Nathan2055 (talk | contribs) |
Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) →Importing a Photograph: as far as using it once it's uploaded... |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
I am in the final stages of preparing an article on my sandbox. How do I import a jpg photo into the article? May I do it first in the sandbox? How do I format it for size and placement? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.[[User:Jmolf|Jmolf]] ([[User talk:Jmolf|talk]]) 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
I am in the final stages of preparing an article on my sandbox. How do I import a jpg photo into the article? May I do it first in the sandbox? How do I format it for size and placement? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.[[User:Jmolf|Jmolf]] ([[User talk:Jmolf|talk]]) 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Hi Jmolf, good to see you. Have you uploaded the image to Wikipedia yet? If you have not, use the [[Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard|File Upload Wizard]] to do so. Make sure you know the copyright status of the image - be sure not to upload anything which is under copyright. If you have further questions, please do ask. [[User:ItsZippy|ItsZippy]] <sup>([[User Talk:ItsZippy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ItsZippy|contributions]])</sup> 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
:Hi Jmolf, good to see you. Have you uploaded the image to Wikipedia yet? If you have not, use the [[Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard|File Upload Wizard]] to do so. Make sure you know the copyright status of the image - be sure not to upload anything which is under copyright. If you have further questions, please do ask. [[User:ItsZippy|ItsZippy]] <sup>([[User Talk:ItsZippy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ItsZippy|contributions]])</sup> 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
:As far as formatting it, once you've uploaded the picture, you can put it in your article by doing this: <code><nowiki>[[File:</nowiki>''image_name.jpg''<nowiki>]]</nowiki></code>. So, for [[:File:Rainbow_trout_transparent.png|this picture]] as an example, you would write <code><nowiki>[[File:Rainbow_trout_transparent.png]]</nowiki></code>. There are many different things you can do to influence the display of the images, like making it a thumbnail, change it to display on the left or right, etc. You can find a bunch of these at [[WP:Picture tutorial|the picture tutorial]]. Naturally, if you have anything specific in mind, you can ask us, too! [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==How are reviewers determined?== |
==How are reviewers determined?== |
Revision as of 17:04, 12 April 2012
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Importing a Photograph
I am in the final stages of preparing an article on my sandbox. How do I import a jpg photo into the article? May I do it first in the sandbox? How do I format it for size and placement? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.Jmolf (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Jmolf, good to see you. Have you uploaded the image to Wikipedia yet? If you have not, use the File Upload Wizard to do so. Make sure you know the copyright status of the image - be sure not to upload anything which is under copyright. If you have further questions, please do ask. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- As far as formatting it, once you've uploaded the picture, you can put it in your article by doing this:
[[File:image_name.jpg]]
. So, for this picture as an example, you would write[[File:Rainbow_trout_transparent.png]]
. There are many different things you can do to influence the display of the images, like making it a thumbnail, change it to display on the left or right, etc. You can find a bunch of these at the picture tutorial. Naturally, if you have anything specific in mind, you can ask us, too! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
How are reviewers determined?
I am curious as to the process Wikipedia uses to determine who reviews articles. Do reviewers usually have some subject matter experience or expertise in an article's subject matter?18.36.0.62 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, 18.36, welcome to the Teahouse! There's not really any process that Wikipedia uses to determine who gets to review and who doesn't; it's basically anyone who wants to volunteer. Ideally, the reviewer would know about the subject, but it's ultimately up to to individual reviewers to decide if they have sufficient background or not on a specific article. Keep in mind that it's also not always bad to have a layman reviewer (so to speak). Since Wikipedia's reader audience isn't focused on experts, having a user who's unfamiliar with the subject review an article can provide some good outside perspective on the article's comprehensibility and accessibility. It can also be useful for determining what should be cited; something that's clear and obvious to an expert in the field might not be so obvious to someone who doesn't have that kind of background. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- On the flipside, as someone who is a researcher by trade, it's helpful for me to have reviewers who actually know about what I'm writing about. I've had articles nominated for deletion instantly because the reviewer doesn't understand the scholarly resources, the field the person worked in, etc. So, I think it just depends. I do notice that a lot of articles that deserve inclusion generally aren't accepted. Hopefully here at the Teahouse we can lend a hand at helping new editors improve their contributions so more articles get accepted. It seems like a tough battle for those on both sides of the AfC project. Sarah (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Howdy! Do you mean with Articles for Creation? If so, then it is usually, as Writ Keeper said, volunteers. Thanks, Nathan2055talk 17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- On the flipside, as someone who is a researcher by trade, it's helpful for me to have reviewers who actually know about what I'm writing about. I've had articles nominated for deletion instantly because the reviewer doesn't understand the scholarly resources, the field the person worked in, etc. So, I think it just depends. I do notice that a lot of articles that deserve inclusion generally aren't accepted. Hopefully here at the Teahouse we can lend a hand at helping new editors improve their contributions so more articles get accepted. It seems like a tough battle for those on both sides of the AfC project. Sarah (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Any advice on accidentally having published an article?
Hello, I've been developing a first draft in my Sandbox on Production Paradise. However I apparently inadvertently published an old draft (lacking sources), which was quickly tagged for speedy deletion.
I addressed the speedy deletion tag explaining what happened on the article's talk page and then updated the published version with my up-to-date Sandbox version.
