Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 830

Hello everyone. I was just wondering were to find images that are in the public domain to use in Wikipedia articles other that Wikimedia Commons? Thank you and have a great day.Frogger48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger48 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Frogger48. It's possible to search Google images by license type, but my experience is that the vast majority of them are already on Commons. Better advice might be possible with more specifics. What subject are you looking for an image of? Also, please remember to sign messages on talk and project pages by typing four tildes at the end. This will leave your signature, a link to your talk page and a timestamp. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I am looking for images of famous actors. Frogger48 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh...famous actors are some of the worst to find images for. First thing to do is search Wikimedia Commons. All those files should be free, and there's about 50 million of them. Second is Google image search. Click "tools" and then click "licensed for reuse with modification". Other than that, your best bet is often to search site:.gov, to look at US government websites, because works of the US federal government are public domain. It's a long shot for actors, but I've found them before. If you reach that point and found nothing, usually I give up and go do something else. But you can always try to email their agent or something and ask them to release an image by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. They have an incentive to do so, because they have an incentive to help us improve their Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Frogger48 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a functional difference between a user sub-page and a sandbox page? Is a user sub-page with {{User sandbox}} on it a sandbox, regardless of its name?

Singing choc ice (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Singing choc ice: - technically there is a distinction between the two. The sandbox is an area where one can practice editing, refine techniques, and prototype major changes with minimal fear of reversion or conflicting edits. Rather than being a destination, a sandbox is merely a workshop; a pitstop on the way to another edit. A user sub-page is intended to be permanent, and have a variety of uses, from essays to personal writings regarding Wikipedia. As such, sandboxes are for practice, sub-pages are for permanent issues outside of main space. A user sub-page with the sandbox template is also available for use as a sandbox, but is more flexible as it can be converted to a sub-page with removal of the template. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: So a full-blown sandbox has the name "SandboxNN" and the {{User sandbox}} template, while a sub-page can be switched between a plain sub-page and a sandbox by the addition or removal of the template, depending on what the task in hand is? Although I can imagine that adding the template to an existing sub-page won't have the desired effect of removing it from a search engine index, so creating the sub-page with the {{User sandbox}} template gives more flexibility; possibly reducing the need to resort to page deletion or renaming. Singing choc ice (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to interject, but basically no, there is no functional difference. User:GreenMeansGo/sandbox is a sub page of User:GreenMeansGo. User:GreenMeansGo/RandomPageNameHere would also be a sub page of User:GreenMeansGo. Your sandbox is just a user sub page that is linked to automatically in the software, to introduce users into user space sub pages. Your user space as a whole is an area where you are generally more safe to experiment and store works in progress. Although the work there is still overall expected to be productive and related to Wikipedia. GMG^talk 22:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish to contribute an article regarding the late Osmond Kelsick DFC, a distinguished West Indian RAF fighter pilot during WW2 and later a successful hotelier in Antigua, West Indies. The article has been written by his son and me (his nephew) and is based on letters written by Osmond Kelsick and his original pilot's log, so the article is largely in his own words. I note the conflict of interest issue and Wikipedia's injunction against family members submitting an article. Should a non family member contribute the article instead?

Also, I note the importance of references. Osmond Kelsick is referred to in the Wikipedia entry for Blue Waters Hotel, this being a hotel in Antigua he built and managed for many years before selling it. The other independent references we have are found in 2 books that are mentioned on Wikipedia per Wikipedia articles about their authors, although the specific references to Osmond Kelsick in these books are not mentioned on Wikipedia. However, we are in possession of both books and can provide photocopies of the relevant extracts.

Any guidance on how to get the article accepted would be appreciated.

