Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 349

• Example

Which causes this;

−

Example 

− For future reference, if something goes wrong and you haven't pressed Save, the edit hasn't been saved and you should close it or press Back. If you have saved it, click 'View History' next to the Search box and you will be able to see your edit at the top of a list. You can press Undo next to this and proceed to undo your edit.

Thank you very much, "Witty" and "Rubbish" It's great to know that help is at hand! Hoffoholi (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I put pictures on Wikipedia Editing? (50.180.165.79 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The standard reply is:

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable
  file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy
  .
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our
  picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk
  ) 17:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Say you attended an exhibition of a famous photographer's work and you took pictures of some of the photos on the walls. The pictures that you took show each image encased in a picture frame up on the wall. Is it acceptable to upload one or more of those pictures to the Wikimedia Commons, for use in a Wikipedia article? The article itself is not about the photographer or about the exhibition, but about the person in the pictures. Lupine453 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Lupine453: Welcome to the Teahouse - great question. Assuming the photograph on the wall is copyrighted (which it most likely is if has been taken in the last several decades), taking a photograph of it would be considered a derivative work, and you would not be able to upload it to the Commons under a free license due to a major part of your photograph being another person's copyrighted photograph. If the image is in the public domain (if it is, it would most likely be from the copyright expiring), that would be fine.

Now if the image is indeed copyrighted, we can only use non-free pictures to depict people who have died and there are no adequate freely-licensed pictures available. If the person is alive, it is assumed that a freely licensed photograph could be taken of them, and we generally would not use a non-free picture. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the information, SuperHamster. Lupine453 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello guys,

So I recently wrote my first article on Ishai Golan, an Israeli Actor but it is not yet reviewed. Can anyone tell me where can I see my article is going to be/is being reviewed?

Thank You -Komchi^✉_☆ 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Komchi. I have moved your draft to Draft:Ishai Golan, because it is far from ready to be accepted, and as it stands is likely to be deleted if it remains in main space.

The main problem is that there is a complete lack of reliable sources, and hence the article does nothing whatever to establish

notability

(in Wikipedia's special sense). Note that IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source, because much of its content is user-contributed; and while National Geographic is certainly a reliable source, the cited reference doesn't say anything about Golan other than that he fronted that series.

What you need is several substantial pieces of writing by people unconnected with him, and published in reliable places such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. Not blogs, social media, IMDB, or press releases from him or his agents or employers. The sources don't have to be in English, by the way.

The lesser problem with the article is that it doesn't say anything about him: it is just a list of appearances.

When you have improved the draft to the point that you think it is ready for review, edit it to insert {{

subst:submit}} at the top, and that will submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk

) 22:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: thanks for your reply, it is appreciated. Komchi^✉_☆ 22:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As a copyeditor, I see a lot of this kind of linking: [[genotype]]s

Should I fix and turn it into this kind of linking/does it not matter? [[genotype|genotypes]]

Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Brandon. Just use [[genotype]]s It works perfectly, displays perfectly, takes up less bytes, provides less clutter and is easier to understand when looking at the code. See the text under Plurals and other derived names at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Piped links (MOS:PIPE). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Brandon. There is nothing to fix. They render exactly the same: genotypes and genotypes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Piped links hints that [[genotype]]s is preferred. Please don't change it to [[genotype|genotypes]]. I and others sometimes change the opposite way. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I submitted a draft page for a product I represent. It was declined because of its similarity in subject matter to mayonnaise alternatives. This page is meant to be about a specific product, how can I go about getting this approved and live?

