Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 234

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 230

←

Archive 232

→

Title of my article

Hello again friendly teahouse team! Soory, but there seems to e no end to my questions. On my user page, the article title appears as "user: Marita Dieling". Now this would need to be "AIRCA - The Association of International Research and Development Centers for Agriculture", currently in the second line looking like a sub-heading. What do I need to do? Thanks Marita Dieling (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok dear Wiki team, thanks for the "answer" to this question (which I can only see as a reply on my talk page, not as a reply here under my question to teahouse), I am officially giving up. AIRCA is a non-for-profit organization, and the article is written in quite a neutral tone I think, without advertising or telling the world how great we are. Nevertheless, many thanks to all the people who took time into getting this article along. Pity that I did not manage to finally get this article into Wikipedia. Marita Dieling (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Marita Dieling - I think you're giving up too easily. From the sources currently in the draft the subject seems to be notable and a quick Google delivered many more promising looking sources, problems of style and article content can be fixed by editing. I would be happy to help you to get the draft into acceptable shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roger (Dodger67). Marita already asked for help in this section. I also have the feeling the subject is notable enough. The independent coverage is weak (most of the sources within the draft come from the members of the institution) but does exist and the creation of this "alliance" was announced by many websites. No coverage of its eventual activities though. I would vote for a stub (I made a suggestion in marita's first question), while waiting for a wider coverage of its action. But that's the opinion of a newbie ^^ KaptainIgloo (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the draft, per usual practice, to a user subpage at: User:Marita Dieling/Association of International Research and Development Centers for Agriculture.--ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And there's also a version at User:Marita Dieling/sandbox.--ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roger, KaptainIgloo, UKExpat, thanks so much for you encouragement and help. Sorry for ignoring the earlier advice on creating a “stub”, but even going the various links to stubs, I had not understood how stubs appear on Wikipedia – do they look like an article (and give wiki results when you google them)? Or are they not on Wikipedia at all until they become articles? Now, back to the references: two are from FAO and GFAR which are not members of the association. Our activities: we are more an umbrella organization, with a very limitd budget, so the activities that we condut as AIRCA will always be few. And lastly: On the title: Will the “User: Marita Dieling/” disappear at some stage? I tried to find out on several wiki pages but am still not clear. Sorry for so many questions and long post. Marita Dieling (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marita Dieling, "Stub" is the term we use for a very short basic article. An article is classified as a Stub when it contains only the bare minimum of information necessary to explain what the subject is and establish its notability.

I agree that your draft article should have no problem proving notability - this is the biggest "barrier to entry" for new articles on WP. Once an article passes notability everything else can be fixed by editing. The page title is changed when the draft is moved into "mainspace" - the encyclopedia itself. This will be done as soon as the draft is compliant with the minimum standards of acceptability. The "User:Marita Dieling" prefix is there because the draft is currently a subpage of your user page, thus a user-space draft. Userspace is a "safe place" where drafts that do not yet comply with the standards can be constructed without the threat of summary deletion (with a few exceptions such as gross copyright violation or libel).

With your permission I would really like to make a few structural and content improvements to the draft such as adding an infobox, moving external links to the correct section and other changes as required by the Manual of style. As I grew up on a farm, agriculture is one of my interests, and it's a subject area that is not particularly well represented here on WP. (BTW never apologize for asking questions, that's what this page is for.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much Roger! Longer answer on your talk page. Marita Dieling (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Marita Dieling - Nothing there yet... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about wikidata

Hello,guys. I have a problem on using wikidata. But it seems not a good place for asking question about wikidata in Help desk,so I raise my question here. Thank you all in advance. I found the Ocean Park Station and in Chinese are not connected and cannot be fixed by myself. I find out that there are two pages with same name in Wikidata: [1], [2].It should be the cause. Wish someone can help. Thanks again! HKM (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi 香港分子 and welcome to the Teahouse. I will fix this up for you and let you know when it's done. 祝好, Philg88 ^♦talk 08:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Done It was all mixed up with a link to the amusement park of the same name. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! =] --HKM (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Inline citations

Hi,

I have had an article rejected 3 times due to problems with inline citations - with this message

"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

I'm struggling to get the citations right - I wonder if someone can help with specific comments on where I am going wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Riddy

Thanks Poppy

Poppymelzack (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The answer is that you are probably on the right side of the border of the references being useful. Ignore the comment about formatting them. I have used a tool to do that, though please do learn how for the future. WP:REFLINKS will be your friend here. The dead link is a bit of a shame, though, but not fatal.

