Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 560

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 555

←

Archive 558

→

Is wikipedia too big/cumbersome to survive?/suggestion

I'm a disabled, retired, newcomer, with 30 years of university instructional experience. I am intending to try to edit improvements to articles BIG TIME, because that's about all I can do while sitting on my wheelchair in my room. In spite of having 4 decades of experience in the minutia of course preparation and scientific peer review, which can sometimes devolve into questioning not _whether_ all the i's are dotted, but the _font_ used for the dot, I am becoming frustrated and almost overwhelmed with all that needs to be done. Having edit wars over whether the word should be "suggests" or "implies" when tying to improve a C-class article is bizzare. (that wasn't a real example, but close to one I'm on the verge of entering, I fear). IMHO, there are too damn many editors of equal importance. Encyclopedia Britannica does not go out to a park and get people to write or edit articles. I've got to believe that Wikipedia employs paid super editors (what are they called?) that can do things that volunteer users can't, yet all volunteer users are only able to do the same things, regardless of their experience in a particular subject or demonstrated maturity and reliability. So, my suggestion is that there should be a category of reliable volunteer editors whose edits have more weight than the edits of a high school student. My suggestion for qualifactions of these editors would be 45 yo, college degree, and 10 years of teaching experience or professional work history such as lawyers or medical doctors. The last requirement is so that the vetting process could determine if the person has been disciplined by their professional society. The username could be silly, but the person's talk page must reveal their full name and country of residence. Those who pass the vetting process would know enough to stay away from subjects they don't know. Their edits could not be reverted or edited by a single ordinary user. Perhaps if 10 ordinary users made the same edit in a 24 hour period, it could be reverted. Paid editors could over-ride these reliable editors and discipline them if necessary. Has anything like this been discussed before? What do you think? One reason I'm almost overwhelmed and think that wikipedia may have become unsustainably big is that there are several C class articles, etc, that I've seen that have not been updated for the better part of a decade. I believe that the powers that be recognize the backlog, and that is why they are now trying paid prizes for the wikicup competition. What they don't appear to realize is that, IMHO, the prizes are at the level of "f*** you money" (as defined at https://www.quora.com/What-is-fuck-you-money) to mature editors and will only encourage high school, maybe middle school, students to compete and flood the market with useless edits. I've tried to determine how big the wiki data center is, and I'm sure it is visible on google earth, but I don't know which particular building in that VA town is wiki's. If users keep on generating more trivial pages and edits, the datacenter will ventually become the size of a small town, and will keep on growing if not contained. My gosh, I feel like I'm on the verge of blaming the datacenter for global warming! Does anybody have any comments? Dennis Drdfp (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a few initial comments. First, I don't think the Teahouse is the right place to make suggestions such as this - it is primarily a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. Other editors might be able to suggest alternative places. Second, what you outline would be a fundamental change to the ethos of Wikipedia, which is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Third, I doubt that enough editors meeting the criteria you set out could be recruited to make your idea viable. Finally, have you seen my reply to your question about article classes at Talk:Central dogma of molecular biology#Assessment comment Dec 2016? I wouldn't take them too seriously, apart from GA and FA ratings. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I have some sympathies for what you say, and some concerns. However, I agree with Cordless Larry that this is not the appropriate place to discuss this. You might consider Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or perhaps even Jimbo Wales Talk page. Happy New Year and happy editing for the future. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I'll probably take this discussion elsewhere. Dennis Drdfp (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Drdfp. I hate to be blunt, but when you write "I've got to believe that Wikipedia employs paid super editors (what are they called?) that can do things that volunteer users can't," you are wrong. There are no such people. This encyclopedia in English, with well over five million articles, and the equivalents in hundreds of languages, have been built and maintained almost completely with volunteer labor. Anyone can edit, no matter their level of education or professional expertise, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. That is not about to change. I know from experience that a collaborative young person with the mindset of an encyclopedist can often do a better job than an older "know it all" with glittering professional credentials. That is because our job is to summarize published reliable sources, not to engage in original interpretations, or add what we personally know to be true. Wikipedia has by far the most originally written content of any website and is relied on by hundreds of millions of people. My suggestion to you is to edit collaboratively and ignore the formal qualifications of your fellow editors in favor of a single-minded focus on improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? I've submitted a request to have a redirect page created. That seems to be something that ordinary editors can't do. Am I right about that, or could even I create a redirect page? If there are editors that can do things that ordinary editors can't, are they still volunteers wiith special powers or are they paid for there special efforts? Thanks, Dennis Drdfp (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly possible for an ordinary editor with an account to create a redirect. The process of creating a redirect is the same as that of an article (click on a red link and start typing), just with #REDIRECT [[Target article]] instead of article text. Zappa 24 Mati 03:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that redirect requests are the same as the article requests previously discussed, Drdfp, in that any editor can respond to them. There is one type of special editor, called administrators, but they are not paid. There are a small number of editors who are employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, but that doesn't give them greater editing privileges than "regular" editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors who are paid by the Wikimedia Foundation normally have two accounts. The account ending in (WMF) is used for their paid duties, which may include software development, fundraising, community outreach, public relations and the like. Their second (volunteer) account is used for routine editing, and they are not paid for that editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drdfp. Please try not to insert your posts into those made by another editor as you did when you posted a reply to Cullen328 above. Doing such a thing may be common on other online forums, but it's not really recommended practice on Wikipedia because it can make things hard to follow and may actually remove some of the intended context of the original post. It's easier just to add replies to the end of a post. So, I have moved your post accordingly because Cullen328 probably intended his post to be read in its entirety as one single post. Your comment and the responses to it which followed essentially split it in to two posts with the author of the first post not being clear.