Is this what I should have done? Alternatively is there a way to "unpublish" the published article? The idea was to finish the draft in my Sandbox and request feedback here before publishing. Mav8 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is a situation where my attitude is "Well, you can't break anything". You didn't actually publish it, someone else did, by moving it to the live space from the general sandbox, rather than your personal one. If you like, we can delete the article speedily under WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion), and you can publish it when you're ready. WormTT · (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, otherwise, I thought I should say I think you handled everything very well. WormTT · (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
how do you move an article from sand box to share??Yuzenasjohnston (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Yuzenasjohnston, to move a page from sandbox to mainspace you need to "Move" it. You'll find an option (titled 'Move') at the upper right side of your screen (for default vector skin, at least), click on it and follow the instruction. — Bill william comptonTalk 13:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Declined article
Hello, Can someone please point me in the correct direction so I can get an article submitted? ".Net_Gadgeteer" Sjj698 (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/.Net Gadgeteer the article has been reviewed and declined three times so far all with the same reason that the article lacks relaiable sources. Reliable in this instance meaning independent of the source. There aren't any sources quoted that aren't related to platforms developers and while they are non promotional there isn't an independant opinion being offered up. Are there any reviews in mainstream media i.e. not hobby blogs etc that comment about the platform, what it offers etc? if there are and you can add those and resubmit the outcome will hopefully be more positive. NtheP (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the reply. I am having trouble seeing what sort of reference is required. It is a Microsoft project, but there are 3 independent implementers and a book on amazon. Only a few citations are MS. It is a young project and there is not much out there except blogs, (I have a few peer reviewed projects/papers - but thery are part of my work - can I add them?) Sjj698 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Sjj! If the papers are vetted peer reviewed scholarly resources you can use them. But, if it's your own research, you can't. Actually, after Googling a bit I found some sources you can use for the article, which hopefully can replace the Microsoft based sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6] All of those should help you flesh out something! Good luck! Sarah (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the reply. I am having trouble seeing what sort of reference is required. It is a Microsoft project, but there are 3 independent implementers and a book on amazon. Only a few citations are MS. It is a young project and there is not much out there except blogs, (I have a few peer reviewed projects/papers - but thery are part of my work - can I add them?) Sjj698 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Repeatedly declined by different reviewers for different reasons
A new article that I submitted has been repeatedly declined. The first time, the reviewer said that in-line references are required. Fair enough, and the references were put in place. The second reviewer felt that the "submission reads more like an essay" than an encyclopedia article. After re-working, on resubmission, the article was again declined, now by a third reviewer, because the "context" may not be clear to a reader not familiar with the subject. I don't quite agree, because: the article is on a Malayalam (a vernacular language of Kerala, South India) litterateur and only someone familiar with and interested in the subject will look it up. The article on the same person in Malayalam Wikipedia (not submitted by me) was accepted without hassles. Obviously, the reviewer must have been a Malayalee. I think the issue is that an article in queue is tossed to just any reviewer available at that moment. Is it not possible to have the same person reviewing an article every time? MC Narayanan 06:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC Narayanan (talk • contribs)
- MC, you need to follow the specific instructions given by each reviewer, including the latest one. Also, please read WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you've done a decent job on your current submission. I'd accept it, especially because no one is going to perfect their first article the first time around. But, I don't do Articles for Creation review, so sorry! Also, the two links that Soft shared about, I don't think you need to worry about those here (you aren't writing about yourself or a relative, from what I can tell). Anyway, the figure seems notable to me, and I'm not Malayalee. IMHO, if the article is on Malayalam, and after looking at the article history, it has had no problems, then I think it should be included on English Wikipedia. The context is obvious - he's a popular science writer and has won notable awards from India. I don't get a lot of hits since I only speak English. Any problems let me know MC, you can ping me on my talk page. Good luck, I hope it gets accepted this round!
Wonderfully horrible
Somewhere I had stumbled across something like "the best of the worst WP editing". One of the films on a list of films that I'm working on has a plot synopsis that it too precious to "fix" without memorializing it somehow. Re: Titanic:_The_Legend_Goes_On ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Eric! So did you have a question about the editing related to the article? Sarah (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not specifically related to ce -- but is there someplace to put this before I (attempt) editing? -- btw, my plate is quite full, so if anybody else wants to attempt this, please do. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- That looks like a pretty high quality film. ;-) You can always stop by WikiProject Animation, there might be some folks over there who might want to collaborate to help make mountains out of a tomato-hill. :) But, perhaps some other folks have other ideas. My to-do list is pretty high too, and sadly, film isn't an area I generally enjoy editing. But, wow, that film looks pretty...special. Heh! Sarah (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I kind of want to see it >.< I managed to avoid the other version. heather walls (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- That looks like a pretty high quality film. ;-) You can always stop by WikiProject Animation, there might be some folks over there who might want to collaborate to help make mountains out of a tomato-hill. :) But, perhaps some other folks have other ideas. My to-do list is pretty high too, and sadly, film isn't an area I generally enjoy editing. But, wow, that film looks pretty...special. Heh! Sarah (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Btw, that film currently has the distinction of being #1 on IMDB's worst films list (rating 1.3 of 10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It beat out the cartoon "Anus Magillicutty" (work safe). Sarah (talk)
- Oh, it looks like we have another article for the article request department. Sarah (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It beat out the cartoon "Anus Magillicutty" (work safe). Sarah (talk)
- Not specifically related to ce -- but is there someplace to put this before I (attempt) editing? -- btw, my plate is quite full, so if anybody else wants to attempt this, please do. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
My article keeps on getting rejected becaue of non reliable sources
Hello Everyone, I have tried to include reliable sources numerous times but it keeps on rejecting the article. Are online articles not considered notable sources? It would be great if anyone can help me get this article approved! Please help!
Thank you in advance!
Shawnmcmillanlaw (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The basic rule of thumb for reliable resources is if they have editorial review or not. What are the sources? Chico Venancio (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming you mean the sources found here. There are a couple of issues.
- Sources need to be independent from the subject, and PRWeb is fails that criteria because it is a company devoted to publicity.
- Sources should be focusing on the subject, the new stories seem to be focused on the cases, not on the lawyer.
- Also, your username suggests you are trying to write an article about yourself (or about you boss). That is not a great idea, conflict of interest can generate a bad article because of the difficulty in being neutral, and once the article exists other people may put things you do not wish in it. Furthermore, other editors tend to be more stringent with criteria when they sense the creator has a motive.
- Chico Venancio (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
View History --- numbers in parentheses
Hi all,
I'm obviously a newbie at Wiki editing. In an edit log, what is the number in parentheses that comes after the bytes of an edit? It is usually preceded by a plus (or minus for vandalism)? Here's an example of an edit log:
(cur | prev) 05:14, 31 March 2012 All Hallow's Wraith (talk | contribs) m . . (7,233 bytes) (+1)
What does the (+1) correspond to?
Thanks in advance!
TIWILY
PS I ask because I edited an entry and got a (+77)...not sure if that is good/great/possibly bad(???).