Some of your references could be viewed as being directory entries, probably created in conjunction with Riddy, but there is just about enough commentary about him to accept the article. I am inclined towards acceptance flagged with {{Refimprove}} on that basis. But the latest reviewer must have had something specific in mind. @Onel5969: you and I obviously agree that improvement is required, but your feelings seem stronger than mine. I base this on my inclination to accept and your inclination to decline. Please would you advise Poppymelzack about your stronger concerns? Fiddle Faddle 12:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Poppymelzack and Timtrent. My difficulty comes in the Life and career section. For such a brief section, it contains quite a few facts, only one of which is cited. There are at least 6 uncited facts in that parapgraph (I've added citation needed tags to show you). Obviously, some of those needed be included in a single citation, but those facts are simply not supported by the current citations. In the exhibition sections, there should be some notation to back up those lists of exhibitions, probably something as simple as a link to his webpage with a parenthetical note like: (Exhibitions listed were taken from the artists website, xxxxxxxx.com(1)), and you could put that at the very beginning of the Exhibition section, or in each subsection. Same with the publications section. I guess my issue was that there are simply too many uncited facts in the article to simply put a {{Refimprove}} on the article, but I was merely being cautious, since I am still learning my way in this AfC process. Obviously, another editor might feel differently. Feel free to revert my edits to remove the cn tags, I merely put them there as an indicator to show what should be cited, definitely wasn't trying to be obnoxious. Anyway, hope this helps.Onel5969 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Onel5969, I see your caution as excellent, and your explanation equally so. Sometimes I am as cautious as you are, other times not so much. Our opinions are, I think, equally valid. Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your more detailed help. I'll add citations to factual statements as needed

Poppymelzack (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Requirements a movie quote

Hello,

I am doing my first page. It is for the band HeadShy which has an unusual triple EP that derived it's concept from the movie Perfume. I am going to use a quote from the movie that it also used in their bio. Would stating that the quote came from the movie with a link to the movie's wiki page along with a citation (?) to and IMDB page that contains the quote suffice? Thanks so much 173.174.50.196 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe I located the quote to which you are referring [www.headshy.com/bio/ (here)] and I think the bigger issue is that a quote like that would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'd recommend omitting the quote and sticking to the facts (when was the band formed, have any of their releases charted, what do major critics say, etc.). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I found the following site, perhaps it can assist with ideas or sourcing. http://www.theaquarian.com/2014/02/24/headshy-la-belle-epoque/ Idyllic press (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, Creating first page

I received the message that my sandbox page was inappropriate for Wikipedia. The message was cryptic and did not specify the problem. I have read the usage pages and don't know what is the problem. How can I find out what is the problem.Dcarst (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dcarst and welcome to the Teahouse. I see what you mean about that error message at User talk:Dcarst - it is terribly vague. I am not the expert, and I'm sure more experienced editors here will give you more specific advice. The first thing I notice, which could be serious, is that the images are not displayed, and you have a message saying that "All images are by permission of Sally Pleet". Wikipedia has a very specific process to follow for making sure there is appropriate permission for pictures, and it looks like you may not have followed that process. See Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Apart from that, the article seems to be promising, but still could use some fine tuning. It would benefit from more references to support statements such as André L’Hote being "one of France’s most influential teachers and art critics". Comments such as "The references ... are [the recollections] of his niece, Sally Pleet" don't count as a reference - the reference needs to specify where the reader can look up the supporting documentation, so if those recollections are written down in a memoir, or recorded in an interview, then specify that. Also, some of the wording should be more neutral: phrases like "with the certainty of a homing pigeon, Haupt would return at every stage of his career to that subject matter" are a bit emotive rather than factual. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What I've noticed is that new editors who create an article shoot themselves in the foot by trying to write a masterpiece instead of creating a solid starter article that can be expanded later. Most Wiki editors have a strong aversion to anything that seems promotional or overstated and are very suspicious of any content in a new article that is not cited by a reliable source. So my advice is to cut your article in half by removing any text that is not cited by a solid secondary source such as a news article or book. Secondly make sure your language is encyclopedic, don't write it like a magazine article or it will be rejected by a new article reviewer. Avoid adjectives and favor a plain, disinterested tone. If you need further help, put a note on my talk page and I'll work with you to get your article up to speed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it considered against the rules to create an article about our product?

I work in a company and we're about to launch a new product. I wonder if it's against the rules to create the skeleton of an article about the product so it exists if people are looking for it on Wikipedia. I want to be legit. LornHgB (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there LornHgB, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, if you have a relationship with a particular article subject (you work for the company, or are the individual that is the subject of the article), then you would have a conflict of interest. Such editors are usually discouraged from editing articles with which they are connected, although it can be done. The coverage of the product should mainly come from independent third-party sources and it must be presented in a neutral and non-advertising way. --McDoob AU93 15:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi LornHgB, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, creating such an article is very likely against our notability guideline. In-depth coverage about the project must exist in independent sources before an article can be created. Also, you should read our conflict of interest guidelines --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but then would copy-pasting content from a neutral website that covered our product be ok? If all the references are added of course. LornHgB (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No - that would be a copyright violation - Arjayay (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then, thanks Wikipedia community for the help! I will not move forward with that article. I'm confident that it'll get written by people later on. LornHgB (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish more COI editors would accept our advice so readily. This is exactly what should be done - if the product meets our notability guidelines in the future, someone else will probably write an article about it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Uploading new articles

Hi, I just used the wizard to create an article and i'm trying to get it approved but have no idea how to do that?