About your proposal, Wikipedia seems to be about inclusion whereas you seem to be advocating exclusion. Wikipedia may not be perfect, but for all it's flaws it does seem to be doing a fairly good job in my opinion. You also seem to be (conveniently) including yourself in the category of reliable editors based upon your qualifications in the real world. What if the Wikipedia community felt that was not the case and decided to exclude you from that group for whatever reason? That would be just as wrong in my opinion as you trying to exclude others. Experts and those with specialized knowledge are welcomed by the community, but, as explained in WP:EXPERT, the encyclopedia has not been set up to cater especially to them and their edits are evaluated the same as everyone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:I'm not suggesting to exclude people. I'm suggesting to give less weight to some users when they are in conflict with others. Big difference,IMHO. Drdfp (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK then, my mistake. Even if your proposal does not directly advocate excluding certain editors, giving some editors less weight in certain discussion still seems to be contrary to what collabortive editing is all about. Content disputes are supposed to be resolved based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, if the dispute involves usourced content and they are asked to provide a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia), then this is what they are expected to do regardless of age, professional experience, academic degrees, etc. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggests various ways to try and resolve a content disputes and there are multiple stages to the process. Arguments based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines tend to carry more weight that those which are not, regardless of who is making them. So, if you find your arguments are not being acceptable by the community, then perhaps the fault is possibly with the argument itself and not the other editors involved. In principle, I think it should be fairly easy for someone well-educated with lots of expertise to edit according to relevant policies and guidelines and the five pillars. In practice, however, it seems to be a really hard thing for some of these people to do for one reason or another, possibly because they seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Anyway, for your reference, I think the approach you're suggesting has been tried before as Nupedia, Citizendum and Scholarpedia with mixed success. You might also want to take a look at the essay Wikipedia:There is no credential policy for some more background on previous efforts to do such a thing on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

MontenegroBall (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Wikipedia is probably NOT to big because there is infinite problems waiting to be solved which Wikipedia does not have.So it most likely isn't to big...MontenegroBall (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft review

Hi , am reviewing Draft:Robert O'Neil Bristow but am a bit uneasy about the use of the word blacks through the article and would welcome a second opinion please Atlantic306 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent question. I wrote a couple of suggestions for you to consider on the draft article's Talk page. If it were me, I would use the terms African American[s] and Black American[s] in roughly equal measure. I agree with you that blacks is not appropriate. Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Black people" may also be appropriate in the context of the 1960s era in the United States. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice, will advise the creator Atlantic306 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

When should the name of a mass murderer have a redirect vs. an article under their name?

Another user asked this question, which I thought was a very good one, on the Talk page for Dylann Roof. He or she asked:

Why is this an article about the person and not a redirect to the crime? (See Adam Lanza, Steven Kazmierczak, Gang Lu...) What is the criteria here? Thanks.

An answer here or on the article's Talk page would be most appreciated!

Many thanks,

Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If the person satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, then they can have a separate article. If not, the names will get redirected to the crimes they committed. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Within the notability guidelines for people the section on Crime victims and perpetrators deals with this crime or criminal article question. Gab4gab (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :O) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk)

Markworthen, just a small note here. It is frequently a point of strong contention at what point a criminal becomes notable enough for an independent article. It isn't cut and dried at all. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Why does the page on the drug Didrex have no templates (tags) on abuse, addiction, etc?

The page on Didrex lacks information on abuse, dependence, recreational use, symptoms of use, symptoms of withdrawal. This may be because there is no huge black market for Didrex. It is a Schedule III drug rather than Schedule II, which covers all other amphetamine and amphetamine like drugs. The illicit market is made up of tablets sold by people with legal prescriptions or, possibly, by diversion from pharmaceutical manufacturer. I believe this information would present a more complete view of Didrex. However, it is information based on personal knowledge; I cannot provide sources or citations as Wikipedia uses them. Would you like to expand the page? 96.246.57.220 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 96. This page is for help with the process of editing Wikipedia. Your comment is off topic here. There are two better routes to achieve your goal. You could post a message at the WikiProject Pharmacology talk page similar to this the message you posted here, or you could simply do it yourself. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, you perhaps didn't notice that the OP specifically said they didn't have sources or citations. So, while your advice to go to the Pharmacology WikiProject is good, the suggestion that they edit it themselves is not so good. --ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

