User talk:Maryanne Cunningham

I personally found fighting vandalism to be a fun way to get into editing. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sundry advice from experienced Wikiers
I recommend The Teahouse over Adoption any day.

Projects
The Women in Red Project to find out more. In fact we have innumerable 'Projects' to bring editors together who are interested in working in specific topic areas. WP:WikiProject King Arthur; WP:WikiProject Beer WP:WikiProject Languages.

You'll spot some colourful but complex looking tables in each project page. These tabulate al the articles linked to that Prohject, lsiting them by quality and importance. Should you ever get stuck into one of these Projects, that table can be a great way to find articles to work on and improve. Another way is for me to point out that every article is sorted into 'Categories' which are shown at the very bottom of its page. If you click on f them, you get a list of all other articles within that category, so it's a great way to find related topics to read or work on.

Shortcuts, by Nick Moyes
You'll find when people reply to you they'll include links (often as abbreviated letters, mostly starting "WP:xxx") - these are meant to be logically-named shortcuts. So if you click H:GS you get taken to Help:Getting started - a page full of links to lots of other help pages! So may I suggest you visit Tutorial and follow the different Tabs there to find out more things for yourself?

Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

From Antiqueight
If you need anything just drop by my talk page and ask away. I will answer if I can, if I can't or even before I get to it, there are some talk page watchers there who are all totally good folks who may well have the answer. PS you are more than welcome to have a poke around my user pages - I used them to learn my way around source editing and to keep all my notes and such. If you see something there you like the look of, you can copy it etc..  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 00:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia!
I noticed that I was pinged by, so here I am. I'm Clovermoss. I started editing here in September 2018 and I remember what it was like to be new. Something I found really helpful when I was starting out was the Community Portal - if you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see a massive table called the Editor's Index. The Wikipedia help pages don't have everything and can be confusing to navigate, but it's one way to try and figure things out for yourself. There's also the Teahouse, where you can start new discussions whenever you have questions about editing.

Part of what helped me feel more involved with Wikipedia was joining active wikiprojects, so it might be worth considering if anything in this directory matches any of your interests. An example of one of the Wikiprojects I was interested in was WP:Canada since I'm Canadian. Anyways, I tend to be around fairly often (and am also a host at the Teahouse where questions are typically answered more quickly), but feel free to contact me directly on my talk page if you ever want my input or help. Clover moss (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added to your Userpage
Hi again Maryanne. As per your permission at the Teahouse, I have taken the unusual step of adding some content to your Userpage. I hope the sections are of some use. Of course, you are totally free to add or change anything (and, of course, delete my weak attempt at humour, too!).

Using WP:Source Editor, you'll see I create a bulleted entry simply by adding an asterisk at the start of each line, and that the section heading is created with two equal signs either side of it. You can achieve the same results with Visual Editor in a more WISYWYG manner.

I sometimes think those Wikipedia Adventure badges rather dominate (though they're great for a newcomer to display, as it shows other editors they've committed some time to understanding how Wikipedia works). So I've used a command at the top and bottom of that section to 'collapse' it, so that it's only viewable when you click the line. Again, delete them if you don't find them helpful and want them always to be visible.

Oh, and another tip - if you ever make a mistake, you can always 'undo' it simply by going to the page's 'View History' and looking at the series of edits that created it. Each line is one saved edit, and has its own timestamp and name of the editor who made it. The latest ones are at the top, and you'll see there's an 'undo' function by it. Click that and you've reverted yours - or someone else's - edit. Take care reverting other people, and always leave an Edit Summary to explain why you've undone something. Reverting an edit doesn't delete it; it's always there in the page history. We do have special ways to permanently remove copyright violations or grossly insulting remarks, or information of a personal nature (emails/phone numbers etc) that shouldn't have been posted. And we have a noticeboard should anyone wish to formally complain about the behaviour of another editor towards them. So, as mentioned above, we take personal safety and respect for others seriously, and offending editors can be blocked, if needs be. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * About asterisks, equal signs and such, Help:Cheatsheet can be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and 42. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång 42? Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Your userpage said when I wrote that that you didn't understand Life, The Universe and Everything, but it may have been Nick Moyes who added that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Things you don't understand yet
On your userpage you have three bullet points to "Things I don't understand yet" Here is an attempt to answer them


 * Inserting images
 * This isn't the simplest thing to answer, as first you have to identify an image you want to insert into an article. To start with, you should either look (at Wikimedia Commons) for an existing image you can use (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). These are all licenced for re-use. The other way is to upload an image for which you own the copyright. That excludes any image you find online, unless it comes with an explicit licence allowing commercial reuse.
 * I don't want to overload you with links, but maybe Wikimedia Commons would be a good place to start - or see this archived reply I once gave someone at the Teahouse who asked the same question.