Charli0982 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Charli0982, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess your are talking about Draft:Neat Robots. In order to submit the article for the WP:AFC review, you should put this code to the top of the article: {{AFC submission}}, and wait. But, I took a look at your article, and I can tell you that it certainly would not be accepted in that state. You have to understand that wp:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not like paper encyclopedias, but it is still an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only accepts articles about notable subjects. In Wikipedia, notability is proved by citing several reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss the subject (those are also called "references", see: WP:42). You wrote an article about a band, but your article does not cite any source. Your article does not even say why that band is important. Bands have to meet certain criteria in order to be considered notable (see: WP:BAND), and article also has to cite reliable sources to prove meeting those criteria. Articles about non-notable subjects are not accepted. So, you'll have to significantly improve the article in order to establish the WP:NOTABILITY. You'll have to explain that the bend meets WP:BAND and also to add several sources to confirm that explanation. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the correct code is {{Subst:Submit}} (the template must be substituted to make sure that all the parameters, such as time stamps, are completed properly).--ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I forgot to substitute. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Rename the User name

1.Rename the User name:-
Hi Wikipedian Expert Editors..

Since I am new at Wikipedia So I have some Issue Kindly Guide me.

1. I Rename My user Name And It is done But my old user name still exist. How it will change Is automatically change or I need manually change My name.

2.Draft Article not currently submitted for review:-

2. Secondly I create a new Article About College and I send It for Review(See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Govt_Degree_College_Kahuta) But I don't understand what is this ==> "Draft article not currently submitted for review." Is I need to again resend for Review?

3.Adding Image to category:-

How can I make a new category for my Images?

Help Appreciated and Thanks In Advance
Shah (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahzaib sultan (talk • contribs)

Hi, Shah and welcome to The Teahouse. I don't understand all of your questions but I will attempt some sort of answer where I can.

With the rename, did you follow the procedure at WP:CHU? I'm not certain how to answer the question of why your old user name still exists, but if you did not go through a procedure, then obviously it still does.

About the draft article: I do not see the text "Draft article not currently submitted for review". It says "Resubmit" and you would click there once you have corrected the problems other editors have told you about.

I'm not familiar with adding an image to a category.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want to change your username? Do you intend to use a new username for every article you create? This is not a good idea; people may begin to think that you are a sock puppet. My advice is to keep the same name for every contribution you make. If you want to get rid of your old userpage see WP:userpages#Deletion of userpages but doing this every time you create an article will leave you without a "home" on the Wiki. I have looked at your article and it needs some more content and reliable and independent sources. When you find some sources make sure you enter them in the article using the <ref></ref> tags so that they appear in the {{reflist}} in the References section. Please note that reliable means that the source must have no connection with the subject of the article. Images, You don't need a new category for your images - just upload them with the Wikipedia upload wizard. Jodosma (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

American English: cancellation or cancelation

I'm correcting a lot of spelling "errors" just now. I know it looks strange but if we accept "canceled" (American) then what is wrong with "cancelation". (apparently incorrect; even the Americans seem to prefer "cancellation"). For myself I prefer the American way (even if even they don't quite agree with this) and ditch the extra (unnecessary, in my opinion) "l" in all words of this kind. I've "corrected" a few of these now but won't be doing any more. It seems that time moves on and grammar, spelling, syntax etc. all change with time. If we all start to use "cancelation" instead of "cancellation" then it will, as most "new" words do become the norm. Jodosma (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jodosma! English is not my first language, so, I'm not an expert in this, but I looked into my "Pocket Oxford Dictionary"^[1]. It contains only the form "cancelled". Our article American and British English spelling differences#Doubled in British English also says that "cancellation" is the correct form in American English, albeit without any reference. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

^ Thompson, Della, ed. (1996). The Pocket Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 116. ISBN 0-19-860045-3.

Thanks for that. It's just that this spelling is occurring so often now that I think it is becoming the norm; eventually we will all go the American way, and even if some document says "cancellation" is correct I feel that this is out of touch with the common usage as it is now. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of both spellings but I think "cancelation" is winning the battle; idiom will out. Jodosma (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jodosma. You could be correct that the single "L" version will eventually be accepted as standard American English spelling. But not yet, in my view. As a published writer in American English for decades, I very much feel that the version with two "Ls" is both standard and preferred. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the best argument yet, so I will continue with my efforts to correct all the errors. It may take some time; at the moment it looks like there are thousands of them. Jodosma (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary

Hello! A tea related question for the Teahouse. Is the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ok to use as reference? I am currently expanding the Swedish East India Company and it contains a number of words that need clarification. Most can be explained by linking, but in the case of "Hyson skin" there is no mention of it here, not even in the Hyson article. So in this case (and perhaps for other not so everyday words still not found in the Wikipedia) it would be easy to just make a ref to this page. Or, I could make the ref to the printed version, but that would be more difficult for readers who might not have this tome at home. Most other online sources seems to quote the M-W. Thanks! w.carter-Talk 20:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the question is answered by itself since it seems that the link to M-W does not work. :-/ Suggestions? w.carter-Talk 21:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Or maybe now? (Click error when pasting link)w.carter-Talk 21:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@W.carter: While citing dictionaries is okay and sometimes the only source one can find (e.g. the OED, for etymology), you may be able to find a good source elsewhere. But note that the fact that a link to the online version is not possible does not mean you cannot cite it. Sources do not need to be available for free, available online, or linkable if they are online. For citing them, note the existence of {{cite encyclopedia}}. Anyway Google books is great for this. To take your example of Hyson skin – I dropped it into Google Books and found this, which you could cite as:

<ref>{{cite book|author=Daniel Defoe|title=Robinson Crusoe|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=EAoGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA400|year=1815|publisher=Joseph Mawman|location=London|page=400}}</ref>

I easily made the citation using the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books (though you often need to check and tweak its output). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for an excellent answer. I really need to learn more about Google books...still too attached to real books. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 07:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is an orphan

Hello, I have just added and made several edits to an article Yabacon valley and at a time I got this message after refreshing the page

"This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find links tool for suggestions." I like to think I understand this, I've tried solving this myself, but it still shows up.

Please I would like help.. anyone here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchlegend (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, what is the question? All you have to do is to consider relevant articles that could and should link to it, and then link them. Fiddle Faddle 14:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

These banners are placed by humans. Humans need to remove them when appropriate? If it is appropriate please remove it. Fiddle Faddle 14:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Permission for group photos

Greetings, Teahousers. If there is a clear-cut policy for this question, please point me to it because I can only find generalities. The situation is that I am trying to source extra photos for Astronomical Society of New South Wales. A society member has lots of photos, many of group events such as the star party, but he is concerned about the potential for those images to be commercially re-used without the knowledge or permission of the people in the photos. It’s arguable whether the star party counts as a "public event" - it’s held on private property with people who have registered and paid for attendance. The photographer says he is "happy to provide my images for non-commercial usage ... but it’s the switch over to allowing commercial usage that I’m really uncomfortable with given the attendees haven’t consented to this." Are there guidelines that might help with this situation? Otherwise, I am tempted to advise him on the side of caution. Gronk Oz (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gronk Oz. There are two ways that an image can be used in a Wikipedia article. The first way is if the image is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable Creative Commons license. The second way allows very limited use of non-replaceable images under WP:NFCI. This allows for limited use of low resolution images of book and album covers, movie posters, portraits of people who have died, and the like. Acceptable Creative Commons licenses allow any reuse, whether in commercially published books, or as posters, coffee mugs, lapel pins or as images on commercial websites. So, the first way doesn't work. And the photo doesn't fall into any of the exceptions spelled out in the second way. Accordingly, I do not see how the photographer's legitimate restrictions allow use of these photos on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cullen328 - I will pass that on. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Images

How do I add an image to an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah305 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Noah305, and welcome to the Teahouse. What exactly do you want to do? To add an image that is already in Wikipedia to an article, or to upload a new image to Wikipedia? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an article that does not have an image and needs one, so I think I will upload an appropriate image for the article to Wikipedia. How do I do that? Noah305 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

First, you have to understand Wikipedia's copyrights policies. Wikipedia is free encyclopedia, and it only accepts free content (text, images...). There are two types of free content: that which is in the public domain (no copyrights), and that which is copyrighted, but the author (copyright holder) agrees to publish it under a free licence. Copyrighted content that is not released under a free licence is called non-free. Non-free content is accepted to Wikipedia only in specific cases, and only under a very strictly defined criteria called "fair use". Generally, free images should be uploaded to Wikipedia's sister project called Wikimedia Commons (upload form), and non-free fair use images should be uploaded to Wikipedia (upload form). I think the best way would be if you tell us what kind of image you want to upload, who is the author of the image, and to which article, so we can help you. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about streamlining.

I don't really have a question but don't know where else to go to thank or apologize to people who have become involved in discussions and have referred to me. Please forgive me for making mistakes. I didn't plan to create anything for Wikipedia but found so many errors on the Philadelphia Eleven page that I finally tried to amend the article. I didn't want to disturb the original article more than necessary out of respect for all the work and time that Janus 523 had put into creating it. I did notice that there seemed an abundance of notes.

When I began to add information another editor wanted citations and references for many things that really didn't seem to require it, but I complied and added them, using a book which was already included among the references or further reading notes by the original writer. The book happened to have been written by me but when asked for references and citations, I used it because it was the only place where much source material had been documented. As far as complying with request for source citations, I simply added page numbers where applicable. Another editor removed the notes. Fine with me. I tried to eliminate redundancies, but I didn't check carefully over the text of the original writer in those areas that I hadn't written about, such as the Washington Four section. Marchjuly refers to that section particularly regarding redundancies, and also to notes of the original writer for repetitions. I didn't disturb other people's notes because I assumed that an abundance of references was required by Wikipedia since the other editors were using them liberally. I agree that the article is very long. Several of the sources heavily relied on by the original writer as authoritative were written by people who are not specialists in the subject, but generalists, and their data was not entirely accurate. Frankly, I am too busy and too tired to become involved in further work on it. It's been enormously time consuming and fatiguing, but as a writer I have a sense of responsibility to protect the integrity of real events and the people, places and dates involved in them, and when I see errors, I correct them, whether they are my own or another person's. I was asked by one of the Washington Four to correct biographical data in her section that was simply wrong in several details. If facts about a person are incorrect, it seems reasonable to respect that person's right to be represented accurately and edit accordingly. I was happy to do that.

