Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Tips and tricks for finding images on Commons?

Hi everyone! As a followup to Sarah's question about favorite images on Commons, I'm wondering what sort of magical tips and tricks everyone uses to FIND images on Commons (when you are looking for an image to add to an article, say, but don't have the URL or know the right Commons category already). I find paging through categories to be pretty tedious, and search to not always be fruitful, though my current method is to do a keyword search, then look at the category that the most interesting search result is in and browse from there. I'll bet you have a better way, though :-) Siko (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Seeeko! I think, in my opinion, the best trick to find images on Commons is to search first on Wikipedia. I would search for a specific article and then search for the same media files on Commons. Browsing through categories can be tedious, as you said. I think the best place to start is on Wikipedia. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 01:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that searching Commons can be difficult, and I've done a lot of it. Commons does not have the advantage that Wikipedia has where you can do great searches easily with your browser. If I am just looking for nice images in general, Picture_of_the_day has some beautiful ones. If I want something specific I try to find some good Category:Categories. heather walls (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas, Luke and Heather! I guess for some things there is no magical solution, but its always helpful to hear how others go about this. Siko (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No deadline

I want to ask my fellow editors about their opinions on WP:TIND. To me, used with projects and deadlines in my day to day life, it's probably the most problematic aspect of wikipedia. Would anyone think of an alternative solution to that? Markerdryer (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(ugh, computer crashed while I was typing out a reply) ANYWAY:

Hey, Markerdryer, welcome to the Teahouse! I confess that I'm a little confused about your question; There is no deadline is supposed to relieve stress, not cause it! I'm not sure what problem there is that you want an alternative solution to. I think "there is no deadline" is a good thing!

This is my take on it: our articles are never "finished;" there's no point at which we say, "okay, this article is done, you can't add anything more to it." There's *always* time to improve an article. While we encourage being bold, there's no reason to edit-war or otherwise try to make your edits to "go live" early by force. You have time! Relax, take a deep breath, and enter in conversations and discussions about what is the best way to change the article. the article will always be there once you've finished the discussion, and it will be better for the talk.

The other thing I take from "there is no deadline" is that there's no rush to start new articles. This interpretation affects my work in the CSD arena quite a bit. Many people try to create articles on subjects that aren't notable yet, because they are convinced that "they will be notable." Well, we have no deadline; no reason not to wait until we have material to write about, before we start trying to write it! Trying to rush it only gets a bunch of unverifiable info at best and wild, ridiculous speculation at worst, neither of which we want. Since we're in no rush to get the article in early, we have the freedom to wait until we write a great one.

That's just my 2 cents; I have a feeling this is a thing a lot of other hosts and editors will disagree with me about. But that's fine too. We don't need to rush to make up our minds, there is no deadline. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Writ! And as someone who spends a lot of time on Wikipedia (probably more time than any human being should), it's nice to know that no matter how much I love Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not life, and it'll be here (unless we have another blackout) and people can wait. And yes, articles are never complete, there are always tasks to do and things to achieve. It's one of the few places in my life that DOES NOT have a deadline, and that is quite nice, actually. :) Sarah (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And to add/expand on one point: we are all volunteers. I know this sounds odd, but there are days that I get stressed because I feel that I am "obligated" to someone or something to complete a task. It's always nice to realize that if I decide to hit Ctl-W (or Alt-F4, whatever) I won't get fired, and Wikipedia will still be there in the morning. I would be interested in knowing why you think this is problematic though. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess Wikiprojects, wikicups, good article or featured article ratings, DYKs, are all systems which track certain articles or represent milestones, and indirectly deal with WP:TIND, in order to incentivate content production, so they are all countering the essay of "no deadline". That gives me comfort, :-). To answer Nolelover's question: I believe the essay is a little discouraging to people who want to take an approach of staying in Wikipedia for a certain amount of time, give their contribution, and then move on. Markerdryer (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have personally fond TIND to be very helpful. I have at times left articles unfinished when I go to bed, when this concerns me, I am able to remind myself that it doesn't matter, because I can finish the article tomorrow (or next month, depending on how busy my life is). As you said, the article rating systems are very useful. I think I am similar to you - I find it much, much easier to work when I have a specific goal, so I often struggle to being when I find a new article to improve. I really like the Good Article system we have, as it allows me to set myself a goal which I can achieve - it feels that the work I am doing is contributing to an end result. It does have its downsides, I have in the past worked too closely to the Good Article guidelines and missed out on further improvements I could have done, but that's the beauty of a wiki - someone else, who might work in a completely different way to me, will pick that up. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing trouble

