Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 61

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

What is the difference between images uploaded to Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia itself?

I am a new user and I still can't upload to Wikipedia directly but I can upload on Wikimedia commons. I am wondering whats the difference? Is it the same thing? Can I upload content that is not 'strictly' creative commons (eg. just found it on the net somewhere and the license is unclear)? ∞4 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Inifini4, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia and Commons are closely related, but they are separate sites that serve slightly different purposes. Commons is a free image repository; it can only store images that are available in the public domain or have been released under a free licence. Most of Wikipedia's images are drawn from Commons. If you created or photographed a picture yourself, or if you can prove that it is free to be reused, you should upload it to Commons.
It is also possible to upload images directly to Wikipedia. However, this is normally only done if the picture is not free or is otherwise unsuitable for Commons. Examples of such images would be company logos or screenshots of video games, which can be used under the fair-use guidelines (basically, where there is no possible free equivalent). Only autoconfirmed users (users with four days' presence and ten edits) can upload images to Wikipedia itself.
You cannot upload any image where the copyright is unclear, this goes for virtually anything you find on the web (Google images etc.).
I hope that helps clear things up! Yunshui 雲‍水 11:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
If the image is free or you created it, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons right now, and it will become immediately available for use in Wikipedia. If it isn't free, but you believe it may be suitable for upload to Wikipedia, you can file a request at Files for upload. Either way, although it's unusual for an account to be granted confirmed status purely for an image upload, you should file a request at Requests for permissions if you want to be confirmed early. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses. Actually the image is not strictly free, its a corporate logo. But, I guess, ill request confirmation anyway, cause I haven't recovered from my adrenaline rush that I got today for my first ever edit - I am all PUMPED and can't wait. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiniti4 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Definitely go via Files for upload, then. When you get to the "Other" part of the Upload Wizard, make sure you fill in all the fields carefully, especially the "Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload" part. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(and have a read of the non-free content policy first; it's long, but it'll keep you legal!) Yunshui 雲‍水 11:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. You are awesome. I gave you a kitten! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiniti4 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello ∞4, I'd like to follow up on your final question, about where to upload images whose license is unclear. The simple answer is—neither place. We need to have clarity on the license, so that it can be on commons,if it qualifies with a free license, or on Wikipedia is not free, but meets the Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines (sometimes, but not quite correctly, referred to as fair-use). Images where we cannot determine the license create all sorts of headaches, and will generally be deleted eventually, so best not to add them. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, and while people upload things they find on the net somewhere every day, we delete such images whenever we find them. On a more positive note, I'm glad you are here, I'm glad you are pumped, and I love your user name.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Glad you liked my username. I have a question - So what if the owner of the image gives me explicit permission to use his image on Wikipedia? Under what 'license' does that fall into? (The image is copyrighted.) With just his permission, can I then upload it to Wikipedia? ∞4 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, 4! That puts you on kinda shaky ground. If the image is a photograph, the owner of the copyright will have to be willing to release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, the same license that all our writings are released under. It will then be free for anyone to use for any purpose, forever. If the image is a logo, you can upload it without a release for the limited purpose of illustrating an article about the organization that owns the copyright. That is called fair use. Hope this helps. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, have a look at WP:Donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

first time on wikipedia

I am trying to create an article for the first time. I first incorrectly set it up as a live article which was tagged for speedy deletion. Then I read the section on your first article and set it up in my user space with a {{Newuser}} tag and it was still deleted practically immeadiately from here too. What am I doing wrong. I just want an article is a place I can edit it until i want feedback on it? 194.125.111.194 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you created an account? If so, could you log in and post here so we can more easily find the page(s) in question? Thanks! gwickwiretalkedits 02:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

New Article Confirmation Time

Hi,

I would like to know how long does it take an article to be confirmed, which is written by an autoconfirmed user?

Thanks Can.kilic1981 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Can.kilic1981. There is no new article "confirmation" process. Autoconformation is a an editing threshold for accounts (normally passed if one's account is at least four days old and has made ten or more edits) that must be reached in order to take certain actions, such as moving pages, editing semi-protected pages, and uploading files. It is not needed to create an article, which can be done as soon as an account is created.

I can tell you, however, some hurdles that articles may or may not have to pass through, that you might or might not have been thinking about or interested in when you used the word "confirmed". Initially, if an article is created through the articles for creation process rather than directly, it must be passed by a reviewer. There is no set length of time for this, and the process does get backlogged. If it is not passed it can be worked on to address any problems noted and resubmitted. If you submit an article directly, it will appear at Special:NewPages, where patrollers will (rather quickly normally) mark the page as patrolled and may take various actions including helping out in various ways, but they might also, if the article is problematic, tag it for maintenance, or even tag it for speedy deletion, propose it for deletion or take it to articles for deletion.