Thank you

Jean Kelsick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Kelsick (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jean Kelsick: Sounds rather interesting. However, articles are required to be primarily based on references that are reliable and independent. Material written by the article subject himself would fail the independence requirement. What you'll want to do is see if quality independent sources have written substantial amounts of reference material about him. If so, it's okay for people with a COI to submit articles, though we strongly recommend that they be submitted as a draft and have them reviewed by articles for creation. If the only available reference material is his own logs and letters, I'm afraid he's not an appropriate subject for an article at all. You did mention two books, so those would be a good place to start, though just name dropping or briefly mentioning him wouldn't be enough—the reference needs to cover the article subject to a reasonable degree of depth. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to draft it at Draft:Osmond Kelsick and submit it through Articles for Creation for review. The letters (which I assume stands for Distinguished Flying Cross) should not be part of the title. Note please that encyclopedias are tertiary and as such are not a particularly appropriate place to write an initial biograhy of a subject. A good bio would draw from both secondary sources and primary sources like his logbooks and interviews with family and associates. We simply cannot use those here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade - Thank you for your reply. I hope I am replying to you per the correct medium as I am finding navigating the article submission component of Wikipedia a bit challenging. Osmund Kelsick is referred to in the following books: Michael Bentine's "The Reluctant Jester" (who and which are both on Wikipedia), Norman LR Franks' “Typhoon Attack” (1984, William Kimber, London) and Caribbean Volunteers at War: The Forgotten Story of the RAF's 'Tuskegee Airmen' by Mark Johnson. Osmund Kelsick was a contemporary during the War of Dudley Thompson and Ulric Cross, both of whom are profiled on Wikipedia but without reference to Osmund Kelsick. I have in my possession his obituary in The Montserrat Reporter, a newspaper published in Montserrat, West Indies. Of course, none of these references go into the interesting details of his exploits during the War found in his pilot's log. Possibly his log can be independently verified by the RAF or affiliated association. Is there any point in my submitting for review the draft article we have written? TX. Jean Kelsick (I hope I have signed this post this time).

Jean Kelsick (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I create a draft if there is already something in my sandbox?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: You could do Draft:put some other title here. Or create User:Thegooduser/sandbox2. Neither option has the nice "sandbox" button but you should be able to find it by typing "User:Thegooduser/" into the search bar. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Thegooduser. Fancy meeting you here at the Teahouse!

I thought you had the hang of this already, but one easy way to a new place for a draft in your userspace is to go to the page Help:userspace draft where you can type the name of the page you want to create. If you can't think of a better name, you can always call it "sandbox2" or something like that, but I think it's good to name the page just like you think the article should eventually be named.

You can also simply re-use your existing sandbox. Just open it for editing and clear away all the old stuff and add new stuff. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The process of creating an article is tiresome and needs improving.How can u help me with my submissions? Harwn733 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Whatever happened to creating a wiki entry anyway? You took it away? Harwn733 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Your first article, and in the messages on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

What type of English should be used when writing country-neutral articles? American or British? Why should it (blank) type of English when writing articles?

Thanks

Saltn'Pepper (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Saltn'Pepper. Wikipedia does not really have a particular type of English that it prefers over all others. Please read WP:ENGVAR for more specific details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're starting an article, choose whichever English type you want. If you're editing an article that is already using US or British English, then you'll need to use that. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello all,

I have been editing for a few months now, mostly adding reliable sources or citations to articles and improving grammar or simply making the style of the article look more to what Wikipedia requests in their guidelines. Sometimes when doing a contribution I come across with the feature that says "verification needed" and other as "citation needed" and I would like to know what is the difference between those two is and also to better understand what is being asked for. I have found other situations where the paragraph or sentence have the citation, but next to it says "verification needed". I mostly look for reliable sources and just use it to replace the "verification" or "citation" needed. This would my query for now since I have more questions to ask. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anon york. First off, thank you for your efforts! Adding citations isn't glamorous, but is an incredibly valuable contribution to Wikipedia. To answer your first question: {{Citation needed}} is used when there is no citation at all for a given statement. {{Verification needed}} is used when there is some sort of citation present, but there is some doubt as to whether it actually supports the statement it is attached to. Most often, it accompanies a difficult-to-access source, like a print-only book or something not in English. To address it, you need to consult the cited source and confirm that it says what it's supposed to say. Alternatively, if you can find a more easily-accessed source that verifies the material, you can go ahead and replace it with that. If it fails verification, in most cases you should remove the text. But there's also a third template, {{Failed verification}}, used when a source has been checked and doesn't support the material it's supposed to, but editors still think the material might be verifiable with another source. In that case, you can remove it if you find another source.

