Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

Ask a question »

Getting More Traffic

Hi! I'm editing the Occupational segregation article for my class on Poverty, Gender and Development at Rice University. I'm really hoping to increase traffic to my page (and the pages of my class members) both to get more people to read about the issue in general, and to have more editors and therefore improve the quality of the page. Does anyone have suggestions for increasing page traffic/ getting more editors/ more readership? K Gagalis (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi K Gagalis, welcome to the Teahouse.

I must say I am a little confused by the question, it is not one I've seen commonly and frankly I don't know how to measure traffic on an article by article scale. The general idea of Wikipedia is to make a better encyclopedia, not to increase traffic. I'm assuming you want to increase traffic in order to reach the goals you mention, let me start by saying you have done a great job with that article.

One of the very important and oftentimes overlooked step of writing and article is to place wikilinks to the article in question on articles of related subjects. Though the article you mention does not seem to suffer from a lack of links (they can be found at the "What links here" link on the left bar).

Another way to get more editors to take a look at the article is to find a WikiProject that the article falls in its description and ask for help/input there, but you also have already done that in this case.

All that I can say now is to congratulate you for your edits in occupational segregation and to cheer you into keeping the work up. Chico Venancio (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Chicovenancio thanks so much for your input! I really appreciate it. K Gagalis (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omer Pardillo Cid/References

Hello everyone. First of all, I want to thank Mrs Stierch for introducing me to TeaHouse. My article was first rejected because it didn't have the proper references and then, after submitting all the references, the format was incorrect... I corrected all of them, except for those that are links to specific websites:what would be the appropriate way to cite a website per se as a source? And how or to who should I ask to attach a picture of the person subject of the article, to the text? Please advise and thanks in advance for your cooperation.76.109.242.110 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! For your question regarding referencing, you can use the {{Cite web}} template to site an online website. Fill out the parameters, such as title and author, and place it where you need a citation. You can read Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information about citing sources, both online and in print. For your question regarding images, the answer can vary. If you own the copyrights to the work or if the copyright holder release under a free license or the equivalent, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, a free repository of free content. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 01:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My first article was rejected. Is my current, pending version more appropriate

the article "Return on Social Business" is pending review. I've added more references --- and can add more. Do I need to be putting links for related Wikipedia articles? Advice is greatly appreciated. HalSchlenger (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hal! I looked over your article a bit just now, and did some searches through your sources, and through Google. I don't actually see the "Return on Social Business" metrics you're describing mentioned in any of them. And it doesn't seem to be a very widespread term on the internet as a whole. Could you point me to some reliable sources that describe this metric, which might prove its notability? Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

J-Mo, thanks for your time reviewing. "Social business" is a term that is replacing "Enterprise 2.0" and "Social collaboration." The Forbes article from last week again speaks to this. There are various articles about the challenges for calculating the ROI for these efforts, and we wanted to share thoughts about it. So two thoughts: 1) Should we pursue an article on 'return on social business' or 'return on __?___', or 2) should we instead create an article on "social business," for which the current article is about "socially responsible business."

Thanks in advance for your advice, Hal — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalSchlenger (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Referencing something multiple times

How do I refer to the same source multiple time with a ref-tag? is there a way to assign it a symbolic name, so it doesn't get listed twice in the References section? Thetilo (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Thetilo, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! There is a way to name them: the first time you use the reference, you can write <ref name="foo">(reference info)</ref>, and then in subsequent uses, you can just write <ref name="foo"/> instead. That will prevent duplicate listings in the reflist. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To comment on what Writ Keeper said: You do not need the quotation marks. Just use <ref name=foo>. The quotation marks are only necessary when the name is two separate words: <ref name="foo fighters">. ("Foo" obviously being a random sample name for the reference; you can think up your own short name for each reference -- for instance, the author's last name or the name or abbreviation of the publication.) Softlavender (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Softlavender! similar to HTML.. that's easy then. Thetilo (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was actually wondering this very same thing yesterday. Teahouse to the rescue! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Post-Delete - - - Need some help :)

How can I get experienced Admin and/or editors to help me research for my topic?

