This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
@Syncopator:To include images in an article which you are editing, you can use the following format. Begin with two square brackets, then input the image which you are attempting to include. It must be in the Wikimedia Commons library, and should be entered in the form File:example.jpg. Then, after the image name is complete, use | and then denote a location on the article, e.g. left or right hand side, by typing left or right. Finally, use | again and set the size of the image to x pixels by typing xpx, and close the square brackets. An example can be seen below. [[File:Skullclose.jpg|left|50px]] . Hope that this helps. If not, tell us what article you are attempting to edit and an editor will be able to do it for you. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Syncopator:, you mention "upload". Are you trying to upload the images to Wikipedia (using the Upload File link on the left side of this screen) or trying to upload it to Wikimedia Commons? Or are you just trying to post an image which is hosted online somewhere else (this doesn't work on Wikipedia for legal reasons)? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Stormy clouds, and MatthewVanitas.
I am not trying to edit an article, I'm trying to point out a serious error using the article's Talk facility.
There is provision for uploading an image on the Talk page, so I don't understand why square brackets, or the Wikimedia Commons library is mentioned, or how I "input" the image.
I see no Upload File link on this page.
The images I want to insert in the Talk page are on my computer Syncopator (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC) @Syncopator: - are you the owner of the images, or are they in the public domain? If so, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons library yourself using the Wizard. Otherwise, as far as I know, you are out of luck, as the upload file link which you allude to is, indirectly, a way of uploading them to the library. Incidentally, what is the talk page which you wish to upload to, so that direct assistance can be provided? Stormy clouds (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Syncopator. What the other replies have hinted at, but not said explicitly, is that there is no concept of uploading an image to a page whether an article, a talk page, or anything else. You need to upload the image to Commons, and then you can include it in the page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Having put a few thousand of my photos in articles, I say it is unfortunate that our complex and strange ways make such difficulties. Clearly the Upload link ought to lead to a simple way to upload a picture for the article we are reading. Server side software ought to take care of rough Wikipedia Commons categories and other complications. Ought to. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Help getting a page created
Hello! What is the best way to get a page created? I would like an unbiased third party editor to assist with page creation. I have submitted the page for creation under "Requested Articles" but am unsure on the best next steps.
@BritnyDPR: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you are asking for an "unbiased third party editor" I take that to mean that you are associated with the subject that you want to see an article created about(which seems to be "ClusterTruck Food Delivery"). That is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please read that link). If you work for the subject, you will need to read and comply with the paid editing policy; this is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid to edit.
If you are associated with this company, you are wise to have first posted at Requested Articles. It is, however, severely backlogged, and it may be some time before someone writes an article(Wikipedia users are largely volunteers). That is actually probably the best, less biased way to proceed(wait for someone to create it). However, it is possible for someone in your position to submit a draft for review by an independent editor, which (if accepted) can be made into an article. This can be done at Articles for Creation.
I would provide some words of caution in doing that, however. To successfully write a draft, you will need independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of your company that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines for companies. If you have that, then you will need to forget everything you know about your company and only write based on what the independent sources state. You cannot rely on press releases, the company website, transcripts of interviews with staff, or any other primary source. Only on what independent third parties write.(with some exceptions for indisputable factual information like staff numbers, location, etc) That is usually difficult for people with a COI to do- but it is possible. If your goal is to see a neutral encyclopedic article created, you can certainly use Articles for Creation. However, if your goal is just to tell the world about your company, that should be done in another forum like social media.
I would also suggest you read the page WP:PROUD; a Wikipedia article existing about your company is not necessarily a good thing. You cannot lock it to the text you or your company might prefer, prevent others from editing it, or keep negative information off the page; as long as something appears in an independent reliable source, it can be in a Wikipedia article, good or bad. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the information! Yes, I am trying to avoid the Conflict of Interest by having the page created. I appreciate knowing that I could also create a drafted article using reliable sources.
