Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

How to correct a citation

Hi, I posted a sentence under "Research" in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hangover&pe=1&#Research

But I don't know how to properly label my citation in the references section. It is #19 on the list of references. Can you help? Thanks. LinaWright (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lina. There is a way to add a proper reference manually, but frankly it is painful, and I don't remember how to do it. There's a much better way, using the RefToolbar. You used to have to add something using Javascript, but it is now much easier. (I know there was some discussion about making it automatic, so you might already have it.) To check to see if you have it already, or add it if you do not, go to your preferences:
Preferences → Editing → Look for ""Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more"
and make sure it is checked.
Once it is checked, go to the article to edit, and click edit as usual. Now look just above the edit window, where you see several icons, including the one to sign your posts. Add the extreme right you should see the word "cite". Click on it, and you should see a box on the next line called "templates" That has four options. In your case, you want "Web" That will give you a template to fill in. It is that easy. You might want to practice in your sandbox. Make sure you have a reference section in your sandbox (ask me if you don't know what that means). It will be slightly awkward at first, but once you get the hand of it, references will be easy.
This is the first time I've ever written out these directions, so I'd like some feedback from you. Did they work? Did I miss any steps? Can you help me make them clearer, because I may want to save this for the future, questions about references are common.
Hope this helps,
Let me know, Stephen --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirected a sandbox talk page by mistake

Hello. Once again I've fouled up what should be a simple task.LOL When moving out my new article from this page User:Tlqk56/sandbox to The Secret River (Rawlings book), I transferred the talk page, too. Now when I go to my sandbox talk page it goes to the article talk page instead. I tried reading but don't see how to fix this. (It's not the first time I've done that, I'm afraid.) What am I doing wrong and how do I fix it? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha! It happens to the best of us. Here is how you fix it:
  1. Go to the talk page and it'll redirect you. Underneath the article title (the secret river blah) you'll see "Redirected from User:blahblah".
  2. Click on the link to your talk page you'll see in that sentence
  3. It'll take you to the redirected talk page. Click edit, and delete the redirect.
  4. Click save and you're good to go and back to normal :) SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Sarah. I'm saving these directions, as I expect I'll do that again. My DH used to write training programs for the Navy. He'd ask me to try them out first, because I was really good at messing up things that seemed simple to him. :) Well, we all have our own talents, right? Tlqk56 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How to re-submit my article for creation?

I would like to resubmit my article after correcting some errors. How do I resubmit it?

thanks! usrealtor 23:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarver (talk • contribs)

Hi Ggarver, welcome to the Teahouse! I think your first step might be to revert the edit you made where you erased the submission box that was already on the article. You leave that there until the article is approved (even though it might be a bit distracting). There is a link to click in that box to resubmit your article. Do you need any help with that? heather walls (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Heather,

Thanks for the info. I could use some help getting my article approved =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarver (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think first we should deal with the fact that there are now two copies. The original and a new one in Wikipedia space that you just created. I am pretty sure we need to get rid of the new one and keep working on the old one. heather walls (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ggarver, I moved any changes from the new page you created back to the original Articles for Creation submission. If you are ready to try again, use the click here to resubmit. heather walls (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't had a chance to get to them all, but I've just found yet another copyright violation on Jimi Hendrix's wiki. Here's the link to what was copied: copyright violated and here's the text cut and pasted in the wiki - "As a record producer, he also broke new ground in using the recording studio as an extension of his musical ideas."

Just making sure somebody knows why I'm deleting this stuff - but I will note it also in the edits. Thanks :D Charlie Inks (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Good work Charlie! Another tip - also drop by with Template:Cclean on the talk page for Hendrix - you can see, by visiting that template page, that you can even link to the online material that was the source of the copy vio. It's more important to document it there, and as you said - in your edit summaries - than anywhere else. Awesome work :) SarahStierch (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Also! There is a WikiProject (a group of Wikipedians who edit about common interests) for people who are diligent at cleaning up copyvios: Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Join in if you're interested! SarahStierch (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah! Will definitely document it there - and find the other ones I found in my bookmarks and document there also. Cheers :D --Charlie Inks (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Moonriddengirl is also our resident expert on copyvio. You could leave a note on her talk page if you like and she can help make sure all of it gets cleaned up. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ryan! Thanks for this! If you are on the payroll, don't you need a raise? If you're not, shouldn't you be? :D Gotta track down my bookmarks yeah? Cheers and thanks for this. Good to hear from you, Charlie Inks (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Teahouse, fyi, I've deleted Six copyright violations today on Jimi Hendrix's wiki. As Sarah suggested, I also put a note on the talk page for other editors or people who stop by to make changes w/out an account. I've also left a note on Moonriddengirl's talk page. To help anyone checking this stuff - if that happens - I've noted the page number, the title and the ISBN number in the edits where I made the deletions. Thanks for reading :) Charlie Inks (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

image

where do this I place this "|human=username" for an image that need to be moved to wikicommons? (Libby995 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Libby, welcome to the Teahouse. That parameter is used if you are tagging an image with the template {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. It indicates that the suggested move has been checked by a human user i.e. you as meeting the criteria to move to Commons rather than being a bot. So for you the usage would be {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons|human=Libby995}}. NtheP (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re-submitting an article

