Help desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 6

How do I do this with the "cite news" template?

I've been working on a baseball article and have found a link to a news article that would add some character to the article. It's located here, and it's from the Sun-Sentinel but written by a writer from The Dallas Morning News. I understand I'm supposed to use agency or publisher for this, but I have to put location for the Sun-Sentinel (it wasn't the South Florida Sun-Sentinel at the time), and it seems like whenever I put that in there, it makes it look like The Dallas Morning News is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. With me so far? Good. Anyway, what is the proper way to cite this? I'm only wondering about how to properly combine the fact that one paper is publishing material from another. I can't find the original article online, while a similar article is pay-walled so I can't tell if it provides the same character. While the article I'm using also has a pay-wall, the abstract has what I need. Just wondering how to properly do this. Hope this made sense to somebody. :) -- Transaspie (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who "owns" the writer, but where the item is published. If in doubt, look at the whole page and use the newspaper's name as in the page itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if it's published in the Sun-Sentinel, then it doesn't matter if the writer is listed with The Dallas Morning News, and thus it doesn't need to be noted in the citation? I think that's what I'm hearing, but I'm prone to hearing things incorrectly. Thanks for taking a stab at this, Fifel, and hopefully I did well at taking a stab at answering. -- Transaspie (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user talk limitions?

hey all, i am just wondering is ther enot a limition on wha toyu can put in your user talk? i mean are you alloweed ot copy a article and put in in your user tlak so making your user tlak look like a wikipedia article? i ask because this user User talk:729esavioli i was goign to leavbea comment about editing they are doign ona article and got right ocnfussed with ther etalk page jus tnot sure it is allowed--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for user pages and user talk pages are at WP:UP; the guidelines for what is not allowed are at WP:UP#NOT. I don't see anything there the says you can't have temporary copies of articles; though a user subpage would certainly be more appropriate. One thing that is not permitted is the use of non-free images; so I removed the non-free images that were there. I also tagged the page with {{user page}}. —teb728 t c 12:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the link-interwiki model

Resolved

Hello, i'im principally active in the french wikipedia but sometimes i add information in english mirror article of the french article i work on. Yesterday i added a model link-interwiki in the article Saginaw Bay for the french article on the subject of Jean Enjalran that have bracket to call for a article that is not existing at the moment. I have seen it sometimes in other articles and as my english is not very good i place the model in a way that a better english writer can reuse my work in french and the reference i've found to write a article about the subject. In a way the link-interwiki also it also give information to the reader where he can find information about a subject on another wikipedia. But after i put the model, someone reverted me without explanation. I d'ont understand why he have done so. Is the model link-interwiki obsolete? Thanks in advance. ChristianT (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot read the mind of the person who removed your link, but my suspicion is that the redlink is important because it encourages someone at English Wikipedia to create the article here. If it were converted to a blue "interwiki" link, then people may falsely think that the article existed in English, and would not be motivated to create it. Or, they could click the link thinking they were being taken to the English language article, and may be confused when they are taken to French Wikipedia. Just some thoughts. --Jayron32 13:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the link-interwiki that was added gives both the redlink to the English and a blue link (shown as ^(fr)) to the French, which seemed sensible. No reason was given for the reversion, so I've put it back to the OP's version. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not encountered {{link-interwiki}} previously, but it seems an elegant way to provide a cue to readers where more information on the subject is available. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AH. I wasn't at all aware of what that template did. Good one. That seems like a really good idea. Nevermind what I said before... --Jayron32 20:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this incident seems to be resolved, so I've marked it. As a side note, I didn't know about that template - good to learn new things! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dialer tune

i wana 2 know about dialer tune,if u have any idea give me knowledge about dialer tune how it works and which software is using vas companies for dialer tune, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.10.80 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. — Manti core 15:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new documenta13 page is inviting helpers to translate German to English

I live in Kassel and want to offer my services. I attended the last documenta and plan to be a guide during the next. An English woman living and working in Germany, I have many years experience as a professional translator German to English. But I could not find another way of contacting you other than through your help desk.

OK, my name is Virginia Hill. I live in Kassel, Hesse, GErmany.

I look forward to hearing from you as to whether you would like my help. I would be so delighted to take part.

Of course I will be happy to send any further information about myself to help you make your decision. Regards,

VirginiaVhillkassel (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There is no approval or decision process about new editors; just be bold and begin editing. We are all volunteers here. If you are planning to translate articles from the German Wikipedia, I recommend you read the page Wikipedia:Translation. I've also left you some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1954 Greada Treaty

Is there really such a thing as the 1954 Greada Treaty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.131.228 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. — Manti core 15:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Media Post

Global Media Post. Why was it deleted from Wikipedia. It has been online as an aggregate newspaper for nearly 4 years! --101.103.25.178 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Global Media Post has never existed, and I can't find any mention of a similar title being deleted in the logs for today (November 6). — Manti core 15:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very promotional brief article was deleted at Global media post. The only content was a copy of the "About us" box at http://www.globalmediapost.com/ It was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" but it could also have been deleted as a copyright violation since the website is copyrighted. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I tried and I can't figure out how to suggest a new article... I would like to see a biography type article about the psychic Amy Allan. She stars on the t.v. show "The Dead Files". I like Wikipedia and would like to see a page on her, however; I wouldn't be the best choice to write one. Maybe someone else on Wikipedia would like the task. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.65.40 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REQ is I think what you are searching for--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

contribution of multimedia content

Hi, I have several Flash based multimedia files on Biology and global warming. I am the author and would like to share those files. Here is a link to my web site with several www.mypondsoftware.comexamples of files. Is it possible to post these files? If yes how?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkarov (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VIDEO is a helpful tutorial. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Glaser Discography

Good Morning,

I screwed up editing this portion of Jim Glaser's article. The single "If I Don't Love You" ws from the album "Past The Point Of No Return", while "Lights..." was from "Everyone Knows I'm Yours." Is there someone who can fix my errors?

