Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...

A friendly place where you can ask questions and get help in using and editing Wikipedia

Click here to
ask a question

GreenMeansGo, Teahouse host

Question forumYour Hosts

Learn more about the TeahouseArticles to improve

Experienced editor? Become a host!

New to Wikipedia? See our introduction for new editors, or try The Wikipedia Adventure - an interactive guided tour.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 3 days.

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.)

Need help with an article's references

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I need help with an article's references. I am trying to publish an article on a Canadian journalist and diversity consultant, Hamlin Grange. However, I've tried to follow multiple reviews and guidelines provided by 3 different editors, resulting in a great deal of confusion. If somebody can please provide some clarification and review it now, that would be really helpful. The references include the following:

• Feature in Who's who in Black Canada 2
• An article on the subject in the Globe and Mail. It is the most widely read newspaper in Canada.
• Significant coverage in a HuffPost Canada article. Huffington Post is also a popular and reliable news media outlet.
• Coverage in a book on racial bias published by University of Toronto press.
• Significant coverage in an article in Ryerson Review of Journalism.

The subject has significant secondary notability, as well. He is a recipient of several awards and honors, all of which are covered independently in the aforementioned sources. He has published papers and co-authored 2 books with his wife. He serves on the board of several private and government organizations. All of this is covered in the sources above and others cited in the article.

I have seen articles with much less credibility and reliable sources assessed and published on Wikipedia. At this point, I am confused as to what I am doing wrong. One of the reviewers told me yesterday that the subject may be notable, but I need to fix inline citations. Another one told me today that I need to add more reliable sources. One other reviewer told me that there should be at least 3 reliable sources, which I have provided.

Sorry for the long post, but really need some clarification here. Thank you. FelixtheNomad (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a small tidbit of clarification, FelixtheNomad. The article WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states Wikipedia's policy on poorly sourced articles. I wish it was mandatory reading, as those useless articles are misleading a lot of new editors.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Quisqualis for your response and sharing this link. I agree, it should be mandatory reading. I will, therefore, quote something from it

"This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not.".

My question remains. I do not want to argue over why other articles exist and this one cannot. I am trying to discuss the problem with this article and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not answer that. FelixtheNomad (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Hamlin Grange and also pinging John from Idegon as the most recent reviewer. shoy (reactions) 15:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I had a quick run of the sources from a notability point of view. I think the Globe and Mail + Ryerson pieces, together, carry the day; however, you are not helped by the inclusion of subpar sources. Clearly other editors might have other opinions: WP:GNG says "multiple sources are generally expected"; my interpretation is that "multiple" starts at two, but I know others consider three a bare minimum; on the other hand, I am probably more picky than most about which sources qualify.

1. [1] is probably worthless. I strongly suspect a Who's Who scam (where you get a notice as long as you pay); the GH entry looks OK, but the next one is for a math teacher with no apparent claim to fame that says "over the years, he received praise from students and colleagues".
2. [2] is meh (no critical coverage, just an interview)
3. [3] Site header says "Corporate Communications, Writer & Photographer". 'nough said.
4. [4] is OK I think, though not very detailed
5. I cannot access [5]
6. [6] is a blog piece that contains Actually, I know who Hamlin Grange is. He's an old friend.... Well, it's honest at least, but it's not independent.
7. [7] is an interview (for the relevant part), not independent
8. [8] are plainly WP:ROUTINE mentions
9. [9] - interview, not independent (and a rather softball interview FWIW)
10. [10] is actually good
11. I cannot access [11] but I strongly suspect it's a blog based on the URL
12. [12] passing mention
13. [13] an award has value proportional to how well-respected the organization that gives it out is. I suspect Reelworld (red link) is not a significant organization but have not looked in detail.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@FelixtheNomad: For HuffPost check out the "reliable sources perennial" list, RS/P, popular and reliable news media outlet does not at all describe the consensus here, it even got its own WP:HUFFPO shortcut. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Hi, thank you for the elaborate response. This clears up a bunch of stuff I was confused with. Can you help me with another minor query, please? I've been reading about article assessments and I think this one can fall under a start class article based on current primary and secondary notability. Is that right? Thanks. FelixtheNomad (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions about quoting sources

I'm reading the Wikipedia guidelines but I'd like to know what is the general opinion regarding frequent quoting of sources that support the statement of a given Wiki page and giving an as complete as possible information about the cited source (pages, dates, quotes, url, isbn, etc.). Is it bad if the majority of the citations in a given Wiki article also contain quotes and their respective pages from the source? Is it generally seen as a citation overkill? Does it violate certain Wikipedia policies? Can someone be banned for opting for full citations with quotes?

