User:Maurice Magnus/sandbox

In Herman Melville, in the section on "Education and father's death," footnote numeral 24 is two lines below the indented quote to which it should be attached. Under "Edit source," no space is apparent. What is the problem with this? Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, Maurice Magnus, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem was that the sfnp citation template was outside the Cquote template, which indents the quote and ends the paragraph. I fixed it by moving the citation inside. ✅. ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I just added a paragraph to Franz Kafka's Diaries. It contains the first footnotes in the entry, and the footnotes appear at the bottom of the screen instead of where they should. I don't know how to fix that. I'd appreciate it if another editor would. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC) It was missing the "reflist" template, I added it for you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In Abraham Lincoln and slavery under "Letter to Greeley," to get rid of space between quotation mark and [i]f: His envoys bore tidings" that "[i]f citizens desired

In Ann Rutledge, in the section "Historical criticism of alleged Lincoln-Rutledge relationship, I just inserted [citation needed] in this sentence: "In his Lincoln the President,[citation needed] historian James G. Randall wrote a chapter entitled "Sifting the Ann Rutledge Evidence" which cast doubt on the nature of her and Lincoln's relationship." I did this because Lincoln the President has four volumes. I tried to put "volume number needed," but was not allowed to because there is no template for that. That would be more helpful than "citation needed." What can be done? Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC) @Maurice Magnushello, welcome to the teahouse. Why not have a try for Lemonaka (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC) @Lemonaka Thanks; it worked. There is so much for Wikipedia editors to learn! Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Hi, everyone has a lot of things to learn on Wikipedia. We are all climbing the learning curve Lemonaka (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In the Bibliography to Abraham Lincoln, Eric Foner's book (not article) is in quotation marks instead of italics, and I can't figure out why or how to change it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC) @Maurice Magnus, it is using the "cite journal" template instead of the "cite book" template. I have fixed it. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC) @StarryGrandma Thanks. I see that all you had to do was change the word "journal" to "book." Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

In Free State of Jones (film), in the Premise section is a quotation that begins, "based on the books." The quotation names two books and places them in both single quotes and italics. The Wikipedia version omitted the single quotes, so I added them. But, when a single quote is next to the italics code consisting of two vertical lines, then we have three vertical lines on each side, which bold the words in between them instead of placing the words in single quotes and italics. Therefore, I inserted an extra space between the single quote and the italics code consisting of two vertical lines, but that isn't good. How do we handle this? Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)  Use nowiki tags. I already did so on the article, so you can see the code. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I edited Abraham Lincoln and slavery and another editor undid my edit. I explained on his Talk page the reason for my edit; he has not explained his objection to it. I know not to turn this into an editing war, so would someone explain the arbitration procedure, please. For details, look at User talk:Alanscottwalker, # 82, "Booth's comment." Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi again @Maurice Magnus. I think you're looking for Dispute resolution procedures. However, there's generally a prerequisite of discussion on the article talk page; I'm not sure whether a dialogue between just the two of you on their talk page will meet the requirements. You can always try, though. The best avenue here might be WP:3O. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Arbitration explicitly does not handle content disputes. You want to take it to 3O or MedCab next. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, the general principle as I understand it is that we add wikilinks to original text written by Wikipedia editors but not to text written elsewhere and copied into Wikipedia. Adding wikilinks to direct quotations is discouraged, for example. Book titles are written through a collaborative discussion between authors and publishers, and in my opinion, should be left alone. If the book itself is notable and has a Wikipedia article, then a wikilink to the article about the book is appropriate. But I do not think that wikilinking individual words in a book title is a good idea. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

as an IP editor, I can only tell you what applies to IPs. I don't get any notification of replies (I don't even get notification of pings!). It may be different for those with accounts, depending on the preferences they've set, the add-ons they've installed and whether or not there's an email address attached to their account. I know there's a new tool in the works which lets account holders subscribe to particular threads (notifying them of replies) but I don't know how widely used it is as of yet.

Best practice is just to ping folks in your replies unless they tell you it's not necessary. Also, if you're posting on their talk page, they're automatically notified, even IPs (though I'm sure you know that already). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

To answer the other part of your question, @Maurice Magnus, 'changing a title' [of a Wikipedia article] is done by performing a page move (WP:MOVE). Those can be requested here or, in most cases, an autoconfirmed user can simply do it themselves, though - like everything else on Wikipedia - if it's likely to be controversial, it should probably be discussed first. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:Maurice Magnus -You may be interested to read MOS:HYPOCORISM. DS (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you edit the source code (i.e. not visual editing), the template contains the parameter "|date=" and you enter the date right behind it. See Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates and Template:Cite book. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Click Edit source to see what to use [ p. ] in between p. 29 so the p. and the 29 remain on the same line

{{cite book |last=Ackroyd |first=Peter | author-link=Peter Ackroyd |title=J. M. W. Turner |year=2005 |orig-year=1991|


 * title-link = Moby-Dick |

Under "View history," what does "Tag: Visual edit" mean?Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC) @Maurice Magnus: Hello Maurice! It means the edit was made using the Visual editor.