TIWILY (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, Tiwily, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Those numbers are the difference in size that the edit in question. So, the +1 means that, overall, that edit increased the size of the article by one byte. For your edit, you added 77 bytes to the article. A negative number, of course, means that the size went down as a result of the edit; if it says -50, that means that 50 bytes were taken out of the article. Don't worry, it's not a grade or anything! (Nitpicky: I'm not actually sure if it's bytes or characters. They should usually be the same. Either way, it's the same idea.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good question Tiwily! It took me way longer than I care to admit as an editor to finally figure this one out :) Sarah (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've had this question too, but, if your interested Writ Keeper, it's measured in bytes. Dan653 (talk)
- That's what I thought; thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've had this question too, but, if your interested Writ Keeper, it's measured in bytes. Dan653 (talk)
- Good question Tiwily! It took me way longer than I care to admit as an editor to finally figure this one out :) Sarah (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
So a follow-on question, in case others are thinking it, too, and just too bashful to ask... What's the difference between a byte and a character? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The number of bytes is roughly corresponding to the number of characters. A byte usually consists of eight bits, and "historically, a byte was the number of bits used to encode a single character of text in a computer" (from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia :)
- You can find ways of customizing this feature at Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. benzband (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Ah, well that's simple enough. A byte is a unit if digital information, which happens to be the equivalent of one ASCII character (letter or number). In fact, that's historically where a byte comes from, it was the number of bits that are required to encode one character. And if you're curious, a bit is a binary digit (a 1 or a 0), so a byte, made up of 8 bits, could be represented by a number between 0 and 255 - or allowed up to "256" letters. Woohoo! WormTT · (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jeez, edit-conflicted twice. I give up. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC).
Issues stemming from Word-to-Wiki conversion
Greetings,
I drafted my article using Word and then used Word-to-Wiki to convert it to MediaWiki formatting, but it ended up with three issues:
1) Several of the titles are in giant, bold lettering in MediaWiki, even though they were not like this in Word. How do I fix this?
2) In Word, my article had dozens of in-text references, all of which were marked by a superscript number and corresponding reference at the bottom. These references did not translate to MediaWiki and I am being told that my article has "no in-text references." What is the easiest way to turn my superscript letters into Wikipedia-worthy in-text references?
3) In addition to my in-text references, I have many other sources (clinical trials, etc.) that should be listed even though they don't correspond to a specific in-text reference. How and where do I include these?
Thank you. Writer (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there Wordcouture, thanks for dropping by.
- To fix your titles, you will need to use Wiki markup, which is what we use to format text at Wikipedia. For main headings, surround the tex with two equals signs - ==Like this== - for lesser headings, use more equals signs.
- You references require different code. When you want to add a reference in an article, you need to use ref tags directly after the text you want to reference. To reference type this:<ref>Reference name & details</ref>, of course replacing the content with your actual reference. Once you have done that, go to the bottom of the page and create a references section by adding ==References== to the bottom of the page. Under that heading, you need to insert the reflist; type {{Reflist}}. This will mean that, any references made with the ref tags will be listed at the bottom of the page.
- As much as possible, you should use in-text citations - use your references to support specific facts. If you have references which serve as further reading for the entire topic, create a further reading section - place ==Further reading== at the bottom of the page (below your references section) - and list your additional references there.
- I hope that helps; let us know if you have any other problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to submit an article and it is being rejected because of no notible sources
Hi! I am trying to submit an article about and author and expert in the field of Change Management. The article is being rejected because of my sources. The person has written two books about the topic, she speaks at conferences/companies worldwide on the subject, she has won some awards ans she has over 50 articles on the subject. How do I go about getting the article cited correctly?Gsschweppe (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there, good to see you. I guess you are referring to this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kate Nelson? That was declined because there were no reliable sources. Wikipedia articles need sources which are reliable - this means that we can trust them to give accurate information and that they are good indicators of whether something is notable. The sources you have at the moment are not sufficient: Amazon cannot determine if something is notable because it's just trying to sell you the book; one source seems to be from the person themselves, which is no help, as someone cannot determine themselves whether they are notable (chances are, they're not going to be neutral about themselves); and the final source is a list of lots of authors, which doesn't mean any of them are notable. If you think the person is notable, I suggest you search places like Google News - if you can find reviews or articles about the person there, you can use those as reliable sources (provided they are from websites which are established critics, not just someone's blog). I hope that makes sense (I know that notability and sourcing can be daunting at first) - let us know if you have any further problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Grimm Fairy Tales (comics)
Hi! I'm working on a table at the bottom of my sandbox. I was wondering if someone could tell me if something like that would be helpful or just counter productive. I think it would be useful to let people know when there was more than 1 cover, and when it was published. Thoughts? Thepoodlechef (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Chef! I think what you're looking for is Help:Wikitable (and maybe the more complex Help:Table). There is a special kind of wiki-markup for tables, which follows:
{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}
- You can add more headers, rows and columns as required. For deeper insight, please refer to the help pages linked previously. Happy editing! benzband (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Question about Wikipedia Etiquette / Oversight
An article, which I have been contributing to for two days, was just excessively edited by somebody. This removed 10 references from the article and destroyed work by previous editors. Is there an oversight for things like this? I am amazed how this self-appointed editor in chief commits a 'clear cut' and destroys other people's contributions. Any suggestions? see: "Copy edit" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:What_Must_Be_Said
Additionally, so far I found two occasions where facts misrepresented by this editor. [see edit history] Thetilo (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Thetilo. Thank you for coming here. I see on the link given a disagreement between yourself and one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. That is not to say that you are automatically wrong. It may be a matter of what can be found in reliable sources as opposed to what you yourself "know". Wikipedia goes with what can be verified above what is true. If you want to get wider involvement in looking at the issue go to the talkpages of the various WikiProjects to which the article belongs.--Charles (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