On the other end of the process, well-developed, fine articles may be peer reviewed for improvement, may be nominated to be listed as good articles or most stringently, nominated to be listed as featured articles, and thereafter, nominated to appear as Today's featured article on the main page of the site. Hope this overview helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much

You provide very good summary of the process :))) Can.kilic1981 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploading images to Taxobox

Hello,

I have added two images to Wikimedia Commons: - one is a map found on another Wiki page that I modified (cropped) - the other is a new image. Both have Wiki Commons clearance.

My problem is in trying to add the Wiki link (i.e. [[ ]]) to the Taxobox - or in fact to the main content. Unfortunately, I've lost the file names for both files and cannot find them in the edit history or by searching the Wikimedia Commons site.

Any suggestions? Thanks, Ocococo (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ocococo, hi and welcome. As logins on all wiki accounts are global, you have the same username on Commons as you do here so if you go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ocococo you'll see all your edits including your uploads. NtheP (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much, NtheP - found the file names and managed to add the images, although not within the Taxobox. Good enough! Ocococo (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hello. What is the advantage of being a Wikiproject member?Kuba.greenland (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kuba; welcome to the Teahouse. The benefits are, in all honesty, variable depending on which project you join; however in principle, being part of a WikiProject:
  • puts you in touch with other editors who have similar interests
  • gives you a variety of resources to help you create good content in that subject area
  • gives you suggestions for articles you might like to edit, improve or create
  • enables you to rate articles according to the WikiProject's rating scale
  • alerts you to articles in that topic field which are listed for deletion at AFD
On a less project-related level, I find that being part of a WikiProject is great for increasing my own knowledge in that area; poking around can uncover all sorts of aspects to your field of interest that you were never even aware of. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Updates to product pages and being up to date.

I was looking over the VAIO article and it has a lot of information for some products and skips information about others. Also when describing a product it doesn't talk about differences in different regions. I was wondering what's the philosophy about out dated products and product evolutions. Do we keep information about old products or delete it? Is it wikipedia's role to try to provide specs and consumer information?

Which approach is better the Toshiba Satellite page with more timeless information or the VAIO page which tries to be up to date and with specific details, but a bit random.

7ragon5ly (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! That was a great question. The general rule is that notability is not temporary, so if information will probably be irrelevant in a few years, it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Therefore, articles should include some information about all products past and present, but shouldn't go into too much detail about stuff that will be outdated soon. So I would say that the Toshiba Satellite article is a good model for balance (although the article has other problems, especially a shortage of references. Unfortunately, most articles have a recentism bias, meaning they're slanted heavily towards recent events. This bias is very difficult to avoid, but it's still worth trying. -- YPNYPN 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Is there a maximum number of times an article can be featured in the DYK section? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, it's once only. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, DYK is only for new or greatly expanded articles. See Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
So won't that make it possible for an article to appear twice on DYK? First time: Newly created, 1500 prose characters within past five days. Second time: Expanded fivefold Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 07:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the article says: "Items that have been on DYK before (pre-expansion, for example) are ineligible." PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Declining a page at AFC

Do you have to be an official reviewer to decline a page at AFC if it is obvious garbage, like this? King jakob c (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi King jakob c. You don't have to be any sort of official to review new pages (there exists a Reviewer userright, but it's for reviewing pending changes, not new pages). As long as you have a basic grasp of Wikipedia's basic inclusion requirements, you are welcome to patrol new pages - there are some instructions to help you get started at this page. Your assistance would be appreciated, since AFC is nearly always backlogged these days. As for that particular page, I've deleted it as spurious vandalism, so no review required! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Its in preferences, under gadgets, theres a program called "Yet another AFC Helper Script" click the checkmark box next to it and save. Then, when on an AFC article, there is a little tab next to the search bar, roll over it and click "Review". Hope that helps you! §haun 9∞76 ༆ 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Signing problems

When I try to join a project I put my name down but sometimes it comes up with template:(something) when I preview. I'm pretty sure I follow the format everyone else uses. Other times when just my username comes up it doesn't link to my user page like the other names do. Can anyone explain this?

Quintus Petronius Augustus 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus (talk • contribs)

Hi! The software will automatically insert your name and a timestamp wherever you type in 4 tildes ((Like this: ~~~~). Doing this will also make your username link to your userpage. You could do this manually, but it really is a pain.