To link book in text to book in bibliography: Fleischner (2003) in Elizabeth Keckley, n.1.

The recent history of edits to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. shows that someone changed his age at retirement to 455 and added something about his being a "bitch." An editor quickly reverted it. I'm curious whether there is a procedure for permanently banning such vandals from editing Wikipedia and for preventing them from signing up under new pseudonyms.Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, WP:ANI if there is debate over whether they are a vandal. WP:AIV if there is no debate.Slywriter (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

'''To create lettered instead of numbered footnote, go to William H. Seward, fn. d about Travels'''

Friderike Maria Zweig If you click on the link in footnote 7, you'll see that the "J :" needs to be removed, because there is no "J" nor colon in the actual article headline; rather, they are in the column at the left with the misspelled first name. I am unable to remove them because, when I go to Edit source, they are hidden in < ref name=":3"/ >, and I don't know how those ref names are created. I hope that it's ok to post this in the Teahouse. I do so because, when I post something on an article's talk page, I rarely get a response, but responses on Teahouse are always prompt. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus I've fixed it for you! To do that, I simply clicked the 'Edit source' tab (rather than the 'Edit' tab and looked at the bare text used to create the article. I used Ctrl-F to find a keyword in the reference. I chose 'Dies'. That took me to where the code for the actual reference lies within the article itself (although the viewer sees the reference at the bottom of the page. I deleted the 'J' and saved it. Problem solved. You could also have fixed it yourself using the Visual Editor. To do that is just as easy. But don't try to edit the reference at the bottom of the page. Just find the number (in this case 7) and click that reference number in square brackets at the end of the cited statement in the article. A pop-up window appears and you can then edit the reference and fix any mistakes. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC) @Maurice Magnus No problem - we're here to help and assist editors to learn. (I've learned tons here myself!). Are you aware of a thing called the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive? It's a great way to find and rescue now-dead links, and a very good reason never to delete an old non-functioning citation, but to mark it, instead with a [dead link] template. However, in your case, reference 2 can be retrieved in a functioning form! Go first to https://archive.org/web/, then type in the non-functioning url (http://www.casastefanzweig.org/agenda_en/s33.html) into the search box. If, as here, it has been archived, you get options as to which version to check. In this case there are two dates available, and this one seems to works fine: https://web.archive.org/web/20190510100833/http://www.casastefanzweig.org/agenda_en/s33.html So now, go back to open the page. Let's use WP:VE, as you seem to prefer it. In Visual editor, find the citation allocated [2] within the reference list. Click it and click 'Edit'. Scroll down the list of fields and type in the webarchive url into the field labelled 'Archive URL'. Save the edit and your reference should not only now work, but the old url will be marked as dead (so don't remove it please). Again, I hopes this helps and that you'll feel confident fixing things like this in future. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate footnotes
In Peter Swales (historian), footnote 1 appears in the opening sentence twice, and then, in the footnote, as "a" and "b." Footnotes 2 and 8, and footnotes 11 and 13, are also identical pairs, and each pair should have a single number and an "a" and "b". I don't know how to format that. Would another editor please do so? (If it's easy to do, then please explain how.) Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . The procedure is called named references. The full reference is defined and named once, and then a very brief reference tag is used elsewhere. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS and try it yourself. [And of Template:Rp as well.] Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't understand that. I don't know what to put in "name" or in "content."
 * The content is everything that should appear in the citation: title, date, author, publication, URL etc. The name is a name you make up to refer to this particular reference, and thereafter you just need to use the name when you want to cite the exactly the same reference again. If the name has any spaces or special characters, you need to put it in quotes; but people often put the name in quotes anyway. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

First time:

The next time you want to use the same ref, you just use:

Note the closing slash in the ref tag.

Thank you. I changed the second time I used the same ref in the manner you instructed. But this has no effect on the article; it merely shortens what appears in "Edit source." Also, I noticed that, in Peter Swales (historian), the other places where a ref name is used, the second time that the same ref is used, it is in quotation marks. I experimented, using "Show preview," and found that the quotation marks have no effect. I used them anyway, but why do others use them? Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with repeating the definition of the ref is that it's nonstandard; if another editor needs to make an update or correction to the ref (such as adding an archive-url), other editors would not know to look for multiple places to fix it because there should only be one definition for that named ref. And as soon as there is the slightest difference between the definitions, there would be a cite error because the same name would be attached to different definitions.

The quotation marks are necessary when the name assigned to the ref contains numbers, punctuation, or spaces. They're not needed when the name is only letters. Some editors use the quotation marks anyway, possibly just to be in the habit so they are there when needed.

Appleton Oaksmith

You had  and not  (double apostrophes like in the book title, and not double quotation marks). See my revision. Actually, unless you have spaces in the reference name, you don't need the quotes. Hope that helps, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs

To show year of publication as (2018) [1942]:  |year=2018 |orig-year=1942|