Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

New stub on Kimberly Young

We are creating a new Wikipedia entry on Kimberly Young and have started with a stub entry.

Is it possible to redirect users to the 'Kimberly Young' stub if they search for, and find themselves at, 'Kimberly young' with the lower case 'y?'

We're also having trouble finding good sources of information on Kimberly Young. There is an abundance of biographical information she has written herself but we're struggling to find much else that can help start this entry other than what's already in our reference list. Is anyone else is interested in helping us build this stub into a full article?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Tom Catterall and NickBushell (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, welcome to Wikipedia! For the specific case of capitalization, you don't have to worry about that; the MediaWiki software (which Wikipedia runs on) takes care of that, I believe. Try searching for "kimberly young"; it'll take you to your article regardless of capitalization. For the general case, we have things called redirects; they're basically separate pages that automatically reroute the user to a different page. A redirect page's only content will look something like: 
#REDIRECT [[Kimberly Young]]
When you get redirected, you'll see a little message saying "redirected from (pagename)" at the top of the page you end up on; it'll give you a link you can click on to see what the redirect looks like. Really, though, I wouldn't worry about redirects; it's usually not necessary to create them proactively unless there is an alternate term for the article's subject (such as how Sultan of Swat redirects to Babe Ruth), there are complicated characters in the title that you can't type easily (like how Pele redirects to Pelé), or the title is very easy to misspell. The redirect information page I linked above has some more specific guidelines on when redirects are necessary and when they're not. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Writ Keeper. Think we got a bit caught up on the little things. It would be great if you could keep an eye on the page we are building and let us know if we are going in the right direction! Thanks. Tom Catterall (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing an existing page with a sub content or creating a new page?

How do I know if a subject is important enough to grant itself a new wiki page or to make it a sub topic. My area of study is 'Online Gaming Addiction', currently there are Internet Addiction Disorder and Video Game Addiction pages but not a specific page dedicated to 'Online Gaming Addiction' (Benparcell (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Ben, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! The guideline that governs whether a topic is worthy of its own article on Wikipedia is called notability. There are many different ways of judging notability, depending on the subject area, but probably the best place to start is what we call the "general notability guideline." Basically, if you can find multiple, independent (of each other *and* the subject of the article), reliable sources that have significant coverage of the topic (i.e., treatment of the subject in depth, not just a passing mention), then it's probably (although not *certainly*) notable enough for its own article. Purely off the top of my head, I'd guess that "online gaming addiction" is probably not distinct enough from the other two articles for its own, but if you have some sources that talk about online games in particular, by all means go for it! Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a Quick Question

What is the differences between Notes and References? Some articles such as David Ogilvy (businessman) use both to refer to the text. Thanks in advance. Bossplw (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bossplw! The Wikipedia Manual of Style has a subpage at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout which describes the standard sections of a Wikipedia article, the part of the page titled "Notes and references" explains the uses of those terms. There are some differences between articles, but generally "references" includes the actual bibliographic information about books and magazines, etc. used in an article, while "notes" contains the information for the footnotes and "inline" citations used directly in the text. You can see in the article Plymouth Colony (one I worked on extensively) how in the "Notes" section, it says something like "Philbrick (2006) pp 7–13" or "Demos (1970) p 17" and in the "References" section, it has the full information on the books by Philbrick and by Demos. The idea is that for works which are referenced frequently in the text, you can include the full biblographic information once, and then refer to that single work multiple times. Does this help answer your question? --Jayron32 14:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for you help. I did come across a page that attempted to explain but I found it hard to make sense of it. You have made it much easier to understand. Thanks again, Bossplw (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How to create category & userbox for Wikipedians by alma mater: Downing College, Cambridge

hi, I spotted there's no category or userbox for Downing College, Cambridge, so drafted this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ekphraster/userboxes/Downing&action=edit

I'm not sure:

With thanks for your help Ekphraster (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, in answer to your questions: 
{{usbk|User:Ekphraster/userboxes/Downing}}
  • Given the new box is going to be part of an established series, you might consider moving it into the main template namespace, e.g. to Template:user Cam Downing.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Have tackled steps one & two, and will return to step three !

Ekphraster (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you include a category in a user box?

I added several new user boxes but am unsure on how to include the right code so that they automatically include users in the category page. I want users who use the userbox to be included on the category page but how do I make this happen. For instance, when I include the userbox from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, it automatically sorts anyone who chooses to use that userbox on the category page. How do I do this for the new userboxes I have created? Wikiworld2 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recovery/userbox, right? You want to move out the category code from the <noinclude>...</noinclude> part and instead put it into an <includeonly>...</includeonly> part. "Noinclude" means that the category will contain only your original template page. "Includeonly" means that it will contain only the pages into which your template is pasted, but not the template page itself.
By the way, I'd recommend removing the categories "Addiction" and "recovery"; those are for mainspace articles, not project or user space pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Teahouse