Feel free to ask as many questions as you like. That's what we're here for. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe, that is helpful. Another thing I was confused about is when there is a message that says "clarification required", and "dubious". Is the first one used when the paragraph or sentence requires a better explanation about what is being written? The second one I don't know at all how to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Anon york: Yes those ones refer to the actual statement rather than sourcing. {{Clarify}} is as you say. {{Dubious}} is for statements that are sourced but nevertheless don't seem correct. Both have a |reason= parameter and {{Dubious}} should link to a talk page section that explains what is being contested. If there's no explanation, and it's not clear to you why the tag is there, you can just remove them. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Anon york, Wikipedia:Templates may be of help when you run into weird stuff like that, it has a search option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I just ran into a tag that says "by whom?" in a sentence of an article about ACE inhibitor that goes like this: "The use of a maximum dose of ACE inhibitors in such patients (including for prevention of diabetic nephropathy, congestive heart failure, and prophylaxis of cardiovascular events) is justified,  [by whom?]". I was wondering what kind of research can one do to resolve that tag. Apologies for any hassle caused. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. I also have a question Joe. Suppose I found a more reliable source that corroborates the information. Instead of replacing the citation, can I just add it? I remember doing this in one of my edits. Please correct if this is wrong. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Anon york: Essentially the same as a {{citation needed}}. {{By whom}} is supposed to be used to mark missing in-text attribution, but I'm not sure it's been correctly placed in this case.

@Darwin Naz: I think that's fine. Some editors prefer to remove "redundant" sources, but I don't see the harm in listing a few that corroborate the same thing. It does help if one becomes a dead link in the future. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Noted. Thanks. – Darwin Naz (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello community, I have created around ten article in Wikipedia so far and all were reviewed in a timely manner and tagged accordingly, But my recent article which I created few days back has not been reviewed by any new page reviewer, I want someone to review, tag and pass this article..Here is the article -->> Rafale Deal Controversy (India) thank you. ----Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There are 2590 articles at Special:NewPagesFeed awaiting review, some of which have been waiting for 4 weeks as there is a limited number of reviewers. Is there any reason why your article should be reviewed ahead of the others? There is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No specific reasons, just curious and impatient because this is going to be a very popular and heavy traffic article, thanks...i can wait for the review --Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well Adamstraw99, you're certainly impatient, as I see you've now decided to submit this article for Peer Review instead. I have to say I don't understand why you didn't simply make this a new section in the article on Indian MRCA competition. It almost feels as though Wikipedia is being used to further some political agenda, and that a stand-alone article on this is not necessary at this juncture. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No Sir, there is no political agenda, topic is getting regular nationwide coverage in National media and certainly notable enough for a standalone article... thank you --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'l take a look at your article but I do not know what influence doing so will have it it being approved. What has to be understood is that WP may not be the best avenue of "breaking" news but it is a great place to start to get an overall understanding of something.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: OK. I am disappointed you have described my above response as an "attack" on you (see here). That is certainly very far from the case. I am not interested in you or in the subject at all; but do want to help Wikipedia and support its editors to improve in the best way possible, and I'm sorry if you choose to interpret my reply here in that rather unusual way. If you find you happen to have a free moment, you might like to consider striking out that word from your post. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am very concerned that this string has taken on an air of confrontation. Referring the article to review really should not be thought of as an attack--it is just another part of the process. He has already said that he is impatient so within that millieu ......2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I Like it when people choose to be anonymous while making observations ... Since past 10 years I have received many invites to visit this "Teahuse" and I was told it was a "A friendly place" (I think its still written on top of this page :-) ... I just wanted to make a "friendly" request to the community to review my article.. Nick Moyes, I Am really sorry if my request here sounded like seeking comment on the quality or content of the article, to which you probably responded in first comment... However, Somebody has reviewed the article now so I Want to close this thread...Thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Adam--understand that the internet is not always the best place for discussion because unlike face to face there is not the personal interaction to take plavce to see and gear just how people pose their statement. And you never know what context the person replying is in as they just might have been involved in a stressful situation that can reflect on what is said. It is unfortunate but it is part of the environment that may come to fore.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I created a new account on September 11th, and I am still very confused on how to create an new article that could be searched by all. I saw an information said that before creating a new article, a newly registered user should edit 10 articles, is that mean I should edit 10 articles first , and then I can create a new article? Thanks a lot for answering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy Kong (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Daisy Kong: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Daisy Kong and welcome to the Teahouse.