@BritnyDPR: I would be interested in writing this article. I don't have a COI. Have checked sources on Google. The business model is very clever, not surprising, considering the CEO. Reliable sources look good and I think notability will be okay. Let me know if you want me to do this. If you would rather try it yourself, no problem. Regards, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tribe of Tiger: Yes, I would greatly appreciate you taking the first stab at creating the page since you do not have a COI. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need additional sources. :) BritnyDPR BritnyDPR (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: Agreed...I waded through and discounted all of the Arts & Entertainment sources as "PR" based. My "offer" to @BritnyDPR:was based on three business/tech sources. Still, I planned to check with a friendly admin regarding the suitability of the sources. Since you commented, I will post on your talk page concerning the sources to use for a stub. Thanks for your advice and interest. Regards, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!08:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for double checking sources to see which ones are the best fit. How's it going so far? Please let me know if I can answer any questions! BritnyDPR (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Just started 1st Userspace Draft. How to save while still work-in-progress?
Relatively new to Wikipedia, here.
I've worked in a Sandbox once before.
This is my 1st time working on a Userspace Draft.
As on ongoing work-in-progress, I plan to work on this article in phases within the Userpsace Draft, so when I'm at a point where I'd like to take a break and return to get back to working on it, all before submitting the draft for publication, I'm seeking help on how to just save my draft, so it's stays around for the time being as I'm working on it.
The info box says, "Finished? Save your work by pressing the 'Save page' button below," but it looks like there's 0 'Save page' button around.
Is it being saved automatically in real time as I'm working on it.
Please excuse me if any info related to this help I'm seeking is already posted somewhere.
Is the "Publish" button one and the same as the above-referenced "Save page" button?
Hi Tqiwiki! No, it doesn't have autosave - although I also wish that it was implemented for drafts. The button you want should be in blue, and perhaps "Publish changes" or similar. It will also time out of you spend too long on writing without a save, so I generally save fairly often just to be safe. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tqiwiki. A recent software upgrade changed the label on the blue button from "save page" to "publish changes". The functionality is the same, but much of the help page documentation has not yet been updated. There is nothing wrong with hitting the blue button frequently as you develop a draft. That ensures that you will not lose a big block of work. Unless you hit the blue button, your work in progress will not be saved. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Hit "Publish" and it's saved. This work-in-progress is good to go for now. Thank you. Appreciate it (and appreciate you helping out so fast).
@Tqiwiki: If you can supply a link to the instruction page you were following, I will see if we can update it. All our help pages should now use the correct term "Publish", except those where a graphic image still shows the old name. Both will then need correcting at the same time. I'm sorry this issue, not surprisingly, still causes such confusion. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This type of question keeps occurring, here and at the Help Desk. I have raised the question of confusing instructions at Template talk:Userspace_draft#Still refers to the "Save page" button, as I can't change the template, but can someone involved in the decision to implement the WMF's software change please tell us when the rest of the instructions will be changed to stop causing further confusion to editors, and particularly to new users? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this situation has gone on for far too long, David. The failure by WMF to ensure coordination with editors responsible for maintaining help pages across en.wiki has caused much confusion for many new editors. Pinging @Whatamidoing (WMF): again over this issue. BTW: I've just spent a couple of hours creating new screenshots, and will upload them shortly. I will also update the instructions for the Visual Editor Guide where I can today. Inevitably, for any protected templates this may result in a disparity between text and images. But something needs to be done to get this sorted. I have built a list of images and/or out of date instruction pages that still need correcting. Please add or remove links, as appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I've posted an edit request for that template.