Hi, Is the Teahouse only a place were you can ask questions about wikipedia editing or can you ask general questions that may help with the article? And if not is there somewhere anyone can direct me to where i can ask general questions? Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kate! You can get help at Wikipedia:Help desk for question regarding how to use, edit, or otherwise work within Wikipedia. You can also get answers to knowledge-based questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk. If you are having problems with a specific article, you can always try asking at the "Talk:" page for that article. Does that help you find what you are looking for? --Jayron32 04:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome, Kate! Feel free to ask any questions you have. If it's not something we know how to answer, we'll point you in the right direction. But you'd be amazed at the amount of stuff that folks around here know ;) So ask away! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 16:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks its not really a complicated question. As part of my university course I have been asked to add to a article based on wikipedia and my tutor has told me off for referring to the world we live in as "reality" or "the real world" when comparing it to the virtual world due to the fact that their both kind of reality in a sense but now that he's said that while I'm writing I have to idea how to refer to what i would call "reality. I was wondering if any of you guys would have any clue as to what i could use? I know probably not relevant to the Teahouse but no-one is really paying much attention to the talk page as its a barely edited page so I removed it. Thanks Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It probably needs several terms, depending on what part of the article you are using it in. "Meatspace" is of course slang, and should be avoided, as should the term used most commonly by netizens, "Real Life" (or "Real Life ™ "). For the most part "face to face" or "physical presence" will serve fairly well. The situation will be clarified if it is realised that there is a wide range of Internet relationships, indeed most relationships in Western society have an Internet component, and the boundaries between the Internet and the rest if the world are becoming increasingly blurred. Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

PDF Confusion

There seems to be an unclear message about uploading PDFs to Wikipedia. I would like to use two documents for the article about April Masini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Masini) but it is noted by editors that I should not use PDFs. I've seen a handful of articles that use PDFs as references, and am confused as to why I should not upload them. Can anyone help clarify? Thank you! GMHayes (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi GMHayes! I missed this, but answered via email. :) Generally there is nothing wrong with using PDFs - it is just a file format, and that's fine. The question isn't the format, but where the file came from, and can other people access it. For example, I reference PDFs that I own of academic papers all the time. There is no problem with them being in PDF format. Some of the PDFs aren't available online, but that's not a problem, either - so long as I provide enough information in the reference that someone interested could track them down, all is good. However, I couldn't reference, for example, a draft paper I was given by a colleague, as only the colleague and I have a copy, and no one else would be able to check the source. It would also be self-published (until she managed to get it into a journal, of course), and thus might not be considered reliable enough. It isn't the format that matters, in that case, but availability and reliability. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Pdfs require more powerful equipment to render, and there are some security issues around the Adobe reader. Realistically, however these can only be reasons to prefer other formats, if they are available, just as we prefer sources in English to other languages. Also not that you are not "uploading" the pdf, just linking to it. there are certainly tens of thousands of pdf's lined to currently. Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Linking to orphan articles

Hi, Teahouse! I've been editing for a month or two now, and I think I've got the hang of how to address most common issues that pages have. I am having trouble, however, with articles that have the "orphan" tag, i.e. ones that are not linked to by other articles. Is there a quicker way than manually searching for related articles and introducing links into them? This just doesn't seem like the simplest way to do it. Thanks for your help! Fred.Pendleton (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Orphan. I am not sure what you mean by quicker way than manually searching for related articles and introducing links into them! Where do you want to add links? In See also section or in article body as hyperlink? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's a tip, Fred.Pendleton: When you search for a topic name such as "Lion" and there's an article on that topic, it will show up in bold Lion in the search box. Clicking that takes you right to the appropriate article on lions. But there is a second box right below that says "containing... Lion". Click that and you will get a list of every Wikipedia page with the word "lion" in it. Try it with your orphan article name and related terms. Those are logical articles to add links to your orphan article. I hope this helps, and I am glad that you are learning the ropes here. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift help, both of you. Somehow I'd convinced myself that the process is way more complicated than it actually is. Your help, in conjunction with Wikipedia:Orphan, has helped me to familiarize myself with the de-orphaning process. Cheers! Fred.Pendleton (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi Fred. Here's what I do to help de-orphanize articles:
(1) I use Google's in-site search capability to search through English Wikipedia for the exact phrase of the concept. Do you know how to do that? If not, I'll give an example:
  • Static relay: [1] OK, that only came up with one hit, but at least you can see how to do the search. If you need further explanations on how to do the search, ask me here, or if I forget to monitor this page, on my Talk page.
(2) I use "Control F" to search within the articles that came up in my Google search, so that I don't have to read through the whole article to find the thing I want to link. So, if I had found a really long article that had the term "static relay" in it somewhere (that I could see on a Google snippet), I go to the article, click "edit", hit Control F, type in my exact phrase, and hit Next until I get to the mention that I want to then wikilink. (This won't be necessary in our current example, because only a short article came up, but Control F is useful to remember for future use.)
I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This one is for the ladies! (New and experienced Wikipedians! :) )