You can find general guidance about adding quotations here Wikipedia:Quotations#General_guidelines. I am not quite sure what you mean about a citation 'containing' a quote though? I certainly don't think that a quote should appear every time a citation appears, that would be over-use of quotes, not necessarily citation overkill. Citations should be used frequently and are more or less mandatory, especially for controversial information. Quotes should be used sparingly and are optional, only for when inserting one will improve the article or help the reader's understanding. As for your last question, in theory one can be banned for doing anything disruptive if you do it persisently and after multiple warnings, but I think you would be very unlikely to get banned (or blocked, which is a different thing) for using a few too many quotes, as long as you stop and discuss if anyone objects. Hug^syrup 11:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

About "citations containing a quote", I'm thinking more about the referencing style of an article like this. The references appear to be "full citations", with all the possible information available regarding the cited source itself, the page that supports the statement if possible, and the quote that supports the written statement in an article. Stricnina (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see! Sorry, I misunderstood. I haven't seen that style much, but it is perfectly legitimate. See here under 'additional annotation' for some guidance on this. Essentially, it's fine, it can be very useful, it's not mandatory. I wouldn't recommend (not that you were going to, I'm sure!) going around and adding quotes to existing citations all over the place unless there is a good reason for it, but there is certainly no problem with this approach in principle. Does that help? Hug^syrup 11:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for the answer. Yes, this helps. Stricnina (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: One suggested use for quotes is to provide translation to English of a foreign source, which would be useful there, instead of (or in addition to) reproducing the non-English source. I would probably have used the two-step approach, with quotes in the footnotes that in turn reference the sources (to avoid repeating the whole source citation many times). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and @Hugsyrup, is frequent quoting of sources constitutes WP:COPYVIO or WP:ILCLUTTER? Like in the references section of this page? I don't want to violate Wikipedia policies so I need input. Someone suggested that frequent quoting of the sources like in that case constitute WP:COPYVIO. Stricnina (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and possibly @Hugsyrup Also, I am trying to make a footnote containing a quote, and inside the footnote there is also the reference in "ref name" format but it gives me an error when embedding a citation format inside a footnote. How do I resolve it? Stricnina (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: This is the approach I was thinking of:

This is some article prose{{Efn|1="Some quoted text from page 3"{{R|Smith-2020|p=3}}}}
and more article prose{{Efn|1="Some quoted text from page 27"{{R|Smith-2020|p=27}}}}
and also article prose.{{Efn|1="The only quote from Jones"<ref name="Jones-2013" />}}

=== Notes ===
{{Notelist}}

=== References ===
{{Reflist |refs=
<ref name="Smith-2020">{{Cite book |last1=Smith |first1=John |title=My life |date=2020 }}</ref>
<ref name="Jones-2013">{{Cite book |last1=Jones |first1=Bob |title=Some title |date=2013 |page=55}}</ref>
}}

It produces the following:

---

This is some article prose and more article prose and also article prose.

References

---

Note that {{R|Smith-2020|p=3}} is a short substitute for <ref name="Smith-2020" />{{Rp|3}}.

(For some reason, I didn't get alerts from the mentions you made with @{{u|AlanM1}}. I suggest using {{Re|AlanM1}} instead.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Notable vs Sufficiently Notable-What is the standard?

Good Morning,

Article-The Toven

The article title above (The Toven) was apparently rejected. Reason; "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Please breakdown the meaning of "sufficiently" as it relates to notable. As I understand the guidelines. "notable" is the requirement and while accompanied with the word "sufficiently" can come off as ambiguous and unclear to the author. Currently I can find no such language in Wikipedia guidelines and rules referring to the phrase "Not Sufficiently Notable". Please assist with pointing this verbiage out if I am missing something.

Respectfully submitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritletters (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The link which you were given was to WP:Notability. You need to read that, and the links from it. The primary requirement is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." One thing which you may not yet have realised is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see circular. Unfortunately nearly all links which you used as "references" in Draft:The Toven were to Wikipedia; 2 others are to the subject's own website. You therefore need to find independent published reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think possibly you meant to cite something like [14], but you cited WP-articles instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

'Sufficiently' means "meeting the requirements". "Sufficiently notable" would just mean "notable enough", 'sufficiently' itself is not specific terminology or jargon. Of course Wikipedia Notability is a specific term which is a binary thing; a subject is either notable or it isn't, it can't be a little notable but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It could, however, be the case that a subject is notable in the common sense but not sufficiently notable (not notable enough) to meet Wikipedia's definition of Notability. Does that make sense? 194.75.231.3 (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Making Distribution Maps

Hello to all!