I am grateful for the efforts of other editors to correct my errors. I hope that your ongoing discussion helps future efforts. Best wishes to all. Scholarwise (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Scholarwise, if you could provide a link to the page where all the abovementioned activity has happened we might be able to help you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is Philadelphia Eleven. I added a note to Talk page of that article about the length. On the other issues, I think Scholarwise made some valid points and has reason to feel frustrated. But the place to work those issues out is the Talk page. It can be time consuming, but that's how Wikipedia works. Sometimes you have to put some effort into convincing other editors to accept your changes. Ideally the result is improvements that everyone is comfortable with. -- Margin1522 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, I am the Marchjuly that Scholarwise is referring to above. I was watching their talk page when I noticed the Teahouse talkback notice. Basically, I made some proposals at Talk:Philadelphia Eleven#Notes and references: cleanup proposal and then left messages on the talk pages of some editors (including Scholarwise ) who had been working on the article just to let them know and invite them to discuss. It didn't seem like I was doing anything inappropriate. In addition, I thought that I had worded things in a way so that it did not seem as if I was singling out or criticizing anybody. Scholarwise then responded to my post , but it was on another user's talk page. So, I briefly replied there and then again in more detail on Scholarwise's talk page. Again, it didn't seem as if this was an inappropriate thing to do. Anyway, I was just looking to get a discussion going about some concerns I had regarding Philadelphia Eleven; I wasn't trying to discourage or frustrate anyone. I am sorry if it was taken as such. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Another thing people are forgetting while reading this. Scholarwise you say you wrote the book that you are using as a source. This shows that you have a WP:COI. So I suggest in general that you should not edit the article and if you wants to make more changes that you should bring the up on the talk page of Philadelphia Eleven instead. Or else there might be problems in the future. NathanWubs (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Standardizing College presidents templates

I seem to be having trouble with Category:Presidents by university or college in the United States. I did some page moving to clarify some of the pages, now some seem out of alphabetical order. The California "C"s are now before A, and some "M" schools are after N. Can you help? Also a small matter, but can an admin help me with changing Template:Louisiana College Presidents to Template:Louisiana College presidents? All the other templates show small case for presidents, so I thought I would make it consistent...Pvmoutside (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: I looked at it, and have no idea. You might want to ask your question at WP:HD or WP:VPT where more technically-minded users hang out... Calliopejen1 (talk)

@Pvmoutside: Also, I just moved the template as requested. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

MasterChef

78.133.230.129 keeps messing up MasterChef (Polish TV series). How do I ask somebody to deal with their vandalism? Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep reverting his edits, and I'll take care of it.Mirror Freak 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I would advise against getting into an edit war over this. If it continues, report to the admins at WP:AIV. --McDoob AU93 19:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Although well intentioned.... :"keep reverting" is never good advice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just looked at the IP's edits and unless I'm missing something they are not vandalism. The appear to be a long sereis of well intentioned edits. The key on WP is communication. Post a note on the IP's talk page and invite them to join a discussion with you and others on the article talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I am working for Brickwork India

Hi one and all. I am working for Brickwork India. I was surprised when I could'nt find my company name in wikipedia. So thought of creating my company(Brickwork India)here. I want to know how to upload photos to wikipedia to insert in my company's blog here. I request your full support.

Thanks in advance.

Regards Rangnath V Gowda Rangnath V Gowda (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Umm, Well first you have to make sure that you are not promoting you company. Meaning don't use Wikipedia as an advertisement. Create an account on wikicommons to upload your companies picture, (so long as they are given with permission to use.Mirror Freak 20:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rangnath V Gowda, welcome to WP. You can upload photos here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Review Process

Hello Teahousers!

I submitted my article for review on July 10. I understand the review database is backlogged and will take some time but I was wondering how much longer it will take. I'm not even sure if my article is in the right place or if there is something else that needs to be done! Thanks so much! Bledford10 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bledford10, welcome to the teahouse. Draft:Buffalo Jackson Trading Co. is indeed in the right place, and is awaiting review. It might take several more weeks. I am concerned it may be declined for being overly promotional, however. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the article and it is overly promotional by WP standards. If you like I can take a hatchet to it and make it presentable. Ping me on my talk page if you want help but honestly your business stands almost no chance of being accepted for an article on Wikipedia as it does not meet the standards for WP:ORG. You have only two articles on the company CNN and CBJ. That's not enough to establish notability. My suggestion is to save it on your office computer and resubmit it in a couple of years when you've garnered several hundred percent more news coverage than you've had so far.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

[who?] tag

Hi, I was wondering how you added the [who?] tag to a page with VisualEditor or wikitext. Thanks! Miller9904 (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Using "Edit source" (the old way of doing things), {{who}} should produce ^[who?] Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Miller9904: If you want to use VisualEditor, click "Edit ^beta" to open up VisualEditor. Then click the "Insert" dropdown menu. Click on "Template". In the window that appears, type in "who" and click "add template". When you're finished, click "Insert template" then "Save page". If you find these instructions confusing, just go the old-fashioned way and type {{who}} in wikitext. Best, Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How/Where to write articles??