As some of you kind folks know I've been working on a page for entertainment executive April Masini, but I've been running into issues with the sources I've found. Most of them are only in print form, and while this is acceptable it is not enough to actually have them cited on the article page.

The article was deleted because of reliable sources conflict, and the issue of notability. Even though I feel that Masini is notable, I can't find enough sources to "prove" it. Would anyone be willing to help me out?

Thanks, guys! GMHayes (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pros and cons of using your real name as your UserID

The older guard seem to frown on using their real name as a UserID.

The new guard, thinking about authenticity, accountability, and transparency, seem to be using their real names.

I suspect the old guard knows something the rest of us have not yet perceived.

BruceCamber (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce! Thanks for visiting the Teahouse and welcome to Wikipedia. I actually started using my real name after I started to do more research and work with Wikipedia as part of my master's degree. I used to use pseudonyms, but, eventually it just made sense for me to be who I am with my real name. It seems to just be personal preference. I do know a lot of women (though I know you are just asking about this in general) who don't want to use their real names for safety reasons, which makes sense as well. I also know Wikipedians who have psuedonyms depending on what they like to edit (i.e. something more controversial or sexual content, perhaps they don't want associated with their real name). I'm "old guard" in regards to my participation online (BBSing anyone?), but, eventually went new school, I suppose :D Sarah (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of personal taste. Take a look, for instance, at WP:REALNAME. I appreciate editors who use their real name. At the same time, as a female, I find I don't like to use my real name on most internet forums. If I were male I would be more inclined to do so, depending on how vulnerable that would make me to random harassment for editing on controversial articles on Wikipedia (which I have in the past). Softlavender (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly informative answers. At this time, I'll just remain myself! -Bruce BruceCamber (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as another perspective, I'm probably in the "new guard"; I chose this username before I even decided to register because I was looking for a way to use it! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I can talk a bit about this from experience. :) I use a pseudonym, but that's more habit than anything - I openly acknowledge who I am on my user page. This has been both good and bad. On the good side, I occasionally get emails from people asking for help or advice, and who choose to contact me directly. This has been great. I think having a real name has encouraged people to get in touch when they needed help. On the negative side, occasionally I have been in some heated disputes, and in a couple of instances that has led to the threat of real-world trouble. Once or twice I have been threatened with legal action, and in one situation a person contacted my employer directly. None of these were in regard to controversial issues - sometimes it is surprising how a person can get very, very angry over an incredibly minor issue, at least to an outsider's eyes.

Countering the bad, there is a reason why I chose to connect my real identity with my pseudonym. I don't believe we can ever trust anonymity online, and thus it creates a false sense of security. If my secret identity was revealed, my history - everything I've ever done under that alias - is open to inspection. Accordingly, I prefer to edit under the assumption that people can find me, and only do things that I'm willing to stand by under my real name. Sometimes that can be difficult, but I prefer to know I'm accountable than imagine that I'm not and suddenly discover otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Bruce! I'm apart of the "new guard", use my real life nickname, and am learning that it doesn't matter what name you use as long as you're being authentic in this community. Initially I was hesitant to use my nickname but then the matter of transparency won me over; I want people to know what I'm doing. For safety purposes, I have my Dad ^_^ By the way - it's nice to meet you!!! GMHayes (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce! I haven't had problems using a portion of my name as my username, which identifies me as a female. Like the others, I believe in that transparency that's associated with this decision. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

adding pictures to a new article

I submitted an article on the 6th of April and I'm still waiting for it to be reviewed. However I would like to add pictures to the article but can't seem to do it. Can someone please explain the simplest way to get this done. Thanks Mrflipper13 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mrflipper. [[filename|thumb|caption]] is the basic format for an image. This will place the image on the right. If you want it on the left use [[filename|thumb|left|caption]]. This will look like [[File:myphoto.jpg|thumb|left|caption for myphoto]] It is generally preferred that images are on the right of the page. If you want to upload your own images they should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used on other wiki versions.--Charles (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Mrflipper. The article needs to be live on Wikipedia mainspace before adding a image to it. To add an image to a live article, you need to either find an image on Wikimedia Commons, or you need to upload the image yourself via the "Upload file" link on the left column of any page. Please note that the image must be non-copyrighted, which means that the vast majority of images that you may find on the internet cannot be used. It's best if the image is your own work. That said, it's doubtful that the article you created is going to be accepted on Wikipedia, as it appears to be a self-promotional article, does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and apparently involves WP:COI. Please read WP:NOTPROMOTION. Softlavender (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My article "Saint Michael's School of Padada" on AFC has been declined...