Hey Everyone,

My submission iniitally got declined, but I went ahead and re-edited it pretty thoroughly. Was wondering if anybody could go ahead and take a look at let me know if I did what I should be doing! Maybe even review it if you're feeling generous! ;)

Here it is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brandon_Steiner

Thanks,

Golombjesse (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Golomb! Looks like you've revamped the article for sure. One good tip I learned about Wikipedia writing when it comes to bios - keep it boring. If the person is as notable as they should be to be included in Wikipedia, their story will tell itself on their bio page without having to promote them! On that note, none of the resources you used have links to the sources. It's really important to make sure that all of your references have links to their online sources - the article will most likely get rejected just for that reason. Especially content about his personal life - content that can be questionable will get removed without proper citations. I'd also consider rewriting the section about his professional work - right now it reads like a timeline, which is something that Wikipedia and other encyclopedias frown upon. I'd just condense it into a few nice, easy to read paragraphs. I'd also remove the lists of sports figures he works with. Just mention a few of the most notable one's in one paragraph. It'll probably be considered to advertisey just based on those lists (i.e. "Steiner holds exclusive memorabilia partnerships with sports figures such as Peyton Manning, Tiki Barber, Rex Ryan, and over 15 others." If you don't do it, someone else (like me) will eventually do it if the article moves into the user space. I hope this helps. Good luck and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How to edit my personal Bio that was written a long time ago?

I have an account on Wikipedia, and we are trying to update a bio and information that is incorrect. I was not the one who originally wrote the one that is currently posted.Brandiwynae (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brandiwynae! Thanks for dropping by the Teahouse. It's actually best that you (the subject) don't edit your own article. It's actually a policy that we have here at Wikipedia. What I'd advise you do, is visit the talk page of the article about the subject (you, I suppose!) and just state what is wrong and provide adequate reliable sources (i.e. from magazines, newspapers, news sources - not your website or press releases) that people can use to update it. You can always ping us here at the Teahouse when you do that and we'll take a look. I would strongly advise you avoid updating it yourself, as you might get into a pickle of trouble. I hope this helps, and welcome! SarahStierch (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

AFC Edit

Hi Everyone,

My new article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brandon_Steiner) got declined in the editorial process. I was wondering if someone could give me some tips to make the article more "encyclopedic" and thus permissable for acceptance!

Thank you!

Golombjesse (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Golombjesse! It seems like your submission was declined because it read like an advertisement. In all Wikipedia articles, you have to include reliable sources that are independent from the subject. You must also take note of Wikipedia's policy on being neutral. Wikipedia articles should explain both sides and not be biased. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Highlighting an advert

Hello, I came across this page, Walk Thru the Bible, and it seems more of an advert than an encyclopedic entry. I vaguely remember seeing things marked as 'advertisements in need of cleanup or editing' (or something like that). Is it appropriate for this page to be marked thus and how could I do it? Thanks KiwiTim (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi KiwiTim! The template you are looking for is {{advert}}, which you can add to the article with the month of tagging, like this: {{advert|date=July 2012}}. However, by looking at the page history ("history" tab to the right) i found that a series of recent edits had turned the article into a spammy advertisement. I have reverted them and left a note to Kara.mcLaughlin who performed the edits. :) benzband (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating a company page

Hi there,

We are hoping to create a Wikipedia page for our large global company. We obviously want to get this right and adhere to all Wikipedia guidelines. Please could you detail the process, including any stipulations that are to be met.

Thank you in advance. Kind regards,

Wallis Rushforth

81.110.138.210 (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wallis! First and foremost, writing about your own company or something that you are linked to is considered a conflict of interest, even if that wasn't your intention. If your company is notable enough, another editor not connected to the organization will come along and create it. Next, you can read Wikipedia's general notability guideline and company notability guidelines. Basically, if a company has received significant coverage by secondary sources, then it can have its own article. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 14:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wallis! You will find useful advice at the Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Help

I need help with info-boxes and what are parameters? NapoleonicTrooper412 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NapoleonicTrooper412. I think that you will find the information you want at Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. Hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi NapoleonicTrooper412! The parameters are all different, as it depends on which one you want to use. Was there a particular article you had in mind? The main ones I can think of are the infoboxes for people and places, but there are a lot of more specific ones as well. :) The main parameters in common are name and image, but things start to get interesting from there. - Bilby (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi NapoleonicTrooper! It's great to see you here. I just want to add on to what Cullen and Bilby said; infoboxes are sort of just what they sound like. They're boxes that we put at the top of articles to give some really quick information about the subject of the article. The most common infoboxes are for people, and they usually include biographical data (birthplace, birthdate, full name, data about whatever it is they do (e.g. years active, who they work with, what groups they are associated with), and a picture. Other infoboxes include the most salient information for the subject, like certain values for chemical compounds and elements. Parameters are used with templates, and they are values that you automatically you put in - the important values in the infobox. So, in a person's infobox, some parameters would include their birthdate and their full name. If you need more specific help, please ask! We'd love to help. Happy editing! Keilana|Parlez ici 03:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

opinion is not the same as personal experience! do i need a note from my GP as reference to substantiate my treatment for poison oak?