Thank you,

Jim J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.139.123 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. Help:Table might be helpful in future.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Everytime I try to log on to facebook it says problem connecting try later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.13.25 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Facebook is not affiliated with Wikipedia.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations and wikilinks

The question is whether we should wikilink parameters in citations. For example, in {{cite news}}, should the name of the work (like Los Angeles Times) be wikilinked? I have looked at some of the guidelines on citations and references (as well as template documentation) but came way from it all more confused than when I began. Should we do it? Should we not do it? Is it optional? If anyone has more familiarity (and patience) with the relevant guidelines, please point me to something that clarifies this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just follow the general guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking. The concerns is slightly different but much of it appears relevant by analogy. Instead of focusing on readers' understanding of the material and being able to find information through linking, we are looking to have people easily understand who authored / what the source is and to be easily able to find it for verification purposes. Just as we avoid linking common terms we expect most people to be familiar with, I don't think it will help readers to link to major newspapers but I think it would help to link to obscure journals. If the author is notable, that's also relevant to defining the source. I would also follow the rule to link the first instance and not others. I should qualify that I am not speaking from finding this in guideline or policy but just what makes sense to me, though I have a vague memory of a discussion in a featured article nominations about overlinking that I think basically said to follow normal rules for wikilinks in articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to use judgment and common sense. What a concept. :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...I'm not so sure about that. Our MOS cites an article by John C. Dvorak in PC Magazine.[1] Dvorak gives two reasons to avoid overlinking:

It results in text that is almost unreadable because of the number of underlined or odd-colored links.
The reader didn't know whether any of these links were actually important in regard to the text.

The first doesn't apply since the references section isn't really meant to be read beginning to end the way the article content is. As for the second, I'm not sure that applies for pretty much the same reason. OTOH, there may be some value in being consistent rather than deciding on a case by case bases. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this interfaces with our MoS, but if it's at odds, then it would be at odds with our guidelines on linking in general (as I linked above) and not with extending those concepts to linking information in citations. However, having read the article, it seems to me to reinforce the approach in the guideline, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak's article is cited by the second sentence in WP:OVERLINK for why overlinking should be avoided.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Both reasons given by Dvorak have to do with readability. This isn't really a concern because people typically don't read a references section as if it were normal prose. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You're saying that there's less of a problem with overlinking. Well, I read reference sections all the time for various purposes, though of course, me and you and many of those here are not typical readers. But I still think the concepts from the general guideline work well. It may be less of a problem if we "overlink" information in citations but I don't see any purpose served in doing so and those who are actually reading them in order to verify them will be bothered by overlinking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my cursory review of the various guidelines AND examples, it seemed to me that what Fughettaboutit originally said makes sense. If the publication is not well-known, link; if it is well-known, don't bother. However, in the absence of any specific guidance, I would not remove a wikilink from a well-known pub.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some examples, I see they go both ways, though I found more against than for: see Talk:Interstate 29 in Iowa/GA1, User talk:Rambo's Revenge/Archives/7, Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 4#No Neutrality on Weight / hCG#, Talk:Carucage and User talk:Frickative/Archive 9 but see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive4.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when I mentioned "examples", I meant examples within the guidelines themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't good enough sample size, but I took a look at the last 5 FAs that have appeared on the main page. Two[2][3] have WikiLinks and 3 don't.[4][5][6] I wouldn't be surprised if different communities of editors have their own standards (if unofficial) of how to do things like this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, some of those FAs suffer from underlinking. In L'ange de Nisida, the references section is sufficiently far away that William Ashbrook should be WikiLinked at least one more time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

boys hostel

i was in a boys hostel 1953 1957 rossi house champion hill camberwell se5,cant find any thing sbout the place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.97.249 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Jarkeld (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a screenshot of a video considered "own work"

Is a screenshot that I take myself, of a video that I did not film, considered my "own work?" Therefore I can contribute it to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldaqua (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the author remains the person who created the work you are screenshotting, just as a photograph of a Van Gogh does not make the taker the painter. There is a concept you are onto here though. See freedom of panorama.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you have to be careful of how you use Freedom of Panorama. If you take a picture of a large scene, and a TV program happens to be on in the background, but the TV is not prominent nor the obvious subject of the photograph, then freedom of panorama may apply. If you take that picture and then crop everything out except the image of the show on the TV, then you have eliminated the "panorama" aspect, and thus you have also eliminated the "freedom" part. The idea is that, for any sufficiently large area photograph, you are likely going to be including in that someone elses creative work. Freedom of panorama protects you in those cases. It does not allow you to take pictures of copyrighted work and pass it off as your own. I think that the OP would be more interested in threshold of originality and Derivative work, which are more applicable to their question. --Jayron32 01:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]