Thank you, FYH Oscar FYH Oscar (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). If you can find substantial writing about the company or the product, written by people who have no connection whatever with it and published in reliable places such as major newspapers, then an article could be written. Such an article should be based almost entirely on these independent sources, must not contain a single word that is either marketing-speak or is in any way evaluative, (unless it is directly reporting what an independent writer has said about it). --ColinFine (talk

) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

FYH Oscar (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

notable as Wikipedia defines the term, so unless you can produce much better sources, perhaps the product can be mentioned briefly at Mayonnaise alternatives along with all the others mentioned in the New York Times article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

22:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thank you for the detailed answer. I do work for them, but I'm sure I can make these edits and submit a neutral article. FYH Oscar (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you go ahead with this,

conflict of interest page and follow its reccomendations. Also, please be sure to declare your affiliation on your own user page, and on the talk page of the draft article. That will help other editors to be aware of and allow for your connection. DES ^(talk)

01:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Zachary Hawson (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. It looks like someone already came along and removed the stub template from the article. In the future, you can always

be bold and remove it yourself. If someone disagrees, the worst thing that could happen is it gets put back, and then you can discuss with that editor what they feel the page is missing. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!}

) 01:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hi Zachary Hawson, removing the stub template on the article is only half of the process. You should also change the "class" parameters of the WikiProject banners on the article's talk page. If you're not sure what the new class should be just remove the "stub" so that "class" is unfilled. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Greetings Zachary Hawson, Thought I would chime in with my two-cents worth. There is an article at Wikipedia:Article development that clarifies the stages of an article beginning at Stub all the way to the ultimate Featured article.

As an article is improved in quality it goes through stages of development. Here is an

example of the evolution of an article. If you look over the Statistics section is shows a breakdown of Wikipedia articles by Quality. Cheers, JoeHebda (talk

) 01:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Could anyone with pending changes rights review this edit a lot of information has been removed by an IP who claims the content is outdated, I am not sure whether to revert the edit and put the information back or to accept the revision. Thanks TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@IMHO the removal is correct, the poll map is unsourced and the caption does not specify the what, when, why, where or who of the poll(s) thus rendering it meaningless. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:TeaLover1996 The above ping didn't work due to an error in the link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I recently posted an article about a company here in Kansas City which does social media intelligence work. I stumbled on their information on researching the topic across several of their competitors, noting specifically that the competitors are hosted while this particular company is not. Is there any way I might revise the article to improve its acceptance at Wikipedia?

Virilia (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Virilia. Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm basing my answer on the assumption that you are talking about Draft:Infegy. The problem is in the reliability of your sources. Many of the sources you listed are sources that specialize in printing press releases (PR Newswire, Businesswire) and hence are not the reliable independent sources required to show notability. Additionally, you have cited some blogs. They do not show notability. In order for a reference to show notability it has to have:

1. Evidence of some sort of fact checking process.
2. Complete editorial independence from the subject of the article (i.e., not press releases, vendors, clients or the subject themselves).
3. Discussion of the subject in detail.
4. Additionally, for businesses, sources must be from a geographically diverse area. Being written up in the local paper, no matter how many times, does not show notability.

Generally, most web content is not acceptable for showing notability. What is acceptable is:

1. Newspapers (and their websites)
2. General circulation magazines (and their websites)--not trade journals, as they generally base their content on material provided by the subject of their articles.
3. Books (as long as they are published by mainline publishing houses, not vanity press houses or self published books).
4. TV or Radio news (and their websites)
5. Respected academic journals

Hope this helps. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

One more point,

notability), but those companies have no ownership or control over the articles. --ColinFine (talk

) 10:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

ShevcK (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

notable

), and no article will be accepted, however it is written.

If a company is notable, then an article may be written. But it must be neutrally written, based almost entirely on those independent sources (i.e., on what other people have written about it - the company's own publications and websites can be used only for uncontroversial factual data like dates and places). It must contain no marketing speak, no evaluative language at all (unless directly quoting from an independent source), and should be a dispassionate summary of what people unconnected with the company have published about it - bad as well as good. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I applied for rollback rights and had my submission declined due to apparently having little recent vandalism experience. I took that into consideration, making two-hundred or so edits, and asked for rights four days later, which obviously wasn't too smart. My application was once again declined by a different user, stating that I needed to wait a few weeks before asking again.

What do I do in a case like this? Do I wait the full amount of time? I honestly think I know what to do and believe I can use this feature responsibly.