 * Notes and bibliographies (like, why does a reference to a book end up in the notes, and not the biblio)
 * Bibliographies are handmade lists of selected publications by the subject of an article (see this shortcut: WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY). In contrast, references to books that support some statement or other are inserted inline into articles. Wikipedia uses some clever software when the page renders, so all you see inline is a superscript number, whilst down below, at the bottom of the page, a Notes or References section automatically displays the full citation against that number. As for guidance pages, oh dear - brace yourself! Try Help:Footnotes or WP:REFBEGIN - neither of which are terribly userfriendly. Hence why I wrote WP:EASYREFBEGIN which might help you a bit.


 * Should it be name of page or https://name of page
 * It should definitely be the former. I think you know that now


 * Hope this is of use. (If you wanted to be fancy you could always add once you've learnt something. It's a template which renders like this: ✅)  Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Once again, Nick, deep gratitude.
 * I got as far as finding the image I needed on Wikicommons, then went to the sandbox to see about adding it to the article. It didn't work. Or it didn't seem to work. If I'd got the code right, the image should have appeared when I hit 'Show preview', right? Well it didn't, so back to the drawing board (ha ha) on that one.


 * I think I've 'got' notes and bibliographies (from one of the links you sent): a note is a refence you've cited in the body of the article; a Bibio item is one related to the subject but not directly cited? (as you've said above)
 * References and templates are doing my brains in. I think, eg. (see in edit mode), x|y will show 'y', but link to page x, yes?
 * Also that will show ^PIE and add a superscripted reference number, which it works out automatically depending on how many references came before it? (It did that, good; she says, looking at the preview).


 * This, in edit mode, (copied from the Merlin article, which I presume I'm allowed to do) is going to take longer:
 * Taking out the # tells you you've got a template called tag:ref, so we need a #to hide that bit, as what you want to see is the text within, not that it's a template?
 * And the 'group="note" at the end must tell it you're adding a note (which can itself contain a reference, explaining the " " stuff in the middle.
 * Further than that I have not got. (What on earth is the | all about??? Why is an exclamation mark showing up as a |?)


 * Now it's my turn to say: "Am I making any sense?" (It's difficult to be clear when you're bobbing through treacle and coming up for air long enough to get a sentence out). Anyway, thanks so much for your generosity and support. I'm sure I'll 'see' you again soon in the Teahouse. Cheers Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

UK/US spelling conflict, assistance please
Hi

Could you please give me a bit of advice?

I amended a link in an article to include the UK English spelling 'faeces' alongside the existing US 'feces'. Both versions here:

The name "Merlin" is derived from the Welsh Myrddin, the name of the bard who was one of the chief sources for the later legendary figure. Geoffrey of Monmouth latinised the name to Merlinus in his works. Medievalist Gaston Paris suggests that Geoffrey chose the form Merlinus rather than the regular Merdinus to avoid a resemblance to the Anglo-Norman word merde (from Latin merda) for feces My amendment (or faeces).

(Original/reverted version): The name "Merlin" is derived from the Welsh Myrddin, the name of the bard who was one of the chief sources for the later legendary figure. Geoffrey of Monmouth latinised the name to Merlinus in his works. Medievalist Gaston Paris suggests that Geoffrey chose the form Merlinus rather than the regular Merdinus to avoid a resemblance to the Anglo-Norman word merde (from Latin merda) for feces.

The reason for the reversion is given as: "I don't think this is important"

Well, I do think it's important. Has US spelling suddenly taken over from UK spelling as the default, from which no deviation is allowed or considered worthy of notice? And if only one version is 'allowed', can I change it to the UK one?

I have no idea where to start protesting, or even if this is a protestable point. Could you throw some of your wisdom on the situation?

Thanks, and very grateful for your valuable time Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi,, not Nick here, but was passing by. Wikipedia's Manual of Style has a section on using different orthographies of English. Consulting the subsection "Strong national ties to a topic," I would say that your use of "faeces" is more appropriate than "feces" on a subject strongly associated with the UK. If either you or the editor who changed it appear to still be dissatisfied with each other's take on the issue and consider it unresolved, I suggest leaving a message on their talk page to civilly discuss things. -- Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 21:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Tenryuu|💬, and thanks for that thumbs-up. Actually, decided exactly the same thing and changed the original from 'feces' to 'faeces' (very grateful for that). The other editor doesn't have a talk page (they're an IP user). This is a pity, as they did something else that requires civilised discussion. Cheers, Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Modern fiction
The subject of Merlin has continued to be popular through the Renaissance and afterwards, especially since the renewed interest in the legend of Arthur in modern times. According to Arthurian scholar Alan Lupack, "numerous novels, poems and plays center around Merlin. In American literature and popular culture, Merlin is perhaps the most frequently portrayed Arthurian character." Sometimes Merlin is a villain, such as in Mark Twain's satire of the legend, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1889).