i posted personal experience with poison oak, since the article asked for more content. i can provide a note from an MD if that will make you satisfied. If that is not sufficient, then maybe Wikipedia is only a rehash of sterile history books.MrDDG (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi MrDDG, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse. You're correct that personal experience isn't sufficient to warrant mention in a wikipedia article. (A note from your GP wouldn't work either, come to that.) For the most part we limit ourselves to what is in "sterile history books", reviews in the scientific and medical literature, newspapers, magazines and other sources that are generally considered reliable, and those in turn are filtered though rules concerning undue weight and fringe science and medicine and conflict of interest, among others. At the end of the day we might not have the Truth, but we do generally have a decent summary of what most experts think on any particular topic.
If you eventually manage to convince a significant portion of the professional medical establishment that your treatment for poison oak is notable, then word of that will eventually make its way into the "sterile history books" and we'll be happy to take note of it. GaramondLethe 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything Garamond said. Just wanted to suggest that what you seem to want is a site to express your own personal experiences and stories, a perfectly legitimate thing to do, just not the goal of Wikipedia. i suggest you check out: http://www.blogger.com Its very easy to use, IMO easier than editing a Wikipedia page, and you have a lot more leaway with things like formatting, graphics, style, etc.. Mdebellis (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How many Wikilinks does one article need?

Someone has started flagged my early articles as needing work, which is fine. I've learned a lot since I started, and every article can be improved. However, they seem to feel that Alice Dalgliesh needs more Wikilinks (and a better layout?). I added two, but honestly I can't see where I would put more. I guess I tend to prefer articles that aren't overlinked, and I may be "under-doing" it, but I've read the MOS pages several times. I tried asking the person who left the tag where I needed to make improvements, but they just said "The multiple issues grouping template conceals the wikify reason", which didn't help me a lot. :) When someone has the time, would you please look at the article and give me some specific feedback? I really want to get better, but I'll never be perfect, and I'd like to just fix it, remove the tag, and go on. Thanks a lot. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tlqk56! I do see a couple paragraphs that could have a few more links in Alice Dalgliesh - though I must say, you've done a great job with the article. The first section could do with links to things like the Pratt Institute and Columbia University. In the section "Writing", you could definitely link the names of her most prominent books, along with the Newbery Honor and Book Magazine. "Publishing" could have links to articles like Francis Felsen, Charles Scribner, Jr., World War II, and Leonard S. Marcus. You did a pretty good job with the wikifying, I just thought it could have a couple more. I hope this helps, and happy editing! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 03:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That helps a lot, thanks. I didn't link to Newbery Honor because I'd done it in the lead. Should I repeat it? Same with her books in the writing section? I know the MOS says you can re-link in a long article, but it doesn't say HOW long is long, and I didn't think this qualified. I guess I usually don't link to Universities, I'll have to start. Thanks again for the feedback, I appreciate it. I am proud of that article, it was my first big project. :) So I'd like to do it right. Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! To be honest, I'm not sure what's technically correct under the MOS, but as a reader, I don't want to have to scroll all the way up in an article with sections just to click a link. So, as an editor, I tend to link once in the lead and once in a later section (especially if it's a screen or more down), just for readability. I think that in this case as a reader, I didn't remember that Newbery Honor and the books had been linked, so I would have liked to see them further down. I hope this helps - your article looks great! (you should nominate it for Good Article!) Happy editing, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense, actually. I'll definitely readjust how I do Wlinks. So I've learned something else today, which is great. Just saying "Put in more of them" didn't help me, because when you know a topic really well it can be hard to decide what a more casual reader might want more info about. So your outside perspective was great. (I have one article up for GA, its John R. Tunis. I'm hoping for a real learning experience there, too.) Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm so glad I could help! Good luck with your GAN! See you around the Teahouse. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Having read this, thought about the issue before and having seen opinions that go both ways on it, and looking for MOS guidance on it in the past and not finding anything very nuanced, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Repeating links in the lead and in the body. Please do feel free to say "no, it's an awful idea because..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
My personal rule of thumb is to relink if the earlier link is no longer visible on the monitor in a preview. Guess I'll join the discussion over at Manual of Style.DocTree (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
So, this is clearly not a "cut-and-dried" topic. I will definitely check the discussion out, thanks for mentioning it. It does seem to come down to personal opinion, doesn't it? WP says to add them if "needed to aid understanding of the article", but clearly that means different things to different people. (Does reading about a University someone attended 50 years ago for two years really add anything? To some people, I guess it does.) And, as I said before, when you know a topic well it can be hard to judge what other people might want to know. Thanks to everyone for contributing to the discussion. Tlqk56 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

redirect

where do I go to find out how to redirect a subject's various "aliases"?Pyramid43 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Pyramid43! Redirects are pretty easy to create but there are some rules attached to them. They are delineated here. hajatvrc @ 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pyramid43. The easiest method is to add #REDIRECT [[Article]] to the page you wish to redirect as the only content, replacing "Article" with the name of the article you wish people to be redirected to. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Feedback please!

Hi!

I've been working on a draft of an article on my user page about an Australian comedy podcast called TOFOP. I've been told in a deletion review that if I can improve it enough, that I can submit the draft for review, so that it can be moved back to its original page. This is my first time editing a page though, so any feedback or help anyone would be willing to give me to improve the page (link below) would be much appreciated! The moment, I'm not sure if it's good enough to put up.