Tazerdadog (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Look how others have put their name at the project. In [1] you only wrote Quintus Petronius Augustus instead of {{User0|Quintus Petronius Augustus}}. The easiest way to get your ~~~~ signature to work is to remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem with infobox

Hello I am writing an article and my infobox has a the following message in it between two of the pictures:[[Image:|230px]]. I know there is a way to remove but I can't get it removed. Can someone shed some light on the for me? Anonymouswhovian (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind after a little more poking around I was able to fix it. Thanks anyway. Anonymouswhovian (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing Semi-Protected Page

Do you have to have a reference if you edit a semi-protected page? Amy4947 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amy. Welcome to the teahouse. The only difference that semi protection makes is that unregistered editors or accounts less than four days old can not edit the page. This is done when a page is subject to frequent vandalism. Referencing is just the same as for any other page and protection is usually lifted quite quickly.--Charles (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Writing about your own papers on Wikipedia

I would like to know if there are any situations in which it is appropriate to cite my own work on Wikipedia. There have been discussions about this on my own talk page and on others, specifically about this, but I would like to get other people’s perspectives on this. For many of the topics that I wish to discuss on Wikipedia, only three or four labs worldwide work on these topics, including my own. And given that each lab sometimes supports a different hypothesis (and there is no consensus on most of these issues), it seems fair to expose all viewpoints, including my own. I have published about 100 papers on these topics, mostly in reputable, international, peer-reviewed journals. But each time I did, some editors removed my page (usually the same couple editors), while others put it back, realizing that this text was useful. I always try to put any paper I cite (whether or not it is my own) in the correct context, of course.

On a related topic, and this too has been evoked on my talk page, but I find the Wikipedia custom or guideline of emphasizing secondary literature at the expanse of primary literature inappropriate in natural sciences. In such fields, we are encouraged by editors and referees of peer-reviewed journals to consult the primary sources (mostly papers in peer-reviewed journals), which are considered far more reliable than review papers (and my experience fully supports this).

I thank you all in advance for the information that you may provide. I did not give much information about myself because you can find that easily on my Wikipedia biographical page (to which I did not contribute, nor did I initiate or suggest it) or on my Google Scholar profile. Nevertheless, it may perhaps be useful to point out here that despite the fact that I am fairly new at Wikipedia and have only elementary knowledge of html programming, I can be considered an experienced scientist and editor of scientific publications (I serve as Chief Editor of one journal and serve on several other editorial boards). This is why I felt compelled to share my insights about editing tradition in peer-reviewed journals. Michel Laurin (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed publications are held to be, generally, amongst the most reliable sources on Wikipedia. Some people aren't aware of this, since not all editors have worked in article spaces that revolve around scientific study. With regards to self publishing material, to quote WP:Reliable sources: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The problem you seem to be having stems from editors who deal with more general cases who aren't familiar with what peer-reviewed literature represents. It should be feasible to engage in discussion and correct this. Wikipolicy seems to be on your side. Still, I'll have a look through your contributions and see if there's anything more specific about your topic or behaviour I can put a finger on that might be causing you trouble. -Rushyo Talk 20:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had a quick look and I would like to further note that consensus on what should go on Wikipedia is absolutely distinct from scientific consensus. Consensus is a very important part of Wikipedia editing. If a change is controversial and there is a dispute then all parties should attempt to reach consensus on the content rather than the actual subject. We have lots of ways of handling such disputes but generally you'll find that discussing them often works. If not, there are dispute resolution options (some of which you're familiar with) ranging from the wonderfully informal (WP:Third Opinion) to Serious Business (WP:ArbCom). They're not a nuclear option (well ArbCom is but you'll probably never invoke that), they're just part of editing in a consensus-driven environment. We can write about scientific disputes without ever needing a scientific consensus. That's why we can have such lengthy articles on pseudosciences. If somebody went through and systematically erased my work my response would be to clarify the policies and guidelines in my own head, discuss it with the person in question and then, failing all else, find an appropriate outlet for dispute resolution. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there's no need to worry about how long such a process can take. In the meantime, unless it's an article about a living person there's probably no need to take short term action. Anyone can erase your additions but anyone can restore them as well, at any time. -Rushyo Talk 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rushyo, that was very useful. So far, disputes I have been involved in seem to have been resolved by a third (and sometimes, a fourth) editor, although I was hoping to find a way to make that unnecessary, on a routine basis. But I suppose that this is probably not possible. You are probably correct that the editors that I had problems with seem unaware of what a peer-reviewed scientific paper is, and conversely, those who helped me seem to be well-aware of it. I suppose I will just have to keep arguing each case. It will take longer, but should do the job. Michel Laurin (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Bear in mind that peer review does not bestow independence in a paper, it bestows reliability. We look for both independence and reliability in sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cropping wiki commons photos - etiquette and procedure

For a page I have written, Stephen Waley-Cohen, I want a cropped version of the photo that I found on wiki commons, [2]. The photo has some redundant space on the left and right and is essentially 'landscape' when I would like a version that is basically 'portrait', so I'd like a version of the photo with the left and right parts cropped out.

I left a message for the photographer around 10 days ago, inviting him to upload a cropped version, but have had no response whatsoever.