What does unbiased mean. Is it good if it is? I am a Horse lover 22 (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your question. I think that you are asking about the neutral point of view. That's the style of a good Wikipedia article. We don't write articles to promote our own point of view - instead our articles should summarize what a wide range of reliable sources say about a topic. If the topic is controversial, the article should describe all sides of the issue, rather than promoting what we may believe is the "right" side. I hope that this helps, and please feel free to ask more questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

website deleted

My page has been deleted. The notice says it was not notable. How can I dispute this? The instructions say I should "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag." But I cant see anything of the kind. AHoseason (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Ahoseason, welcome back to the Teahouse! Those instructions are for the space in between your page getting marked for deletion and your page actually getting deleted. Now that it has been deleted, what you can do is ask for the page to be "userfied" for you at Requests for Undeletion; this way you can get a draft copy of the article, so that you can improve it and perhaps make it an article again. If you take this route, I'd recommend submitting your finished draft to Articles for Creation to be reviewed; this will give you a chance to get a bit more constructive feedback before the draft becomes an article proper. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello AHoseason. You may want to review what "notable" means here on Wikipedia. The general notability guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then it may well be eligible for an article here on Wikipedia. We do have specific guidelines for narrower groups of topics, but that is the basic standard, commonly called the "GNG". So, please consider carefully whether the topic of your article is truly notable. If you think it is, why don't you bring some additional details to this discussion? Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just one more idea, Ahoseason: An important thing to note is that notability applies to the suitability of a topic for a stand alone article. Some topics may or may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article because there is not enough reliable source material to work from to use to help create the article. For example, Buckingham Palace has a whole lot of books, articles, websites, journals, etc. all written about it. Therefore, we can use those sources to help us research and write a good encyclopedia artoicle about it. Jayron32's house doesn't have any in-depth writing about it at all, so that subject isn't enough to have a good article about, thus there is no reason to have one at Wikipedia, even though my house is very important to me. Also, even if I create a webpage about my own house, that doesn't mean I can then create a Wikipedia article as well; because no one other than me would have written about it. The case with notability at Wikipedia is that something is notable enough for people who are not connected to a subject to have researched and written extensively about it. We use that independent, extensive, and reliable writing to help us write encyclopedia articles. If the source material doesn't exist, however, we can't write an article! Does that make sense? --Jayron32 02:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting a picture

Hi for ANdrew Nicholson (basketball) i have found and image to use and have got permission to upload it from the photography how do i go about doin this? RVDSouza (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. You can upload photos at Special:Upload but if permission to use this photo is unlimited I suggest you upload it at Wikimedia Commons using this link commons:Special:UploadWizard so the photo can be used on other wikis as well as this one. As this is a photo which you isn't your but you have permission to use you'll have to use the OTRS system. Have you got the permission from the photographer in an email? If so and it's explicit about the image and what it can be used for then upload your photo but when you get tot he section on licencing select the option called "OTRS pending". Having uploaded the photo forward the email with the permission in it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. One of the volunteers who help with OTRS will check that the permission is correct and update the licence accordingly.

To add the image to the article infobox, edit the page and add the name of the picture as you uploaded it at the parameter called |image=, you don't need to use any brackets or the words file or image.