understanding deletions as a newbie

Learned how to add to WP on 1st Jan. and then gave it a shot. Not original research? E.G. re page Merlin. E.G. I made suggestion re his name, Merlin, and re the name of his mentor, Blaise. As far as I am aware original research, but, I was told it was not original, but i was not told who else had made the same suggestions. Is this fair? Conflict of Interest? I was up-front with my user-name. I provided objective sources in footnotes. Enough to enable readers to decide for themselves. The etymological stuff about Carmarthen stays on, when the consensus is that this Carmarthen stuff is non-sense - and my concisely argued, with authorities, suggestion is deleted. How to go on? DunardryDunardry (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dunardry. It seems that you cited your own published work and were reverted by Cagwinn with the edit summary: "(CONFLICT OF INTEREST and NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH - Ardrey is pushing his fringe theories here, citing his own work)" If your work is not widely recognized by mainstream scholars in the field, then it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. When an edit is reverted, the next step is to discuss it on the article talk page, which is Talk: Merlin in this case, and explain convincingly why you believe that your content improves the article. You must gain consensus from the interested editors at Merlin, such as Cagwinn and others who watch that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

How Do You Get Coordinates On Google Earth!?

--This question was asked on 2 January 2017‎ by MontenegroBall (talk)
(and the signature was added by CiaPan (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC))

And this was the original question, which might help those responding. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean, how do you determine the coordinates of a location once you've found it on Google Earth? If so, the easiest method is to go to Google Maps (not Google Earth), navigate to the location in question, right-click it and select "What's here" from the pull-down menu which will give you the postal address and coordinates of wherever you've selected. ‑ Iridescent 18:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, CiaPan. I prefer to use Acme Mapper 2.0, another web based mapping program. It shows the coordinates of the cursor location in a box on the map without needing to do all the clicking. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Looks like I pinged the editor that moved it. Sorry, MontenegroBall. John from Idegon (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I contact those who declined a submission?

Hello, I recently posted a submission regarding a speech made by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in late December. I think it was rightfully declined for not having enough references and I have subsequently gone back to add many more citations and source material.

Another reviewer suggested that it be included as part of a broader topic (the speech she made followed the adoption of a Security Council Resolution (2334) and it was suggested that it be included with the page on that resolution. However, the speech received adequate coverage independently and is significant as part of U.S. Middle East Policy. Also the article I authored regarding the speech goes into significant detail. I think it would be better for the page on UN Security Council resolution 2334 to link to it.

I would like to resubmit the article but I would like to let those people know why one issue was addressed but I have kept the article freestanding (instead of trying to include it as part of another entry). This is my first attempt at writing a submission so I appreciate any help you may be able to provide. User:Rag danneskjold/sandbox Rag danneskjold (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

On that page you will see the word "Talk" in brackets after the decliner's name. That's a wikilink to their talk page, where you can leave each of them a message. Rojomoke (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In looking at the parent article, I see that it has had extended-confirmed protection set in accordance with WP:ARBPIA3, and that extended-confirmed protection was imposed on articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due to persistent sockpuppetry, as explained in the arbitration ruling. I see that this means that a new editor would not be permitted to create a new article, but would be able to submit requested edits on a talk page. An AFC reviewer would be able to accept a new article or to make requested edits (because the requirements for AFC reviewers are stricter than for extended-confirmed). What are the thoughts of other experienced editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

why my article(Draft:FactEntry) has not been accepted?

I have provided with enough of reliable sources for my artilcle(Draft:FactEntry),still my acticle was not accepted . please find solutions for that Abdullavellore (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Abdullavellore: and welcome to the TeaHouse. Your article (Draft:FactEntry) was not accepted at this time because "this submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Your draft article only had two references. The first one was to the company's own website, so it is of no value at all in claiming notability. The second goes to a paywall, so I can't be certain about what the material might be, but given its name I suspect it may just be a web site for one of the company's own products. As the messages say that you have received earlier, notabilty is not determined by what the company says about itself or its products - it is determined by what reliable, independent sources have said about them. So please cite the books that have been written about this company, and the articles in major newspapers that are devoted to discussing the company in depth, and similar references. Then write the article to summarize only what is in those references.

And if you have specific questions, you might consider following the instructions that were provided to ask the reviewer themselves (who in this case was KylieTastic). --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Links between articles policy and language "barriers"

Hello, i was wondering if there's any rule/policy for how links in articles should go? Is it just a single link for the first mention or is it okay to have every mention be a link to said article? (IE. Album names in the artist's page)

I was also wondering if artist/songwriter/composer/arranger names should be appropriately translated or is it all right to have them shown in their original language? As my page says i try to focus on Korean music and entertainment and its sometimes next to impossible to find out information if you don't understand Korean. If you want to take a look you can check this article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Re-ALBUM ) and look at the track list, some of the names just don't translate to English well and i'm not always sure are they their actual names (that can and will be translated) or their "artist" name. its also very hard to find said artists with the English names, hence why I'm wondering is it okay to just leave the names in Korean so those interested can just copy and google them instead of trying to work with my translations.

Edit: I had speedy deletion on said page and i contested it and the deletion tag is now gone, is it OK to remove the whole part from the talk page or should it be left there?

Edit2: gosh i keep coming up with questions, this one is very specific and i'm not sure is it likely to be answered here but here goes: Korean names, in Korea, are written LastName FirstName, this also follows on most English sources but some change them to work with the more general way of FirstName Lastname. Should i keep using the traditional Korean way which i THINK is right (as seen around wikipedia) or write them the "right way" according to the rest of the world?