The photo is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license(s).

Therefore I have edited the photo to produce a cropped version myself. I would like to upload my version, but a) what is the etiquette of doing that? b) in terms of licensing, should I just copy all the stuff from the existing photo page?

Thanks

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can upload it under the same license as the original image. But, in the summary box, mention the original author's name in the 'author' field. In the 'source' field, mention that the image is a derivative of the original image and provide a link to the original image. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)NoMatterTryAgain, great question. The way to do this is to upload the photo in its own right and leave the original photo as it is. When you licence it, the licence is yours but you should credit the original image. As an example have a look at the licencing and information on File:MartinScorsese(cannes).crop.jpg where the original editor is acknowledged and the differences noted. There is more information on this topic at Commons:Overwriting existing files. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. NtheP (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'Multiple Issues' at top of article

Hi there, I am admin for this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Williamson

I would like to remove these issues, as I have edited the page and they no longer apply: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2012) This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. (April 2009) This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (March 2012)

How do I do this?

I would be so grateful for your help!

Very best,


Rosanna MWWorld (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rosanna, welcome to the Teahouse!
You can't remove that list of issues, because you have not fixed the problems they refer to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rosanna. First off, let me disabuse you of the notion that you are "an admin for the page". You are not - you have no administrative priviledges, you do not own the page and you have no more authority over the article than any other editor. I'm sorry to be harsh, but it's important that you understand this from the outset if your Wikipedia career is to be anything more than a brief edit-war and a block.
As far as the tags go:
  • "This article needs additional citations for verification." It does. At present, it contains no reliable sources at all, making it a candidate for deletion under the Biography of living persons policy. If you add reliable, independent sources to the article to verify the information there, then this tag can be removed.
  • "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject." It does. All of the links provided are to inappropriate primary sources (Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are not considered reliable sources or even appropriate external links, and Williams' own webpage is obviously a primary source).
  • "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." As William's Head of Digital, are you claiming that you don't have a close connection to the subject?
  • "This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information". Unsourced phrases like "world renowned", "highly recognisable signature aesthetic", "a master of print, embellishment, attention to detail and kaleidoscopic colour", "Matthew’s collections encapsulate a bohemian spirit and a laid back sense of glamour", "His luxury fashion house" (and that's just from the lead paragraph) are in complete violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and do indeed subjectively promote the subject without imparting any useful information.
Yunshui 雲‍水 11:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Note for anyone following this up: I have now edited the article to correct the issues raised, and removed the tags. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with sources

I have been criticized and told that I am showing a lack of respect for my fellow editors for using this sourcing URL converter: [3] My computer abilities are very limited and I have been unable to figure the more complicated ones out. Any suggestions? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. I think it might help us if you provided more context, so we can see view the criticism, examine the edits that were criticized and then give a more targeted answer. Can you provide links? If you don't know, a link can be created by enclosing the name of most pages in doubled brackets. For example, if I wanted to post somewhere a link to my talk page, I would type [[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit]], which would then appear when I saved as User talk:Fuhghettaboutit. I did look at your contributions a bit, and your talk page, but didn't see where this issue came up. Anyway, without that context, you might find some general help by looking at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. There are also other automated tools to be explored at Help:Citation tools. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is the complaint: I would also like to repeat once more my humble request to respect fellow editors and to follow the existing citing style in this article by using citing templates instead of adding bare links and filling them with a bot. Beagel (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC) It is at the bottom of this page: [[4]]. I have been editing for some years now and mostly, in the early years, I learned how to edit by looking at the way that others did it, which won't work for some things... Over the years I tried several times to learn how to convert my sources but was never able to figure it out. So, I was overjoyed when a fellow editor recently shared her easy method with me (the one I linked to above) and for awhile, all was well. If the one that I am using is not acceptable, do you have another suggestion for one that is not too difficult? Thanks in advance and I want to say that this is the very first time in all of the years that I've asked for help that a helper did more than just refer me to a help page--they didn't seem to understand that I was aware of the help pages but couldn't figure them out.  :-) Gandydancer (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I use these?

You might use all three, but the problem comes up when you are inserting something you don't really understand, so you don't tailor it and thus you get these artifacts like "auto generated title" and the like. These programs can be very useful and time savers, but their output almost always requires tweaking because they can't pass a Turing test. I think helping you understand citing and citation templates would help, and so I am going to try to simplify and break it down below in short bites. Feel free to ask as many follow-up questions as you'd like:
  • Many html tags work in this form: <some command> some text being formatted by that tag and then to end it, the same thing again but with a forward slash ("/") before it (</same command>)
  • Example: if you want to make something boldface in html, the command is simply a "b" and so you would type <b>text you want boldfaced</b>. Remember that format < > then </ > with the command in between the code.
  • For footnoted citations the command is "ref" and anything you want to appear in the References section at the bottom of a page is placed in the text between the ref tags, using the grammar <ref>text></ref>. So, if you wanted to say, cite to "Hamlet", Act 1, Scene 1, you would place in the text where you wanted to cite to it <ref>Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1</ref>
  • Example: if you typed "Horatio's ghost says "Stay! speak, speak! I charge thee, speak!"<ref>Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1</ref>", when you save it will appear like this:

    Horatio's ghost says "Stay! speak, speak! I charge thee, speak!"[1]

    ==References==

    1. ^ Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1.