For some reason, new editors think that what they want to do when they first get on Wikipedia is create a new article. Creating a new article is hard - there are so many policies and guidelines to learn and if you get something close but not quite good enough, it often gets immediately deleted. That can be very discouraging.

If, instead, you sat down and went through the various tutorials, learned how to do Wiki markup and citations and worked for a while on improving other articles, it would be much, much easier to write a new article of your own because you will have "learned the ropes". Although it may not sound like it at first, editing other articles for a month or more will likely get you to your first published article in less time overall.

Ready to start? Try the Wikipedia Adventure first, then head over to the WP:Community portal to look for things you can do. Get stumped? Ask here at the Teahouse, you already know how that works! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I imagine part of the problem is, articles having many readers have few glaring grammar errors, lies, and other easily visible faults anymore. This gives the impression of perfection. We old-timers of course know Wikipedia still has plentiful crap, and more added every day, but we can see it because we've increased our sensitivity over the years. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you created a draft and submitted it for review (Draft:Hangzhou Great Star Industrial Co.,Ltd). Drafts do not show up in searches. When it is reviewed, it will be rejected, as it has no references. If this company is of sufficient notability that it has been written about, add those publications as references.

If you first has been a member for at least four days and did at least ten edits, you could have avoiding submitting a draft and instead directly created an article in Wikipedia. However, if you created Hangzhou as an article, it would be quickly deleted, for reason described above, and other reasons, such as promoting a company.

Lastly, do you have any connection to this company? If so need to declare. See WP:PAID David notMD (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Can i create a article about a birds field guide? Written by Deepal Warakagoda. It is already listed in the publication section of his article. B.N. Dehigaspage (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Deepal Warakagoda cites only one source, moreover a source which currently gives a "404" message. It would be more constructive to improve that article by adding some references to reliable published sources that discuss him, so that it is not at risk of deletion for lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a 404 if you click the archive link for the source, but it is written by the subject, rather than written about him. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@B.N. Dehigaspage: I remember doing some superb birdwatching in Sri Lanka some 20 years ago, and would have loved to have had a good field guide with me. That said, you can only write an article about a book if the book itself is regarded as 'notable'. Otherwise it would just be using Wikipedia as advertising, and there are other platforms for that. Normally, books need to have had at least one depth review written about it in mainstream media, and meet WP:NBOOKS. But note that WP:TEXTBOOKS gives details for academic books, and how those criteria may be met. You would certainly need to link to specialist reviews to 'verify' the book exists and to demonstrate that it is regarded as of importance. There's a reasonable independent review here. As the title 'birds of Sri Lanka' has been used by a number of major publications like like Warakagoda et al's field guide over the years, it's possible that one article describing the development of publications and field guies on the avifauna of Ceylon/Sri Lanka could be merited, rather than just on one particular work? So maybe it's worth starting a draft or a sandbox mockup to see how you can develop things. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 

Due diligence always helps with what may best serve being made content either as a section of or an entire article within WP but it seems that sometimes people will create an article on a subject that might in parts be found throughout WP if a subject search review were conducted. That way "errant' parts might better find inclusion in WP within a more overall expression of content and these bits and pieces not be taken as the need for an article where sufficient is to be existing.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)