well, between the lines you are saying that I'm wrong, referring to reliability of sources, which is not even applicable here. So how comes that 10 reliable sources were deleted and facts were misrepresented? I think senior editors should act with seniority and respect for other people's contributions. It is extremely discouraging if somebody rewrites a complete article based on their personal choices as if it was their own personal project. Others have spent hours contributing to the article - their efforts deleted or changed beyond recognition. Makes it feel like wasted time. I don't think this encourages regular users to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Thetilo (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there Thetilo, thanks for dropping by here. I am very sorry to hear that you've had difficulty with an editor. While Charles is right in saying that SlimVirgin is a very experienced editor, but that does not mean that his opinions should be valued more than yours. I have had a look at the talk page and it seems that you've been having a positive discussion with SlimVirgin - I can assure you that, just like you, he wants to improve the article. Being able to work with other editors is a great part of Wikipedia, so I would suggest that you continue the discussion with SlimVirgin on the talk page so that you can come to an agreement. Also, while your opinions are certainly as valid as his is, I do suggest you listen to what he says regarding policy - it may be that parts of your disagreement are down to different understandings of Wikipedia policy, so listen to what he has to say about that. On that note, if your discussion raises any policy issues that you don't understand (or even disagree with), please raise it here - we'd be delighted to talk with you about it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- To add to what ItsZippy said: it kind of looks like you're concerned about the propriety of general removal and editing of content by others, not this specific instance of it. Free editing is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. If you submit work to Wikipedia, you're explicitly allowing it to be modified or removed by other editors without warning; that's just how Wikipedia works. It's even legally enshrined; all the text you submit to Wikipedia is irrevocably licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which both affirm that others are able to remix and modify at will. Underneath every edit page, there's a disclaimer that reads, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I know it can seem discouraging at times, but trust me, it's one of the best things about Wikipedia. We couldn't have gotten this far without it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Just passing through. I wanted to point out that SlimVirgin is female (wrong pronouns used above). Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Thetilo. If you disagree with edits made by a good-faith editor, especially if they haven't been explained to your liking in the edit summary of each edit, it's best to start a conversation (or ask the question[s]) on the Talk page of the article. That way, the issues and concerns and opinions can be voiced in one place, with the ability of other interested editors to join in as well. If you still have concerns and you still feel strongly about something and it wasn't resolved after several days' discussion on the Talk page, you can click the link at the top of any Talk page box that says "dispute resolution". Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses. I talked to SlimVirgin. The process to discuss or talk in Wikipedia seems pretty cumbersome and "offline". This sort of slow communication process can add to conflicts and misunderstandings. IMHO Wikipedia as an editing tool, with the current processes and 'talk' capabilities, feels very "1990" to me - e.g. like archaic web technology. Would be nice if Wikipedia would upgrade to current day web technology. (I am knowledgeable in that subject) ;-) Thetilo (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Getting More Traffic
Hi! I'm editing the Occupational segregation article for my class on Poverty, Gender and Development at Rice University. I'm really hoping to increase traffic to my page (and the pages of my class members) both to get more people to read about the issue in general, and to have more editors and therefore improve the quality of the page. Does anyone have suggestions for increasing page traffic/ getting more editors/ more readership? K Gagalis (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi K Gagalis, welcome to the Teahouse.
- I must say I am a little confused by the question, it is not one I've seen commonly and frankly I don't know how to measure traffic on an article by article scale. The general idea of Wikipedia is to make a better encyclopedia, not to increase traffic. I'm assuming you want to increase traffic in order to reach the goals you mention, let me start by saying you have done a great job with that article.
- One of the very important and oftentimes overlooked step of writing and article is to place wikilinks to the article in question on articles of related subjects. Though the article you mention does not seem to suffer from a lack of links (they can be found at the "What links here" link on the left bar).
- Another way to get more editors to take a look at the article is to find a WikiProject that the article falls in its description and ask for help/input there, but you also have already done that in this case.
- All that I can say now is to congratulate you for your edits in occupational segregation and to cheer you into keeping the work up. Chico Venancio (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Chicovenancio thanks so much for your input! I really appreciate it. K Gagalis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC).
- Hi K Gagalis! I'll just add a little to this:
- add relevant links to your article through Wikipedia; and check what links to an indicidual article at Special:WhatLinksHere.
- you can also check individual article traffic with this very useful tool: stats.grok.se (just enter the article name and it displays a graph of page visits per day).
- Some good ways of attracting attention:
- getting you article highlighted in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, or…
- …simply improving it. Once it reaches Featured Article status, you can submit it for display on the Main Page "Featured Article" section.
- Hope this helps. Cheers, benzband (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi K Gagalis! I'll just add a little to this:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omer Pardillo Cid/References
Hello everyone. First of all, I want to thank Mrs Stierch for introducing me to TeaHouse. My article was first rejected because it didn't have the proper references and then, after submitting all the references, the format was incorrect... I corrected all of them, except for those that are links to specific websites:what would be the appropriate way to cite a website per se as a source? And how or to who should I ask to attach a picture of the person subject of the article, to the text? Please advise and thanks in advance for your cooperation.76.109.242.110 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! For your question regarding referencing, you can use the {{Cite web}} template to site an online website. Fill out the parameters, such as title and author, and place it where you need a citation. You can read Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information about citing sources, both online and in print. For your question regarding images, the answer can vary. If you own the copyrights to the work or if the copyright holder release under a free license or the equivalent, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, a free repository of free content. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 01:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
My first article was rejected. Is my current, pending version more appropriate
the article "Return on Social Business" is pending review. I've added more references --- and can add more. Do I need to be putting links for related Wikipedia articles? Advice is greatly appreciated. HalSchlenger (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Hal! I looked over your article a bit just now, and did some searches through your sources, and through Google. I don't actually see the "Return on Social Business" metrics you're describing mentioned in any of them. And it doesn't seem to be a very widespread term on the internet as a whole. Could you point me to some reliable sources that describe this metric, which might prove its notability? Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 02:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
J-Mo, thanks for your time reviewing. "Social business" is a term that is replacing "Enterprise 2.0" and "Social collaboration." The Forbes article [7] from last week again speaks to this. There are various articles about the challenges for calculating the ROI for these efforts, and we wanted to share thoughts about it. So two thoughts: 1) Should we pursue an article on 'return on social business' or 'return on __?___', or 2) should we instead create an article on "social business," for which the current article is about "socially responsible business."
Thanks in advance for your advice, HalHalSchlenger (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalSchlenger (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hal, reading through your proposal again, it seems to me like you're making an argument for the adoption of this particular metric, RoSB, by social business companies. Your article proposal is well-written, but I'm concerned that it seems like what we call original research around here. Basically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so Wikipedia articles should not make new arguments or present new research findings that aren't already published in other reliable sources (such as academic journals, magazines, newspapers, books, conference proceedings, etc). This article reads to me as though it is proposing this new metric and attempting to demonstrate its utility. That's a job for a research paper, not an encyclopedia article I think. Once the metric has been widely adopted, an article could be written that described its genesis, its history and its quality. Does that make sense? Am I reading things right?