To this I added: or a lustful voyeur, who watches his own conception, as in Robert Nye's saucy romp Merlin

This was removed as not important.

Admittedly two references to modern fiction don't make for a very good section, but I don't see how one reference is any imporovement. Are we, heaven forfend, allowed Mark Twain because he's American, but not Robert Nye because he's English?

I am NOT suffering from hurt feelings because two of my edits have been removed, I'm genuinely baffled as to what's wrong with them.

Thanks Nick Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (not Nick again) While I don't agree with the edit summary (that it's "not important"), the wording used is charged and Robert Nye's novel could be described more neutrally ("saucy romp" doesn't fit the tone for Wikipedia as a suitable descriptor), such as a "fantasy novel." -- Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Aha. Thanks again Tenryuu|💬 Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse date question
Mathglot (talk)

Parsimony in URLs
Hey Maryanne. In answering your question at the Teahouse, I took a quick look at your edit history to see if I could find the specific edit. I failed at that but I happened to notice your use of certain very long search string URLs that are unneeded. For example, in Olympiodorus of Thebes you added to the cite template:
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/40110580?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=olympiodorus&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dolympiodorus%26amp%3Bf0%3Dall%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bq1%3D%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bq2%3D%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bc3%3DAND%26amp%3Bq3%3D%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3Bq4%3D%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND%26amp%3Bq5%3D%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bq6%3D%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bla%3D%26amp%3Bsd%3D%26amp%3Bed%3D%26amp%3Bpt%3D%26amp%3Bisbn%3D%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5152%2Fcontrol&refreqid=search%3A227a1352d6d9b9c574bf05cd0e72e33d&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

If you look at the start of that URL, it begins
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/40110580

If you click on these two links – the massive versus the compact – you'll see you arrive at the exact same location. The same thing is true of the pdf you cited earlier in the article – all you needed was https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/299415.pdf. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a date to a template
Hi Mathglot, you seem to have sent me a message about adding a date (9th century) to a cite template, but I couldn't see the message. What am I missing? Thanks Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just responding to say that I saw your question above (and have added a section title above it, to distinguish this discussion from the unrelated one above). I didn't exactly "send" you a message, what I probalby did was to link your username so the Wikipedia Notification system would alert you via a message with a link to the conversation. This is the same Notification system by the way that messaged me just now when you pinged me. If you followed the link in the notification message and didn't find anything there, it's likely the discussion has been removed or archived. I think you might be talking about a discussion at the Tea house, I'll try and find it for you, and link it below. Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's in the Teahouse Archives, here. Mathglot (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mathglot Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a date to a citation
Hi User:Fuhghettaboutit, I tried to add 9th century to the date box in the cite book template, but it wasn't having it. I could put in c.800 (or some other date in the 9th century), but as '9th century' would be less prone to error, I wondered if there was a way of entering such a date. Thank you Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Maryanne. As I indicated, per the "CS1 errors" page I linked at the Teahouse, the cite templates only allow a numerical year or "c. year" to be used for either the |year= or |date= parameter. Having tested just now, I've also found that |orig-year=  does not provide a workaround—it only functions if a date parameter is also used. Nevertheless, there may be a workaround but I need the specifics to look for one. So, either point me to the page where you saved the edit that did not work, or, if you only previewed, provide below the citation, that you want to use, and I'll then try some workarounds. I can tell you in advance, though, that if there's no workaround using the template, there's always the option of formatting the citation manually. Citation templates are a convenience because they allow for easy plug-in, consistent, automatic formatting but they are by no means required, and are "neither encouraged nor discouraged" (though some even very experienced users don't seem to know this and get far too hung up in my view on what can only be seen in 'edit mode'). As I think you implicitly understand, or you likely wouldn't be asking this type of question, the far more important concern is providing transparent attribution for our readers, who never see the underlying code resulting in the display. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Fuhghettaboutit. Here's what I'm trying to insert, using the template (point taken about not having to use it, but it does make things easy, or would if it accepted the ninth century.) Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey again Maryanne. I actually thought finding a workaround might involve a fair bit of testing, plugging in diferent parameters to find out which one might enter text next to the author name and wouldn't reject all text but some specific format, that I could use to emulate the normal date placement, but then it ocurred to me: The first name parameter ends the name entry, or, in this case, since you're citing just a last name (which is a little non-standard, btw) the last name parameter does, so you can just add the date formatting in the name field and it will take any text because of the fact that names can be anything. So, the footnote following this sentence, and displayed below with the date formatting exactly the same as it would if the |date= field was present, is produced by the following code:


 *  --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again User:Fuhghettaboutit. I should have thought of that! Also thanks for the advice about names. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)