David, this community's user documentation and message templates are controlled by this community. I personally started talking to the English Wikipedia about this change about two years ago, and I specifically recommended that editors make a list of all the pages that would need to be updated. I think that the main problem isn't that nobody knew about the change, but that there are zillions of templates and help pages and relatively few people interested in fixing all of them (rather than just fixing the ones that they personally care about). Moxy and Nick were among the heroes working on the big picture. I find that there are still several dozen templates that contain the words "Save page", a few more that say "Save changes". Some templates (and probably some help pages) have additional problems. For example, Template:Course page/editintro and a couple of others say to scroll down to the bottom of the page to find the button. If you're using the 2017 wikitext editor or the visual editor, then the button is at the top right of the screen, and you won't need to scroll down to find it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Date format
Should dates on Wikipedia pages have a particular format? BCE vs BC and CE vs AD
We have a wikipedia entry up and running and approved. This was done in November. We just tried to upload an accompanying picture and got the message that our account is not yet confirmed. Yet it is much more thatn 4 days old and we have done more than 10 edits. Can anyone help us? DamesnetB (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamesnetB (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@DamesnetB: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm curious as to why you say "we" and "our" in your post above; please note that usernames can only be used by a single individual and not represent a group per the username policy. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Looking at the edit history for this article, I suspect "we" may have simply been used to reflect the collaborative nature of this and many other articles produced under the encouragement and guidance of the Women In Red project. We attract quite a lot of new editors, and I see my parter-in-crime, Victuallers was quite involved with it. Point of interest: we've now reached 17.4% of all biographies on Wikipedia being about women. Yay! #gettingthere. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Its now 17.48% and WE are very proud of this achievement. Users are allowed to represent groups (see the policy) its just that an account cannot be shared (represent) a group. Pleased to see your helping. thanks. Victuallers (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, Roger. That figure is rapidly rising! I did leave this note on the Talk page of that user, reminding them of our username policy. Regards from, errm, well, just up the road, I guess. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Vorhandene Seite - neu erstellen in englischer Sprache.
Liebe Kollegen,
ich habe 2013 über den Künstler Ekkeland Götze eine Seite erstellt.
Nun hat der Künstler mir die englischen Texte für die Seite übergeben, mit der Bitte, eine englische Seite dazu anzulegen-
Wie muss ich da vorgehen? Wo finde ich eine Anleitung.
(edit conflict) @Eberhardklaus: Welcome to Wikipedia. At English Wikipedia, we need to use English for communication purposes (and my German is a little too rusty...) so I'll respond in English. To create an article here, you need sources that are independent of the subject, so anything the artist asks you to write here is probably not going to be useful. To find help on how to write an article you can read Wikipedia:Your first article, and you also have to read this information as you have a conflict of interest here. Than you, --bonadeacontributionstalk18:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems, Eberhardklaus, that you may be closely connected with Ekkeland Götze, so if you plan to create an article yourself, you will need to follow this policy on Conflict of Interest (Interessenkonflikt). Having looked at the article on de.wiki, I think you will also need to provide more references to prove notability than are currently used there. Viel Glück! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Citing Associated Press
When citing sources and no distinct author's name is given, but just "Associated Press", does that need to be included or may it be omitted? Uhtregorn (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I found an article that is written in a NPOV manner. It sounds like it is written by members of the community as an ad or travel brochure. I have no idea how to fix it. I thought I would at least throw this out.
Some quotes.
"It was founded and led by Norman Paulsen, one of the direct disciples of Paramahansa Yogananda. As a child, Norman repeatedly experienced visions of a long-haired man with lustrous dark eyes. When he met the yogi, he felt that here was the man of his visions."
"Tucked away in the beautiful central coast hills, exists a place where people of common thread gather regularly. The Sanctuary's large meditation/prayer lodge on Sunday morning is usually filled with music generated by percussion, strings, and voice; thoughtful message; a vibrating stillness."
I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to hear from the experienced contributors on how to become an effective editor asap. Would like to hear some personal insights preferably.
Jefinjo (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is built on consensus, and any article will be built faster and better by a team of editors than an individual. I would suggest joining WikiProjects which interest you, and working as part of a unit on those, as a gateway to efficiency. This will also give you the practice with editing necessary to become effective. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hey Jefinjo. I see you've already found the Wikipedia Adventure, which is a good start as far as a general familiarization goes. Other than that, honestly, the most effective way that I've found to learn about Wikipedia is to be publicly and spectacularly wrong (see also WP:BEBOLD). Trust me, there will seldom if ever be any shortage of people lining up to correct you, and all you have to do is be willing to listen and learn from them. Don't be afraid to make a robust argument, because that how you tell whether you've happened upon someone else who is also publicly and spectacularly wrong, but if their argument winds up being better in the end, then it usually means you've managed to learn something new. GMGtalk08:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Jefinjo, and welcome. I suspect each of us has a very different story to tell about how we first got involved with Wikipedia. What makes some of us stay here (and gain that experience) is the realisation that we're helping create or maintain an amazing world-wide, free resource of knowledge. It's so often the first port of call for many people seeking information, and being able to contribute to that is reward enough. For a minority, its a place to mess around and vandalise, but these people soon get blocked from editing. If you're interested, I've put an old video at the top of my UserPage which tells my own story of how I got involved with Wikipedia, and some of the lessons I quickly learned along the way. (Pooor sound quality, though). I've just looked back at my very first edits in 2010, and I evidently chose to visit articles I had an interest and knowledge in, and simply made very small efforts to improve some of them. The hardest bit, for me, was adding references to support the facts I was inserting, because I'd not realised our editing tools contained easy-to-use "Cite" templates to capture and insert all the information. I was doing it all by hand, and it took an age! It was 12 months before I felt confident to create my first article, but it's now available on 17 different language Wikis, which is quite rewarding to see.