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tiggyspawn93/TOFOP

Tiggyspawn93 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tiggyspawn93! The most concise help that I can give is a link to Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. This Golden Rule applies to all articles. I simply cannot state it any better than that page. It is what all of the editors at the deletion review were implying, they just never linked you to it because either they did not know about it, or they thought they were clearer than they actually were. hajatvrc @ 22:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Tiggyspawn93, it is great to see you at the Teahouse. I didn't realise that Will Anderson had a podcast - I'm going to have to subscribe now. That's great news. :) Anyway, the article is looking great, but the fundamental problem you have is that you need to show that it has received a lot of coverage in the media. The Sydney Morning Herald coverage is a great start, but you'll need a couple more articles, preferably from mainstream media sources, which spend a reasonable amount of time discussing the podcast. I'll have a dig around Newsbank tonight and see if I can find anything, but unfortunately only the one source will meet the requirements at the moment, and you will need more than the one. That said, the article itself is well written, has some great information, and seems preety encyclopedic to me - if you can find a couple more references then all will be good. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Questions answered

May be a basic question but how do I reply to you when you have been kind enough to answer my questions Marcusah (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You should see an "Edit" link at the top-right of every discussion. You can just click that and add your response to the bottom like you would on an article! hajatvrc @ 21:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Marcusah, if you look at this page (or any page), at the start of each section you'll see [edit] at the right hand side. If you click on this edit button, it will open that section for editing. You can then add your reply at the bottom. The convention of wikipedia is to indent your reply to differentiate it from the comment above. You do this by typing a number of colons, each of which will indent your comments by one step. So if you edit this section you'll see one colon at the start of my comment indenting my reply one step. If you want to reply you can start with two colons :: to indent your reply two steps. NtheP (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thats great thank you, and thank you for your previous response in relation to the delete page query. I will update the page with regards to the queries that have been made and make comment on the delete discussion. Thank you for your assistance. Marcusah (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

New To Wiki Need assistance on Deletion

Hi I have recently added a wiki page relating to my organisation, it has now for various reasons been marked for deletion and I need to know how to discuss these points and rectify the issues with my page. As I say I am new to wiki and not 100% on the workings.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

MarcusahMarcusah (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Marcusah, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Sorry to hear about your article being nominated for deletion, but that kind of thing happens a lot; Wikipedia can be a pretty tricky place, so don't worry about it too much! The first thing you should know is that the deletion discussion is going on at this page, so you should feel free to contribute to the discussion there. As for the article itself, it looks like the main issue is that of notability. Notability is the threshold of inclusion for new Wikipedia articles. There are many aspects of notability, but probably the most important one is expressed in the general notability guideline, which says that an article's subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. More specific information on notability for organizations like the one you're writing about can be found at the notability for organizations page; it goes into quite a bit of detail, but the most important bit there is the section called "Primary criteria". Basically, any argument you want to make for the article's inclusion should focus on the existence of reliable secondary sources that specifically discuss the British Boxing Hall of Fame in depth. I hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Marcus! I also took the time to write fellow Wikipedians located in the UK from Wikimedia UK. We have an entire project called "GLAM WIKI" which does outreach with cultural organizations to help improve Wikipedia related to their organization. We've done projects with the British Museum, and now with the British Library. Someone may reach out to you soon from Wikimedia UK, and you can always reach out to them as well - we generally frown upon staff members editing about their organization, so working with the community is one way to change that. Including improving content from your archives about boxing history. Here you can find the contact information for WMUK. I hope this helps! SarahStierch (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both, thats very kind assistance. I will update the entry on the British Boxing Hall Of Fame page and add more links and references etc. Hopefully we will be up to speed on Wiki editing soon and will be able to assist others. Thank you again Marcusah (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

photo upload

On the 'introduce yourself' page how do I go about uploading a photo? It did not provide any browse button on the image=

Humera Ahsanullah 17:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humera9 (talk • contribs)

Hi Humera9! Photos are added to pages by the use of coding called "wiki markup". A photo that you want to use must be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, and then you can use a code to add that photo to the a page.
To upload a file, use the "Upload file" link in the "Toolbox" section on the main column to the left of this page. If you cannot find it, here is the link. The instructions are pretty clear from there. A file you upload must be either created by you, in the public domain, or have a license that is compatible to Wikipedia. The Upload process contains all of the information you need to know about copyrights. But, I assume you are trying to upload a picture of yourself, which would most likely not be copyrighted unless someone took it who did it for money, etc.. As long as the image is not copyrighted, you should not have any trouble uploading the file. If it is copyrighted, and you are not sure whether it is compatible with Wikipedia, you can provide that information here and we will help you make that decision.
As far as the coding goes, when you are adding a picture to an article it is usually done like this:
[[File:NAME OF YOUR IMAGE.(whatever the extension is)]]
But in the "Introduce yourself" format, you just have to put the name of the image next to the "|image=" part (be sure to include the extension!).
|image=NAME OF YOUR IMAGE.(whatever the extension is)
Does that answer your question? hajatvrc @ 18:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it policy to avoid spoilers?