An example of the names: Yoo Jae-Suk. Yoo is his last name and Jae-Suk is his first name. I believe this is the correct way and i should follow this?

Thank you in advance!

Elronor (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Elronor. Allow me to answer your questions one by one:

Yes, the Manual of Style has an extensive section on linking. In brief, link to relevant related articles but don't overdo it: avoid linking to commonly used terms (e.g. Korean singer not Korean singer) and only link to an article once; subsequent mentions should not be linked (an exception to this is you might want to link to articles once in the lead/infobox and once in the article body).
I agree that it's not always a good idea to translate. If someone is reading an article about an album that has only been realised in Korean they will probably expect to see some Korean. If there is no "official" English title for a song, I wouldn't translate it. Certainly don't translate the names or stage names of people unless they're commonly translated in English sources (if so use that translation). However you should transliterate them from Korean to the Latin alphabet, so people can at least read them.
You should leave it on the talk page as a record. As a general rule, never delete things from talk pages.
Stick to the Korean order. You can add the {{Korean name}} template to the top of the article to clarify this, if you wish.

Hope that helps! – Joe (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for the very informative reply Joe, will keep these things in mind! Just expanding on the 2nd question more to be 100% sure. Is it "ok" to leave the Korean alphabet(Hangul) version in brackets for the sake of googling etc? While i can transliterate all the names into Latin, googling with that may produce nothing related to the actual subject, or differ greatly, compared to Hangul. Elronor (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Elronor. I think including both is a good idea. – Joe (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you again! Also thanks for the reply in my article's talk page, I'm expanding on the sources/references right now Elronor (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert without valid reason

Hi! I'm involved in my first edit war! (hun hun...) I made a little edit on Last Christmas on December 21st (2016) and another user reverted it a few hours later using a reason that is rather a question. I asked them why they reverted my edit on their talk page, and the reason they gave me is somewhat questionable as you can see here. I posted a request on the article's talk page for other contributors' opinion, but I ain't got nothing. That kind of behaviour from that Wikipedian certainly won't help reduce the Gender Gap on Wikipedia! Especially for such little, when the protocol asks to write a request in the DRN and others things.

Should I readd my edit without other notices?Laurianna2 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Last Christmas. If discussion is inconclusive, then follow the procedures described in the dispute resolution policy. Discussion on the article talk page rather than a user's talk page is preferred because it will also be seen by other editors who are watching the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

relation of wp to youtube, etc

I'm a nearly overwhelmed newcomer. I fear that I am about to overwhelm you with questions. Hopefully, someone can help before burn out. There are lots of articles that could benefit from images. There are lots of requests for images. Youtube has many excellent (copyrighted by default) videos of professional seminars at universities and the NIH, for examples. Those videos contain many excellent images. For those who know how, it is easy to pause the video, capture the image and save it yo their computer, then modify it in some way and upload it to the commons, from where it can be used in wp articles. I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand from some reading about "fair use", all of the above process is fair use. Agreed? Has there been policy discussions about this in the past that you could direct me to? The special worry that I have is that by uploading it to the commons, people could then access it on the web withOUT the image being incorporated as part of a larger work, and that may not be fair use. Comments? I'm actually not at all worried about complaints from youtube, academia and the NIH. However, all of the image capturing, etc, could be done from CNN or other local, national or international organizations that freely post their videos, originally part of a commercial enterprise, to the web without charging fees to the web-viewer. (should I have used a spaced ndash instead of a hyphen between web and viewer? no, please don't answer that. I don't want to know...) Has this scenario been discussed? Comments? If I was to do this process, I would want to give a link to the source in an "external links" section. I understand how to do that. However, I might not want to link to the entire video, but rather a specific interval of the video. Is it possible to do that? How? I know how to reference a printed source. Suppose I want to discuss something from a video in the text of a wp article. Is that acceptable, or is somebody likely to shout NO OR at me and delete the passage? (I agree that would be an acceptable deletion, if the video was of somebody in their backyard, but not of a presentation at the NIH or a major university) If such a citation is acceptable as a verifiable source, how do I cite it? Thanks and Happy New Year. DennisPietras (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating different issues here, DennisPietras. An image in an article, an external link and a reference are different things, but you seem to be suggesting that you want to include a still from a video as an image, then to link to the video in the external links section, and to reference it as a source, but the first doesn't necessitate the second and third of those things as far as I understand it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi DennisPietras. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content for the main policy. Very little of this would be fair use, and no fair use images (at all) can be uploaded to the Commons, only to Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Commons is only for public domain and freely-licenses images (such free licenses being as free or freer than the content Wikimedia content bears; see here for a list of types of suitable licenses). Wikipedia's criteria for fair use of images is set out at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (also included as part of the page I linked at the start) and are interpreted in practice to err on the side of caution. They are quite strict (meant to be stricter than may be necessary under the legal doctrine). Such use, when possible, requires that the person post a license as well as a detailed fair use rationale ("FUR"), listing the source of the image, so yes an external link would be included. It's hard to give you a list of discussions over interpretation of fair use because there have been thousands. For example, thousands of deletion discussions of uploaded images for not meeting our fair use policies; discussions over forming the guidelines and criteria in the first place, changes to them and so forth. We probably answer two or three fair use questions here a week (mostly implicated by the question though, rather than asked directly). How fair use works in practice is not always easily gleaned from reading the guidelines, so here's some rules of thumb resulting from interpretation of parts of the criteria:

Fair use images can only be used in the article article mainspace (see restrictions on location); you can only use a fair use image in a specific location (occasionally locations), and images must be in use (so if an image meets all other criteria; an image is only uploaded for use in a specific article or articles for dedicated use based on the tailored FUR you provide, and will be deleted if not displayed there);
No free equivalent requirements generally means you can you can only upload an image if there is no free image available for use, even if the free image is not so great (this also means if a free image can potentially be made, fair use will not apply – for that reason, you generally can't use fair use for images of living persons at all, because a snapshot can always be taken while they are living);
Use must be minimal, meaning generally 1) one fair use image only in a single article, not multiple ones (this varies significantly depending on context) 2) the image must be low resolution; and
Contextual significance requires that the image be necessary to significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, so 1) generally for use an image must be canonical with respect to the dedicated topic of the article (for example, a low resolution cover of an album, in an article on that album; this is important to understand so one more example with a wrong use: in an article on a deceased singer: a low resolution image of the singer, not a picture of any of his or her albums; or 2) be actually the subject of discussion in the article itself.

As to some other parts of your question, we generally only allow single still image uploads as part of fair use. Occasionally images are themselves cited as sources but your question is very difficult to answer in the hypothetical. A concrete example of what you mean would be better. I hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DennisPietras. Adding to the accurate answers above, I want to comment that by NIH, I assume that you mean the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the U. S. federal government. All photos, images and videos created by U. S. government employees as part of their work duties are free of copyright and in the public domain. So, much of what you find on the NIH website can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without a problem. You have to verify, though, that the image or video was created by one of their employees. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's not my first time here. Changed my name from Drdfp to my real name. I thought all of the Drdfp edits were going to be changed to my name, but I guess not. Thanks for the comments above. I don't understand *at all* the passage "Very little of this would be fair use, and no fair use images (at all) can be uploaded to the Commons, only to Wikipedia." I thought that *the* way to get images onto an article is to upload to the commons first. If there is some other way, please tell me how.

I've skimmed the Wikipedia:Non-free content article. Under Acceptable use - Images - point 5 is "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." So, now my refined main question about copyright is "Am I correct in believing that capturing screenshots, editing them on my computer and including them in an article for purposes of discussing the topic in question, as long as I don't put the image on the commons, IS acceptble fair use."

Yes, you are correct about NIH. Some of the videos they post are seminars given by NIH employees. Some are from outside scientist, who will be given some sort of paltry sum for the presentation, I believe. In either case, if my belief above is correct, it's a moot question.

As for an example of what I believed, and maybe still do believe (except for the extra caution about the commons), is a no-brainer fair use image I composed by 1.capturing a screen shot, 2.editing it extensively to be understood by somebody who understands the "gene" article and now wants to learn more about pseudogenes 3.uploaded to the commons and 4. currently have it up for discussion on pseudogene talk page, (no comments yet) and if I do it correctly, here.

Thanks again for all of you time! DennisPietras (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, your account has been renamed and all of your previous posts will show up in your contribution history under your new username, but your signatures in previous posts will remain as they were when you made those posts. That's probably why Cullen328 thought you were new. On the Commons point, most images are indeed uploaded there. The advantage of hosting images on the Commons is that they can easily be used on all Wikimedia projects from there (i.e. the English Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia, etc....). However, it is also possible to upload files to individual projects such as English Wikipedia. Fair-use images cannot be uploaded to the Commons, as is explained at Commons:Fair use and Wikipedia:Uploading images#Determine copyright status. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras I'm not sure if this bit of clarification is needed, but I'll make it anyway. In the sentence ""Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." the word "work" does not really mean the topic of the article per se, but rather the non-free content itself. For example, if you wanted to add a non-free screenshot to an article about a TV program or movie outside of the main infobox, then there would have to be some significant discussion about this particular screenshot within the article itself which requires that the reader actually see the screenshot for the content to be understood. In other words, simply wanting to the reader to see the screenshot is likely going to be considered decorative use unless you are able to justify its contextual significance, and the easy way to do this is when content which discusses the screenshot and which supported by reliable sources is included in the article. Without any citations to reliable sources, the content could simply be removed per WP:UNSOURCED as original research, which in turn would remove any justification for using a non-free file.

Also, with respect to YouTube and other websites which rely primarily on user uploads, you need to be aware of WP:COPYLINK, WP:ELNEVER, and WP:YOUTUBE. Lots of video content is uploaded to such sites by individuals who are not the original copyright holders and therefore should not be linked to even as part of a citation. Official websites and official YuoTube channels are generally OK since it tends to be clear who created the content and who holds the copyright, but if I do not suggest linking anything unless your absolutely sure there's no problem. In such cases, it might be best to ask at WP:ELN or WP:MCQ first for assistance.