What should I do to improve and develop my article for it to be accepted? Browneyespercy (talk)12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier to find the article concerned if you signed this post with your own username instead of a non-existent account. Why is that?--Charles (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Charles does make a good point. If you'd like to use the username "BrowneyesPercy", it's currently unregistered and we can help you make that change. Otherwise, it'd be best if you signed User:QuecyKeith. As for your question - I'll have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint Michael's School of Padada now. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, the article does need quite a bit more work at the moment. The largest problem is that it doesn't currently appear to meet our requirements for notability, that it is discussed by multiple independent sources. Before an article is submitted, it should a lot of information from books, newspapers and the like to allow readers to verify that the information is correct. That information should then be included in inline citations, which I've seen you've already started doing. Using the different {{cite}} templates would help though, it stops dead links from being such a problem in the future. Also -

• There's quite a lot of non-encyclopedic language in the article, religious titles like "blessed" should not be included for example.
• Trivial information should probably not be included, such as the school hymn.
• The "Master List" is fairly incomprehesible, and relatively unecessary.

Good luck with the article though, hopefully you'll have some more luck with it. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi QuecyKeith. I am going to suggest that you enlist the help of WikiProject Schools to improve your article and make it encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. Please place a note on the Talk page of that WikiProject, asking for help with the article, and give your link to the article as it now stands. Editors may then edit the article for you, or give you suggestions of how to improve it and help find links/sources for you. It does need some work to get rid of all the extraneous matter like the table and all of the religious proselytizing, but I think once that is done and some more help given to establish WP:NOTABILITY, you will have a decent article. Best of luck. Softlavender (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! thanks very much Worm and Softlavender for a clear suggestions and advice...GOD bless...

Third party references and opinion about a subject, however failing to understand why the article is not accepted

The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justdial

06:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Search Nexus (talk • contribs)

The reasons for the non-acceptance are given on that page you linked. In addition, the article seems blatantly self-promotional. And you appear to possibly have a WP:COI with the subject. Try writing an article instead on a subject with which you have no connection at all -- perhaps a historical person who is no longer living, or a scientific or historical article that is in no way business-related. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Search Nexus! Thank you so much for coming by the Teahouse for help with your article attempt! Sorry it's frustrating, I've been there, so I understand! Unfortunately, as Softlavender states above, your article is self promotional! Since it's about a business you work for, it could very well likely not be accepted. If you wish to have an article about something you are close with, a business, a person, etc, on Wikipedia, it's best to request that someone else write the article. You can do that by adding it to the proper category (i.e. internet, business) here: Wikipedia:Requested_articles. We do this because Wikipedia has to remain neutral (non-promotional) and has to include things that are genuinely encyclopedic. But, perhaps you'll maybe want to write an article about something else? Let us know if we can help with anything, and I hope you'll stick around! :D Sarah (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding direct (hot) links

I was looking at the Wikipedia MOS, and could not find a reference about hot-linking. Could somebody provide me with a reference? I was contributing to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_gesagt_werden_muss

The problem with the topic at hand is that most people do not speak German, and probably have not read the complete original source. Although I understand why hot-links are usually not a good idea, I think it would help the article to provide a direct link to an English translation, so people can easily build their own opinion by reading the Translation.

I'd appreciate any helpful feedback. Thank you. Thetilo (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your issue isn't clear from the article you linked. What link(s) are you talking about, and what are you calling "hotlinks"? If you mean wikilinks, see one or more of these references: MOS:LINK, Help:Link, wikilinks, and/or MOS: Links. EDIT: It seems you are referring to the English translation of Grass's poem. That is given in the first External Link, where it should be. It should not be directly linked to a term in the article itself, except possibly via a footnote link (not a direct link). The External Link is sufficient. If you would like to quote portions of the English translation within the article, that may be done as well, to illustrate a point made (especially by someone else) about that portion. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Image Location

I added an image to the article on tennis player Reginald Doherty but it does no appear where I'm trying to place it. The image (File:R.F.Doherty Beginning of Low Backhand Drive.jpg|thumb|right|R.F.Doherty Beginning of Low Backhand Drive) should appear at the top right of the Career section but instead it appears much lower, directly below the infobox.