I have noticed that lists of TV episodes are invariably vague. 'John discovers an old secret of Jane's.' That might be OK for a TV guide but in an encyclopaedia, one expects an absence of coyness and a directness of fact. 'John discovers that Jane used to be his little brother, Arnold.' So is this coyness a deliberate policy? I find it frustrating and suggest that we should have exactly the opposite policy. A description of a plot should detail it straightforwardly, complete with all and every 'spoiler' going. If we don't have this, it's just like the rest of the web. 92.21.158.206 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You have the right idea in contrast to those frustrating articles you've seen. I'm a newbie but I've been working on some novel articles and one of the first policies I came across is that Wikipedia does indeed (and by design should) contain spoilers: Wikipedia:Spoiler Feel free to start editing them and make them more encyclopedic and less "TV Guide" :) Mdebellis (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Teahouse, 92.21.158.206. I just wanted to add a point to what Mdbellis said. The page they sent you to is a "guideline", which in Wikipedia speak means it is a generally accepted idea. That's different from a page like this, Writing about Fiction, which is part of the manual of style. The difference may be small, but it can matter. I'm telling you this because some people feel strongly about NOT revealing spoilers, despite what the first page says, and if you go in and start making changes they may get upset. That's OK, I just wanted to warn you. Before you start changing plot summaries on an established page that doesn't have spoilers, you may want to leave a message on the article's TALK page, suggesting the change. You don't have to, it's up to you. But another principle of Wikipedia is to use consensus and try to avoid what are known as "edit wars". Good luck, and if you have more questions, just ask.
By the way, the first page says "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." So a short summary won't include every spoiler going, as you suggested. Only the one's necessary to summarize the plot. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Help On "The Truth (Christianity)"

I would like someone to edit and perhaps approve my submission, The Truth (Christianity). I obviously don't want it to sound religious, but neutral. The page isn't about any unique doctrine of any one Christian religion, but refers to the Christian ideology of "the truth" to which most Christian religions refer. I myself am religious, so making it not sound religious is fairly difficult. According to Wikipedia guidelines, I want to provide an unbiased standpoint. Anything someone can add or edit to give it a neutral third party perspective would be appreciated.Corjay (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Corjay, and welcome to the teahouse! I think the article as currently written is a little sparse --- there are only two reference works cited and the article doesn't provide a sense of the history of this concept. You might want to take a look at the articles on Salvation, Grace (Christianity), Faith and perhaps some of the articles on epistemology. That should give you a better sense of the scope of existing articles in this general area. Don't feel you need write the entire article in one go (unless you feel moved to do so, of course), but you might want to go a bit further in the initial submission in showing that this is an important topic in the history, philosophy and practice of Christianity. Good luck! GaramondLethe 14:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking Images - Red X for thumbnail

I've submitted two photos to an article (wiki) on "Old Sarum".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sarum). The first one, under Norman Expansion, "Ruins of Old Sarum cathedral" works fine. The second photo under "Decline" works but the thumbnail just won't. It doesn't matter what I do, it has the red X. I've tried literally everything to fix it. I've worked a lot in HTML so I don't feel uncomfortable in this type of environment. But no matter what I do, move the coding to different places, change it from File to Image, delete spaces, you name it, and I cannot fix it. I don't understand what the problem is. Should I just move it into a different section? And how will I know if and when anybody responds to this. Thanks. Mike Allen (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike Allen, and thanks for stopping by! I'm looking at the page and all of the past revisions you have done and I do not see a red X anywhere. All of the photos seem to appear just fine. I wish I could help, but it might be just a problem on your side, maybe a browser issue or something. I wonder if any other people reading this have the same problem? hajatvrc @ 22:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hajatvrc. I've figured out that when I am logged in, and probably the same for everyone else, the thumbnail appears. But when I am not logged in, the thumbnail is replaced with the empty box with red X. How can I fix this? Mike Allen (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Teahouse. You have new messages at Aurelius99's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mike, I'm not having problems logged in or out with either Firefox 14 or IE9. You might want to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) where some of the more technical minded can have a look at it. NtheP (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nthep. I've done as you suggested and just posted on the Village Pump. Mike Allen 15:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelius99 (talk • contribs)

What exactly is not in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article in my article?

Hi maybe someone can take a look at my article for submission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tim_Woolcock) and see where exactly my article deviates from the formal path. I looked at it but can't really see any major problems. Fellowpacker (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fellowpacker, and welcome to the Teahouse! We're glad you're here. The writing and tone look fine to me. One thing I would do is add more to the body of the article. I noticed that you listed a bunch of references at the bottom, why not incorporate information from those sources into the article? If you need more detailed help, please do ask here. I think that if you do that, your submission will definitely be accepted. Thanks for asking and visiting the Teahouse! Happy editing, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Culture frustrations.

Mine is more of a concern to be addressed than a question. I tried to dive right in to wikipedia and edit entries I thought I had beneficial things to add to. I felt beaten down right away. I found that administrators would undo my edits stating they violated policy (without addressing how in a helpful way). The most frustrating thing I found was that my edits would follow the format of a section which apparently contained other violating material, which I had been using as a guide for knowing if it was okay to add something or not. The other user would not edit the section to remove all offending material, but rather would just undo my contributions. I've tried to air my frustrations about this practice, but people just point me to "other stuff exists." I understand this in a broad sense, but within a one paragraph section, if someone is editing for offending material, I'd expect them to remove it all, rather than just undo someone's contribution.