Finally, I see the file you posted above ([[:]]) above has been uploaded to Commons as "own work". You created this image yourself and hold the copyright on it, right? I'm not accussing you of anything wrong, but just trying to verify this since files such as this tend to get tagged with c:Template:No permission since by Commons' regulars. It might be a good idea for you to take a look at c:COM:L and c:COM:OTRS for reference. Commons only accepts files which are clearly in the public domain or which have clearly been released under a Commons-compatible free license by their copyright holders, and tends to delete files per c:COM:PCP whenever there's a doubt about their licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:@Aspro:I wouldn't link to or use anything from youtube unless it was posted by a respected organization like the NIH or a university. As to whether or not I own the image, in the 1990's I would have said "Absolutely, yes". When I was posting things to the web for my students (and potentially the rest of the world) to see, the prevailing opinion was that if you captured an image, modified it in some way and incorporated it into another larger work, you were within fair use and the owner of the new image. I strongly suspect that is still the case for US law, but I am certainly willing to cease and desist if that is no longer the case. I've already asked a question in the teahouse about how to remove the image from the commons, in case it violates some law in the country of Frisbeeland. I see how to upload it to English wiki, and will do so as soon as I get it off the commons. What I'm waiting for is somebody to tell me whether what I've done is 1) legal in the US, and 2) if it is acceptable to Wiki, which admits that it has stricter regs than US law, if I read guidelines on wiki properly. My feeling about all of this is that images are probably not worth the trouble, except that a voice in the back of my head keeps reminding me that a picture is worth a thousand words, and when I listen to seminars, seeing well made images helps tremendously to understand the spoken words of the speaker. I bet that none of the images I would make would ever get challenged by the original owners, because they are, after all, educators too. I also fear that no lawyer is going to give approval for this in advance. sigh. Thanks for your time and any suggestions. DennisPietras (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, the Wikipedia community has purposely made it's policies/guidelines related to non-free content use a little more restrictive that "fair use" laws in the US. This is stated in WP:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines. My understanding is that "fair use" does not mean that a creative work is not or no longer protected by copyright, but rather that using in in a particular manner would not be considered an infringment upon that copyright. Wikimedia Commons, however, tends to require explicit consent from the original copyright holder in such cases orand does not allow it to be uploaded. In such cases, it is often possible to upload the file locally to Wikipedia as non-free content if it can be shown to satisfy WP:NFCCP. As for the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words", please refer to WP:THOUSANDWORDS because such an argument is not typically considered an acceptable justification for non-free use.

As for the student images you are describing, you seem to be talkng about a derivative work (see also c:COM:DW for reference). If the original material was freely-licensed or in the public domain, a new copyright on it can probably not be claimed if all you do is create a simple mechanical re-production of the original work. For example, a famous painting is old enough to be in the public domain which means that any photo of that painting which shows nothing but the painting itself is likely something that would be considered a mechanical re-production that cannot be copyrighted. However, if you take a photo of a publically displayed 3D sculpture, then the photo is itself is likely considered to be protected by copyright even if the sculpture itself is old enough to be in the public domain because of the creative element involved in the taking of the photo. The same goes for images, etc. like you've posted above. The general shapes, etc. might be considered utilitarian or too simple to be proteced by copyright, but the way the are combined together to depict a certain idea might be considered to be creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection. So, if you created the Commons file yourself, then it's your own work and there's no problem. If, however, you found the image online and did not create it yourself, then there might be a problem and you should take a look at c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to change "or" to "and". -- 05:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)]

@Marchjuly:@Aspro:Thanks! Yes, once I read your words "derivative work" I remembered that that was the phrase used in some of the info sessions I went to in the 90's! Having read a lot about this, I now believe that what I'm intending to do is completely legal in the US and as long as I post only to English wiki everything should be OK, unless somebody tells me otherwise. DennisPietras (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Being legal in the US and being OK for Wikipedia are not necessarily one and the same. As pointed out above by myself and some others, Wikipedia does allow non-free content (i.e., fair use) under certain pretty restrictive conditions and it is these conditions you need to satisfy, not US law, per se. Moreover, you cannot upload something to Wikipedia under a free license if you are not the copyright holder and the copyright holder has not explicitly agreed to allow such a thing. Commons and Wikipedia do differ in certain ways, but this is one thing both sites have in Common. I've helped this discussion become a little longer and detailed than what is typically the norm for the Teahouse. So, I think it might be best for you to ask anybody further questions about file licensing at WP:MCQ for Wikipedia or c:COM:VP/C for Commons. Your also welcome to ask more specific questions at my user talk page if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Help on the declined article Draft:Sterlite Power

I am new to Wikipedia and request your help on getting my article Draft:Sterlite Power published. Thank youBejaay (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bejaay and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your draft article Draft:Sterlite Power has been rejected twice now with the explanation that it sounds more like advertising or self-promotion by the company than like an encyclopedia article. Currently you have a pile of facts about the company, but there is too little evidence of why the company is notable in the specialized Wikipedia sense.