Alternatively, I tried to align it on the left side, directly below the Grand Slams header (by placing the image shortcut there with a 'left' tag). In that case it does left align but again is placed much lower, about halfway down the Death section.

So it seems I can control the left or right alignment but not the vertical alignment. Any suggestions how I can fix this? Thx! --Wolbo (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo, and welcome to the Teahouse! It seems like there is a template, the {{MedalTop}} and {{MedalBottom}} occupy that area of the article. That's why the image is moved down to the bottom. You can try to re-position that image so that it could appear next to the "Grand Slam record" section. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the quick response, Luke. Had a look and the {{MedalTop}} and {{MedalBottom}} are part of the Olympic medal infobox that you can see directly below the {{Template:Infobox tennis biography}. What I don't understand (being a template n00b) is how this can interfere with the placement of the image as A) it's a narrow infobox that should leave plenty of space for an image alongside it and B) on this page the Olympic medal infobox is placed much lower than the top of the Career section where I added the image link so it should not interfere with the image placement. I must be missing something... --Wolbo (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo, here is my take. Images when placed properly in a WIkipedia article with no extra css/html fiddling, do not sit side by side unless they are in a gallery. I think this includes tables. That means that any pictures and tables will be left, center or right, and an adjacent image will be above or below. You shouldn't force changes in a regular article, as the way your browser sees the page may not be the same as another browser or reader sees the page. We are also asked not to sandwich text between two images which is what would happen if you forced an image across from the info templates on Doherty's page. There are templates like Multiple_images to assist with creating image alignment. In short, the image is doing what the image is supposed to be doing, even though it does not seem ideal. You can add {{clear}} below an image to prevent the text from wrapping into the "death" section, but you will find it makes a big hole in the article. Maybe someone will come along and say I am wrong and you *can* do what you describe, and that would be great! heather walls (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

External Links

Anyone have time to look in my Sandbox and give me some External Links tips? I tried to copy and paste from another entry after hours of trying to get it right from reading the Wiki directions, but it's still not working. Assistance would be appreciated! Kristi Schneider (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed with this edit. It works like this: [url-goes-here Title goes here]. You can find more detailed information at Wikipedia:External links#How to link (and Help:URL if you're having trouble with the URL itself :-) benzband (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristi Schneider (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone!

Thank you everyone for your assistance on my questions, I'm in the process of fixing and then will upload after a few more people take a look at what I wrote, cut a few flowers... I'm new to all of this but plan to do more as time allows and interests arise. I've tried to say thank you via the Talk page, but even after reading another person's question & response on how to reply to an answer I still can't figure it out. Lack of sleep? Anyway, thanks to everyone for being so helpful to this newbie! I haven't coded since Lotus 123 in college! Kristi Schneider (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Wiki links

One more question, a few of my Wiki links in my Sandbox entry are in Red, and I can't figure out what I did wrong. I looked to make sure that the entry names were correct,and can't seem to find the error. Of course, I'm brand new to doing this and I'm sure it's a simple mistake, but I could really use some help! Thanks! Kristi Schneider (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just had a quick look. One, the page/article does not exist. Another you spelt the name of one actor (Dr Kildare) incorrectly. If you click on a red link it should tell you the reason in most cases. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Kristi, and welcome! First of all, it seems you use a non-standard version of the apostrophe (’ instead of '). I think that many of those links can be turned blue by changing the apostrophes to '. Otherwise, there are some links caused by your not linking to the exact title of the targeted page. This can be solved:

• either by changing the links to match the exact title
• either by creating Redirects, using the simple code: #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]. I have done this for two of your redlinks, to show you:
  • Mama’s Family now points to Mama's Family
  • The Billy Barnes Review now points to The Billy Barnes Revue