Uploading images is one of the hardest things to get used to, so if you need more help please ask back here again. NtheP (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

quoting or linking to a paragraph on another wikipedia page

Within a page I have written I would like to refer the reader to another page (made by someone else). I know how to do that. But the page in question is very long. Is there a way in which I can link so the reader is taken directly to the specific paragraph within that second page? AHoseason (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

While you cannot link directly to individual paragraphs, you can link to individual sections, if that makes sense. This is done by adding the # symbol after the page name, then putting the section title after that. For example, if I want to link to the History section on the Wikipedia page I will put this: Wikipedia#History. Remember that you can only link to section headers. Does that help? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi AHoseason and thanks for stopping by. One more thing... You should be mindful when using the method described by Nolelover that there's the possibility that someone comes along and deletes/changes the section name. For example, if you linked to the biography section of the Wilhelm Sauer article like this Wilhelm Sauer#Biography, and I came along and changed the Biography section name into something else, i.e. Career, the link you created in your original article would no longer link to a particular section but would continue to link to the article. Does that make sense? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You can link to specific paragraphs in a second article by inserting a text anchor into the second article. For example I have a page User:Nthep/testing with a section called "Example section heading", I can link to this section by using the link User:Nthep/testing#Example section heading but if this section is long and I want to point to a specific spot in the section I can use a text anchor for this. On my linked page I have put an anchor into the thrid paragraph of Example section heading called "test" using the template . Now to link directly to that paragraph my link is User:Nthep/testing#test. If you click on these links they both take you to "Example section heading" but the second one takes you further down the article to the paragraph I want to highlight to you. And link other links the user of the page name and the character # isn't the best visual treat so I can make the links piped links by using the code [[User:Nthep/testing#test|text to display]]. Please stop back if this doesn't make sense. NtheP (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Something you might like to consider doing is creating a redirect from the term. This is especially useful if the subject is a relatively common term and you think other editors may also want to link to it. R template index contains some useful templates to categorise such redirects. You can also use {{anchor}} or {{visible anchor}} within the main article subheading. Personally, I'd choose to link to headings rather than paragraphs, to provide context to readers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not special anymore

My user signature tag used to include "Special contributions" -- now it doesn't. {{cry}} Aren't I special anymore? ~Eric F^[ordinary]184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric. Welcome back. When someone (or you!) clicks on your IP address it shows your Special:Contrbutions. So it's still there. Also, just a tip, I'd advise you make an account, but, I'm sure I'm not the only person to tell you that! Sarah (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's a recent change to reduce clutter. My tag used to look like...~Eric F [Special:Contributions/184.76.225.106|184.76.225.106]] (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

But now it is... ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Eric. The only difference I can see between those two signatures is that the first is malformed. If the first one was written correctly (with two square brackets before the contributions bit, like so ~Eric F [[Special:Contributions/184.76.225.106|184.76.225.106]] (talk)), it would look like this: ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk), which is what you have at the moment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the "Special:" in front of Contributions isn't talking about your contributions, per se; it's talking about the page itself. What "Special:" means is that the page is a "special" page, that, instead of just existing in a static state on Wikipedia, is freshly generated by the MediaWiki software each time someone loads the page. Your Contributions page has to be a special page; otherwise, it wouldn't show any of your recent edits. It's a technical thing, so don't worry about it; just know that it's supposed to be there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was mainly just curious as to what "Special" meant. Now that I've read your explanation, I'm... well, somewhat less confused. But seriously, thanks for the effort. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My question now is: how do I respond to your very appreciated help, Charles and/or NtheP