Ok! This question is for female contributors to Wikipedia - new and experienced! This month is Women's History Month: have you edited any articles related to inspiring women recently that you'd like to share? Or is there a woman who has a Wikipedia article that inspires you? For me, I worked with another editor to make Louise Nevelson a good article a while ago, she's one of my favorite artists and was quite a cool and eccentric woman. What about you? :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt and Georgia O'Keeffe inspire me. Roosevelt, for her silent "dignity" hidden in her childhood, and O'Keeffe, for her beautiful paintings, and inspiring others that anything (even a cow bone) can be drawn beautifully. Rosalina2427 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Good question! I like Louise Nevelson too, but I'm a bit partial to Georgia O'Keeffe. She greatly influenced my painting and sculpting in school. Fast forward a hundred years... I like reading about women like Libby Thompson, also known professionally as Squirrel Tooth Alice. Her hooker name cracks me up. You know that word game where you combine the name of your favorite pet and the street you grew up on? I would be Frisky Sycamore. HA! I haven't edited "Alice's" article yet, but I am determined to do so before this year is over! Right now, I'm working on developing an article about Eleanor Owen, founder of NAMI and a legend in the state of Washington. She's currently 91 years old and still going strong! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, gotta love Ms. O'Keefe. She was pretty badass! Leave it to Cindy to teach us about someone new - Squirrel Tooth Alice, WOW. Add her to my "potential Halloween costumes" list :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello Teahouse! Wow! I've learned so much just by reading the articles listed in this talk. I am in the process of creating an article about April Masini, who is a TV and film producer, author, and relationship expert. She has been a game changer, behind-the-scenes in the entertainment industry, especially in Hawaii. She's worked on Baywatch and Blue Crush, and has a handful of other cool gigs under her belt. She seems to be one of those ladies that is everywhere but you only see her for a second because she's already moved on to the next big thing! Needless to say, I find her interesting and am having a blast creating the article! It's been a challenge to reign in my excitement about her, and stay objective in my article (thanks, Sarah!). All for now. --GMHayes (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In WikiProject Gastropods and WikiProject Bivalves we do have a few articles about women scientists, malacologists (zoologists who work on mollusks), but almost all of our biography articles still need a lot of expansion. For example, the American malacologist Ruth Turner was a very extraordinary woman; I worked indirectly for her for a couple of years at the Museum of Comparative Zoology in the early 1980s. Emily H. Vokes is another very good American malacologist who has just a little stub article that I started last December. Another woman scientist it would be nice to have an article for is the American malacologist Paula M. Mikkelsen, who is mentioned in several existing articles and whose publications are used as references in several articles. If anyone is inspired to work on any of these (or any other similar articles about female scientists), that would be great! Best wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • One thing I do is (apart from medical articles) try wherever possible to write authors' names in full in references (thus "Smith, Jane; Jones, Esme; etc") as it's interesting to see how many women are involved in publishing research (answer:lots) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to offer the opinion that women's history might just as easily be one for the gentlemen as one for the ladies. FormerIP (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


Pacuvius Calavius

I rewrote this article today, and it looks finished to me. How do I get it officially recognized as finished/good ? I'd like it to go on the front page one day ! --Twyndylyng (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Twyndylyng. Thanks for coming by. Wikipedia articles are never really finished because anybody is free to add to or copyedit them but there is a structured quality assessment system which you can read about here. You can go to the main project page for that article and request an updated assessment but it may not happen quickly if the project has a backlog.--Charles (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Also note that articles appearing on the front page have attained what we call "featured status" after being reviewed. While certainly not impossible if you set your mind to it, it does take a lot of hard work. Hope this helped :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page use

Hi I am currently leaving a message on my talk page, and then putting a talkback tag on the other person’s page. Is this the correct way to do this? I am sure that this was how it was explained to me but i am now receiving other instructions from another user, can you help?John Bailey (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello John, and welcome to the Teahouse. The {{talkback}} template is used to notify users of messages that you or some other editor posted a message on another talk page, whether is is an article talk page (e.g. Talk:Australia for Austrailia) or a user talk page (e.g. User talk:Balypu, your talk page). Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 15:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi John. A message to another editor is normally put on their talk page. Most of us like to keep conversations together in one place so they will probably reply there. That is not a rule, just individual preference. Experienced editors will use their watchlist to see when their post has been replied to but a talkback tag is useful if someone may not be familiar with the system or is not around regularly.--Charles (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi John! I think some editors prefer the two step (write on one page; talkback tag another) while others prefer the one step (write on the other user's talkpage). Sometimes, when I respond on the other person's talk page, especially a new editor, I start by saying: "Hi xxx. Thanks for your note on my talk page.... " This way, there's a reminder that what I'm writing is a response, and not just out of the blue. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank everyone; I think I will start to use the one-step version, as this seems to be the more common. Thanks again very helpful.John Bailey (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You can just reply on the other person's talkpage. But what happens with that process is that if its a lengthy conversation, you have to refer back and forth between talkpages to make sense of it. Hence, a lot of users prefer to keep it in one place. A {{talkback}} template basically helps you in notifying a user of a new message. See if the convo is happening on someone else's talkpage, then the minute you reply, he automatically gets an alert on the new convo. But lets say, if he's not so familiar with the watchlist, and the convo is happening in your talk page, then if you reply on your talkpage, he might not have noticed and thus the convo stops abruptly. So its generally better to leave a talkback template, your choice, no compulsion. Eg: I put a {{talkback}} template to redirect you back here to notify you that I had replied to your question. Cheers, --Debastein (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
And, just for your info, Wikimedia is working on an improved software for discussions (called Liquid Threads) which, when it is finally released (it's been years so far) will let you track every response to discussions you contribute to any where on the wiki from one page.filceolaire (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Help with wikipedia styles