Recently, I decided to make some (still not existent) pages for the isopod species that occur in Greece. In these pages, except for the known information and the bibliography/references, I would like to add some self-made distribution maps, based on the literature. The question is: How can I make those maps? I must specify that I don't want to make something elaborate, just simple, "color-the-blank-map" pictures, like the already existent distribution map of Armadillidium klugii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillidium_klugii#cite_note-klugiigroup-2). Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks! Xeroporcellio (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Xeroporcellio - we have a few tutorials about making maps at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Tutorials and general graphics resources at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources. Very briefly, the basic idea is to (1) find a map image in SVG format, like the one in the article above, (2) bring it into an editor like Inkscape that can edit SVG images, and (3) add your own range polygon on top of it. It is good practice when uploading images like species ranges to state the source from which you derived the range. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

adding an item to a category

How do you add an item to a certain category? For instance, if I wanted to add "Random page" to "Category:Random pages" (these are just examples), how would I do so? Thanks, King of Scorpions (my talk) 22:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions the same method you'd normally use to link to a page, I.e. [[category:category name]]. Convention is categorises are the last thing on the page. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 23:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, because of this, if you want to link to a category add a : before category, as in [[:category:animals]] ~~ Alex Noble - talk 23:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@King of Scorpions: To put that another way, if you want to talk about a category on a discussion page (like this one) be sure to put a colon (":") before "Category" (e.g., [[:Category:Random pages]], which renders as Category:Random pages) so it doesn't actually put the talk page in that category. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, also wp:hotcat, found on Preferences -> Gadgets -> Editing, is a very useful tool that gives a box to add categories to the end of each article, which does things like suggesting category names. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I really appreciate the help! King of Scorpions (my talk) 17:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Untrue but referenced

I'm a newbie and here mostly to patch internal inconsistencies but don't know how to address them, please help.

An article contains a statement which, despite its reference, is not true. By it not being true I mean I can provide a different reference giving a conflicting statement. Should both be included? Should a 'reference duel' be initiated to decide which statement is true? What is the established way to solve such issues? Kuiet (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I should expand on my predicament:

Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete

— Race (human categorization)

the role and importance of essentialism in biology is still a matter of debate.

— Essentialism

They both seem to be presented as fact and I should maybe add that I honestly don't care which is true. I just want to address such cases because of the annoyance I feel when reading wiki, stumbling on something like this and realising I've learned nothing.

I might as well add I've read WP:VNT and wholeheartedly agree with it but nevertheless think the illustrated case is handled incorrectly. If I am wrong, please correct me. I am a newbie, here to learn. Kuiet (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kuiet: Knowing nothing about the subject, I would say the first example is the more extreme and non-neutral, seeming to say that all scientists think it's obsolete, which is virtually impossible. If there's a significant debate about a subject, it's worth writing about, presenting both sides and references. If one side is really WP:FRINGE-ish, with no history, it could maybe be limited to a footnote in order to keep reasonable balance. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

{@AlanM1: Thank you kindly for your help. I'm having trouble interpreting what 'subject' and 'side' you mention mean in context of the current case. Are you advising I add footnotes to each article with the sentence and reference of the other article? Thank you again for your help and patience. Kuiet (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

split Kaiping Tramway and Imperial Railways of North China

This is an editor that usually work in Chinese WP. Having read some essays, Chorographies, and reports from Chinese Railway Co. nowadays, I am now clear of the timeline of Peking-Mukden Railway, and come up with some ideas:

• The contents related to the company "Imperial Chinese Railways(ICR)" should be moved to a new article to elaborate on the development of this company;
• The contents related to the construction and service of the tramway should be separated in several phases:
  • Sections west(inside) of the (Shanhai)Pass:
    • Tangshan - Xugezhuang tramway(1881)→Tangshan - Lutai Tramway(1887)→Tangshan - Tanggu - Tianjin Railway(1888)→;
    • Guye - Tianjin Railway(1890)→;
    • Tianjin - Yuguan(nowadays Shanhai Pass) Railway(1894);
    • When the first-built Kaiping Tramway extended to Yuguan and Tianjin, the Railway from Lugouqiao to Tianjin was completed in 1897;
  • Sections east(outside) of the Pass:
    • From Shanhai Pass to Suizhong(1891-1894)
    • extension to Dahushan(1895-1900)
    • extension to Xinmin(1900-1904)
    • extension to Mukden(1904-1912)
  • In 1907, the Peking - Mukden Railway Administration, affiliated to the Ministry of Posts and Communications, was set up and the Railway from Peking to Shanhai Pass was renamed as "Peking - Mukden Railway".

After listing the outline, I suggest that the history, from the Plan of Kaiping Tramway to the extension to Tianjin, can be regarded as a complete phase(from proposition to extension) and kept in this article, while the extension to Shanhai Pass should be moved to a new article called "Peking - Mukden Railway", under a section called "the construction of the inside-of-the-pass section"; similarly, the extensions to Mukden should be moved to article "Peking - Mukden Railway" under a section called "the construction of the outside-of-the-pass section".

PS: The Peking-Mukden Railway was split in 1932 into 2 sections: the section inside the pass and that outside of the pass, since the Manchukuo, under the support of Japanese Invaders, controlled the section outside of the pass and renamed it as "Mukden-Shanhai Pass Railway"; at the same time, the the section inside of the pass was renamed as "Peiping-Shanhai Pass Railway".