If you have any further trouble, don't hesitate to bring it up again, right here on this page :) Cheers, benzband (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Major update of an entry

I have written a major update (upgrade?) in my Sandbox to an entry after doing a lot of research and conducting a personal interview. I believe that I have been careful to write in the correct POV. Is it acceptable for me to go in and make the changes, or is there someone I should run this by out of courtesy and pre-review? Thank you so much! Kristi Schneider (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're starting an article, a good place to go for feedback is Articles for Creation. If you've written an update of an existing article, then you can try posting on its talk page, asking for feedback (although if it's a low-traffic article, there might be nobody to see it). In any event, though, it's almost always acceptable for you to just go ahead and insert your changes! You should feel free to be bold in editing and improving the encyclopedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: That said, I think it might be better to hold off a little bit on posting it. I've only had time to give it the briefest of glances, but it looks like the language might be a little too "flowery" yet. I might be able to look at it a little more later; my fellow hosts will hopefully also look at it and give their opinion, as well. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kirsti, I've had a look to and the biggest "issue" I can see is the personal interview you conducted with Ken. Has this been published anywhere by a mainstream media organisation? If it hasn't then it is likely that it falls foul of the Original research policy and can't be used. That probably sounds bizarre but Wikipedia isn't a place for new discoveries. NtheP (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of what he said was found in smatterings in old articles but not 'fully developed', I can change the references if it helps. I'm new and thought it would be helpful to have a personal interview, but it looks like not. I can see the point... Kristi Schneider (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Correcting copyright information on an uploaded pic

I uploaded some album covers for an artist article, they are from the 60s & 70s. I got the alert that there was probably a copyright infringement issue and wanted to go back and enter the copyright info correctly but can't figure out how. thanks, Kristi Schneider (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kristi, I think all the images were all uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? If so they have all now been deleted as actual or possible copyright violations or lacking permission. Unless you are the person who owns the copyright on the images then they cannot be uploaded to Commons as you don't have permission to release them into the public domain. It looks like some of them you had started down the road but didn't supply the written permission of the copyright holder to Wikimedia - note Ken Berry is not likely to be the copyright holder so if you were relying on him saying "yes you can use these photos" that's not going to be enough.

The only way otherwise that these images can be used is under the Non-free content policy but these are very precise and all 10 conditions have to be met for non free content to be used on Wikipedia. A lot of attempts to use non free content fail under criteria 8 - "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In essence the images must add to the text not just be decoration. Looking at the list of titles deleted from Commons, some of those are likely to have difficulties meeting criteria 8.

I'd suggest before trying to upload the images again you come back here with some information about where the images are from, what permission(s) you have and what you propose to use the images for and hopefully we can give you some advice on how best to use them. NtheP (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

<nitpicking> technically, putting images up on Commons doesn't necessarily release them into the public domain, it (usually) irrevocably licenses them under the CC-BY-SA copyleft license. Either way, the copyright holder is the one who has to do it, so NtheP's points are still perfectly valid.</nitpicking> Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand, however I see studio photos all over Wiki. Why can't I use an old studio photo? thanks, Kristi Schneider (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kristi. I actually teach my adoptees a lesson on copyright which you may find useful. Basically, whenever someone takes a photo or creates an image, they own the rights to it. They can produce copies, sell them or publish them however they like, whilst retaining the right to produce more. Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, so we only use photos which are free. That means the creator has released the photo under a license such as WP:CC-BY-SA, which effectively means we can use it as long as we say where it came from. We have lots of these pictures on Wikipedia Commons.

Now, there are some exceptions where we can use non-free images, and only when they meet the Non-free content critera. Such as "There is not and cannot possibly be a free equivalent," "The original produce cannot lose out," and "We use the image as little as we possibly can." These may explain the "studio photos" you see all over Wikipedia. Does that make sense? Oh and by the way, you can use an "old" studio photo, assuming its copyright has expired - and that's quite complicated and depends on what country the image is from. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing Numbers - References Issue