Also: why just undo someone's contribution when you could help dig up sources? I had thought that wikipedia was some sort of all-in-this-together thing, but after trying to contribute, it seems more like trying to present something to a strict boss and having her tear up your hard work and instructing you to do it again. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and do it again without more guidance. Welcome to the Teahouse, ChateauOfADoubt. Sorry your first experiences were so frustrating. I looked at Troy, New York. Rated just Class C (not very good) but High Importance, that article needs a lot of help. To answer a couple of your questions and comments:
  • Why just undo someone's contribution when you could help dig up sources? Some Wikipedians specialize in certain aspects. Your edits were caught by a Recent Changes Patroller. S/he specializes in eliminating additions that aren't up to standards and warning the editor. Digging up sources is left to, well, you and me and a bunch of others who want to add content.
  • My edits would follow the format of a section which .. contained other violating material, which I had been using as a guide. Sorry about that. In that article, previous authors didn't set a good example.
Are you up for a challenge? The Troy, New York article needs a lot of help. The section you worked on, Annual events, is under major heading Architecture. Completely illogical. Much of the major section Landmarks at the very bottom belongs under Architecture. An experienced editor could spend weeks bringing the article up to Class B. You don't have to take on the whole article.
Most Wikipedia articles fall under some Project. The Troy, New York article should follow guidelines for Wiki Project Cities. Check out the Arts and colture section. Will you build that one section to improve the Troy, New York article? Will you spend hours looking up reliable, second party sourses to prove the notability of events? Use in-line citations in your section? In the upper right of your screen is 'My sandbox.' Work there, adding all the events you can find along with in-line sources. Come back here is you have problems or ask on my talk page and I'll give you a hand. Beware, though. Once you figure this stuff out, editing to improve Wikipedia can become addicting. Take care, DocTree (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Chateau, and welcome to the Teahouse! We're glad you're here. I'm really sorry your first experience was difficult. Lots of amazing editors here had a rough start, and I hope it doesn't get you down too much. I have a couple things that may help you. First, you can look for an "adopter", an experienced Wikipedian who walks you through some of the basics. It's really helpful! Another thing you can do is to find an article you're interested in and click on the talk page. A bunch of WikiProjects (groups of Wikipedians who work in a specific area, like astronomy, horseback riding, or cities) should be listed. Click on one that seems to be in line with your interests, and ask on their talk page how you can help the project. I hope this helps - you can also ask me a question on my talk page. I've been around awhile and I'd love to answer your questions! Happy editing, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for the input and advice! I guess I didn't realize what an undertaking Wikipedia was. I'm starting to think I should leave learning to properly use wikipedia on the shelf with learning to read charts to better play the stock market! I guess I'll stick to making comics, videos, zines, and educating in ways that don't involve the creation of an encyclopedia. I'm sure I could have realized that it was not for me either way, but I wish I had found you all and figured it out this way rather than what actually happened! ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I'm sorry you're leaving us. But if you ever want to come back, perhaps you could pick up a copy of "Wikipedia:The Missing Manual"? We would love to have you return - do come say "hi" in the Teahouse if you ever do! Best wishes, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When reviewing the history of works by an well-known author

Is it not correct form to cite the works themselves, that is the original articlesc, particularly if the author is working in an arcane area in which he or she has done the research, and the article appears in fact-checked newspaper publication. I'm trying to grasp the import of a recent comment by Sarah. Sarah, please Feel free to email me but please do not publish my email address online. Thanks. I'll use your feedback to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I actually didn't review your article, and it looks like the article, Chuck Philips, is currently on Wikipedia. The problem is that it cites too many articles and newspapers and related sources that are written by Chuck Philips. Wikipedia articles, like any encyclopedia, strive to be neutral, therefore they use preferably secondary sources - articles written about Philips, not by him. It's one thing to state "he writes about "x" subject," but to extensively cover his career based on articles he written isn't really encyclopedic. I'm sure someone else can elaborate a bit more. SarahStierch (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow! That guy has written a lot of stuff! I actually read the entire article because he seems like a really interesting dude. One thing I feel the article lacks is some more biographical information. You do have some info on his actual life mixed in here and there, but more biographical content, as opposed to just talking about the things he has written, would help to give his writings some context. Do you know if there are any sources that talk about his earlier life? I did a Google search and all that seems to come up on the first four pages are things about his writings, and not the actual human being. I wonder if you know where some sources can be found that do not just talk about his writings? I feel like these must exist if there 4,270,000 Google hits to his name! hajatvrc @ 22:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I need to purge my watchlist

Is there a way to do it more easily than just going to the articles and click manually? Not all of watchlist, but most of it. And if not, maybe just there should be these stars also in the watchlist for a quick unsbscribing. Niemti (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Niemti! If you go to your watchlist, there is a link at the very top of the page that says "edit raw watchlist". There you will see an editing box that lists your watched pages, which you can use to delete as many as you want with one go. hajatvrc @ 19:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
And what may be just a little more user-friendly is the Special:EditWatchlist page, which you can also get to from the top of your userpage via the "View and edit watchlist" link. That'll let you just check the boxes next to the titles you want to remove and hitting the "Remove titles" button at the bottom. Hoep this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Never noticed it before. --Niemti (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I never noticed it before, either. Thanks Writ! SarahStierch (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ha, I forgot that the check-box format existed. I guess I've just been trained to click on the raw watchlist! hajatvrc @ 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Niemti. There is a tool that provides exactly the capability you describe, placing a little "x)" next to each page on your watchlist that when clicked on removes entries, and once you're done, you just toggle the tool off and the watchlist returns to normal view. To access this, you would need to:
  1. Click on this link: Special:MyPage/skin.js;
  2. Click "Create" at the top of the page;
  3. Copy and paste into the page this script:
// [[user:js/watchlist]]
if (wgCanonicalSpecialPageName == 'Watchlist') 
  importScript('user:js/watchlist.js');
 4. Click save page;
 5. Purge your computer's cache memory (you will see instructions at the top of the saved page on how to do this).
After you do this you should see a little menu above your watchlist that looks like this:

 … | 7 days | all | Only new | x | ↑↓ | ±


The "X" will populate the "x)" watchlist remover tab next to each link in your watchlist. The other tools are useful as well and, like I said, it toggles off and on so it's mostly invisible except when you need it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (I already purged the list). --Niemti (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I resize a picture?