  • Citation templates just supply code to place between the ref tags so that citations format consistently; they supply punctuation, formatting like italics and the ordering of the information automatically. Again, they go between the ref tags (<ref> here </ref>), just like something as simple as "Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1."
  • Templates are a piece of code that always start with {{ and end with }} The citation templates are just paint by numbers: go to the template page grab the text and fill in the parameters. Each part is separated by a pipe ("|") and is something to fill in after an equal sign. So, if you see for example the paramter |year=, you just need to supply the relevant year for your citation.
  • Example: {{cite book}} (click on that to copy and paste the code) has many parameters one can use but most you won't need; just use what you want and delete or leave parameters you don't use blank. Typical information to supply is title, author's first name and last name, page number, publisher, maybe location, and isbn if there is one. So for Hamlet, you might use {{cite book|title=Hamlet|first=William|last=Shakespeare|publisher=Avon Press|location=Stratford|year=1609}} <--That's what you would place between the ref tags. That would format like this:

                Shakespeare, William (1609). Hamlet. Stratford: Avon Press.

    and if between ref tags, would appear in the references section.

  • Example: {{cite news}} is the same thing. Click on the template, copy and paste the code between the ref tags, fill in the parameters you wish to use, delete or leave blank others, e.g., {{cite news|newspaper=The New York Times|title=Hamlet is a Great Play|last=Friedman|first=Thomas|date=December 10, 2012}} which formats like this:

                Friedman, Thomas (December 10, 2012). "Hamlet is a Great Play". The New York Times.

    and if placed between ref tags, would appear in the references section.

  • Okay, let's put it all together. You want to use the citation template cite book for Hamlet and make that a reference. Add where you want the footnote to appear in the text:

    <ref>{{cite book|title=Hamlet|first=William|last=Shakespeare|publisher=Avon Press|location=Stratford|year=1609}}</ref>

Does that help at all?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Article rating

Hi! I've created an article (Snow Treasure) through the AFC method, and the reviewer who passed it rated it as a stub article. How was this determined, and what do I need to do to get it "upgraded"? Thanks, Jakob 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your article was rated as stub-class because it does not cover nearly as much about the novel as it could. However, (I have not read the novel, so I'm generalizing here, and maybe the reviewer thinks differently), I'm looking at it and thinking that it could be C-class, or start-class at the least. The simplest way to upgrade your rating is to add more content with citations. The different ratings are FA, GA, A, B+, B, C, start, and stub for most articles, in descending order. You can get a detailed explanation of what each rating involves at Template:Grading scheme. öBrambleberry_ meow _ watch me in action 21:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry, I must sound stupid, but if I add more content, will it be automatically "upgraded", or does someone have to do that manually? Thanks again, Jakob 22:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The answer is no, it will not be upgraded automatically, because it's really a personal opinion of a user what rating it receives, just like how I think it deserves higher than stub-class at the moment. The best that you can do is add more content with reliable sources and eventually someone will come along and change it. You can also ask for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review when you think that it's much better, and other editors will tell you what they think. I can give it a look after some changes if you wish. öBrambleberry_ meow _ watch me in action 22:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to add the following: Ratings are provided by WikiProjects. WikiProjects are groups of editor who focus on particular subject areas or with particular goals in mind. Although articles for creation has its own WikiProject I'd recommend tagging your page as part of WikiProject Children's literature. They have focused reviewers who can provide more tailored advice and scoring. Check out their assessment page which explains how to add your book to their WikiProject's scope. Somebody will then come along and automatically review it without you needing to do anything (Note: Don't add your name at the bottom, that's only for submitting previously reviewed articles for re-review)! It also lets people interested in children's literature know your article exists. -Rushyo Talk 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)\
Thanks, both of you for the advise! Jakob 04:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - responded to wrong discussion - please ignore

Susan 11:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

will my article be published

I have been working on my article for about a week now. I'd like to get an opinion on whether you guys think it will published before I post it. Shomburg (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:AFC where people can review your article and give tips on wether or not it would be deleted once it became and actual viewable article. Cheers! §haun 9∞76 ༆ 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


Thanx Shaun. My article is in Sandbox how do I transfer it to WP;AFC for review? Shomburg (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a Template you can add, I'll see if I can help §haun 9∞76 ༆ 02:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't need to, since it already has, Good Luck! §haun 9∞76 ༆ 02:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting "published"

After discovering much information on Wikipedia about a wide variety of subjects I came across one of interest on which I had personal knowledge, the Train Collectors Association. I updated the information, only to be "deleted" within 48 hours. Now I'm feeling that I'm never going to get the article "up to snuff" in order to get it republished.