Sharing knowledge with others has always been my driver in life, as has learning new skills. Wikipedia fulfils both for me. Later, I got into little routine jobs, like using special tools to automatically spot and correct spelling errors during my lunch breaks. This then led me towards more of the behind-the-scenes maintenance tasks that keep Wikipedia running smoothly. And here I now am, still learning, but also sharing and guiding where I can. We have tons and tons of guidance pages on how to do stuff well, though do not let yourself be overwhelmed by any of them. Just be bold! I put this "next steps" handout together a few days ago for brand new editors who attend Wikipedia gatherings in person. It's not been tested yet, but do let me know if you find it of use to you, or would like to make any suggestions to better meet your needs (or fears!) as a new editor. Good luck on your journey. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Why is my Draft of Merlin Project (Software) not published?
It has not been published because it has not yet been submitted for review. A WMF software change altered the label on the button "Save changes" to "Publish changes" (without changing many of the instructions which refer to it by its previous name), but it does not publish it as an article. To submit it for review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft, but it would be pointless to do so at present because there are no independent references. All the references come from the company. You need to read Wikipedia's definition of notability, and it would also be wise for you to read the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: I believe I've now managed to update every single main help page and screenshot. Please advise if you encounter any I've missed, or where the distinction between "Publish changes" and "publish" to mainspace remains unclear. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
What should I do?
Hi! Now my article Draft:Long Yang is already pending for review. There is a problem about this draft. The problem is, the subject is quite notable, but there isn't enough sources that meets WP:42 to show her notability. So, although the subject is notable, my draft might be rejected by the reason of notability because there isn't enough good sources. In this case, what should I do? And it's best to review my draft before March, because I will not be able to edit from March to June.
Give me some suggestions, please!
Omega68537 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Omega68537. I'm afraid you are confusing two meanings of "notable": the usual one and the Wikipedia one. Wikipedia uses the word in a special way, and it means precisely "there [are] enough sources that meet[s] WP:42 to show her notability". If there are not enough such sources, then by definition she is not currently notable by Wikipedia's standards, and it is not possible to write an article about her that will be accepted. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Gagariniew. Anybody is welcome to edit Wikipedia, including creating a new article. But please be aware that creating an article is on of the harder tasks on Wikipedia: I suggest you spend some time working on existing articles first, andthen read your first article and see if you can find enough indepdendent published sources about the museum to ground an article. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs)
@Gagariniew:: ColinFine is right to advise you to learn to make simple edits first. I'd also suggest you take the interactive tour at The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a great introduction to the basics. As an ex-museum person myself, I'd welcome seeing good article on any notable museum. The key is in the word Notable, so do check that word I've just hyperlinked. Some so-called 'museums' are little more than an amateur collection of bits and pieces, whilst others will be important (and notable) repositories of local artefacts, specimens, documents or data. You might well like to check out one of our so called "WikiProjects" which coordinates a lot of themed work. (See: WikiProject Museums) One final point - nobody here makes their "own page". Everyone shares and collaborates. Those who think they own their own page are usually the ones who represent an organisation, and that can be an awkward for them when they discover that we're an encylcopaedia, assembling facts in a subject in a neutral manner, rather than giving free promotion or advertising. Do come back if you need any further advice on anything. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Resubmitting article
Hi,
I've re-edited an article about David Williams-Ellis that was rejected. I'm a bit stuck as to how to resubmit it or speak to the person who rejected it to see if the changes I've made will allow it to be published. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
I really like the ones i've seen so far, and would like to create one, is it like simply creating a normal wikipedia article, or are there any special requirements/steps, i ask because i don't wish to disturb the community if i screw it up, thanks!