Hi, As part of a university module we are tasked to create a Wikipedia article. I have written the article but our tutor has told us that we must be aware of typical wikipedia styles that must use. I was wondering if anyone could help me in discovering the wikipedia styles that should be used such as linking and referencing and how to implement them on my article. Thanks Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Kate. Wikipedia's "house style" is covered in exhaustive detail at Wikipedia:Manual of style, which has details on nearly every aspect of how an article should be written and structured. Linking is covered in a subpage called Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and for external links outside Wikipedia, you can find information at Wikipedia:External links. You can find information on referencing at many pages, but Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is a good place to start, and from that page you can find links to any of the more detailed policies as needed. Does this help answer your question? --Jayron32 12:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
If the article can be coherent, grammatical, free from jargon and slang that is a good start. Then there are things like balance, and verifiability. "House style" is something that anyone can fix up, although it is important, it is not as important as readability, which is not as important as the WP:Five pillars. Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC).
The WP:Good article criteria may be of some help. This list what is needed to be classed as a Good Article. WP:What the Good article criteria are not is interesting too. Section 1.1 of this notes that to be a good article it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1] }}. To be acceptable you only need to comply with these 5 of the hundreds of manual of style guidelines. Hope this helps filceolaire (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Interaction and Engagement

Hi, My name is Jack and im working on a university module about how people interact and engage on Wikipedia. Whats the best way to get the most engagement from wikipedia? Any help is appreciated! Thanks. -- JackMayhew (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jack! Thanks for coming to the Teahouse. I don't know about anyone else, but I am not sure what you mean by, "get the most engagement from wikipedia" can you explain that a little please? Thanks! heather walls (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Like Heather, I'm a little confused. Are you looking for raw data that has already been compiled, or are you looking for the best way to get engaged in Wikipedia? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Heather! Sorry for the late reply! thanks so much for the reply, i was basically just posting in hope for a reply, thats what i was finding difficult, i actually have a question about pictures. (SEE BELOW) And in reply to Nolelover, yes, just need to start engaging/talking/interacting with other wikipedians, that is the main objective of the class so thanks for your reply! :) -- JackMayhew (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Teahouse. You have new messages at JackMayhew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi again, Jack. I am moving your actual question to the top of the page so someone can see it and answer it. Hope you find friendliness and interaction here at the Teahouse :) heather walls (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can, or is it allowed, or whatever, to link to a YouTube video of a song of a particular artist (on their page or not)? If so, what is the preferred way? Do I use a normal external link? Or, since it is a video, do I embed it into the page somehow? Or is there any other way that I never thought about? Allen (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey again, Allen! Because of copyright issues, it's not recommended to post external links to YouTube. For more details, allow me to point you to this section regarding user-submitted video sites. As to embedding videos in the article, let's first assume that the video in question is public domain or otherwise free to host and play. There are a number of guidelines, such as length, file size and file format that are to be considered when posting them; we want to make sure the video is visible to as many users as possible, regardless of their connection speed or the plug-ins their browsers have available. For general information, this discussion should give you some information, but of course you can ask here for more specific applications. Hope this helps! --McDoobAU93 02:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with adding references

Hi, I am currently editing a article on wikipedia but i keep getting told this "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist." The thing is I would remove any url links that I had the only problem is I have none. Can anyone tell me where I'm going wrong. Thank You. Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Kate! Well, the blacklist is a collection of external links that is caught by the system to be seen as spam. If you want to unlist an external link from the list, please go here and follow the directions. --Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 19:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kate, it might be easier for someone to answer your question if you can provide a link to the article and explain what you are trying to add. heather walls (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Hi! Thank you for the invite! :) I've encountered an article with clear WP:NPOV issues as it is completely biased in favour of the series (the Dark Shadows article for the TV series). I want to add a Peacock template but I don't really know the steps? I've just posted on the talk page citing examples of why I felt the article was biased and asked if someone with knowledge of the series could edit it. Should I go ahead and post the template now or should I wait to see what kind of response the post gets? Juniper4589 (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Juniper and welcome to the Teahouse! First off, I would like to thank you for keeping an eye out for biased articles. First off, if you think an article does not adhere to a neutral point of view, you should tag it appropriately. For example, you can use the {{POV}} tag to alert other editors with different viewpoints that the article is imbalanced. You should start a discussion on the article's talk page, which you have done already. You can also visit Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to bring up the article for other editor's opinions. Hope this helps. -- Luke (Talk) 19:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your response! I went ahead and added the {{POV}} tag so I'll wait and see what kind of response this gets. If nothing changes, I'll go ahead and visit the Noticeboard to post something there. Thanks again!! Juniper4589 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia on Resume