These are the ideas I have.Johnson.Xia (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC) PS:the draft I wrote for Peking-Mukden Railway.Johnson.Xia (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Johnson.Xia. It would probably be better for you discuss your ideas on the corresponding talk pages of the articles which you want to change because that's where any consensus is likely going to need to be established. You can of course just be WP:BOLD if you think your ideas would improve the articles, but sometimes it can be better to be a little WP:CAUTIOUS when making major revisions. If you do decide to be BOLD but are subsequently WP:REVERTed by another editor, then follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to sort things out through discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I come here because there is no response on the corresponding discussion page.Johnson.Xia (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to have responded to your query at Talk:Kaiping Tramway#suggestion for split after nine months (other than a sort of related post by Robert McClenon from about a month ago) then you probably just can be BOLD and follow WP:SPLIT; if, however, do want some additional input, then you can also try asking at WT:CHINA and WT:TRAINS. Some articles just don't seem to attract as many watchers as others; so, often an article talk page post can go quite a long time without receiving any response or even never receive a response at all. In such cases, you might have more luck asking for help at any WikiProjects whose scope the article may fall under. Asking here at the Teahouse is certainly OK, but you might find editors more familiar with the subject matter at a WikiProject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This seemed like a reasonable thing to do, a month ago. It still seems reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnson.Xia: Also, you don't have to post the entire proposal again at WT:CHINA and WT:TRAINS – just a short summary and link to the original proposal, like maybe "I have made a proposal regarding spliting the Kaiping Tramway and Imperial Railways of North China at Talk:Kaiping Tramway and Imperial Railways of North China#suggestion for split. Members of this project are requested to contribute. Thanks!". This should help keep the discussion all in one place. Good luck. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

THX to your advice.Johnson.Xia (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with Proposing Deletion for a Page

On WP:PRODNOM, one of the steps to do before proposing deletion include: "Confirm the page is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that:

   it has not previously been proposed for deletion.
   it has not previously been undeleted.
   and it is not, nor has ever been, discussed at AfD/FfD."

How do you check if an article has been previously proposed for deletion, been undeleted, or been discussed in Articles for Deletion or FfD? Also, what is FfD? Whisperjanes (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You can check the article's history for any mention of a previous PROD. You can also check the article's talk page for an {{old prod}} template.

The log file for the article should show if the article has been undeleted.

You can see whether WP:Articles for deletion/your article title exists.

FfD is WP:Files for discussion, the equivalent of AFD but for images and other media files. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That's cleared it right up for me. Do you think this might be worth suggesting to be added to WP:PRODNOM? As a fairly new user, I spent a long time looking for how to complete those steps, but your explanation is simple and short enough (and is hard to find elsewhere on Wikipedia) --Whisperjanes (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, Whisperjanes. If you have helpful information to add to a guidance page, it is usually worth being BOLD and just adding it. It is unlikely that anybody will disagree, though people might perhaps want to edit your insertion for accuracy or greater clarity. If they do, project pages have talk pages where you can discuss it, just like articles. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia be 'edited' by users uploading structured statistical data records?

Is there a way for users to 'edit' Wikipedia with structured data? For example, how could Wikipedia be used as a repository for sightings of the Antipodean Albatross? I'm thinking of a database of sightings with records including:

• Wikipedia Name of reporter
• Date & time of report
• Date & time of sighting
• Geolocation of sighting
• Relevant fields (male, female, juvenile, etc. etc.)
• Notes (free text)

Then the Wikipedia page could display statistical data (graphs, maps, etc.) based on these data points. This data could be filtered by, for example, sighting date range, season range (over multiple years), male, female, juvenile, etc.

This ability to store publicly recorded data would appear to be consistent with the Five pillars philosophy...

Thanks for any suggestions,

Mark.

Gwalior84 (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gwalior84: This sounds like original research, so no, I don't believe it would be appropriate (and Wikidata is a better repository for raw data). I think Google has a facility for shared documents/spreadsheets/etc. and I'm sure there are others. Perhaps someone else will comment. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks for your speedy response! Yes, I see that this would be original research, so not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm familiar with shared / public Google documents - that might work for this sort of thing... I'll explore Wikidata.

@Gwalior84: You asked a great question - thank you. I used to run a Biological Records Centre myself, and appreciate where you're coming from. AlanM1 gave you the right answer, but I would just add the remark that inserting an External Link at the bottom of the relevant taxon's page is a perfect way to help readers find further information and distributional data, providing the dataset you link to is properly established and the most relevant organisational one to use, and that its addition 'adds to the encyclopaedic value of the article. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Help on Publishing Draft Article

Hello am so glad to be part in Wikipedia. I like to have help on how to publish my article Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute on Live Space. Thank You.--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sandrah.Akol: I have placed a banner at the top of your draft with a submit button. When you press that, the draft will be submitted for review. However, please do not submit it yet as it is very unlikely to be accepted. You must add multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in depth. A google maps location is not a suitable source, nor is a link to another Wikipedia page, and nor is a notice from the organisation itself (as this is not independent). Hug^syrup 08:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Sandrah.Akol. Please read about notability: Wikipedia does not contain articles about every organisation that exists, only about the ones that people unconnected with have chosen to write about somewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sandrah.Akol Though you submitted it against the advice given here, you will still need to address the issues pointed out here. You may do so while the draft is awaiting review. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