Please help! I have 6 links for someone and I want to write an articles about that person here. I tried but it declined. Please help Webcraft IT (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)*

Hi Webcraft IT and welcome ! You article has been declined because it had a promotional tone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: a neutral point of view is demanded. For instance, to "Dr. A.K Dwivedi is an Indian doctor who practice humanity rather than medicine best known as the doctor for homeopathy effective medicines.", prefer "DR.A.K Dwivedi is an Indian doctor and homeopath". Another problem of your article might be notability. If you want to write about a person on wikipedia, this person has to be "notable": For wikipedia, it means that reliable and independant sources must talk about him. Amon the references you have provided, I only see one independent source (a newspaper). And your source about his "award" just talks about him participating to a workshop. That does not suffice to prove notability. In a nutshell: Try to find more independant and reliable sources about him, then rewrite your article in a neutral tone. Good luck ! Regards KaptainIgloo (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

machine translation

I used Google Translate to write a short article for the Japanese-language Wikipedia. I don't understand Japanese. An editor in Japanese Wikipedia tells me the machine-translated text I posted is unintelligble. Fair enough. I had hoped to be a helpful contributor, but have caused a mess instead. How do I delete the article? Thanks. M2545 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@M2545: Hey M2545. I speak no Japanese but I deduced as best I could from looking at a (nearly unintelligible – yeah they're terrible) machine translation of the Japanese Wikipedia's equivalent pages for WP:CSD and CAT:CSD and then looking in edit mode at the content of some random articles nominated for speedy deletion to see what to do. I guarantee nothing but I think their equivalent of placing a {{db-g7}} (the template we use here to nominate a page for speedy deletion as requested by the creator of the page), and what you can paste at the top of the article there and save is:

{{即時削除|全般8}}

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, M2545. Based on my experience, machine translation should never be trusted without having a fluent speaker check and copyedit the results. Consider also how closely related the languages are. The results are better among Indo-European languages than languages as different as English and Japanese. I can usually produce a pretty good result translating from Spanish, French or German into English. Though I am not fluent in those languages, I have "basic" knowledge. And if the English result isn't making sense, I know I have a problem. But I still ask someone fluent to check. Don't feel bad. Consider it a learning experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi M2545. I find it interesting that you're trying to create a page on Japanese Wikipedia when you seem to have no Japanese language skills. Just curious, but why Japanese? Do you simply want to translate Digital Public Library of America into Japanese or are you trying to create a new article from scratch? One thing about translating pages is that the rules for different language Wikipedias are not always exactly the same. What is considered common practice on English Wikipedia may not be common on Japanese Wikipedia and vice versa. Likewise, what is considered notable on English Wikipedia may not necessarily be considered notable on Japanese Wikipedia (and vice versa). Personally, I have found the information in Wikipedia:Translation very helpful when translating pages. In particular, I think you might find Wikipedia:Translation#Translation from English into a foreign language helpful. Japanese Wikipedia does also offer help in English at ja:WP:HNJS (Help for Non-Japanese Speakers) so may you find assistance there as well. For what it's worth, I read your proposed page and in all honesty it is not much of a page. It is nothing more than three simple sentences with no citations or other indications as to why this subject matter might be notable. Even though you did link it to the English Wikipedia article, typically much more is needed than that for a stand-alone article since Wikipedia articles are not considered to be reliable sources (See WP:WPNOTRS).

There's no need for you to tag the page for deletion yourself because it has already been tagged for "speedy deletion" by another editor named 180.19.217.92 and it will eventually be deleted by another editor who handles that type of thing. For reference, the specific reason given was ja:WP:CSD#全般9 which is similar to "Unambiguous copyright infringement (WP:G12)". ja:WP:CSD#全般9 treats things such as obviously copied material (e.g., machine translations of other webpages) as copyright infringements and 180.19.217.92 notes that you have admitted to doing this on the article's talk (ノート, nōto) page. Moreover, removing the three sentences considered to be copyright infringements would leave nothing at all in the article, so 180.19.217.92 can tag the article for speedy deletion for reasons similar to those given in WP:A3. If you disagree, you can try discussing things with 180.19.217.92; they, however, don't have an active talk page and seem to be an IP user. Besides, my guess is that if you posted something similar on English Wikipedia it would also mostly be quickly tagged for speedy deletion for one reason or another as well.