- There is an article on Social business, by the way. Perhaps you could give that article a look and see if any of the citations you've gathered would be appropriate there? Anyways, hopefully your next AfC reviewer will have some other specific ideas for you. Feel free to come back here if you have more questions, or to let us know how things are going! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Referencing something multiple times
How do I refer to the same source multiple time with a ref-tag? is there a way to assign it a symbolic name, so it doesn't get listed twice in the References section? Thetilo (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, Thetilo, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! There is a way to name them: the first time you use the reference, you can write
<ref name="foo">(reference info)</ref>
, and then in subsequent uses, you can just write<ref name="foo"/>
instead. That will prevent duplicate listings in the reflist. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)- To comment on what Writ Keeper said: You do not need the quotation marks. Just use
<ref name=foo>
. The quotation marks are only necessary when the name is two separate words:<ref name="foo fighters">
. ("Foo" obviously being a random sample name for the reference; you can think up your own short name for each reference -- for instance, the author's last name or the name or abbreviation of the publication.) Softlavender (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- To comment on what Writ Keeper said: You do not need the quotation marks. Just use
Thanks, Softlavender! similar to HTML.. that's easy then.
Thetilo (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was actually wondering this very same thing yesterday. Teahouse to the rescue! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Post-Delete - - - Need some help :)
How can I get experienced Admin and/or editors to help me research for my topic?
As some of you kind folks know I've been working on a page for entertainment executive April Masini, but I've been running into issues with the sources I've found. Most of them are only in print form, and while this is acceptable it is not enough to actually have them cited on the article page.
The article was deleted because of reliable sources conflict, and the issue of notability. Even though I feel that Masini is notable, I can't find enough sources to "prove" it. Would anyone be willing to help me out?
Thanks, guys! GMHayes (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Pros and cons of using your real name as your UserID
The older guard seem to frown on using their real name as a UserID.
The new guard, thinking about authenticity, accountability, and transparency, seem to be using their real names.
I suspect the old guard knows something the rest of us have not yet perceived.
BruceCamber (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce! Thanks for visiting the Teahouse and welcome to Wikipedia. I actually started using my real name after I started to do more research and work with Wikipedia as part of my master's degree. I used to use pseudonyms, but, eventually it just made sense for me to be who I am with my real name. It seems to just be personal preference. I do know a lot of women (though I know you are just asking about this in general) who don't want to use their real names for safety reasons, which makes sense as well. I also know Wikipedians who have psuedonyms depending on what they like to edit (i.e. something more controversial or sexual content, perhaps they don't want associated with their real name). I'm "old guard" in regards to my participation online (BBSing anyone?), but, eventually went new school, I suppose :D Sarah (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's a matter of personal taste. Take a look, for instance, at WP:REALNAME. I appreciate editors who use their real name. At the same time, as a female, I find I don't like to use my real name on most internet forums. If I were male I would be more inclined to do so, depending on how vulnerable that would make me to random harassment for editing on controversial articles on Wikipedia (which I have in the past). Softlavender (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Perfectly informative answers. At this time, I'll just remain myself! -Bruce BruceCamber (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just as another perspective, I'm probably in the "new guard"; I chose this username before I even decided to register because I was looking for a way to use it! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce. I can talk a bit about this from experience. :) I use a pseudonym, but that's more habit than anything - I openly acknowledge who I am on my user page. This has been both good and bad. On the good side, I occasionally get emails from people asking for help or advice, and who choose to contact me directly. This has been great. I think having a real name has encouraged people to get in touch when they needed help. On the negative side, occasionally I have been in some heated disputes, and in a couple of instances that has led to the threat of real-world trouble. Once or twice I have been threatened with legal action, and in one situation a person contacted my employer directly. None of these were in regard to controversial issues - sometimes it is surprising how a person can get very, very angry over an incredibly minor issue, at least to an outsider's eyes.
- Countering the bad, there is a reason why I chose to connect my real identity with my pseudonym. I don't believe we can ever trust anonymity online, and thus it creates a false sense of security. If my secret identity was revealed, my history - everything I've ever done under that alias - is open to inspection. Accordingly, I prefer to edit under the assumption that people can find me, and only do things that I'm willing to stand by under my real name. Sometimes that can be difficult, but I prefer to know I'm accountable than imagine that I'm not and suddenly discover otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce! I'm apart of the "new guard", use my real life nickname, and am learning that it doesn't matter what name you use as long as you're being authentic in this community. Initially I was hesitant to use my nickname but then the matter of transparency won me over; I want people to know what I'm doing. For safety purposes, I have my Dad ^_^ By the way - it's nice to meet you!!! GMHayes (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce, you seem to have struck a chord here. As you can see, my username is Worm That Turned - which is quite an unusual internet handle. I've used it since 1998, so it was logical to bring it here when I came on to wikipedia. I have a very common name - indeed, my real name is actually registerred as a user account (by someone else!), so using my alias actually gives a lot more authenticity and accountability than that. It's not hard to find out all sorts of information about me, from this alias.
I'd actually go on to say that both the old guard and the new guard (I'm not sure which I fit in!) have multiple users who use their real names, and a large amount who don't. I don't think it makes a huge difference how long you've been here. WormTT · (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I use my real name, and in editing Wikipedia, always have. I do partly just because Wikipedia editing is closely tied to the real world for me - I first started editing for a class assignment, and am heavily involved in real world outreach type things. I've run in to few problems with using my name, including a situation a while ago where I annoyed a bunch of lunatics who started attempting to harass me in real life - but overall I'm still quite glad I edit under my real name. (Bilby's reasons above also resonate with me.) Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
adding pictures to a new article
I submitted an article on the 6th of April and I'm still waiting for it to be reviewed. However I would like to add pictures to the article but can't seem to do it. Can someone please explain the simplest way to get this done. Thanks Mrflipper13 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Mrflipper. [[filename|thumb|caption]] is the basic format for an image. This will place the image on the right. If you want it on the left use [[filename|thumb|left|caption]]. This will look like [[File:myphoto.jpg|thumb|left|caption for myphoto]] It is generally preferred that images are on the right of the page. If you want to upload your own images they should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used on other wiki versions.--Charles (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Mrflipper. The article needs to be live on Wikipedia mainspace before adding a image to it. To add an image to a live article, you need to either find an image on Wikimedia Commons, or you need to upload the image yourself via the "Upload file" link on the left column of any page. Please note that the image must be non-copyrighted, which means that the vast majority of images that you may find on the internet cannot be used. It's best if the image is your own work. That said, it's doubtful that the article you created is going to be accepted on Wikipedia, as it appears to be a self-promotional article, does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and apparently involves WP:COI. Please read WP:NOTPROMOTION. Softlavender (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
My article "Saint Michael's School of Padada" on AFC has been declined...