European Semester

Hello, While reading the article on theEconomic and Monetary Union of the European Union i discovered that there is no article on the European Semester which is a framework for coordinating member states' economic policies. I would therefore like to write an article on the European Semester. Do you think it is a notable topic? Do you have any suggestions on how to go forward?Everine Akello (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Or should i just build on the main article by including a section on the European Semester?Everine Akello (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Everine Akello, I would personally include it on the main article. If it turns out that there's too much information about it there, you can always split it into two. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How to make Archive on my Talk Page?

Hi Everyone,

Can anyone help me to setup an 'Archive" on my Talk Page? I want to make it separate Year wise. I have tried to add but failed. DMySon 12:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DMySon, you need a way to archive it, typically a bot is used. I personally use User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis.

You can add this to your talk page, and the bot will do the archiving for you.

I personally have it set up like {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:OxonAlex/Archives/ |format=%%i |archivebox=yes |archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} |maxarchsize=140700 |age=145 }}

Which archives discussions that haven't been edited in 6 days (145 hours), into numbered suppages of User talk:OxonAlex/Archives/. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There are other ways, and you don't have to use a bot, but this has the advantage that it can be set and forgotten with no input from the user. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done, currently archives older than 10 days (240 hours), but you can increase that number by changing the "age" parameter (counted in hours). – Thjarkur (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

if am writing about a person who is social worker

what kind of information/coverage and citations are preferred? Please also suggest some tips and tricks so next time my page would be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DivyaSethia (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@DivyaSethia: our page about reliable sources gives a good overview of the sort of sources that are preferred. The best tip I can give is at WP:GOLDENRULE - your topic will be accepted if you can show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If the coverage is brief/passing, or if the sources aren't reliable, or if they are not independent, then the article won't be accepted no matter how many citations you add. Hug^syrup 14:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Banned from WIkipedia

Hello - years ago I wrote an article about an early video group of which I was a part - this group was setup in 1977 (that's pretty early for video and part of the history). I was immediately banned from wiipedia by a moderator and in the past I have seen a page where other moderators tried reasoning with him for banning me. When I wrote the article I didn't actually realise that you couldn't write about something you were involved in so I made a mistake but somehow that seems to have been a lifetime ban.

Friends in other countries have tried writing things about me but they have been taken down too. Presumably there's a system where banning sticks.

I think the argument was that I was of no consequence at the time or something like that. In fact I'm now 67, I've been a professor of Cinematography, I've organised Cinematography Festivals, I've exhibited art in many cathedrals and represented internationally by a leading agency - I shot the world's third electronically gathered feature film in 1986, etc, etc and the little history I wrote way back when is still of relevance, especially as there is generally a concerted and systemic eradication of early histories of cybernetic media as they conflict with what academia tends to propose as 'the real history'. And yes you might argue I'm a little paranoid. I've always thought of wikipedia as being a counter to that tendency but I'm wondering if anyone can track down if my ban still exists and particularly - is it just? Maybe if the original moderator that hit so hard back then is still alive he/she might have a rethink? What constitutes the decision on whether or not an event, a person, a life is worth a mention on wikipedia - or not?

Terry Flaxton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Flaxton (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terry Flaxton: I suspect there is a bit of confusion here. A 'ban' is something that happens to an editor if they are disruptive, but from what you are saying, and me doing a bit of searching, I suspect that you have not been banned but simply that an article about you has been deleted for various reasons. Assuming this is the page [15] I can see a history of deletions due to the subject not being notable, and due to copyright infringement. None of this means the page is 'banned' - if you believe you meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and, from the sound of your career, the specific standards for artists and film professionals then you can create a page through the WP:AFC process and submit it for review. However, please read WP:AUTO about the perils of creating an autobiography, and also WP:COI about editing with a conflict of interest. Hug^syrup 14:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, I suspect you are also Trflaxton (talk · contribs)? Could I suggest that you put a notification on your new user page as such: {{User previous account|Trflaxton}} and, if you still have access to the old account, be sure not to edit using both of them or that could be considered sockpuppetry. Hug^syrup 14:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

how to contact with wikipedia authors?