Hi,

I'm creating in my Sandbox and am having trouble with citing references correctly. The issue is: how do I get Wiki to cite the same reference more than once without assigning a new number each time? Thank you! Kristi Schneider (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kristi, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! This is a pretty common question, actually. What you need to do is name your reference tags. The way you do this is as follows: say I wanted to cite the paper "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful" by Edsger Dijkstra in multiple places in an article. The first time I reference it, instead of writing <ref>Dijkstra, Edsger. "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful."</ref>, I would write <ref name="goto">Dijkstra, Edsger. "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful."</ref>. The next time I user the reference, instead of typing out all that information again, I can just use the reference name like this: <ref name="goto"/>. Both references will link to the same entry in the reference list at the end of the page, and there won't be any duplicates in the reference list. The actual name you choose (in this case, it's goto) doesn't actually matter, as long as it's unique, but it's generally good practice to make it at least somewhat related to the work cited. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

user talk page templates

I am not too familiar with the workings of templates and i have two questions regarding templates for my user talk page. The first thing that was ever posted to my talk page was an invitation to the teahouse. Sometime after that, I started getting notifications anyplace I was in Wikipedia that I had something new on my talk page. Well, i redid my userpage to make it look better and I am no longer getting those. How can i get it back?

Second question is: How can I make my talk page archive itself like I see others do?

Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan, i have left a note here on your talkpage, which should be itself followed up by one of the "you have new messages" notifications :) benzband (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52! Following up from Benzband, those notifications only occur briefly - their intent is just to let you know that someone else has added a message to your talk page, and thus they disappear once you visit your page, and don't appear if you make edits to it yourself. As far as I can tell your talk page is absolutely fine, and you should get the notifications. We'll see, I guess, based on Benzband's message. :)

In regard to talk page archiving, there are a few options people use. Personally, I just do it manually, so I might not be the best person to respond, but there are instructions for MiszaBot (one of the automatic archiving programs that run on Wikipedia) at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Example 2 looks like a good bet for what you need to do: you should be able to get it to work by pasting the example code on to the top of your talk page, and changing User talk:Example to User talk:Gtwfan52. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles, for your encouraging words but I have no idea how to reply ...

This is the only text box I can bring up on the user side of Wikipedia. I see active links: "Charles (talk)" but clicking them does not lead me to anything like I've ever seen before. I appreciate your taking the time to help and to give encouragement but it's just too alien for me. I don't have the time to adapt to the baffling landscape. Thanks again! Celticrayne (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That is strange. If clicking the (talk) link after my name does not take you to my talkpage perhaps there is a problem with your internet browser. If you reply on your own talkpage I will see that you have replied. Maybe some of our more technically minded hosts may care to comment.--Charles (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This is presumably addressing the Teahouse Talkback message. The user should click on the highlighted part within the body of the message, and not the poster's signature. This will then direct him/her to his/her answered question. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

External Links to Youtube are Banned

This is pretty outrageous. I got message from XLinkBot saying that a external link to a video on Youtube I added was reverted. I have been adding links to videos showing original folk music and dances throughout the world. How can there be a copyright problem? Since everything on the Internet has some rights attached, all external links would violate the wikipedia's policy, except for the fact that no content is copied - merely linked to. If the hyperlink is a violation of something then the Internet itself is invalid. We don't validate the copyright of other external links let alone ban them. Wikipedia can't be responsible for youtube's content. I would add that the videos I use are amateur performances in public of traditional music and dance, not composed or choreographed pop or classical works. Dear old anon has no copyright.

If it is a problem of original research. I am only linking to actual examples. Including an image of a painting by a particular painter is not original research, it is merely an example. Using "un-original research" for these examples perverts their authenticity. It's like saying you can't add a photo of Mount Rushmore, you have to have a university professor make a copy of the mountain and then add that. Cases where unauthentic performances are used are the sad situations where the art is lost. I have not been able to find a single example of a native speaker of the Ladino language on the Internet. This is sad. But there are dying examples of ancient singing styles available. Why would those people not want them online? And don't they have a right to complain to Youtube?

Bots can help here and there, but the basic idea of a wiki is to let the users write and edit the content. The whole project is based on user judgment and correction of mistakes. The bot could point to a policy about youtube and let us decide. Wikipedia is becoming anti-culture. Do they not like Google? I actually don't. Have they been threatened by a suit or warned by Youtube? I doubt that. I would never put doubtful content on wikipedia.