Da_dilo_dude (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Fell free to make an essay on any Wikipedia related topic. Pls see WP:PRJCRE.. just need to put it in the Wikipedia namespace.....like Wikipedia:Tim Hortons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)
Syncopator: I am a little dubious about whether that is an appropriate use of a talk page. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources say: they mustn't advance arguments or reach conclusions unless they are reporting the argument or conclusioninf a particular source. If you are discussing the way that the sources are selected or used in the article, that is entirely appropriate for the Talk page; but if you are advancing an argument that goes beyond what the reliable sources say, I don't see how that can be appropriate. (I have not looked at the issue, so I may be misunderstanding you). --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine.
I thought that was exactly what a talk page was for. If that is incorrect, what IS it for? And, where or how can I make the author of the article aware of the error and explain why it is an error? Syncopator (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Already exists
Hey, I'm confused -- I had an article declined b/c it already exists, except it was only created a few days ago and my original one was submitted last month (and it seemed like the reviewer was unsure about its notability). I guess I'm just confused about how it already exists *after* the one I started? I'm referring to A Few 'Gurt Men and Draft:A Few 'Gurt Men (the one I tried submitting) ohmyerica (talk)18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I now realize that the original redirect was made last February (because I don't even know the current date apparently!) and that article was apparently written a few days ago. I guess the question is still sort-of standing though. Is this just what happens when a draft is submitted, since there might be duplicate drafts? ohmyerica (talk)18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's always a good idea to check whether an article already exists before you spend time creating a new draft, but you probably did that and saw that it was only a redirect. I can see that your draft was written before Sasha Leiva666's version. Perhaps you could work together to create a good article? Your additions and references might help to establish WP:Notability. I'm not sure whether there is any other process available. An admin might be able to advise? Dbfirs20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Title for a new page with a common name
Hello, I wanted to create a profile for an individual with a somewhat common name. There are already several Jeff Smith articles out there. Do you just create the title with the parenthetical in it already and that suffices? Uhtregorn (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
As there are multiple Jeff Smith articles, there is a disambiguation page. If you are creating a new article, title it with the profession of the subject in parentheses. e.g. if he were a golfer, the title would be Jeff Smith (golfer). Hope that this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
But unless you are very experienced in creating new articles, Uhtregorn, I strongly advise you to use the WP:Article Wizard and create a draft, in any case. If you do so, then when you submit it for review and a reviewer accepts it, they will sort out the naming of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The Joy Bus is a 501(c)3 nonprofit in Phoenix, AZ and we would like to create a Wikipedia page for our organization. We have been featured in many Arizona media sources, as well as the national Costco Connection. Are these sources appropriate and sufficient for us to create an article? TheJoyBusOrg (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoyBusOrg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to do some things beforehand; first you will need to change your username as usernames cannot be that of an organization. This can be done at WP:CHU. Second you will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(If you are paid to edit) and make the appropriate declarations. If you have reviewed the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG and truly feel that you can write a neutral article indicating how your organization is notable, please use Articles for creation. Please understand that in order to be successful(writing a Wikipedia article is very difficult even for uninvolved editors) you will need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on what independent sources state. This is usually difficult though not impossible for people in your situation to do. 331dot (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
New to this
I amd trying to add some information to articles and I can't get the hyperlink to copy, I had to paste the entire link into the article, AND what if I find a section that is just wrong and without reference to a reliable findable source, do I just delete it? Do I need to somehow write and publish a reason? Thomas-Robert (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In regards to your first issue, I formatted and sourced it for you. On the second problem, where you find a section which is entirely unsourced, raise this issue on the article's talk page to get the view point of other editors. If it is blatantly and demonstrably incorrect, remove it and state so in your edit summary. However, avoid violating the policy regarding reverts to other editors' edits, as doing so constitutes edit warring. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Thomas-Robert, welcome to the Teahouse. Click the "View history" tab to see what Stormy clouds did, but I would actually have done it differently and written ''[[Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.]]'' to produce Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. See Help:Link for more details. The double apostrophes produce italics. What do you mean by "findable" in "without reference to a reliable findable source"? If there is a source in the article then others may be able to find it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Prime Hunter: - thanks, as what I had originally done was unorthodox. I had intended to link to the article above with different text, but reneged on this idea and forgot to change it. Streamlined now. Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
By findable I am talking about something that may not be on the web, such as the hard copy of a Supreme Court Case. Noting that I have two different versions of the same case obtained from what I would consider reliable sources; and that the official version is the hard-copy in Supreme Court Reports. For the record one of the versions is from lexus nexus, which I do not think is linkable anyway. Looks like I need to make a trip to a well stocked law library. Thomas-Robert (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thomas-Robert, good news/bad news. First, the good. There is no requirement for sources to be online. Bad news is, a court case is a primary source. Primary sources have very little use in an encyclopedia. See WP:PRIMARY for further details. Generally secondary sources (Examples of which would be case reviews in a journal or textbook) which discuss the case are far superior sources. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
User Essay
I know I am an experienced editor but I have a question. Can I make a user essay called User:Thegooduser/WhyeditWikipedia? or something similar to that under the userspace? Thegoodusertalk02:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Is there a criteria for image replacement in an article?
