertize at all, but I would like to create a page telling people who I am, where I am from, etc. Granted, I am no Stephen King, but if someone googles me, I would like for them to know who I am. I have links to my publishers (Authorhouse) which are reliable sources. Can anyone give me advice? Thank youClaywestfall (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Claywestfall. Welcome to the teahouse. Writing about yourself is discouraged because it is difficult to be neutral about yourself. You will also need significant third party published sources for the text to establish that you are considered notable by Wikipedia. You can read more at WP:COI.--Charles (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Been over 5 days! Wikipedia is not accepting my article! it just says "Review Waiting." How long will it take?
RingerHere! (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi RingerHere, welcome to the Teahouse! I see you have two draft articles waiting for review, so I can't comment specifically. Generally it is not uncommon to wait longer than 5 days for an article to be reviewed, so I would recommend patience. While you are waiting, it will be beneficial to make absolutely sure than your articles are backed up by independent, reliable news/magazine/book sources. We need to see these to prove your subjects are widely known and suitable for an encyclopedia. Best of luck! Sionk (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)