Now, my suggestion to you is to save what you have to your Japanese sandbox before it gets deleted and then continue to work on the article there until it has a better chance of surviving. There's really no rush, so take your time. Japanese Wikipedia does prefer that sources for articles be in Japanese, but it also accepts non-Japanese sources satisfying its criteria for reliable sources per ja:WP:RS#日本語以外の言語で書かれた情報源 so you may be able to use some of the sources from the English Wikipedia article. If you don't feel up to doing all of the Japanese yourself, then I suggest you avoid machine translations at any cost other than for your own personal reference. Nothing personal, but even your post at jp:ノート:Digital Public Library of America seems like a machine translation to me. Instead ask for help at ja:WP:HNJS like this person did in translating anything you intend on using in the article. There are quite a few Japanese Wikipedians who like working on translations so perhaps you find someone interested in helping you. Another possibility is asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. Maybe someone there will help you with the translating. Sorry if my response was too wordy. Anyway, good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the helpful comments! I had decided to create a minimal, stub article in Japanese Wikipedia because the Digital Public Library of America notably has some 34,000 Japanese-language materials, openly accessible. I wrote a few simple sentences in English, then fed them into Google Translate. I had previously used Google Translate to compose articles in Russian, Spanish and Dutch, with reasonable success. M2545 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@M2545: Not sure for those other languages, but machine translations usually don't work very well for Japanese. Most people will get whatever you're trying to say, but the phrasing, etc. is typically not very natural sounding and most likely not suitable for any kind of formal article. Since there are so many Japanese materials available in that library, it should not be too hard to find some reliable sources in Japanese to go along with whatever you have in English. In fact, I was able to find this on my first attempt. Try searching "DPLA" or "米国デジタル公共図書館" in some Japanese search engines (e.g., Yahoo!Japan) and see what you get. If you can provide sufficient sources, it might be easier to find someone at Wikipedia Japan or WikiProject Japan willing to help you write the article.

- Marchjuly (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The rules for grammar are different in each language. For example, in English, we say "The house with the red door". In another language, if we do a literal word by word translation. it may come out as "The red doored house". While hard to understand, if you know in advance it's a machine translation, you can make adjustments in translating.

This is also the reason jokes often don't translate well into other languages. Different cultures may find different things funny, 74.51.158.107 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, in your response, you said I guess your are talking about Draft:Neat Robots". You should have used "you're" which is a contraction or a combination, of the words you and are. "Your" means ownership (i.e. Your contribution to WikiPedia).

I hope you understand. 74.51.158.107 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Markups: Wiki or HTML

I've been wondering for some time now why Wikipedia eschews HTML. Often I come across such things as "unsupported HTML tag" when clearly it is supported by this example. Why doesn't the Wiki just use HTML for everything. What is the point of re-inventing the wheel. I think that ''' and '' for bold and italic is ugly and <b> and <i> are much more intuitive and more eloquent. I suppose it's too late now to change everything to HTML but I'm sure some enterprising chap is working on it. If they are watch out, Wiki will be toast.Jodosma (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Jodosma: HTML is actually very much supported by Wikipedia (see Help:HTML in wikitext), but mostly for use on templates and for complicated features not supported in wiki markup. Of course, in articles, wiki markup should be used whenever possible. There are two big reasons I can think of:

Wiki editing should be very easy for both technical and non-technical editors. I'm sure it's arguable, but many wiki markup codes are simpler and easier for non-technical editors to understand vs. HTML. For instance, I still get mixed up between <tr> and <td> for tables in HTML, but I find wiki markup's tables much more simple to use. Wiki markup is, of course, too simplistic and conflicting to be used as a full HTML replacement, but it works perfectly in a wiki setting.
The coding used on a wiki should last the test of time. As HTML evolves independently from Wikipedia, features are often changed or removed, especially as was seen with HTML5. Wikimedia controlling its own syntax allows it to be consistent and robust.

I'm sure there are more reasons out there. I highly doubt Wikipedia "will be toast" anytime soon simply because of wiki markup; wiki markup has worked well for over a decade, and is a common standard on most wikis across the internet. There is certainly room for improvement in terms of easier editing, but HTML wouldn't be the answer. Hope this provides some insight. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand now. I suppose what I should do is learn more about both markups; I haven't come across <tr> or <td> before so perhaps it's time I found out. ciao. Jodosma (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a 3x3 multiplication table in wiki markup and html:

{| 
|-
! !! 1 !! 2 !! 3
|-
| '''1''' || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
| '''2''' || 2 || 4 || 6
|-
| '''3''' || 3 || 6 || 9
|}

<table>
<tr>
<th></th> <th>1</th> <th>2</th> <th>3</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>1</b></td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>2</b></td> <td>2</td> <td>4</td> <td>6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>3</b></td> <td>3</td> <td>6</td> <td>9</td>
</tr>
</table>

They produce the same result:

	1	2	3
1	1	2	3
2	2	4	6
3	3	6	9

	1	2	3
1	1	2	3
2	2	4	6
3	3	6	9

I prefer the former if I have to read and edit the source. The text in tables is often edited by users who know neither the wiki markup nor html. I also think it's easier for those users to edit the former. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of Power

Hello, i am relatively new to wikipedia.I have edited one article, I am afraid of editing other articles because i am aware of users who gang up and administrators who abuse that power if they do not agree with that user.My question is, what happens if I do not agree with a user(despite have a WR ref) and they decide to gang up on me?