If the intent of Wikipedia is to make the articles editable, they certainly delete very quickly. It might be more user friendly to walk a new editor through a short training before allowing edits. That way a person knows what they are getting into and whether they are ready for the long haul.

New Editor, Carol McGinnisCarol.McGinnis (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carol! We do have an Adopt-a-user program for new users that guides them through the basics of Wikipedia. This course is entirely optional, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You can request adoption, if you'd like. If you post the article that you're trying to modify, perhaps someone could shed some light on why the content may have been removed. Thanks again! Go Phightins! 19:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Carol! I, too, apologize for your bad initial experience here at Wikipedia. Firstly, let me give some good news. Someone came along and rescued your article on the National Toy Train Museum. And the article you are working on at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Train Collectors Association isn't dead, it has just been declined for now. You can keep working on it, and many of us here will be glad to help! From the look of it, you have surmounted the reference problem. All that remains is some cleanup, which if you will allow me, I'll be happy to help with. On a related note, I would be very interested in hearing what we could do better to make things easier for new editors to succeed. If you have the time and inclination to help us make things easier, please feel free to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Thanks! BTW, I like my trains 1:1 scale! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Go for it, Carol! Wikipedia created standards of requiring verifiable information published in reliable sources not connected with an organization long ago. I see your Train Collectors Association article battling its way through the Articles for Creation. Nice work on the National Toy Train Museum article, by the way. Still there, just modified to correspond to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Back to the Train Collectors Association (TCA) article. You might try posting to the forums of the various TCA divisions around the country. Tell them that you're trying to develop an article on Wikipedia and ask that local groups email you about coverage of their events and displays published in local and regional newspapers, magazines, TV stations and such. Explain that it needs to be a feature, more than just announcements of meetings or swap meets. You need things like the article in http://tnhomeandfarm.com/tn-train-show-brings-locomotion-commotion but unfortunately, you can't use that article because the parent company, Journal Communications, tried to use Wikipedia to promote their sites and all of their sites are permanently blacklisted. You're likely to find what you need is out there but it doesn't show up in Google and Bing searches. Once you find a couple of those independent reliable sources about the TCA, your article will be approved. Then you'll have to put up with the Wiki Fairies quickly changing your article. Good luck and keep us informed of your progress, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Nat'l Toy Train Museum is close to my hometown; I've been there a few times. Go Phightins! 03:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you

Wordcraft (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

linking categories

Hi, I'm new. I tried linking Category:Construction terminology and Category:Glossary of Architecture but after several attempts I could not get the link to show up in the preview. Can categories be linked?

Thanks; Jim Derby (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Jim, welcome to the Teahouse. Categories can be linked but I'm not seeing why you'd want to link these two. Categories are a navigation aid and sit inside a hierarchical structure. So categories can be members of other categories. If you can explain in what way you want to link them, then I'm sure we can explain how. Incidentally Category:Glossary of Architecture doesn't exist, there is an article with the name Glossary of architecture but not a category. NtheP (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry from being a dweeb. I have been unable to link Category:Construction terminology to the article Glossary of Architecture. These two pages have many interchangeable entries and are closely related. People, such as myself, will benefit from a link between these areas. I just added Category:Construction terminology to the gloss of arch. and I now understand it might not show up for a while in the construction terminology page. I do not know how to make a link for people looking at the gloss or arch. to know their is a page of const. terminology. Thanks again; Jim Derby (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

[[Category:Construction terminology]] places the page in Category:Construction terminology and adds a link in a box at the bottom of the page after "Categories:". Such code can be placed anywhere but is nearly always placed at the end of an aritcle and not in a See also section. [[:Category:Construction terminology]] with a colon at the start makes the inline link Category:Construction terminology and doesn't place the page in the category. See more at Help:Category. Links to categories are rarely used in See also sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The glossary of architecture now shows up in the Category:Construction terminology, but I am not sure how to let people who are looking at the Glossary of Architecture how to get to Category:Construction terminology. I hope you see my logic in trying to link these pages. Also, people looking for definitions may not scroll to the bottom of a page so in all glossaries I suggest the "See also" section be put near the top of the page. Also I have other questions, should I start new sections for each topic or just fire away here? Thanks; Jim Derby (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Hotcat would help. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 23:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

making a signature

hello i was wandering how to customize my signature Zeroro (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Zeroro, and welcome to the Teahouse. There's some basic information at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. The basic procedure is to go to "Preferences", and then put your modified signature in the "Signature" box. If you're reformatting your signature using Wiki markup, make sure to check the "Treat the above as wiki markup. " box. Does that help? --Jayron32 05:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


yes, thank you zeroro(talk)(cont) 05:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

hello

I need help in doing the article on Dj Maurizio Saez I not good in coding and want this page to stay LOL Please help he has allot of stuff on google