I'm writing is order to check how can I contact with wikipedia authors - my previous question was deleted as it was mentioning my new website promoting knowledge sharing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.39.202 (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello anon. This is not a place for you to contact people in order to promote your website. GMG^talk 14:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@217.17.39.202: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, like Encyclopædia Brittanica or Encarta. It's not a forum, social media site, or promotion platform. Please see WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOCIAL, WP:PROMO, etc.. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I've been wanting to write an article about someone named "Muammer Topalı". He's known as "Taksim Dayı" on the internet. He became famous after trying to answer some questions in street interview. The interview was in English but he could only speak english so he tried to answer the questions with unintelligible sounds. He's extremely famous in Turkey but he only appears on youtube. He was recently on a local television channel in Turkey. The video of him that was on television was the uploaded to youtube on their channel (their as in the local television channels Youtube channel). I believe Youtube isn't considered a reliable source no matter how reliable the channel is. There aren't any other sources so how can I write an article about him? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: unfortunately, if there aren't many sources then that suggests he probably isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. If independent, reliable sources haven't chosen to write about this individual, then nor should Wikipedia. In this specific case, it sounds like a clear case of a person who is 'famous' only for one single event and will almost certainly not have any enduring significance. Such people are usually not suitable for encyclopedia articles. Hug^syrup 14:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you didn't read the answers which you received at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1048#New Article and at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1048#Question. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's me again, Rodrigo Valequez. I read the answers but other questions popped into my head:

1)Could I write about him if there were more sources? 2)Is the News video of him considered reliable even though it's on youtube? 3)An interview caused his popularity but his constant appearances on the media has also had a significant effect. Does that count as being famous for one single event? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez:In answer to your questions:

1. Probably not, because he is still only known for one event and there is no sign of lasting notability. However it might depend on the coverage he received.
2. Perhaps, but the original news video is a primary source so it does not establish notability.
3. Yes. Unless he goes on to be known for other things, or this single event propels him to lasting fame that means he is still receiving coverage years after the fact.

Hug^syrup 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate to write about the individual in the Turkish Wikipedia and translate it since around 70% of all Turkish individuals with access to social media know about him? If I went to Istanbul and found this man, then interviewed him and recorded a video or wrote an article on another website about him. Would the information be considered reliable? (If he was known for other things.) Sorry for bugging you with these questions by the way. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Valequez, that would be considered original research, which is not allowed.

Additionally, all the different language Wikipedias are functionally independent, and an article on one isn't automatically permitted on all the others. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. My questions have been answered, for now. My questions are endless, the wikipedia community shall never sleep again. I-I me-mean umm-uh.. forget what I said. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Content

I live in Turkey at the moment and if I were to collect information physically, would that be considered as reliable information or would I have to somehow publish the information on a reliable website? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rodrigo Valequez - that would clearly be original research which is never allowed on Wikipedia - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Then how is research collected? Does wikipedia only take information from reliable websites or already available content and post it? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Almost, we don't "take information" wholesale, as that would be a copyright violation. We only use information that has already been published, be that on the internet, in books or journals, by reliable publishers that have a reputation for fact checking - Arjayay (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That's what I meant as in take, sorry. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

​Are you referring to citing physical sources (such as books at a library) that aren't available online? If so, yes you can use them as sources if they have been published and if they are reliable. This is further explained under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

So I could use reliable published books even if they aren't available online? Thanks for the info. Regards,Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: Yes, reliably published (i.e. not self-published) books definitely don't have to have been published online for you to use them. It helps to ensure you include a page number in your citation, especially if it's a big book. That way, anyone accessing the book in a library can easily verify what you have added. See my guidance notes at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. I also try to explain there how you can use one reference multiple times, and how you can add a different page number each time you use the same citation. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the info. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this person notable enough for an article? Also, do I have a conflict of interest in writing it?

Hello,

I'm interesting writing an article on Joseph Matthew Sullivan (1871-1918). He wrote three editions of a dictionary entitled "Criminal Slang" in 1908 and a related journal article in 1918 by the same name. His limited published output plays an important role in documenting American slang. He merits 69 citations in Green’s Dictionary of Slang, extended discussion in [A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries], and numerous references in both volumes of the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, and mentions in other standard reference works. Other publications also reference Sullivan, including Feminism in Women's Detective Fiction, by Glenwood Irons, 1995 and Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths: Essays.... by Michael G. Cornelius, ‎Melanie E. Gregg, 2008, for example. To me, these references constitute more than three quality sources.

In terms of conflict of interest, I'm working to publish an annotated edition of Sullivan's criminal slang terms and definitions, which will for the first time present everything in a single authoritative source. It's possible I will publish commercially on Amazon, but I may also make the publication available for free on my website. There is currently no comprehensive biographical source for Sullivan (that I can find).

Given all the above, can I (should I?) publish a Wikipedia article on the man?

Thanks.

Bixly777 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello Bill, I'm also a user. The subject seems notable if the sources you have are reliable, you might want to check Wikipedia:Notability.

The following information has been taken from Wikipedia:Notability:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Also, I don't think that you have any conflict of interest since your work on an "annotated edition of Sullivan's criminal slang terms" has not been published yet. You could check Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia just to be sure.

So you technically could write an article about this individual if your sources are reliable.