There was a proposal rejected about this: Wikipedia:External links/YouTube

So how can I get around this bot? Cellorando (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube as long as the links abide by the guidelines at WP:External links Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to. If you are sure the clip you are linking to is not a copyright violation then you could use the template {{External media}} but remember that the copyright of a clip belongs to the person who too the film, not the performer in the clip. NtheP (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I think {{External media}} embeds the video. I'll do that if I have to, but how do I just make a link?

And you can't tell me that if someone smuggles a recorder into a concert I give, that the copyright is his, not mine. And remember, the recorder is the one who uploads it. It's OK with him. News programs are clearly a different case and I'm used to seeing them being deleted unless they're on the broadcaster's own channel. Cellorando (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

{{External media}} doesn't embed the file, just a link - embedding it would defeat the object.

Yes, your performance is copyrighted to you but the person recording a clip has copyright over their film, assuming it's not bootlegged. Just because something is uploaded to the internet doesn't make it fair game for use by everyone else unless it has been uploaded with that specific permission explicitly stated. You're right that Wikipedia isn't responsible for Youtube content but it is responsible for ensuring that it doesn't breach copyright itself and for that reason Wikipedia takes a very tough stance on copyright, hence bots like XLinkBot, because despite uploaders to YouTube having to have signed up to Google's terms & conditions i.e. that anything you upload you have the licence for, the experience is that this is very frequently not the case. Referring users to policy only and allowing links would more than likely put Wikipedia in the same place with a number of users blatently ignoring the policy and putting Wikipedia in breach of copyright. This does make it more difficult, complicated and time consuming for people to link to genuine material but better that than lawsuits. NtheP (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. Happy Easter ando/or PesachCellorando (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see how I ended up doing, this take look at Cantu a tenore. Cellorando (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have worked ok and thanks for posting the link - took me to an article on something I'd never heard of. NtheP (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a space template?

Hi, i recently encountered an editor asking if there was a template for spaces, a bit like the {{!}} for | and {{(}} for {, etc. Apparently the french WP has one (see fr:Modèle:Espace). If someone knows of one please reply here or on my/nnemo's talk page, that would be grand.

Note: i must say your script for asking questions looks great, but it doesn't have the editing toolbar and preview which is a pity. Also, i had to add this question manually 'cause the Ask my question button doesn't work for me (unclickable) :P Cheers ~ benzband (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several templates for spaces {{sp}} will insert a single space into your text. {{in}} allows you to insert up to 50 breaking spaces and {{space}} will introduce up to 30 non-breaking spaces for you. NtheP (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the swift reply!!! benzband (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It is so cool to see that even experienced people can find help at the Teahouse. To address the usability of the question box, we assumed most new editors aren't adding links and code to their posts and wouldn't know what to do with preview. When someone knows all of those things they can add their question in the traditional way (like you did!) That is an interesting thought though, if in the future we have resources to develop things a bit more. heather walls (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's also the related {{nowrap}}, {{nowraplinks}}, which may be of use. -- Trevj (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. {{sp}} was the closest, i think :-) benzband (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Names split improperly

I am working on a table, one column of which contains list of names. The names need to be one per line; for most names this works fine, but for longer names such as Catherine Zeta-Jones it is split into two lines. I use line-breaks between names, which helps, but I still have some names being split. Is there any solution which doesn't involve nasty underscores or similar fudging? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Table in question: List_of_films_about_the_RMS_Titanic

Btw, to see my future intentions, check out that page's 'talk', re: Example ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

(P.s.: Please leave a response tag on my talk page, I need to start closing some tabs before my browser explodes)~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't responded on Eric's talk page, but perhaps he's looking for the non-breaking space? I don't use that myself, so I don't know how it works or if it's what he wants. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the {{nowrap}} template might be better in this case since the non-breaking space would require a space between the parts of her last name, which is what's wrapping onto a new line. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The nowrap template should work, but the instructions are unclear on one point: would I be able to put the template at the beginning of the page and include a list of names there, or would each name require its own template. Keep in mind that the names are already nested within table template, and may (later) be nested within a collapse template. In other words, where would I use the template? Actually, the "non-breaking space" sounds intriguing, is that a character that looks like a space, but acts like a regular character? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The non-breaking space is normally used when a date... 7 April 2012 ... is prevented from splitting into two lines of text. The style guideline is at WP:NBSP.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I have enough information to figure out how to do this now.  Done ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I import HTML markup into an article, I've done it in my own version of MediaWiki (installed the widget extension)? But I don't know how to do it here were I am not an admin.