Hello Teahouse.
I do some editing but most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been images and I am starting to get into video.
It has not become an issue yet but I have wondered if there is a criteria for replacing an existing User:image in an topic article with a better one?
I do not intend to offend but if I have a better image (better illustration of topic; sharper; better exposure; taken on a sunny day etc.), under what conditions and by what mechanism would I replace an existing image in an article?
With word editing, I would just wade in; make the edit and state my case for the change. If there is no protest after some time, my edit stands until someone changes it in the future.
Does image replacement work the same way as word replacement?
If you can provide a photo which is objectively better than the existing one - say the current one is out of focus/bad angle/obscured, it's probably best to be bold and change it. Also, depending on the article, instead of replacing the photo you may wish to add your photo in the prominent location and move an existing one elsewhere (if there is room and value in doing so). This is all contingent on there not being controversy about which image to use - in that case, you should discuss image options on the talk page. Chris857 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I do this all the time, serving pictures both as a photographer and as a photo editor. Criteria are relevance first, picture quality second. Sometimes I snap a better picture and use it to replace the old picture. Sometimes, looking through Commons categories, I find a better picture than mine, whimper a minute, and replace mine with the one that does the job better. When a dispute arises over which picture will better serve the article, and one is mine, I fall silent and let other editors decide. And whimper again if they decide against me, and move on. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to be polite about it and the difference is somewhat subjective, then you could look at who contributed the image on commons and whether they are one of the active editors on the article. Much of commons is mass uploads from the Geograph or our GLAM partners such as various Libraries and museums. If you think there is now a better image available than one from such a mass upload then no-one's ego is at stake. it is the nature of mass uploads that more relevant images will arrive over time, and the best image on commons for a specific article when there were only 5 million images on commons may not still be the best now we have 45 million images. But if user:foo took the photo now in use and user:foo is a major contributor to the article, then personally I'd only replace the image if I was pretty sure there was a big difference in quality. A simple way round that is to not bother checking who contributed the original image if you are replacing a blurry photo taken through a rain covered window with one that is well lit and in focus. ϢereSpielChequers10:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Panettone
Thanks for the interesting article! I am sending it to friends who liked when I served some slices of it in the afternoon tea yesterday.
There is a correction that can be made in the text. When it is said that is a tradition in Argentina for Christmas, and that it is enjoyed wih HOT CHOCOLATE or LIQUOR.... This is wrong. Christmas is in the summer time in South America! and we eat PANETTONE with vold cider! that is the tradition. You can correct it. Thanks for all your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.234.33 (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Even if you don't wish to make such a correction yourself(which is OK), the best place to ask others to do so is the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article). 331dot (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello anonymous IP. We;re glad you liked the article in Panettone - just one of over 5.5 million now on Wikipedia. If you'd like to make suggestions to improve any article, the best place to do it is at the Talk Page for that topic, namely: Talk:Panettone. It is important that you make your suggestion and also supply a reference to support any additional fact that you want to have someone add. For example, whilst you may know something in your country is a local tradition, it's not acceptable just to add it - Wikipedia must have "proof" in the form of a published article that refers to that tradition. Without that, everyone would starts to look at those 5 million articles and just wonder whether they're just full of opinions of individual editors rather than reported facts. I like the sound of Pannettone and cold cider - so maybe someone has published an article on the Christmas traditions in Argentina which mentions this? If so, feel free to add it yourself, if you wish. If not, it's sensible to leave it out. It's also best to register for a free account, but you can just edit as an IP, as you've done here. Regards from a wintery UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Creation of a Wikipedia page for Luxexcel (company)
Hello Teahouse,
I am a new user looking to contribute to Wikipedia content. To start with, I would like to create a page for Luxexcel, a Dutch-Belgian company that invented a 3D printing technology to produce optical lenses. Currently the company does not have a page on Wikipedia. Could you please advice me how to proceed?