I found this cool picture on Commons, and I just wanted to put it in, but it was huge. I tried resizing it by adding |300px after the .jpg, but it didn't work. Some words on both sides came up and then I just gave up. :P Red Hat On Head (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Red Hat On Head! It would help if you would post here exactly what code you are using so I can help you fix it. You can post code by using the <pre> code as such:
<pre>code you are using</pre>
Which will should appear like:
code you are using
Sometimes code can be buggy, so I would need to see exactly what you are using! hajatvrc @ 19:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I'm using this code.
[[File:India - Srinagar - 032 - sunset at Nishat Bagh Mughal Gardens HDR.jpg|300px]]

Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I posted that code verbatim at my sandbox and it was resized just fine. Where are you trying to add this picture? hajatvrc @ 19:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sasha, that code you are using works fine for me. Were you trying to put the picture inside an infobox? If so then the code is slightly different, for example
{{Infobox garden
|image         = India - Srinagar - 032 - sunset at Nishat Bagh Mughal Gardens HDR.jpg
|image size    = 300px
}}

to get the same outcome . NtheP (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

At the introduce yourself thing at the guests part of the Teahouse. Just wouldn't work. Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in an infobox, but over here on the guests page. Thanks for the answer though. :) Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sasha! I made this change and the image doesn't appear huge to me. It is possible to modify the image width with some code; however, I don't believe it is necessary in this case. Do you still feel that it is too large? Ryan Vesey 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sasha, the Teahouse guest page is a form of infobox template. If you look at Ryan's edit then the image name doesn't have the [[]] brackets around it and doesn't have to be prefixed with File: or Image: That might have been where you went slightly wrong as using either the brackets or the prefix would have caused an error.
PS looked at some of your edits and you seem to be getting to grips with some other complicated stuff like table. NtheP (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that works. :D Thank you so much! I was wondering why. Thanks! :3 Oh, and that table thing that I put in was copied and pasted from another article. But why are the lines all deformed? :P There was another section in the original table - references - but I took it out when pasting because the only reference was in the sentences above. But thanks! Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for an article

Hello all!

I created Spaceflight radiation carcinogenesis and have been getting feedback that the writing is not encyclopedic and that it is a copy paste from another public domain document. While a couple of paragraphs may be nearly verbatim, it is only because there is no better way to say it.

Also, the topic is not exactly suited for recreational reading, so it may seem like it reads like an essay and is a little long-winded when it is just a very broad overview of the topic. I am engaging subject matter experts to come and make contributions, but I wanted to see if there are any suggestions on format or style from other Wikipedia editors in the meantime.

I welcome any and all constructive criticism and look forward to your suggestions.

Thanks, Jssteil (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jssteil, welcome to the teahouse!
Has this been discussed anywhere else?
Do you work for, or at the behest of, NASA? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The actual content of this article? No...I have been getting negative feedback on my talk page without any suggestions on how to fix it (there was another discussion at WQA and this user's talk page regarding this).
I have created this article at the behest of a NASA program and invite any and all contributors to make changes (preferably productive and not disruptive changes). The content I am adding is meant to act as seed material to be expanded upon. Also, I am not a contributor, scientist, researcher or investigator for this topic and will enjoy no personal gains related to the advancement of this topic (I have already had issues with an editor claiming a conflict of interest). There is no self promotion in this article and I am working to add more 3rd party references. Jssteil (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jssteil. Thank you for adding those details! I think many of the complaints about your editing were from an editor who was having some problems, and who is now blocked from editing. I'm sorry that it's been so chaotic. Perhaps other editors here can offer ideas on how to improve the article. It's certainly an important one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jssteil! I have looked at the public domain study by NASA. The issue with using a NASA-type writing style is that NASA does not write their studies in encyclopedic form. You can certainly use the source (obviously it is an excellent study), but generally the meaning of an encyclopedia is to be accessible to a wide audience. Even if it is an advanced topic, it should be written in prose that a general audience can follow.
The thing about the topic is that it is a really big one! This means that making it a longer article in order to have more readable prose is appropriate. Frankly, I do not see how we did not already have an article about it, but that is beside the point. While I am not any sort of authority, I do like the suggestion of the person who placed the template at the top of the page, which is to move the page to "Cancer and spaceflight". This describes the article in a way that makes it search-able to a general audience. More people are going to run a Google search for "cancer and spaceflight" than they are for "spaceflight radiation carcinogenesis". If you would like to move the page, it is actually quite easy. Somewhere in a drop-down menu at the top of the article (next to "Read" and "Edit") you'll find a "move page" link. As different people have different display settings for their account, there is a document to help you locate this link here if you cannot find it yourself. hajatvrc @ 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Demiurge1000 and hajat, thank you for your input. I will definitely take the name change into consideration...now that it is presented in the way that you have presented it, it makes sense. Jssteil (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I insert references and external links and how do I know if my article submitted?