How do I import HTML markup into an article, I've done it in my own version of MediaWiki (installed the widget extension)? But I don't know how to do it here were I am not an admin, please. Editor0000001 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)editor0000001

Hi. It's probably best to have a play in the sandbox! Wiki markup is simpler than HTML so, personally, I'd choose to rewrite rather than try to import. -- Trevj (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you check the Tools at Wikipedia:Tools#Importing_.28converting.29_content_to_Wikipedia_.28MediaWiki.29_format? mabdul 22:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Automatic links to user talk archives?

Hi. I set up auto-archiving of my talk page with MiszaBot by adding the template (below) to my talk page. Archiving works, and today the bot did the right thing.

But now, I'm trying to figure out how to set up an archive box that links to those archives. Per this help page, I tried {{archivebox | auto=yes}}, but it can't seem to find the March 2012 or April 2012 archives that the bot created.

I must be missing something. How can I make {{archivebox}} find these archives? Or, how can I make MiszaBot add links to the archives automatically?

My MiszaBot config:

{{User:MiszaBot/config |minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(5d) |archive = User talk:Blevintron/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s }}

Thank you, Blevintron (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Blevintron. The problem is that the archive box templates are pretty picky about what the archive subpages are named; your naming scheme doesn't quite fit. I'm not sure there's a way to configure Miszabot to automatically populate the archive box, based on its documentation. I'm not an expert on Miszabot, to be honest; I use ClueBot III for my talk page, and I know there is a way to automatically populate an archive with ClueBot. Perhaps another host who's a Miszabot wizard will have more insight? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am very confused about the archive boxes. I read all the information and I don't know how it works still! Please help me!! Thepoodlechef (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thePoodleChef, welcome to the Teahouse! I see that you've tried the archive archive box, but the thing is, you don't have any archives yet! Your archive box has nothing to link to yet, so it just has nothing to do. To set up automatic archiving, you need to add something to your talk page to tell either of the two archiving bots (Miszabot or ClueBot III) that you want it done. You do this by using the templates; you can either use the one that Blevintron has posted above, changing his username to yours, or you can use this (which is cribbed from the one I use on my own talk page):

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:Thepoodlechef/Archives/ |format=%%i |age=168 |index=yes |maxarchsize=100000 |archivebox=yes |box-advert=yes }}

If you use the template I've posted, the bot will automatically create and update the archive box for you. Hope this helps; if you have any questions about what any of the above stuff means, feel free to ask; I'd be happy to explain in more detail! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I manually archive something? How does the bot know when something needs to be archived? Thanks Thepoodlechef (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

To manually archive, you just cut and paste to the archive you want to store the information in - this is the way I do my archives because I find it easier and I get to choose what to archive and when. The bots know to archive by the way you set them up, in the MiszaBot example above it will archive every thread where the last entry was over 5 days old (that's the |algo=old(5d) bit) but by changing |algo= you can change this to whatever period you want. In the ClueBot III example the relevant parameter is |age=168 which is setup to archive everything where 168 hours have elapsed since the last posting to that thread. The important part to note is that both bots base their rules on time since the thread was last added to, not when a thread began - this avoids leaving part threads on you talk pages. NtheP (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Gadget Author

This teahouse gadget is great. Can I know who the author is? Am planning to port it to Tamil :) PS: Liked the idea of making users type ~~~~ to enable the ask button :) Srikanth (Logic) 09:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not actually sure. I believe it's J-Mo; I think he did most or all of the coding for the Teahouse pages. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Srikanth! The awesome gadget was written by the even more awesome User:Werdna. heather walls (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, egg on my face. ;P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Srikanth (Logic) 06:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I aspire to someday be as awesome as Werdna. But I've got my work cut out for me. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)