@Sridharashok: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you need to do is review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID, the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors. Those pages will tell you to make a formal declaration of your conflict of interest and employment on your user page(click your username either here or at the top of the screen).
Please understand that creating a new article is very difficult, even for editors not associated with a subject. The subject must be written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject is notable(as Wikipedia defines it). In your case, it is harder (though not impossible) due to your COI. You must forget everything you know about your company and write only based on what independent sources state about it. That's usually difficult for people in your situation to do, though it is possible. Please understand that not every company merits an article here. If you truly feel that you can write an article about your company with the proper neutral point of view, you should use Articles for Creation to submit a draft. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I've placed some helpful links on your user talk page as well. I would close by informing you that a page about your company is not necessarily a good thing(see WP:PROUD). You cannot lock it to the text your company might prefer to see, cannot prevent others from editing it, and cannot keep "bad" information out. As long as information appears in an independent reliable source, it can generally be in a Wikipedia article, good or bad. Please keep that in mind. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response @331dot - really appreciate it! I will read the guidelines thoroughly before proceeding. I do understand the consequences of writing a Wikipedia article about the company I work for. My sole intention to provide a connection between 3D printing (the technology) and the inventor of a specific category of 3D printing, which is Luxexcel. Additionally, I would also like to write an article about the technology in question.
Am new to this forum, so naturally, i am having a bit of a hard time creating and uploading a biography of someone. However, since am keen and eager to learn the ropes, I will appreciate any help that I can get. My challenge right now is "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." The challenge is that most of the information is from the subject of the Biography, so I could use some guidance on how to come up with footnotes. Thanks. Ndiwulira (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ndiwulira: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject. You will need sources not affiliated with this person in order to have an article about them on Wikipedia. If no independent sources write about them, it will not be possible to have an article about them at this time. If you do have such sources, you should review WP:CITE for information on citing those sources.
I have a request on improving taxobox. On a taxobox for a taxa; it should be explicitely mentioned; which system of classification has been used. If a mixture of system has been done (although that is highly unrecommended). It is important because classification systems change; where not only the taxa fusion and splits; but ranks of the taxa sometimes changes; and although quite rarely; rank names too changed. So whenever publish a taxobox; please mention which system of classification is followed. Best if a taxobox contain 2 or 3 columns for the hierarchies according to separate classification systems. This not only improve correctness of the articles; but also will work as better reference and would help literature search.
RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I've recently noticed some odd editing on the Olivia Palermo page, from an account with a (to me) name suspiciously sounding like a PR rep or something. Having reverted some of their edits and getting some of the copyright violating images deleted, I left a message on their talk page. Today I got this reply back, and although I could quote wp:paid and wp:coi at them, I'm not sure I'm experienced enough to address this properly! Any help would be much appreciated. In cases like this is it better to try and engage or to report to a relevant place? Beevil (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Thanks, I've responded to their message and posted the template on their talk page, I hope everything I've said is correct and reasonable. The mention of legal counsel is what made me slightly wary to start with. Beevil (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I had an article that was proposed for deletion by some person I dont know. I wasnt completed the article so should I worry about it being deletedMystery Bros (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mystery Bros: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The method of deletion they have used allows for a week before it is deleted, and if the reviewing admin feels deletion is not warranted, they will remove the tag at that time. You are also permitted to remove that particular deletion tag yourself, although the nominator could pursue other methods of deletion such as a deletion discussion. I would encourage you to review Your First Article to learn what is being looked for in articles. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone ! As I mainly contribute to French Wikipedia, I do not know every aspect of contribution here. Yesterday, I created an article about . I have just found a translation in English created shortly after (Andrew Parsons (Sports Leader)). Great. But this is a word-by-word translation, but there is no credits or mention translated from as we usually do on fr:. Is that normal ? Thank you for your answer. VateGV◦ Discuss? ◦ Discuter ? ◦18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not the way things should be done. Your work should be attributed. Unfortunately, I see that the person who did the translation does this for every article they create, so they have some work ahead of them to fix this. We will have attribution for your work added to the article history and to the article the talk page. Thanks for your contributions, and sorry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Let me begin by pointing out I’m well aware of the dialogue around ‘band’ pages and as a Wiki reader I too have no interest in reading sensationalised or self-promotional accounts of those seeking exposure.