I hope I've answered your questions. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• My opinion is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Just too obscure. His work being referenced is not the same as there being published content ABOUT him. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "My opinion is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Just too obscure." David notMD? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, Joseph Matthew Sullivan as the possible topic of a biography article is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. A quick search at Google on his name yielded no content about him, i.e., no one who has written about him. People referencing his slang dictionary and his 1918 article does not contribute to him being notable. P.S. Put stuff in quotes, not in bold, when you are quoting something. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• ​All mentions of him are very short, it is likely that his book is more notable than him. If that is the case, an article on the book could have a short section on the author. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually people have written about Sullivan (search Google for "Joseph M. Sullivan" "slang") and you'll find that people have written about him. See the 2013 Boston Globe ("How to talk like Whitey Bulger Mobster lingo gets its day in court"), The U of Arkansas "Female Detectives, Authority, and Fiction from 1864 to the 1930s." Most significantly check A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries: Volume III from OUP--there are 3+ pages about the man and his work--not just citations.

Having said that, what about the idea of an article on Sullivan's book, as noted above? Thanks.Bixly777 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• As I've said before, you can write about it if you have reliable sources and if it's a notable subject. Writing about the individual is a better option in my opinion. If he isn't that notable and there aren't many sources about him, then there is little to no chance that your draft will get accepted. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• ​I would still say that the sourcing is too weak for an article about him. The sources for the book are also fairly weak but it might possibly scrape by, it is difficult to write more than a stub article when you're only working from short mentions. Your only conflict of interest would be if you are going to cite your own work (which you can if it is published by a publishing house, but not if it is self-published on Amazon), going through Articles for creation is recommended then. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries states that Sullivan copied more than half of his definitions from other sources, which does not bode well for him or the book being notable. David notMD

(talk) 02:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• ​You wouldn't have any conflict of interest if you haven't published work yet . You could write about him if you really wanted to but I wouldn't recommend it, he doesn't seem very notable and there's little chance that your draft would get accepted. Your sources also don't provide that much information, I'd be surprised if you could write a stub about him. It's your choice, I just don't reccomend it. (Writing about his book also isn't a great idea.)

Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Help me

I would like to learn how to edit on wiki properly so if you could can you please give me all the help you have. ( im a complete beginner) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanometer545 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nanometer545: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out the interactive learning game WP:ADVENTURE and also the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL. These should help you get started. If you run into a specific question, please come back and ask. RudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article talks about what sources can be used from different websites?

I have used it before, but I can't remember it's name. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 18:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

​The long list of websites is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources – Thjarkur (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

​Yep, that's the one. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Note that that list is just a list of sources that have been repeatedly discussed – there are many other reliable sources that are not in the list. You have to evaluate such sources based on the criteria in WP:RS, the general "tone" of articles in the source, maybe searching for how often it is cited on Wikipedia, and searching for discussions about it at WP:RSN (there's a searchbox called "Search the noticeboard archives" opposite the table of contents after the navbox and all the notices). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, additionally to that, the new page reviewers have a slightly more extensive list at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide ~~ Alex Noble - talk 07:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Is MakerDAO notable?

I was considering writing an article on the decentralised autonomous organisation MakerDAO (https://makerdao.com/en/) on the Ethereum blockchain. I'd like to know if this is considered 'notable'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilf6 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wilf6Wilf6: Check out WP:NCORP for the guidelines on notability for businesses. RudolfRed (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wilf6: Be advised that you will need really good, independent and Reliable Sources to have an article accepted on this topic. There have been many attempts at promoting topics related to blockchain/cryptocurrency. For that reason, all editors working in this are need to be aware that special sanctions are in force on these subjects, and that extra care needs to be taken not to breach our guidelines. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies for more details. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we refer to celebrities by their stage name or their real name?

Hi everyone, long-time lurker here who recently started editing more frequently. I'm a copyeditor affiliated with GOCE and am currently editing a requested article on a subject whose real name is being used instead of his stage name, which is the title of the article. Should I switch each instance of his real name into his stage name? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 20:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Guidance in this area can be found at WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names, it uses whatever most reliable sources use. Example, Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton(his legal name). 331dot (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a more pertinent example; Adele, not Adele Adkins. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

And definitely not Reg Dwight! But, as you can see, a WP:REDIRECT serves a useful purpose. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the link! I'll give it a read. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 23:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you belatedly

You may see a note HERE from Kingsif regarding a request to the Teahouse for asssistance editors rendered. He asks that I extend a thank you from him, so do please consider it extended. I apologize for the untimely nature of my passing the message; I only just noticed it. And I did thank the particular editor who assisted me at the time of his assistance. We are trying to create a GA for [New Albion] and the work provided by the Teahouse was important. We do appreciate it.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How to create an article

How do you create an article that’s subject isn’t in red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistBookGirl (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@ArtistBookGirl: If the link is already blue, that means that someone has already created an article with that name. If that article is about a different subject, have a read of WP:DISAMBIG. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:Your first article gives you advice on creating an article. If you create a draft and it is approved at AFC review, the reviewer will sort out the disambiguation. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Se John Smith for extreme example of articles with a shared name that needed to be differentiated via disambigulation. David notMD (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Random question