CJBXT720 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi CJBXT720 and welcome ! Wikipedia is the encylopedia that anyone can edit. You must NOT be afraid to edit: In wikipedia, you have the right to make mistakes and you can even put into question (almost) all policies and guidelines. It is the genuine spirit of the encyclopedia: Check WP:Be Bold or WP:Ignore all rules. As long as you are civil and that you act with good faith, in cooperation with others, nothing can happen to you. And if you are still not convinced, remember that in Wikipedia, every edit and action is saved, and that is also true for the admin: so if someone has been unfair to you, you can easily show it to the world and defend your case. Oh, and by the way, I've checked some of your edits, and it seems absolutely not controversial. So be bold and keep editing :) KaptainIgloo (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that, whilst we prefer that editors who disagree talk it over and reach consensus, we do have dispute resolution processes to formally oversee cases where an agreement can't be reached amicably - so you always have that line or recourse. Additionally, administrators are forbidden to use their tools in content disputes - if you happen to disagree with an admin on a matter of content, then you can simply treat them as another editor, albeit an experienced one.

As a rule, if it seems as if people are ganging up on you, you are probably in the wrong, especially if they are posting a lot of links to policies. Try to remember that many people here know how Wikipedia works better than you do, and listen to their advice. They might be wrong - but if there are enough people saying the same thing to you, it's not very likely. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, CJBXT720. Although systematic harassment of editors can occur, you're not likely to encounter it. Simple rudeness is more likely, and is generally not a big deal if you keep your cool. If you want to prepare yourself mentally, you could read CIVILITY, particularly Dealing with incivility. To put it in perspective, though, I have made 23,000 edits and had maybe 10 people be rude to me; and I have since worked productively with a couple of those editors. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Making my draft article live

How do I make my draft article live? Please help! Takeyiadickens (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Takeyiadickens, welcome to the Teahouse. You don't as it would be quickly deleted as unambiguous advertising. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines and notability guidelines. If the subject is notable, best let someone else create an article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How long before submitting an article to it appearing on Wikipedia searches for others?

I have written a new entry, I believe following all the guidelines. What happens now?Graham Morris (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The next step is to submit it for review by adding the template code {{subst:Submit}} to the top of the daft and clicking save page. The review queue is backlogged so it may take several days or more before someone gets to it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a great help, as I'm new to this.Grey Morris (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure.--ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing Game Scores

Hi there,

I'm fairly new, and trying to add in game scores to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badminton_at_the_2014_Commonwealth_Games_%E2%80%93_Mixed_team I can't find anywhere to edit the games to add in the scores. For example, England beat Jersey 5-0 today, but it's not there. How do I add these scores in? Thanks, Kyrgsom (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's been put up there now. So do these things work automatically?

(Sorry if this is a really newbie comment) Kyrgsom (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not automatically updated, no. It looks like the article's creator, User:Sportsfan 1234, updated the information with this edit. Looks like they have each match in its own template, like this one, that they wrote as a separate page and then transcluded to the article. Hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Howicus!

Kyrgsom (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

UK Nationality question

What would be the proper way to address the nationality of a person or celebrity born in the UK? Is it best to say "a British celebrity" or "an English celebrity"? I've noticed both descriptions on different articles

I'm asking as I've noticed that user SolomanMckenzie has edited a few UK celebrity pages where he switches "English" for "British". Recently, like on the article for UK TV presenter Ben Shephard, another user has reverted back to "English" and added a source and birthplace, which SolomanMckenzie has reverted.

I was just wondering if I should revert Soloman's edit to go back to "English"? Is there a different between the two words perhaps one is like saying "Irish" or "Scottish" and the other would be akin to mean the whole United Kingdom? Any help would be appreciated. 173.179.185.186 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This has often been a contentious issue and there is no generalized consensus. You can read some good advice at WP:UKNATIONALS. The bottom line is that it is a really bad idea for editors to spend a lot of time quibbling about such things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Did I do the copyright information for this logo correctly?

Hello, I recently created a article for the South Korean record label WA Entertainment. I have uploaded the logo as File:WA Entertainment logo.png and provided as much non-free rationale as I could. However, similar pages, like YG Entertainment, provide their logos in SVG-vector form. Is the logo I uploaded inapplicable because it is not a vector? Would someone mind checking my work? Asdklf; (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Morning Asdklf;, and welcome to the teahouse. Yes, that image rationale and such looks OK to me. (It would cease to be OK if the article about the company ever gets deleted.) For the reasons explained in the rationale you used, however, you cannot use the image in places like here (a page other than the specific page listed in "Use in article"), thus I have added a : before the image name here to prevent the image appearing here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well that's embarrassing. Yes, thank you very much. Asdklf; (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;

[1] Thompson, Della, ed. (1996). The Pocket Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 116. ISBN 0-19-860045-3.

[1]