I have however created a band page myself (for good reasons, see below) with the aim that it is factual and objective; it quotes reputable third party sources. I appreciate the self-creation of the page represents a conflict of interest and can only offer that, as an independent artist without the traditional machinery of record label/management company, the self-authoring of the contribution is pragmatism; there is no-one else to do it. I assure you my interests in Wiki are practical and educational only as there are many other avenues through which one can promote. The page has been submitted with the title of Talk-Show (the hyphen is important as it disambiguates from another act of the same name).
The educational need arises as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are giving the acts’ output broadcasting rotation, which comes with a profile page on the BBC website.
The BBC are unable – due to their own limited resources – to populate artist profile pages on their own website. As the artist however I am able to request from the BBC an auto-import of artist profile data from Wiki. Without a Wiki page my artist profile page remains empty, leaving BBC audiences with an impression that the act is uninterested in offering any helpful information to listeners. I’m aware this is my problem alone, nonetheless I appeal to your public spirit for advice.62.232.40.98 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You haven't stated what article or draft this is about, and I have failed to find it – but some editors here have near-psychic powers, and may be able to help. You question is unclear, but the gist seems to be that you want to use Wikipedia to further your career with the BBC. That is not what Wikipedia is for. My advice is: don't do it. Maproom (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't find it either and it is difficult to evaluate the article otherwise. I would second what Maproom said. You might meet the notability criteria which specifically state "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". However, it isn't Wikipedia's job to make up for the BBC. That's something you should do on a website of your own or social media. If no third party sources write about you, there cannot be an article about you at this time, even if you meet the notability criteria. Please review the autobiography policy; autobiographical articles are highly discouraged. Your best bet is to just allow others to write about you when the sources are there. You cannot use Wikipedia to advance your career in any way. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both Maproom and 331dot for your responses. Yes, fully understand the conflict of interest in writing autobiographical content, and as I've explained I've aimed not to fall into usual traps in doing so - that said neither of your are able to view the article and so can't evaluate. It has been published as Talk-Show, though I can't see it yet either. Perhaps it has not been moderated/approved for publication yet. I appreciate both of your time in responding.62.232.40.98 (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
We could view it if you could link to the article. It is not under your IPs edit history so I assume you either created it under a different one or under a username. While you don't have to tell us if you have reasons for not doing so, it is difficult to help you if you don't. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It may well be that I have incorrectly created the page, hence it's not appearing. Hopefully you may advise. Your comments are very much appreciated.Dylanpops (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Dylanpops, ok, you shouldn´t have it exactly there, the userpage is for saying something like "This is me, this is what I do on WP" or whatever. I suggest you go here: Wikipedia:Drafts, scroll down to "Create a new draft" and copy your text to the new draft, then you can work on it there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Grabergs Graa Sang, 331dot and jimfbleak for your time, trouble and insights. I have taken your comments on board and had another attempt at a page, which I hope will meet Wiki's criteria. I'd be grateful if any of you would review it:
Essays in your userspace can be about whatever you want them to be (subject to certain Wikipedia policies and some modicum of common sense; i.e. no copyvios, no attacks on others, no polemical or abusive writing), and do not need references. If it goes too far afield from Wikipedia's core purpose, it may be deleted, of course, but if you have something to write you think may be helpful to others at Wikipedia, go at it. Wikipedia:Essays has more information. --Jayron3202:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