So, i went to view the edit history of a page, and i noticed that next to each edit, there's always a number that's either green with a plus sign, or red with a minus sign. Does anyone know what these are? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbob99 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's explained at Help:Page history. It tells you the number of bytes added or subtracted by the edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Central Universities Commom Entrance Test

I have created the article Central Universities Commom Entrance Test on 27 January which is not be reviewed till now. How long time it would take to be reviewed ?HRC491 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:NPP there are 7439 total unreviewed pages, of which the oldest is over 6000 days. Not many date back further than September 2019. Before it is reviewed you may want to move the article to correct the spelling in the article title. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

can I add contents from non-free resources (copyrights)

I've read about copyrights but I don't understand that if I don't include the original content can I still use it (e.g. a non-free book) for citation? (thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Et0zl (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Et0zl: the short answer is, yes, provided you summarize the original content in your own words and don't either copy it or closely paraphrase it (see WP:Close paraphrasing), and you include a reference to it. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Et0zl. Whilst you may not copy/paste text directly from a copyrighted book or article into Wikipedia, we do encourage you to cite that book as a reference, providing it is a reliable publication, independent of the subject being written about (i.e. not an autobiography). Tn other words, there is no copyright issue about using a book title (and author details etc) as a reference. I have written a little guide to assist in understanding how to insert inline citations into articles (see WP:EASYREFBEGIN). Do let us know how you get on, and if you provide a link to an article, we can check it's OK for you. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness, you can also use non-free content in brief attributed quotations. But you should use such quotations sparingly - more detailed guidance about appropriate encyclopedic usages can be found at MOS:QUOTE. GermanJoe (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

inconsistent and please proof read on Vaccines for Children Program

i could not make any sense about "Records indicate that after from 1994-2012 after immunizations began to rise diseases such as Polio decrease drastically as well as Hepatitis B". reference 18 format is also broke, it might be referring to https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3.htm?s_cid=mm6316a3_w Leela52452 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leela52452. The vest place for content-related discussion of an article is on its talk page, so I would suggest posting your question there. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The text in question was added in this edit. You could try asking the editor concerned, but he/she doesn't seem to have edited since that day. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Feels like this recipe is not okay?

The Wikimedia/Wikibooks Cookbook seems like a potentially invaluable resource, but there's at least one recipe in there that is maybe not okay: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:Placenta_with_Broccoli

I don't claim to know whether or not cooking and eating placenta is culturally okay somehere in the world, but to me this feels like it was written as a joke?

“This is a tasty dish that the whole family will love.”

“You'll need about 1/2 the placenta of a 6.2 pound baby, or 1/3 the placenta of a 9.3 pound baby.”

I mean... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B126:AA2C:B8C1:DE23:854:862F (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The Teahouse provides information only about editing the English Wikipedia. You will have to take your concerns to the Wikibooks project. We cannot help you here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The correct place to ask would be either that article's talk page or maybe wikibooks:WB:HELP. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

References in a new article

I want to know if normal academic reference signs are applicable with wikipedia. for example in the sentence; The founder of the community is called Edem1. The 1 after Wdem is actually a superscript in which the 1 stands on top right of m. Is acceptable with wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HOPHXY (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, references are given superscripted reference numbers automatically, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing a red message on a template

In my article 2020 NRL Nines, there's a red message saying "Expression error: Unexpected ( operator" as it cannot compute the attendance per match. How do I remove the per match part of the category and in doing so, remove the red message? WDM10 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tournament is expecting the attendance parameter to be a number; you need to remove the text from that parameter. If you want to mention the attendances for each day separately you'd need to do that in the article prose rather than in the infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks. So there's no way to specify it in the infobox? WDM10 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: If it says | noaverage = 1 then the infobox will not attempt to compute an average from attendance and it does not have to be a pure number. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've fixed it up. WDM10 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

interlanguage image links

Hello,

I'm translating an english article Swift Playgrounds to another language pt:Swift Playgrounds. The images in the english wikipage are not recognized in other languages. Is there a way to reference images from the english wikipedia from wikipages in different languages? Or is it necessary to upload them again?

Thanks, Coel Jo (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Coel Jo, if the image is a free image (both where created and in other countries), usually Wikimedia Commons hosts it. Media from Commons, as the name implies, can be used across different language Wikipedias.

The English Wikipedia allows copyrighted images in its articles, subject to certain rules. One of them is that we must justify its presence in that article specifically, which means you can't reference it in another English language Wikipedia without justification, let alone the Portugese Wikipedia article. See the non-free use rationale in File:App Store icon for Swift Playgrounds.png as an example of documenting such a reason.

Because each language version of Wikipedia has its own rules, I would first consult the Portugese Wikipedia rules on fair use, pt:Ajuda:Conteúdo restrito. Then, I would double-check either at their Village Pump or the article talk page to see if the same images follow their guidelines. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Rotideypoc41352. Much appreciated.Coel Jo (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)