That criterion can be a hard one to meet, especially if there is little independent reporting on the company. The company's own statements or newpaper reports that are just slightly rehashed press releases do not help to establish the notability of the company for Wikipedia purposes.

The reviewers gave you this feedback already and they are probably the best people to communicate with as you try to improve the article.

Unfortunately, as a new editor on Wikipedia, you have chosen the very difficult task of trying to create a new article. Most Teahouse hosts will advise that you first spend some time (perhaps a few months!) improving other articles and learning the ropes before attempting to start a new article. But if you want to continue on, I suggest reading the helpful information at Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners (although it looks like you already know quite a bit of that latter one).

Finally, I suggest that you consider why you chose this particular subject for your first article. What about the company made you think it was interesting? Following that particular instinct may lead you to find some additional references. [Unless you're a paid editor, in which case it would be a good idea to look at the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy]. Don't be discouraged, the Teahouse is here to help. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

why red writing?

On the page Terre Nash, why are a few of the film titles written in red?24.225.129.106 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's because they link to articles that do not exist. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Anonymous and welcome to the Teahouse.

Just to amplify a little bit, in case you don't click on the above link. Red links are placeholders that should encourage editors to create new articles so that the links are no longer red. When you are editing and one of your links is red, you should also check that it's not simply a misspelling or alternate capitalization of an existing article name. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

How to remove an image from the commons

It seems from discussions above that I should probably remove an image I uploaded to the commons, and instead post it on only english wikipedia. Can somebody please tell me how to remove an image from the commons? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Presuming this refers to [[:]], I think it should be eligible for speedy deletion under general reason 7 at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. Just add {{speedydelete|<reason in prose>}} to the article's page on the Commons. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:I'm sorry to bother you again, but I'm lost. Yes PseudogeneBrafjpg.jpg is the file I'd like to have deleted from the commons. I've read the longer description on Commons:Deletion policy "There are certain instances when a file needs to be speedy deleted and under which an administrator can delete pages, images and other files on sight. For some cases there are specific speedy deletion tags (see above); otherwise, the generic tag {{speedydelete}} is available. Don't forget to add a reason like this: {{speedydelete|Reason}}". What I'm lost about is 1) where to insert the code (you mention the article's page....Huh? It's an image, not an article.) and 2) where in the code I insert the file name? Should it be perhaps {{speedydelete|PseudogeneBrafjpg.jpg|author's request in order to post only to English wiki}}? Thanks again. DennisPietras (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, DennisPietras - I should have written "file", not "article". Go to Commons:, click "edit" and insert the code I gave (on the top line is best). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a cool way to access an image, IMHO. Never would have thought of it. DennisPietras (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete Photos

How can I (or someone) delete these photos because they are duplicates> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=50&user=Osvaldo+Valdes+LopezovL 03:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo Valdes Lopez (talk • contribs)

Okl, this photo should staty: Squat Company in Paris.jpg (file)...the other two can be deleted...ovL 03:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo Valdes Lopez (talk • contribs)

I've taken care of these for you (for future reference, you can add the template {{db-self}} to any page you've created in order to request its deletion) but you may want to take a look at the licencing on the remaining image File:Squat Company in Paris.jpg - you've claimed ownership of the copyright and have released it under a free licence, which is fine if you're the person who took the photograph (or if they or their estate has legally transferred the copyright to you), but which is contrary to Wikipedia policy (and technically illegal) if you aren't. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Flagged Article Question

Hello,

This is regarding to the flagged article that I posted on December 20th for the Wikipedia page of Keck Graduate Institute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keck_Graduate_Institute

I received the article from a researcher. The article talks about the school's history, mission, academic programs etc... It's similar to other Claremont colleges in the consortium. I would like to know what need to be corrected in order to have this article posted without being flagged. It was my first time posting an article on Wikipedia. Thank you for your help.

Ryan134.173.101.47 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Ryan. It looks lik you need to have a lot more sources for what you are saying. Everything on Wikipedia should be backed up by sources so people can check what you are saying is true. I can see that there are already sources to show the amount of the endowment and the number of students, so you need to add more of the same, ideally secondary sources such as newspapers to show notability. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikihound

NAC:Being taken up at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a user who keeps harassing/wikihounding me a lot. This user takes part in many discussions I'm in and always tries to make me look as if I did something wrong. I have previously told them on my talk page that they're wikihounding me but they're not stopping. - TheMagnificentist 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For info, the talk page discussion concerned appears to be User talk:TheMagnificentist/Archive 1#Magnolia677's questions about my draft declination. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi TheMagnificentist. Wikipedia takes harassment quite seriously, but it also defines it in a specific way. Simply particpating in the same discussions as another editor does not necessary mean harassment as explained in WP:HARASS#NOT. However, if you've tried resolving the issues with this other editor through discussion and still are having problems, then you may have no other option then to start a discussion at WP:ANI and ask the community for assistance. Please be advised though that at ANI you are going to be asked to provide specific diffs to support any accusations you make and that unsubstantiated claims of harassment may be seen as a personal attack against this other editor. In other words, you need to tread carefully if you decide to take this to ANI because your actions will also be scrutinized as explained in WP:BOOMERANG. Ideally, ANI should be your last resort when all other options have been tried and failed, but that is the proper venue to discuss editor behavior. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do I reply to a host's note to me on the talk page of an article?