Hi, fellow Teahouse hosts! I was doing my Resume the other day on a resume site, and I remember seeing somewhere that volunteering on Wikipedia can be put on it, but I don't know where to put it. Care to help a fellow Host in the matter? --Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 03:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abigail! I think it probably varies with the type of resume you're putting together, but imagine putting it in a section titled "Volunteerism" or "Service" would be appropriate. On academic resumes, for instance, there's almost always a "Service" section because professorial types want to see that you're a good sport about doing boring things like being on committees and putting on conferences. When you do put your WP work on your resume, you might want to give it some context, since a lot of people don't see editing Wikipedia as the public service/free culture contribution that it is. So a single-sentence description of what your activities are, what roles/titles you have, and why they're significant might be a good idea. And for sure put "Teahouse host" on there ;) - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 05:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so I should put on there something like, "At Wikipedia, I revert vandalism, reply to the Feedback Dashboard, and am also a Teahouse Host in which I help new users"? --Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 07:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures on Wikipedia

Can i use pictures that are already on wikipedia about my subject on my own created page about the same subject? does this violate copyright laws. -- JackMayhew (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If they are already on Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons it's usually totally kosher to use them wherever you like as long as you acknowledge the source. There are a few things that are used in Wikipedia articles under claims of fair use, and those aren't necessarily okay to use - unless the same claim applies to your website. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Jack, do you mean your own created page on Wikipedia or on another website? heather walls (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Commons.wikimedia.org is the wikipedia repository of images. They have millions of images there (plus videos, recordings etc.) even though they don't let anything on there unless it can be reused by anyone anywhere as long as you you include a link back to the image page on Commons. Hope this helps. filceolaire (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, its really helped. In reply to Heather, i mean to put a picture thats already on wikipedia onto the page i am editing in wikipedia. hope that makes sense! Regards -- JackMayhew (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Teahouse. You have new messages at JackMayhew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Contributors...

We have created a page on Kimberly Young and are hoping to find Wikipedians to contribute to the page now it's 'stub' status has been removed. Apologies if the Tea House is an inappropriate post this but we are relatively new to Wikipedia and weren't sure how we could contact potential collaborators without blindly requesting that they help on their talk pages. Thanks, Tom Catterall and NickBushell (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on biographies of academics but I've had a look at this and I fear you may have some problems. This reads a little bit to much like a CV to my eyes. Once that has been pruned back to what is covered by independent reliable sources it may not be much longer than a stub and if that is all that can be found out from the RS then it may stay just that short. Have a look at the biographies of other people in similar fields to see what I mean. Sorry if that is not what you wanted to hear. filceolaire (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes we understand what you mean. Good biographical information on KY from reliable sources is proving difficult to find, which is why we are hoping to find some collaborators. Thanks for your comments on our work so far, we'll try to adapt the page so it's less like a list. If you know any users that have experience in bios please do point them in the direction of our page. User:Thomascatterall and --NickBushell (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Scheduling future edits?

I vaguely remember once seeing that there's some way to flag an article for editing at some time in the future--say, you know that the information will change on some date, or whatever. Now I'd like to look into doing that. But I don't remember where I saw it. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Uporządnicki, welcome to the Teahouse. Perhaps you are thinking about this template: {{Update after}}? Cheers, Mlm42 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's what I saw. Now, to figure out if it suits what I have in mind. What I have in mind might start an argument; since that's not the reason I'm doing it, I want to do it carefully. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Image permission problem - please i'm new

Hi everyone I'm a rookie and does not have a clue about copyrights attached to ipages in particular. I've been trying to upload files but the first one got a speedy deletion nomination and the second one will be deleted due to file permission problem. I tried to read the help but I'm completely lost! I did not find any license-free to use concerning this artist. How can I get to use the image I uploaded? Can someone be nice to explain to me the different steps? Thank you. Mesmerix1 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mesmerix ... let me see if I can help you. I took a look at the image that hasn't been deleted yet. When posting a non-free image, here are the types of questions you need to be prepared to answer. First, is the image copyrighted? This one looks to be professionally done, meaning it quite probably is. Second, what is its purpose in the article, or why do you believe it should be included? That would be part of the fair-use rationale for the image; that is a statement explaining what the image is and why we are allowed to use it under a claim of fair-use. Lastly, can the image be replaced by a free one? Looking at the image in question, if the purpose is to show what this artist looks like, that generally isn't allowed, since it's possible someone might have a free image. I'm hoping this might help get you started, but please feel free to respond here if you need more info. --McDoobAU93 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I get it now Thank you. How about pictures strictly for non-commercial use? Can I use them without risk on Wikipedia? Like pictures from this site allstarspics. Mesmerix1 (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, not familiar with this site, but maybe a Host with more experience in image use here can respond. I am seeing the site mentioned as an external link in a number of articles but not as a source for images yet, however. My gut feeling is that an image with no strings attached is still preferred to an image with even just one string attached, especially for a living person. --McDoobAU93 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