What should I do to improve and develop my article for it to be accepted? Browneyespercy (talk)12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- It would be easier to find the article concerned if you signed this post with your own username instead of a non-existent account. Why is that?--Charles (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Charles does make a good point. If you'd like to use the username "BrowneyesPercy", it's currently unregistered and we can help you make that change. Otherwise, it'd be best if you signed User:QuecyKeith. As for your question - I'll have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint Michael's School of Padada now. WormTT · (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Right, the article does need quite a bit more work at the moment. The largest problem is that it doesn't currently appear to meet our requirements for notability, that it is discussed by multiple independent sources. Before an article is submitted, it should a lot of information from books, newspapers and the like to allow readers to verify that the information is correct. That information should then be included in inline citations, which I've seen you've already started doing. Using the different {{cite}} templates would help though, it stops dead links from being such a problem in the future. Also -
- There's quite a lot of non-encyclopedic language in the article, religious titles like "blessed" should not be included for example.
- Trivial information should probably not be included, such as the school hymn.
- The "Master List" is fairly incomprehesible, and relatively unecessary.
- Good luck with the article though, hopefully you'll have some more luck with it. WormTT · (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi QuecyKeith. I am going to suggest that you enlist the help of WikiProject Schools to improve your article and make it encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. Please place a note on the Talk page of that WikiProject, asking for help with the article, and give your link to the article as it now stands. Editors may then edit the article for you, or give you suggestions of how to improve it and help find links/sources for you. It does need some work to get rid of all the extraneous matter like the table and all of the religious proselytizing, but I think once that is done and some more help given to establish WP:NOTABILITY, you will have a decent article. Best of luck. Softlavender (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! thanks very much Worm and Softlavender for a clear suggestions and advice...GOD bless...
Third party references and opinion about a subject, however failing to understand why the article is not accepted
The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justdial
06:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Search Nexus (talk • contribs)
- The reasons for the non-acceptance are given on that page you linked. In addition, the article seems blatantly self-promotional. And you appear to possibly have a WP:COI with the subject. Try writing an article instead on a subject with which you have no connection at all -- perhaps a historical person who is no longer living, or a scientific or historical article that is in no way business-related. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Search Nexus! Thank you so much for coming by the Teahouse for help with your article attempt! Sorry it's frustrating, I've been there, so I understand! Unfortunately, as Softlavender states above, your article is self promotional! Since it's about a business you work for, it could very well likely not be accepted. If you wish to have an article about something you are close with, a business, a person, etc, on Wikipedia, it's best to request that someone else write the article. You can do that by adding it to the proper category (i.e. internet, business) here: Wikipedia:Requested_articles. We do this because Wikipedia has to remain neutral (non-promotional) and has to include things that are genuinely encyclopedic. But, perhaps you'll maybe want to write an article about something else? Let us know if we can help with anything, and I hope you'll stick around! :D Sarah (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Question regarding direct (hot) links
I was looking at the Wikipedia MOS, and could not find a reference about hot-linking. Could somebody provide me with a reference? I was contributing to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_gesagt_werden_muss
The problem with the topic at hand is that most people do not speak German, and probably have not read the complete original source. Although I understand why hot-links are usually not a good idea, I think it would help the article to provide a direct link to an English translation, so people can easily build their own opinion by reading the Translation.
I'd appreciate any helpful feedback. Thank you. Thetilo (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your issue isn't clear from the article you linked. What link(s) are you talking about, and what are you calling "hotlinks"? If you mean wikilinks, see one or more of these references: MOS:LINK, Help:Link, wikilinks, and/or MOS: Links. EDIT: It seems you are referring to the English translation of Grass's poem. That is given in the first External Link, where it should be. It should not be directly linked to a term in the article itself, except possibly via a footnote link (not a direct link). The External Link is sufficient. If you would like to quote portions of the English translation within the article, that may be done as well, to illustrate a point made (especially by someone else) about that portion. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Image Location
I added an image to the article on tennis player Reginald Doherty but it does no appear where I'm trying to place it. The image (File:R.F.Doherty Beginning of Low Backhand Drive.jpg|thumb|right|R.F.Doherty Beginning of Low Backhand Drive) should appear at the top right of the Career section but instead it appears much lower, directly below the infobox.
Alternatively, I tried to align it on the left side, directly below the Grand Slams header (by placing the image shortcut there with a 'left' tag). In that case it does left align but again is placed much lower, about halfway down the Death section.
So it seems I can control the left or right alignment but not the vertical alignment. Any suggestions how I can fix this? Thx! --Wolbo (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Wolbo, and welcome to the Teahouse! It seems like there is a template, the {{MedalTop}} and {{MedalBottom}} occupy that area of the article. That's why the image is moved down to the bottom. You can try to re-position that image so that it could appear next to the "Grand Slam record" section. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thx for the quick response, Luke. Had a look and the {{MedalTop}} and {{MedalBottom}} are part of the Olympic medal infobox that you can see directly below the {{Template:Infobox tennis biography}. What I don't understand (being a template n00b) is how this can interfere with the placement of the image as A) it's a narrow infobox that should leave plenty of space for an image alongside it and B) on this page the Olympic medal infobox is placed much lower than the top of the Career section where I added the image link so it should not interfere with the image placement. I must be missing something... --Wolbo (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Wolbo, here is my take. Images when placed properly in a WIkipedia article with no extra css/html fiddling, do not sit side by side unless they are in a gallery. I think this includes tables. That means that any pictures and tables will be left, center or right, and an adjacent image will be above or below. You shouldn't force changes in a regular article, as the way your browser sees the page may not be the same as another browser or reader sees the page. We are also asked not to sandwich text between two images which is what would happen if you forced an image across from the info templates on Doherty's page. There are templates like Multiple_images to assist with creating image alignment. In short, the image is doing what the image is supposed to be doing, even though it does not seem ideal. You can add {{clear}} below an image to prevent the text from wrapping into the "death" section, but you will find it makes a big hole in the article. Maybe someone will come along and say I am wrong and you *can* do what you describe, and that would be great! heather walls (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thx for the quick response, Luke. Had a look and the {{MedalTop}} and {{MedalBottom}} are part of the Olympic medal infobox that you can see directly below the {{Template:Infobox tennis biography}. What I don't understand (being a template n00b) is how this can interfere with the placement of the image as A) it's a narrow infobox that should leave plenty of space for an image alongside it and B) on this page the Olympic medal infobox is placed much lower than the top of the Career section where I added the image link so it should not interfere with the image placement. I must be missing something... --Wolbo (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
External Links
Anyone have time to look in my Sandbox and give me some External Links tips? I tried to copy and paste from another entry after hours of trying to get it right from reading the Wiki directions, but it's still not working. Assistance would be appreciated! Kristi Schneider (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed with this edit. It works like this:
[url-goes-here Title goes here]
. You can find more detailed information at Wikipedia:External links#How to link (and Help:URL if you're having trouble with the URL itself :-) benzband (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
THANK YOU SO MUCH!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristi Schneider (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you everyone!