I'm an absolute novice and I made a change on the Rupert Holmes page. I received a polite note back on that article's talk page, explaining why my changes were not acceptable without references, but encouraging me to ask any questions I might have. But I don't know how to reply to the host. I realize this is probably way too simple a question but I don't know the answer. Thanks for whatever help you can give me. Mimsy.Brillig (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mimsy.Brillig, click on the talk link (that appears after that person's username) in the signature on the bottom of their post, and leave the message on that page using the new section button you'll see at the top. Or you can simply reply on the article talk page, in the same thread as the page watcher opened. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Mimsy.Brillig! By the way, I memorized much of Jabberwocky in high school and can still recite quite a portion of it. Great username. We have a notifications or "ping" system whereby, if a person mentions you and links your userpage when they do so, and also successfully signs their post in the same message when they save, you get a notification that you were mentioned, informing you of the location of that mention. You should see this in action as a result of this post, since I intend to sign it, and I've linked your user page at the beginning of this post.

I linked your userpage simply by copying and pasting your linked userpage from your signature, but there are a host of ways to do this. For example, you can use the template: {{U}} or {{Yo}} to do this (respectively, if you were notifying me in a response post, for example, you could copy and paste my linked username from my signature (while in edit mode), or to place these templates, you would post {{U|Fuhghettaboutit}} or {{Yo|Fuhghettaboutit}}, which would then produce these kinds of links: Fuhghettaboutit or @Fuhghettaboutit:. So long as you signed the response post containing these in the same edit, I would get the same type of notification you will see once I save this post.

Note that when you post to a person's user talk page, then you never need to "ping" them, because posts to talk page are a separate triggering event for a notification.

As for the mechanics of replying, you would:

navigate to Talk:Rupert Holmes →
click on one of the side [edit] links next to the post you are responding to (you could click edit at the top of the page as well, though this would require you to then navigate to the post, since all posts on the talk page would then be loaded into the edit window) →
below the person's post, indent one colon if their's was a first post, or two if they used one, and so forth →
link the user's username by one of the methods I advised above (usually at the start of one's post) →
type out your message →
sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) (you could automatically place them using the button you may see that looks like this: ) →
click save.

Many users place pages they have edited on their watchlist, and also check for responses to their talk page messages, so it's quite possible the person would see your response post even if you forgot to ping him or her. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

references

how do i add references?Spenglercupfan (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Spenglercupfan. Please read Referencing for beginners, and feel free to ask follow-up questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Where should one add an image?

I just started today, but I have watched for some time now. I would like to add a scanned manuscript page (to use in an article) that falls under the PD-Art category. Should I add it to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons? Inatan (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Inatan. If you are certain that the manuscript page is in the public domain (which is usually because copyright has expired), then upload the scan to Wikimedia Commons. It can then be freely used on any language Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter. Making images and media files available there is a contribution to world knowledge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

modifying someone-else's image

Is there specific etiquette or guidance for modifying an existing image? I refer to Nonproteinogenic_AAs.svg on "Proteinogenic amino acid" page but it is also used some non-English wikis. I plan to change it to reflect with changes in text I wish to make. ChiBeta (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ChiBeta. That is an image on Wikipedia Commons, which is now used in five articles in four languages. Any changes you make to that image will affect each of those articles. So, please consider the impact of any changes you make on all of those articles. An alternative is to create a new derivative image. Download the existing image, edit it as you see fit, and then upload it with a new file name. Be sure to credit the existing image as the source of your new image, as required by the Creative Commons license. It is unlikely that anyone would object to this approach. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Does 3RR apply on different articles?

So, say I revert once on three different articles, would this violate 3RR? XboxGamer22408 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, XboxGamer22408. The answer is "no". As long as your reverts are constructive, and comply with our policies and guidelines, you can carry out single reverts on many articles in a single day. In most cases, you can revert twice or even three times in a 24 hour period on one article, though some articles about highly controversial topics are under a restriction of one reversion a day. However, if your reversions are challenged, I recommend that you discuss your reasons on the talk page of the article, with the goal of achieving consensus. And do not try a fourth revision right after 24 hours have passed. Slow motion edit warring is also not allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If there's an edit that you find you are reverting a second time, you should open a discussion on the article's Talk page to further describe why you feel the challenged material should or should not be included. (On the first revert, the edit summary should still explain the reason, but - most of the time - it's not expected that a talk page discussion be started.) If you have a strong policy reason for believing that your continued reversions of the material fall into one of the exceptions of the 3RR, this Talk page section would be a good place to document that. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out by the other users: No. Or rather, not really. Now, if you do find yourself reverting a user repeatedly, you should be a bit more careful to ensure that you are indeed in the right in those reverts. If you're reverting a vandal, by all means keep reverting. But sometimes reverting edits to multiple articles by the same person could possibly be construed as Wiki-hounding. Be sure to try discussing the issue with the user you are reverting. Now, if the reverts are to articles with no common editors, then it's probably fine (so long as the individual reverts were necessary). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)