It's easy to believe that pictures are for non-commerical use, but in actuality 99.999% of celebrity photos you see on the internet, including those in that site you just posted, are commercial photos taken by professional photographers and therefore under copyright. It's very unlikely you will find a photo of a star that's acceptible to use on Wikipedia unless you took it yourself, or unless you happen to find it on Flickr listed with a share-alike license and you request permission of the Flickr photographer, or unless you contact the star himself (or their manager) and obtained a photo and written permission. You can also ask on the Talk page of a star's article if anyone has a photo they took of the star that they would upload to Wikipedia, by typing {{reqphoto}} on the top of the Talk page of the celebrity.
The image you uploaded of 2face is going to be deleted because it's a copyrighted image. FYI, you labeled it as an album but it's not an album cover.
The bottom line is, photos are the most difficult thing about Wikipedia, because of the ubiquitous copyright issue. The best thing to do is concentrate on information, not images, for the most part. Especially when you are new to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A few thousand articles have my pictures, and I make it easy by following two rules:

  1. Only my own pictures. Don't handle someone else's.
  2. Give up all rights to my own pictures. No matter what anybody does with them, like distorting them and making tons of money without any attention to me, they aren't violating my rights as author because I don't have any. Legally speaking, they are not my pictures anymore.

There are experienced editors who have carefully studied the ins and outs so they can upload great numbers of pictures that others made, and many who defend some of their own rights. Too much bother for too little benefit, for me. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My Page has been Deleted :(

Hello Teahouse! I've hit a roadblock with my article. It was once deleted because there were no verifiable resources, and a contest of "notability" but after my contest to have the page "undeleted" I was able to work on it under "User: GMHayes4/April Masini. I checked all the references, and had the page reviewed by multiple Wikipedia editors. I moved the page to stand alone because all of the references are verifiable, and the language on the page is objective.

I do not understand why I can not recreate the page, especially when I was given permission to do so with the "Userfied" version and it's a darn good page (in my humble opinion). Can I rename the page? It is also not showing up in "My Contributions" which is disconcerting, given the hours I've put into making the article a good one. What should I do now?

I've sent a message to reverse the decision to the editor that deleted the page; and submitted a request to the deletion review.GMHayes (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  • In addition to my page being deleted, the editor that deleted it is "taking a break" from Wikipedia... definitely would appreciate a little help with this one, especially since ALL of my information is gone. GMHayes (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Gmhayes. Sorry to hear that your article has been deleted. There's not really much you can do at this point if you've already opened a case at Deletion Review. You can put in a request at requests for undeletion to get another userfied copy, but if you really think the article was good enough for mainspace, you should probably just wait for another admin to comment at Deletion Review. It is possible that Fastily just made a mistake, and another admin should be able to make everything clear. Since it's been deleted, we non-admins can't see it, so there isn't any more specific advice I can give...
As an aside, in situations like this, it's usually best to just post on the deleting admin's talk page and discuss it there *before* going to Deletion Review. No worries; in this case you're probably fine to go straight there, since Fastily said he was going to take a break. Just, for the future, keep in mind that talk page discussion is the gold standard of dispute resolution. ;) And just so you know, it's completely normal for edits on deleted pages to not show up in "My contributions," but the deleted edits *do* still factor into your editcount as seen on your preferences page, so it's not a *total* loss.
And, as always, try not to take it personally! Wikipedia's criteria can be quite strict at times; sometimes, you just gotta roll with the punches. Good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Writ Keeper! I'm not taking the edit personally, I just didn't know what to do since Fastily's going to be out for a while, you know? By the way, I looked on my preferences page but I do not see the "editcount" you mention. I checked each tab but is there a specific one I can find to locate my previous edits? Thanks so much for your help (I was going a little bonkers).GMHayes (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi GMHayes! As far as I can tell (based on [2]), what happened was following the deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/April_Masini), the article was moved to userspace (User:Gmhayes4/April Masini), and then moved back to main space, where it was deleted again, which is why we can't see the userspace version?

Thanks for the help you guys. I'm not offended, just confused because I followed the guidelines and worked on the page for a couple months. I guess I just have to exercise patience. I really appreciate the help!!!GMHayes (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that some of your work may have been lost; hopefully you don't let this experience put you off editing.. after all, it's happened to all of us! :-) In my opinion, it's usually more appropriate for new editors to add content to existing articles, than to create their own. Due to Wikipedia's guidelines on which pages are "allowed" to have articles, if you start a new article, you run the risk of having it deleted. Do other editors here agree with that? Mlm42 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, good catch, Mlm! I agree with pretty much everything you said. Given that: GMHayes, what you really want to do in the deletion review is to show how the article was improved between that deletion discussion and now. It seems that many of the delete !votes were borderline; if you had added some good sources since then, then you should have a pretty good chance at deletion review. Again, good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to show the improvements since they're all on the deleted page... the previously deleted page (from the initial delete) and the one I created are like night and day. Should I provide links and citations to the references I used in my revamped article to the deletion review? GMHayes (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reviewing admin will be able to see your most recent version of the article through the delete (nothing is ever *truly* deleted on Wikipedia, barring catastrophic database failure). So, you should be fine as long as the sources are there. If he doesn't notice what you changed, then you can point out the new references in the deletion review. And yeah, sometimes Wikipedia takes a *lot* of patience. Like I said, sometimes you just gotta roll with it. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