DjxMau (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, DjxMau! The good news is you don't need to know a lot about coding to edit Wikipedia. In fact, the page Maurizio Saez is formatted fine. The bad news is that you wrote an article about yourself, which is usually not appropriate. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.) A bigger problem is that Wikipedia doesn't let you write about anything, the subject needs to be notable. That doesn't just mean that the subject has to be important, but there has to be a few independent sources which talk about the subject. There's a lot of information on Google, but most of it was written by the subject, like his Facebook and Twitter page. If you find reliable sources, like news articles from national papers, other encyclopedias, and so on, you can include this article. Until then, I'm afraid it will be deleted. -- YPNYPN 04:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What does the spirit of the rule mean?

In the essay "What 'Ignore All Rules means" it states "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. What is meant by the spirit of the rule? (That1user (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, That1User, welcome to the Teahouse! That's a pretty tricky question (but a really good one!); the "spirit of the law" is an idiomatic expression, and it's a bit hard to explain. There's no one all-encompassing answer to it. The idea is that rules, especially on Wikipedia but also in most places in general, aren't just things that everyone has to arbitrarily follow. The rules have a reason. There's a goal behind them. So, for example: Wikipedia has rules about edit-warring. The reason we have rules against edit-warring is because constant reversion and arguing detracts from the article, as the article keeps getting changed needlessly. The goal here is a better, more stable article. But sometimes, the rule as it is written might interfere with its goal. So, if a vandal keeps blanking an article and replacing it with the word "poop", the rules about edit-warring might appear to say that we can't just keep reverting him and restoring the article, because that would be edit-warring. But, in this obvious situation, we can allow ourselves to ignore the rule about edit warring and keep reverting the vandal. While it might be against the specific language of the rules (proverbially, the "letter of the law"), it actually supports the reason and the goal of the law (proverbially, the "spirit of the law").
Now, in that specific example, we don't actually have to ignore the rules on edit warring, because the rules on edit warring have built-in, written exceptions for reverting vandalism. By definition, reverting vandalism doesn't count as edit-warring. But we can't think of every exception we'll ever need and write them into the rules, so instead, we have "Ignore all rules", which lets us improvise and gives us wiggle room, so that we're not hamstrung by our own rules. Of course, one must also be careful, though: remember that the rules are there for a reason, which means you need a really good reason to ignore them. "Just because you want to" doesn't cut it. "Ignoring all rules" isn't about just doing what you want without respect to the rules, it's more about keeping the rules from tripping over themselves. Does that make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Elaboration: See Letter and spirit of the law, wikt:spirit of the law. ⁓ Hello71 03:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Bot that removes stuff for no reason

I'm a native Chinese speaker, and I'm 101 percent sure that zh:大佳河滨公园 is the same as en:Dajia Riverside Park, so I added a link to zh wiki entry on the Dajia Riverside Park article here. But a bot named User:JackieBot has removed it twice. In order not to be engaged in an edit war, I have decided to seek advice here. Why would a bot do that? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the bot isn't sentient, it doesn't know to be afraid of clowns. I've left a message for the bot owner on their talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Haha... Nice one there. Thanks! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
May be reason in the wrong chinese letters? diff. Bot not seen article with the previouse version of zh-interwiki. I just go via "old" link and put new page name from zh-wiki instead wrong interwiki. — Jack 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S. at the next time just put message on the bot's talk page or on the my personal talk page. — Jack 16:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDb

Hi guys, I was always under the impression that IMDb was NOT a reliable source, but then just today I realized that the Michael Jackson article (which is a featured article) cites a bio on IMDb as a source. Many other good articles use IMDb as sources too. On a scale of 49-70, how reliable would IMDb be? (Okay, 0-10, if you wish) Personally, I find it quite useful and reliable. Thanks! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDB should never be used as a reliable source but it may be used as an external link. See WP:IMDB.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Understand, but is everything user generated? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Some is, some isn't. Some is produced by experts, some is scraped from other sources and some comes from volunteers. AFAIK there's no simple way to know which is which. -Rushyo Talk 17:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I once asked why a movie I wanted to review hadn't been put on there and they said I could do it myself. Not knowing how, I made a complete mess of the credits because I didn't know they would take my information just the way I submitted it, or order it according to some pattern I wasn't expecting, which wasn't quite in the order that it would usually be done. Normally, I would think, this part would be done by professionals.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