Thank you everyone for your assistance on my questions, I'm in the process of fixing and then will upload after a few more people take a look at what I wrote, cut a few flowers... I'm new to all of this but plan to do more as time allows and interests arise. I've tried to say thank you via the Talk page, but even after reading another person's question & response on how to reply to an answer I still can't figure it out. Lack of sleep? Anyway, thanks to everyone for being so helpful to this newbie! I haven't coded since Lotus 123 in college! Kristi Schneider (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Red Wiki links
One more question, a few of my Wiki links in my Sandbox entry are in Red, and I can't figure out what I did wrong. I looked to make sure that the entry names were correct,and can't seem to find the error. Of course, I'm brand new to doing this and I'm sure it's a simple mistake, but I could really use some help! Thanks! Kristi Schneider (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just had a quick look. One, the page/article does not exist. Another you spelt the name of one actor (Dr Kildare) incorrectly. If you click on a red link it should tell you the reason in most cases. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi Kristi, and welcome! First of all, it seems you use a non-standard version of the apostrophe (
’
instead of'
). I think that many of those links can be turned blue by changing the apostrophes to'
. Otherwise, there are some links caused by your not linking to the exact title of the targeted page. This can be solved:- either by changing the links to match the exact title
- either by creating Redirects, using the simple code:
#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]
. I have done this for two of your redlinks, to show you:- Mama’s Family now points to Mama's Family
- The Billy Barnes Review now points to The Billy Barnes Revue
- If you have any further trouble, don't hesitate to bring it up again, right here on this page :) Cheers, benzband (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi Kristi, and welcome! First of all, it seems you use a non-standard version of the apostrophe (
Major update of an entry
I have written a major update (upgrade?) in my Sandbox to an entry after doing a lot of research and conducting a personal interview. I believe that I have been careful to write in the correct POV. Is it acceptable for me to go in and make the changes, or is there someone I should run this by out of courtesy and pre-review? Thank you so much! Kristi Schneider (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you're starting an article, a good place to go for feedback is Articles for Creation. If you've written an update of an existing article, then you can try posting on its talk page, asking for feedback (although if it's a low-traffic article, there might be nobody to see it). In any event, though, it's almost always acceptable for you to just go ahead and insert your changes! You should feel free to be bold in editing and improving the encyclopedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- EDIT: That said, I think it might be better to hold off a little bit on posting it. I've only had time to give it the briefest of glances, but it looks like the language might be a little too "flowery" yet. I might be able to look at it a little more later; my fellow hosts will hopefully also look at it and give their opinion, as well. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Kirsti, I've had a look to and the biggest "issue" I can see is the personal interview you conducted with Ken. Has this been published anywhere by a mainstream media organisation? If it hasn't then it is likely that it falls foul of the Original research policy and can't be used. That probably sounds bizarre but Wikipedia isn't a place for new discoveries. NtheP (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of what he said was found in smatterings in old articles but not 'fully developed', I can change the references if it helps. I'm new and thought it would be helpful to have a personal interview, but it looks like not. I can see the point... Kristi Schneider (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Correcting copyright information on an uploaded pic
I uploaded some album covers for an artist article, they are from the 60s & 70s. I got the alert that there was probably a copyright infringement issue and wanted to go back and enter the copyright info correctly but can't figure out how. thanks, Kristi Schneider (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Kristi, I think all the images were all uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? If so they have all now been deleted as actual or possible copyright violations or lacking permission. Unless you are the person who owns the copyright on the images then they cannot be uploaded to Commons as you don't have permission to release them into the public domain. It looks like some of them you had started down the road but didn't supply the written permission of the copyright holder to Wikimedia - note Ken Berry is not likely to be the copyright holder so if you were relying on him saying "yes you can use these photos" that's not going to be enough.
- The only way otherwise that these images can be used is under the Non-free content policy but these are very precise and all 10 conditions have to be met for non free content to be used on Wikipedia. A lot of attempts to use non free content fail under criteria 8 - "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In essence the images must add to the text not just be decoration. Looking at the list of titles deleted from Commons, some of those are likely to have difficulties meeting criteria 8.
- I'd suggest before trying to upload the images again you come back here with some information about where the images are from, what permission(s) you have and what you propose to use the images for and hopefully we can give you some advice on how best to use them. NtheP (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- <nitpicking> technically, putting images up on Commons doesn't necessarily release them into the public domain, it (usually) irrevocably licenses them under the CC-BY-SA copyleft license. Either way, the copyright holder is the one who has to do it, so NtheP's points are still perfectly valid.</nitpicking> Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand, however I see studio photos all over Wiki. Why can't I use an old studio photo? thanks, Kristi Schneider (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Kristi. I actually teach my adoptees a lesson on copyright which you may find useful. Basically, whenever someone takes a photo or creates an image, they own the rights to it. They can produce copies, sell them or publish them however they like, whilst retaining the right to produce more. Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, so we only use photos which are free. That means the creator has released the photo under a license such as WP:CC-BY-SA, which effectively means we can use it as long as we say where it came from. We have lots of these pictures on Wikipedia Commons.