AWESOME! (*sigh of relief * wipes sweat from brow*) That makes me feel a whole lot better; and I'll keep editing because somehow it was left out of the guidelines that Wikipedia can be habit forming -_^ Thank you both for your help! GMHayes (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you so much for your help! My page has been restored. I look forward to contributing more edits and articles! GMHayes (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting criticism, feedback and interaction

Hi everyone. I am new to Wikipedia and I would like some help from some of you gurus out there. I'm currently working on the Online auction page as part of a University assignment and would greatly appreciate if some of the more versed of you out there could take a quick look at what's been done so far and criticise/provide feedback on what is required and what more needs to be done and perhaps how better to structure the entry.

I'd also like to say thanks for the emails and invitations I received to join in at the teahouse. So, thanks in advance to anyone who can lend a hand and thanks for the invitations! Craigjp88 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Craig! Excellent work! You used references well! I really like this edit, it's a significant addition to the page that worked beautifully. Keep up the good work! Maybe you can try to fix the Category problem listed at the bottom of the page? --Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 19:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Abigail, thanks very much for the positive feedback and the hint about fixing the categories problem I really appreciate it! It is nice to hear positive things especially when I am new, hopefully the good entries/edits keep coming, and I will get on fixing the category problem right away! Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigjp88 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Craig. Keep up the good work! --Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 23:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You could also try the automated Peer reviewer and posting a request on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects (I've just added a couple of ones which seem appropriate to Talk:Online auction). Keep at it! -- Trevj (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I have left some comments on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much guys I appreciate all of the feedback and interaction I can get, it's all part of the learning process! --Craigjp88 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing Style and Length

Hey everyone! quick question, how long should i make a section before it should really be its own page or is it okay to have any length of my topic area on a general topic page? Any help is appreciated. Regards -- JackMayhew (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, if anyone could take a look at the Company section of this page as this is the part i have edited. Would be good to get some feedback and critisism on my style and writing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Burnett
Thanks for any help! -- JackMayhew (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, it really depends on the topic and sources available. A really short section might be split to its own article because of a somewhat separate subject and good sources. On the other hand, some sections (especially in-universe sections in fictional articles) might be extremely long but entirely unworthy of their own article. Now, to your second question. I removed a few bits of info (like the address, services and motto) that are generally frowned upon unless there's a really good reason to keep them. Looks good otherwise. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats brilliant! Thanks for your help again! -- JackMayhew (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad I was able to help :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

froideur des relations humaines pour un nouveau \ Coolness of the human relations in somes wikiprojets

This note is written with an automatic translator because I write very badly in English (désolé pour ma langue anglaise, je parle pas beaucoup l'anglais). I find no welcome and no reception in the projects: no welcome of the members to me in the projects WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia:WikiProject, Canadian sport WikiProject Quebec, WikiProject Montreal and Women's Wikipedia:WikiProject sport. Not even a small notes of support for a new member. Be it so the coolness of the human relations on your Wikipedia ??? (il faut dire que ce n'était guère mieux dans le wikipédia francophone côté relations humaines pour les nouveaux membres mais désolé ce n'est pas vraiment l'endroit ici autour d'un bon thé pour faire des comparaisons avec le wiki francophone - ( Fred Bauder va encore sévir sur mes écrits - merci Fred pour ton travail de censure )).

Be it as well as the men ( and women) live? Es ainsi que les humains vivent ?