How do I move my article from sandbox?

hello everyone, I'd like to get an opinion on my article and be instructed on how to go live from sandbox. thank you Shomburg (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Another editor helped move your article to the right space, and I'm now looking it over and adding tags. I have a few concerns so far:
  • So far your only category is Category:A&R Executive Producer Credits; that's not actually an existing category (which is why it's in red). To get an idea how categories work, read WP:CAT, or find a biography of a similar DJ/A&R person and take inspiration from what categories that article shows.
  • You have one reference that's just a long Google link; you'll want to turn that into a proper citation.
  • In the Discography, for no apparent reason you're CAPITALISING the names of all the musicians; there's no need to do that, just type them in standard caps.
  • Those are the basic structural things, but the real issue is that it's not clear your subject meets WP:Notability. While you do provide a body of sourcing, I'm not seeing any of the coverage that describes him substantively. You have a variety of passing mentions where he speaks to a journalist on behalf of a record label (about some talent), and articles that briefly mention him in a list of people in the credits, and even a few articles that don't appear to mention his name. I'm not seeing anywhere you've given that has even a single paragraph explaining who he is and why he's important. "Notability is not inherited", so even if he has been tangentially associated with a large number of famous people, that does not necessarily make him Notable. I would take a look at that policy, and optionally the more specific Wikipedia:Notability (music). Does he have coverage meeting those guidelines, or is it all just bits and pieces of coverage that don't really discuss him and his career in depth? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Matthew, I have made the changes you suggested. I found more ref material that focuses on him and I also changed the category to "music industry". I have read about him in magazines but I don't know how to use that as reference material. can you give it another look and let me know if this is sufficient? I'll keep editing as need be to keep this article up. thanx Shomburg (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the same question as here, for anyone who may not have noticed.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

how do i go live from sandbox

I have asked a couple question and can not find my responses. I would like to go live with my article and have it reviewed first. I dont know how to transfer the draft from sandbox. Shomburg (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is easily done in the following steps: 1. Copy what you have written in your sandbox that is your new article. 2. Search the name of your proposed article in Wikipedia. 3. It hopefully should say "The article '_______'(whatever you typed) does not exist. Click here to create it'. 4. Paste the text into the box and click save, your article will then go live Mikeo34 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Shomberg, and welcome to the Teahouse. It may be easy but it's not recommended. Let's say you want to call your article "Punch TV". You would create User:Shomberg/Punch TV (after clicking on the red link) and copy your content there. That would mean the article would get reviewed, though I understand there is a backlog and it would take several weeks. But the article would have less chance of being deleted this way.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you received further help here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

is it true that wikipedia prefers sources from books rather than internet??

Its annoying for me to no end if people use books as a source to back up their data and facts. Because books are not online you cant rent them or buy them all the time as they sometimes dont exist anymore in the stores, and who has the money and time to do this to really check it out if they do exist. So is it true and if yes how can i change that? Is it possible to wrtite to admins or something?--Noelmantra (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

question moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. NtheP (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Noel, welcome to the Teahouse! In a way, it is true that Wikipedia usually prefers books to online sources, but probably not in the way that you're thinking. There's no policy anywhere that says that books are preferred over websites; in fact, no particular format is specifically preferred over any other. All we really care about is reliability. The problem with websites is that they're incredibly easy for anyone to just go ahead and write, whereas most authors have to convince at least their publishers to print them. We don't have an actual preference for books specifically; it just looks that way because of how many unreliable websites there are. If we could be said to have a preference for anything, it would be articles published in scholarly academic journals, since those are much more likely to be reliable due to the peer-review process. Even then though, it's not a specific preference; it's just that they're usually reliable. Reliability is king at Wikipedia, and not much else matters. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
If you look at a few article discussion pages, you’ll generally see self-published books, for example, being disparaged as sources; OTOH there are plenty of professionally created or curated websites that are considered highly reliable—but things like blogs and forums, where there is no independent fact-checking, are not among them.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
One exception I learned is that for an organization to get a new article it must be "noted" by other published sources. I wrote an article about the Timber Framers Guild, a non-profit, educational, international organization and it was declined because I have no references from published sources. Apparently in this case reliability is not all that is needed, notability is also needed. Also, as a scholar I am well aware that information printed in books is not inherently reliable. Jim Derby (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Allowing printed books as sources does mean that hoaxes like the one deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bridgestock are harder to spot, but, let's keep in mind that hoax was spotted anyway, and someone who did own some of the books was able to check them out.
Verifiability does not require that sources are easy to verify, just that it's possible. Some books may indeed be long out of print, but they are still available in the biggest of libraries, and that's enough to satisfy the verifiability policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
See WP:OFFLINE, an essay on offline sources. ⁓ Hello71 03:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_61&oldid=1072192295"