- Now, there are some exceptions where we can use non-free images, and only when they meet the Non-free content critera. Such as "There is not and cannot possibly be a free equivalent," "The original produce cannot lose out," and "We use the image as little as we possibly can." These may explain the "studio photos" you see all over Wikipedia. Does that make sense? Oh and by the way, you can use an "old" studio photo, assuming its copyright has expired - and that's quite complicated and depends on what country the image is from. WormTT · (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Citing Numbers - References Issue
Hi,
I'm creating in my Sandbox and am having trouble with citing references correctly. The issue is: how do I get Wiki to cite the same reference more than once without assigning a new number each time? Thank you! Kristi Schneider (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, Kristi, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! This is a pretty common question, actually. What you need to do is name your reference tags. The way you do this is as follows: say I wanted to cite the paper "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful" by Edsger Dijkstra in multiple places in an article. The first time I reference it, instead of writing
<ref>Dijkstra, Edsger. "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful."</ref>
, I would write<ref name="goto">Dijkstra, Edsger. "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful."</ref>
. The next time I user the reference, instead of typing out all that information again, I can just use the reference name like this:<ref name="goto"/>
. Both references will link to the same entry in the reference list at the end of the page, and there won't be any duplicates in the reference list. The actual name you choose (in this case, it's goto) doesn't actually matter, as long as it's unique, but it's generally good practice to make it at least somewhat related to the work cited. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
user talk page templates
I am not too familiar with the workings of templates and i have two questions regarding templates for my user talk page. The first thing that was ever posted to my talk page was an invitation to the teahouse. Sometime after that, I started getting notifications anyplace I was in Wikipedia that I had something new on my talk page. Well, i redid my userpage to make it look better and I am no longer getting those. How can i get it back?
Second question is: How can I make my talk page archive itself like I see others do?
Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Gtwfan, i have left a note here on your talkpage, which should be itself followed up by one of the "you have new messages" notifications :) benzband (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Gtwfan52! Following up from Benzband, those notifications only occur briefly - their intent is just to let you know that someone else has added a message to your talk page, and thus they disappear once you visit your page, and don't appear if you make edits to it yourself. As far as I can tell your talk page is absolutely fine, and you should get the notifications. We'll see, I guess, based on Benzband's message. :)
- In regard to talk page archiving, there are a few options people use. Personally, I just do it manually, so I might not be the best person to respond, but there are instructions for MiszaBot (one of the automatic archiving programs that run on Wikipedia) at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Example 2 looks like a good bet for what you need to do: you should be able to get it to work by pasting the example code on to the top of your talk page, and changing User talk:Example to User talk:Gtwfan52. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
External Links to Youtube are Banned
This is pretty outrageous. I got message from XLinkBot saying that a external link to a video on Youtube I added was reverted. I have been adding links to videos showing original folk music and dances throughout the world. How can there be a copyright problem? Since everything on the Internet has some rights attached, all external links would violate the wikipedia's policy, except for the fact that no content is copied - merely linked to. If the hyperlink is a violation of something then the Internet itself is invalid. We don't validate the copyright of other external links let alone ban them. Wikipedia can't be responsible for youtube's content. I would add that the videos I use are amateur performances in public of traditional music and dance, not composed or choreographed pop or classical works. Dear old anon has no copyright.
If it is a problem of original research. I am only linking to actual examples. Including an image of a painting by a particular painter is not original research, it is merely an example. Using "un-original research" for these examples perverts their authenticity. It's like saying you can't add a photo of Mount Rushmore, you have to have a university professor make a copy of the mountain and then add that. Cases where unauthentic performances are used are the sad situations where the art is lost. I have not been able to find a single example of a native speaker of the Ladino language on the Internet. This is sad. But there are dying examples of ancient singing styles available. Why would those people not want them online? And don't they have a right to complain to Youtube?
Bots can help here and there, but the basic idea of a wiki is to let the users write and edit the content. The whole project is based on user judgment and correction of mistakes. The bot could point to a policy about youtube and let us decide. Wikipedia is becoming anti-culture. Do they not like Google? I actually don't. Have they been threatened by a suit or warned by Youtube? I doubt that. I would never put doubtful content on wikipedia.
There was a proposal rejected about this: Wikipedia:External links/YouTube
So how can I get around this bot? Cellorando (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube as long as the links abide by the guidelines at WP:External links Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to. If you are sure the clip you are linking to is not a copyright violation then you could use the template {{External media}} but remember that the copyright of a clip belongs to the person who too the film, not the performer in the clip. NtheP (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding so quickly. I think {{External media}} embeds the video. I'll do that if I have to, but how do I just make a link?
- And you can't tell me that if someone smuggles a recorder into a concert I give, that the copyright is his, not mine. And remember, the recorder is the one who uploads it. It's OK with him. News programs are clearly a different case and I'm used to seeing them being deleted unless they're on the broadcaster's own channel. Cellorando (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- {{External media}} doesn't embed the file, just a link - embedding it would defeat the object.
- Yes, your performance is copyrighted to you but the person recording a clip has copyright over their film, assuming it's not bootlegged. Just because something is uploaded to the internet doesn't make it fair game for use by everyone else unless it has been uploaded with that specific permission explicitly stated. You're right that Wikipedia isn't responsible for Youtube content but it is responsible for ensuring that it doesn't breach copyright itself and for that reason Wikipedia takes a very tough stance on copyright, hence bots like XLinkBot, because despite uploaders to YouTube having to have signed up to Google's terms & conditions i.e. that anything you upload you have the licence for, the experience is that this is very frequently not the case. Referring users to policy only and allowing links would more than likely put Wikipedia in the same place with a number of users blatently ignoring the policy and putting Wikipedia in breach of copyright. This does make it more difficult, complicated and time consuming for people to link to genuine material but better that than lawsuits. NtheP (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- And you can't tell me that if someone smuggles a recorder into a concert I give, that the copyright is his, not mine. And remember, the recorder is the one who uploads it. It's OK with him. News programs are clearly a different case and I'm used to seeing them being deleted unless they're on the broadcaster's own channel. Cellorando (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks much. Happy Easter ando/or PesachCellorando (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
If anyone wants to see how I ended up doing, this take look at Cantu a tenore. Cellorando (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)