Je me sens très seul : pas même un seul petit mot de bienvenu des membres envers moi dans les projets WikiProject Ice Hockey, ,Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian sport WikiProject Quebec, WikiProject Montreal et Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport. Pas même un petit mot de support. Es ce ainsi la froideur des relations humaines sur Wikipedia. Un univers froid sans fraternité pour les nouveaux membres ....Sommes nous blasés d'un peu d'humanité, de mots de courtoisie et de fraternité. Je vous pose la question --Vieux supporteur de hockey féminin (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Vieux, welcome to the English Wikipedia! (I don't speak French, though, sorry; I don't really trust automatic translators, but perhaps a host that speaks French could give a better response, or at least more of an accurate translation of my reply?) Anyway, there are a *lot* of Wikiprojects on Wikipedia, and many of them aren't very active. I'm sure people aren't being unfriendly; they probably just haven't seen your posts yet! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Automatic translation: Hey, Vieux, bienvenue à la Wikipédia en anglais! (Je ne parle pas français, mais, désolé, je n'ai pas vraiment confiance traducteurs automatiques, mais peut-être un hôte qui parle le français pourrait donner une meilleure réponse, ou du moins plus d'une traduction exacte de ma réponse?) Quoi qu'il en soit, il sont un * beaucoup * de WikiProjects sur Wikipedia, et un grand nombre d'entre eux ne sont pas très actif. Je suis sûr que les gens ne sont pas être antipathique; il est probable qu'ils n'ont tout simplement pas vu vos messages encore! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that you did not get warmly welcomed in the projects you joined. I belong to one project (WikiProject Gastropods) and I usually make a great effort to welcome people who are new to Wikipedia who create articles related to gastropods. I invite them to join our project, and I also welcome them if they do join. I am currently recommending that each project try to find a member who is prepared to take the time and make the effort to welcome new people. But currently most projects do not have someone who specializes in that, I suppose because that has never really been suggested before, and basically on Wikipedia people just do what they like to do when they like to do it. But at least we can welcome you to the whole of Wikipedia which is one giant project in itself! Welcome! welcome!! welcome!!! We are happy to have you and please ask any questions here or even on my talk page. I do speak a little French, but not very well! Best wishes Invertzoo (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Merci c'est gentil. I had no message of active persons as the projects ice hockey and Women's sport. Read the page of discussion of there projects ' it is very activate but they do not worry about new member. Have to I go to the basketball ? or volleyball ? or natation ? or je ne sais pas trop quoi ??? Wikipedia perd des nouveaux contributeurs par son manque de convivialité - il faudrait plutôt travailler sur les vieux membres actifs que sur les nouveaux membres --Vieux supporteur de hockey féminin (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Malheuresement, pas tous les Projets ont des modeles mise en place pour aceuillir des nouveaux rapidement. Mais si vous restez ici un peu plus, peut-etre vous recevez un petit mot d'un editeur. It sounds as if you've decided to leave now anyway. All the best - hope you change your mind. -- Trevj (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

New Articles

Hi, I'm Sarah and I'm new to Wikipedia. Earlier I submitted an article on Adam Joinson for review. I have since received comments back about inline style references but are unsure what that means or how to create them. I have added a reference tag after the text I wish to site and have a reflist at the end, but not sure if that's correct. I've had a look at the Referencing for beginners, however I still don't understand. If anyone could help or explain, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks SarahAStewart (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sarah, and welcome to Wikipedia! I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Adam Joinson, and the <ref> tags actually look pretty good! That really is all there is to them. The only thing I would suggest is adding a name to the ref tags. Basically, instead of just doing <ref>Smith, J. 1984. "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful".</ref>, you do <ref name="goto">Smith, J. 1984. "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful".</ref>. This way, if you ever want to use that same paper to source another place in the article, you can just type <ref name="goto" /> instead of typing out all the information again, and it'll be filled in for you. It'll also make the reflist at the end neater, by getting rid of duplicate entries. Other than that, though, the ref tags look pretty good! Let me know if you have any specific questions; I'd be happy to explain in more detail. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I will add the names to the <ref> tags now. Thank you for taking the time to look, and the help was extremely useful! What did you think of the article, if you don't mind me asking? Do you have any tips or perhaps things to look out for about getting a newly created article to stay up? SarahAStewart (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sarah; well done with the references. :-) My main concern regarding this article is that it's not clear whether it satisfies Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines (see Wikipedia:Notability). In this case, I would guess, Adam Joinson would need to satisfy the "professor test" (see Wikipedia:Notability (academics)), which is a list of 9 criteria, and if any one of them is satisfied, then you're good to go. Mlm42 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mlm42, thank you for the notability help! :) I have had a look through the guidelines, however, i'm still unsure as to the types of sources that would help display notability. Could you give any suggestions? Thanks for the help! SarahAStewart (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

COI being considered for deletion

I've been working on a page "Graham Ludlow" and there is a warning on it posted by another editor. But I have read the article and find it to be completely from a neutral POV. I also went in and fixed a couple of dead links with live ones. How do we get this warning removed if we don't agree with it? And how will my edits fix the dead links? Thanks!

RandySWT1 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The template was added in April 2011. Have you seen the discussions at User talk:Grahamludlowca#Hi? Assuming you have no conflict of interest yourself, you could either
  • Be bold and remove the tag yourself using the usual editing process (not the tag on the talk page, which should stay) explaining your reasoning in the edit summary; or
  • Discuss NPOV issues with others on the article's talk page and/or with User:Guillaume2303.
I don't know what dead links you're referring to, as there are no red links. Is it some of the refs? -- Trevj (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, Sarah! I removed the tag on the article since it had no faults or problems with POV or COI in my estimation. Also, editor Viriditas had done a lot of work on the article (after it had been tagged) to make sure it was properly developed. Looks good!RandySWT1 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The links were in the references section, and have now been adjusted, Trevj. Thanks!RandySWT1 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That explains why I missed them. Sorry. -- Trevj (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_3&oldid=1145830110"