Hey guys, Sorry for such a daft question but I keep getting articles rejected due to reputable links- tried inserting these but internal Wikipedia links are a bit confusing and can't work out how to link to external sites.

Also just pushed the resubmit button but how do you know it's actually been sent?

Thanks.

Mike :) Thesocialpro (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I presume you're referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Azimo. You'll need to find a number of independent articles in newspapers/journals, which describe the company and its activities. These articles can be cited in references using <ref> tags, as described at Citing sources. Internal wikilinks are included using the [[Article name]] markup. Keep trying and come back if you have further questions. -- Trevj (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi Mike, and thank you for submitting an article! The simplest way to add a references to an article is by adding the following next to the text that you are pointing to a reference:
<ref>information on the source</ref>
and then added a reference section to the bottom of the page with "==References==" and adding nothing to that section but:
{{reflist}}
This will create a list of all of the references that you have made in the article in the order that they appear in the content. I do understand that reading the Referencing for beginners can be "a bit confusing", as you say. The main thing you need to know is what information to include in the citation, which means you only really have to worry right now about this small section. Don't worry, your citations do not have to be perfect for the article to be accepted. They just have to include enough information to help us know where they came from. After the article is created, other people can make them look "pretty". Over time you will learn how to make them pretty, but as a new user, there is no reason to overwhelm yourself.
That section that I linked you to also shows you how to include an external link in your refences.
A general piece of advice is that for any one task, you usually only have to worry about a small portion of a particular piece of documentation at a time. Look in the table of contents and click on the link to the section that you think will answer the specific question that you have. The is no deadline for Wikipedia! Take it slow, in little steps. If you ever need help deciding exactly what information you need to worry about for a given task, that is what the Teahouse is here for! hajatvrc @ 17:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to have messed around with your talk page. I moved it by accident when I moved what was a sandbox from your user page. I hope that's OK. All should now be back to normal! -- Trevj (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

When my article will be live....

Hello, I hope you will be fine.. My question to you is that my article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Muhammad_Arshad_Khan_(MAK) Aprrox 5 days have passed and no one reviewed my article.. why..??....Before this the process was too fast.. I could get the comment of the reviewer in short time but now it is taking a long time...

Regards, ARKARK (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, ARK, welcome to the Teahouse! Well, the AfC process is entirely dependent on the volunteers who do it. If there are a lot of submissions and not many volunteers, it's gonna take a while. You just gotta be patient. (Although it looks like it was reviewed five minutes after you posted; isn't that always the way?) Anyway, thanks for stopping by! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey ARK! I just wanted emphasize one thing, as I am looking at your submission. The key problem that I see is just that many of your citations do not include the descriptive information that lets us know where they actually were published. We cannot really judge whether they are reliable or not without that information. You seem to know how to use the reference codes themselves, so just try to add to them information such as: what precise newspaper or news site the source came from, who wrote it, and the date of its publication. It really is a good start! hajatvrc @ 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT?

Hi. This section WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT tells me what a reference should look like when I'm referencing something that I haven't seen in the original. But it doesn't tell me how to make the ref look like that. What do I put between the ref tags to do this? I've looked and just can't find it. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tlqk, the easiest way is to do as the example at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does and just write it out as text
Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2.
is produced by typing Smith, John. ''Name of Book I Haven't Seen'', Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). ''Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen''. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2. It might not appear to be the prettiest but it does the job. NtheP (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
So, I literally put that between the ref marks? Tlqk56 (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes :-) NtheP (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Or you can get a template from WP:Cite book which goes between the ref tags and does a standard job.--Charles (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Except that cite book isn't great at quoting one book within another. NtheP (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, what do you know, Nthep, that never occurred to me. I guess I thought you had to have |last=xxx, etc, to make it work. (I looked on that page Charlesdrakew mentioned but didn't see where it did what I needed. Doesn't mean it's not there, though.) Thanks again, both of you! Tlqk56 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the wonderful things about wikipedia is that there isn't a universal policy about how references should be quoted. A lot of people think there should be but it never gets consensus, the normal reason against is that referencing for beginners would be too difficult and therefore off putting. Although I am a fan of the cite templates and the {{sfn}} shortened footnote method of referencing, I do accept that imposing any standard would be difficult and off putting. As long as information added has a reference in some form, I'm happy with that - it can always be tidied up later on. Anyway going back to the cite templates like {{cite book}} they do have their limitations, one of which that you can't nest uses of the template inside each other which is what we are talking about here. In this example you could write it as {{cite book |last=Smith |first=John |name=Name of Book I Haven't Seen |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2009 |page=1}} cited in {{cite book |editor= Paul Jones |name=Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2010 |page=2}} but it isn't essential that it's done this way. If you are interested in learning more about the cite templates, how they work or don't as the case may be you might want to add Help talk:Citation Style 1 to your watchlist. This is a centralised talk page dealing with this series fo templates. There are obviously a lot of tehcnical deabtes go on but there are some more general points about behaviour and how to get the templates to work best. Only yesterday I found out that there is {{cite sign}} for citing signs and plaques etc. NtheP (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried it and it worked! Thanks again, everybody. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_31&oldid=1072498993"