Also, is there anything that I did wrong, e.g. in the reversion process, or in my request? Thanks, PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 11:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rollback really isn't a big deal - you already have Twinkle, which gives you the same functionality (plus a bit extra) and so it's not going to make your anti-vandal work noticably different. From a purely technical sense, "old-school" rollback is a little faster (meaning that if you and a rollbacker both try to make the same revert at the same time, you'll be the one with an edit conflict) but even that doesn't make it a substantial step up from Twinkle; nowadays it's basically just a status symbol. There's therefore no rush to get the right - carry on doing what you're doing, apply again in a few weeks and you'll probably get it. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the help! -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 11:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, on the article

The guidance is at

WP:BLPNAME.--ukexpat (talk

) 17:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The default answer is "No". There has to be a really strong reason for naming non-notable minors in articles. BTW I remember that WP:Privacy used to contain guidance specifically about minor children of BLP subjects, but it's no longer there. Don't ask me when last I saw it, I've been here far too long... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@

Where can I find the list of {{}}'s (such as {{welcome}, {{Orphan}--

Hey

Wikipedia:Template messages. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 03:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're wondering how to express templates without displaying the outputs, simply enclose the code with nowiki tags. (<nowiki> and </nowiki> -PotatoNinja^(talk) 10:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

tl|welcome}} displays as {{welcome}}. --ColinFine (talk

) 10:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Never knew that. Does that apply to all templates though? -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 10:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also the {{tl}} template is useful to show a template and link to it. {{tl|copyvio}}, for example, renders as {{copyvio}}.--ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am an intern and my boss wanted me to create a page for the non-profit organization that I'm working at--mostly to post basic information like history and location. I've read up on not copy-pasting information from other websites and neutral POV, but I feel like the information from the organization's official website is factual and (maybe with some few tweaks) neutral. Since I am working here, I have been told that it is fine to use the text from the website. Would that still be allowed? Corinna.jpg (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi

compatible

with the free copyright licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content. If the organization is willing to give up the rights to its text to the extent necessary, the release would have to be done in a verifiable manner, such as posting this notice at the website:

The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Another method would involve sending an email from an address including the domain name of the organization and containing a release using the text from

secondary sources, that are independent of the organization. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 12:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Corinna. I'm afraid that your boss does not understand what Wikipedia is, so you can tell them. Your boss wanting you to create a page in Wikipedia is one of the worst possible reasons for doing so, because it almost certainly means that they are wanting to tell the world about the organisation. They might call that "raising the profile": we call it promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If other people, unconnected with the organisation, have already written about it, then we can have an article (which must be based almost entirely on what those independent people have said about it). If they haven't, then we can't. Your boss's wishes don't enter into the matter, either way. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi There, I had submitted a page for the Vadivus, the basic techniques or movements used in Kalaripayattu, the ancient martial arts of India for a review which has been declined for the lack of subject's notability. I have tried to bring two printed books as reference for the present topic. In fact the images for the page were released by the author of one of the books I have referenced.

Here I would like to bring to your notice that there are only a few authoritative reference works for this martial art form. It is usually taught by gurus and not much substantive literature can be found. Gradually, in this particular art form people are coming out to publish blogs which are somewhat repetitive in their content and hence cannot be referenced here. But then, it will certainly take some time for any scholarly publications.

In such a situation how shall I bring the notability to the subject? Will my adding the page numbers for these reference sections for their respective books suffice? Please do let me know how to go about this grey area.

Unlike other popular martial arts forms, where the knowledge is widespread and ample media to read and refer to, there are hardly any authoritative places where anyone interested in learning about Kalaripayattu can find knowledgeable information. I was contemplating to fill this lacunae by trying to add basic techniques and details in a format that anyone who reads can understand and relate to.

So, please help me here.

Thank you. :) Aymym (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @

computer

16:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found it at

computer

16:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@

computer

17:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

These pages may also be helpful;

Thank you for explaining the regulations Wikipedia has put in place to ensure authentic information coming in. Would the two books I have cited as sources and references not suffice? In fact, one of the book's author himself has released the pictures to be used for the article.

Aymym (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymym (talk • contribs) 09:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC) 

@

@Rubbish computer Thank you for your explanation. I will try to find a better way of referencing. Aymym (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a user subpage for wikilove stuff and any barnstars or other awards I may (hopefully!) get in the future, without wishing to come across as extremely vain. How would I go about creating this?