I've spent a half hour clicking on "(talk)" and "Charles" and "NtheP" and I don't see any place where I can type a response. I've been fluent on the internet for 20 years but this is truly an arcane site. I can't even figure out whether Charles and NtheP are the same person? Clicking on Charles' link only leads to top of the Teahouse page so, if there's a message for me from Charles, I can't find it. Clicking on NtheP does lead right to one of my questions and a wonderfully articulate and fully informative answer. It's enough to remove much of my doubt as to Wikipedia's credibility. I see now that there are meaningful guidelines and that many like yourself are exerting valiant efforts to maintain this resource. I sincerely thank you! But I see that I have no future on Wikipedia as I do not have the time to try and crack the way the site operates. {{Shudder!!!}} And now, assuming this is the bizarre but correct custom: Celticrayne (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Celticrayne! I'm sorry to hear that you're having trouble navigating the interface; it can be a bit tricky at times. What's happening is that the things you see on your talk page are called "talkbacks"; it's basically just to let you know that your question has been answered. Basically, for the purposes of the Teahouse, all you have to do is find the question you asked earlier to see the answer; the table of contents is useful for this. If you remember what you named your question, you can just find it on the table of contents, click on the name, and it'll take you right to your question, where you'll be able to see the answer posted right below it (just like this answer now is!) If you don't remember what you called your question, the easiest thing to do is probably just do a ctrl+F search for your username; if you've been signing your posts, then the search will take you to all the questions you've asked, and you can then look for the answers.

As far as the "~~~~" thing is concerned, it's actually pretty important. As you can see from the post above you, when you save a page that you've edited, the four tildes get turned into a signature for you, that lists your name, provides a link to your user page and user talk page, where people can easily contact you, and a timestamp that lets people know when you posted. Without doing that, it becomes really hard to track who has said what in a conversation, so signing your posts is a pretty important thing. (So important that, if you forget to sign your posts, a bot will come along and do it for you.) Typing "~~~~" is really just a shortcut for putting your name to your posts, that's all.

Finally, to reply to a question, just click on the little "[edit]" link at the upper-right corner of the section, right across from the title of the question. This'll bring up an edit window with the text of the question and answer already inside; just add your reply to the bottom, and hit "Save page". That'll let you post a reply to any of these questions.

I hope this helps! If you're still confused, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page, by just following the link, hitting the "New section" tab in the upper-right corner, filling in what you want to say, and hitting "Save page". Of course, you can always just ask another question on the Teahouse, too! I know it's a little frustrating to learn it at first, but hang in there! You'll be editing with the best of them soon enough, I assure you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried.

I'm new. I started by making a few updates and corrections on facts on pages on which I had direct knowledge of and had 100% confidence of their accuracy. That seemed to work. Then I created an entry page on my own, very carefully, following the guidelines and listing three solid reference pages -- IMDb, Star Trek Wiki, etc. But when I searched for the page I had created, it didn't come up. (I know now it was because I hadn't noticed that you need to capitalize first, middle, and last names of a person manually and I was searching with capitalized names.) But I assumed it just had not gone through so I started over. So then there were TWO entries that were almost identical, except for capitalization. So I discovered how critical it was to title a page with the capitalization that searchers would naturally use. One administrator seemed happy with the first version and thanked me for the submission. Another administrator decided the nearly identical second submission was not worthy -- though he did note the duplication as well. He marked it for quick deletion. Now I see the other one has been deleted also. I suspect the duplication might haave had a lot to do with the deletions but can't be sure. When I bring up the list of actions or contributions in my account, even when I look under "deleted only", they both are missing? It's as if neither ever existed! Should I re-submit? Celticrayne (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Celticryne. I do not see anything on your contributions list that does not still exist. Do you mean John Carter of Mars and John Carter (film)?

Celticrayne, I think we're talking about Ian Ray Hawke? As you've found out capitalisation is important and there were two articles in existence ian ray hawke and Ian ray hawke. An administrator deleted one as a duplicate on the other and then another administrator deleted the second as lacking notability. The notability guidelines for actors etc are set out at WP:ENTERTAINER but the criteria are:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Hawke might meet these criteria (I haven't looked so please don't take this statement of endorsement of his notability) but I suspect that you hadn't backed it up with Reliable sources - sites like IMDB & Star Trek Wiki are not considered reliable as they rely on user generated content, so you're going to need more to establish that he is genuinely notable. If you want the text of your deleted article please contact one of the users on this list and they can put the text on your user page. Sorry this isn't the greatest start for you but please don't give up, even if Ian Hawke isn't notable (yet) there are thousands of articles out there that need attention and I'm sure you can find something to work on. NtheP (talk) 15:21, 6 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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)