Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 January 3

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.

January 3

Is there an infobox for non-profit organizations?

Resolved

 – Corruptcopper (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Or is there a list of info box templates somewhere? -- Scarpy (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's either Template:Infobox NPO or Template:Infobox Organization, not sure if there are others, but these look like they should do the trick. AlexiusHoratius 00:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One would think they'd be in Category:Business infobox templates, although Template:Infobox Non-profit was in the parent category. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Providing citations/ supporting evidence

I am a freelance journalist (etc etc), author of the Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Resource Book (1995) and editor of Festivale Online Magazine (est. 1996; www.festivale.info ; ISSN 1328-8008).

I use wikipedia quite a lot (thank you) and can help with some fact checking and editing where I have done/ am doing research myself. I've looked at the citation guidelines, but I'd like a little clarification and I'm not yet comfortable with your process.

For example:

I contacted Tanya Huff last night, and regarding the website listed on wikipedia which is not online she says "The website was actually a fan run site (although officially with my blessing). This lj [live journal] is as close to anything resembling a website I do myself -- albeit sporatically. "

How do I cite this if I edit the external links?

I discovered that my pages on author Paul Collins was corrupt and when I came to the wikipedia page, it needs third-party references.

SO, when I restore the pages, do I use those to confirm the information on the wikipedia page? If some of the facts are supported by my research and appear in my publication (written or edited by me), can Festivale Online Magazine be one of the verifying sources? As a journalist I keep notebooks, interview recordings, correspondence, etc.

I have project called the Series Series (www.series-series.info) that I've been working on for some time. Its under a major rebuild but it includes articles on series, and bookpages which give the reading order for series. Wherever possible I confirm information with authors directly, or with the publicists. Can I help by supplying corrections from the 'horses' themselves?

Academically, I am being cited and quoted in papers/theses on a variety of subjects, mainly film criticism and technology-related issues, but I don't know where that places me in the wikipedia context. I know this partly because I'm contacted and partly because I find my name in searches.

Sorry if this seems to be rambling, but I'm trying to get some context here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Kayn (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS for our guidelines on reliable sources? – ukexpat (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of what you describe is primary sources, and not suitable for our purposes. We need data which have been published in edited or peer-reviewed venues. No offense, but Festivale Online probably wouldn't meet our standards for reliable sources. We need the kind of thing covered in WP:CITE. (I'll fix the LJ link for andpuff.) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. For our purposes, you are two (almost) completely different entities. First, you are a published expert in your field. As such, your published non-wikipedis works can be cited. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Second, you are one of approximatelyh 6 million WP editors with a login account: yours is User:Ali Kayn. As an editor, you have no more (and no less) authority than any other editor. This is counterintuitive and can be very frustrating. It arises because we have no mechanism to verify taht you are who you claim to be, and as a matter of policy we choose not to implement such a mechanism. If you claimed to be God, we would still not grant you any special priviledges to edit religion articles. That being said, we still welcome your edits and we value your expertise. Please edit as you see fit, but make sure you cite sources according to WP:V and WP:RS. -Arch dude (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad God's not editing the religion articles. S/he would probably be biased.

I read the various guidelines, that's why I'm querying. I'm really questioning the issue of supporting the information that appears by pointing to information I publish. I use the same procedures for fact-checking with Festivale as I do when I submit to, for example, The Australian or any other newspaper or magazine. I publish Festivale in part to help writers get experience in the process of submission, editing, fact-checking, etc. Isn't an appropriate source of information for a biographical piece a published interview or feature, even in the form of a Q&A? The National Library of Australia requested permission to maintain archive copies of Festivale due to its perceived value as a resource, which I don't think they'd do if they thought we weren't credible.Ali Kayn (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine reverting one of God's edits. A booming James Earl Jones voice would thunder down from on high, in all caps as befitting a deity, "THOU SHALT NOT REVERT THE LORD THY GOD." And then God would smite us with pestilence, an invading horde of Amalekites, and numerous irreproducible bugs although we'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference with that last one. Fortunately, God is effectively dead on Wikipedia as s/he lacks an Internet connection, but we do have a King. But I digress. You're asking about references. On Wikipedia we have rules on top of rules, but we also have Ignore all rules, which is probably not a good rule for someone new to Wikipedia but there it is. I think of Wikipedia's rules as more or less a set of principles that let us predict what other users are likely to do. This is important because Wikipedia is like a MMORPG in which the objective is to write things that other users will not change. Since most other users more or less follow the rules (especially as they gravitate up the experience ladder and accumulate greater throw weight), the more we follow the rules ourselves, the more likely that our edits will "stick". But the rules are not airtight; there are always exceptions and special cases, particularly when one writes something that other people care strongly about. Thus the rules matter to the degree that one is writing something that may bother someone else. The odds of that go up with the popularity of an article. If you are contributing to an article that many people read and tend to get hysterical over, expect to have your edits scrutinized more closely than if you contribute to an article that gets ten views per month. Your Wikipedia edits don't have to be perfect on the first try. That's why we say be bold (just be prepared for the resulting smite). --Teratornis (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's a short answer: Festivale clearly meets the verifiability requirement. We can assume good faith on using is as a reliable source until we have some reason not to. So, you as a WP editor, may cite it the same way any editor may cite any other magazine that publishes on the web. -Arch dude (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Parser #if

<moving to the VP> flaminglawyer^c 04:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser

Resolved

 – Corruptcopper (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whenever CheckUsers find multiple accounts, why don't they always block the accounts themselves? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine they prioritize CheckUser tasks over admin tasks, given there are so few of them. — Manticore 07:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some do. However, they generally leave the blocking/tagging to the clerks. The clerks also archive completed or declined requests, and help with general maintenance. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikitable - Infobox interference

Resolved

Does anyone know how to keep wikitables from being bumped down due to an infobox? Here is an example of what I am talking about. I have tried changing all kinds of table parameters (width, border, etc.), but I can't seem to figure out how to keep it from being forced down like that. Any help is appreciated. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out; It was a problem with one of the earlier commands placed on the page. Please disregard my question. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading stereoscopic compound models

Will it be of any relevance or use for me to upload stereoscopic 3d images of organic compounds (especially the ball & stick model), for which non 3d models exist in wikipedia? It will probably enrich wikipedia or commons, but will there be any practical application of such images? I make all such images myself using Chem3d Pro.--Leif edling (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean where there's currently a 2d projection of a 3d structure, or where there's just a connectivity diagram? Either way, I'd think it may enhance certain articles that are talking in detail about the structure. How easy are the stereoscopic images to view on a screen for someone not already used to viewing them? Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about those three dimensional images which have to be viewed with 3d red blue glasses. The 3d projections of these compounds accurately conform to the actual dimensions of the compound. Anyway, I'll try uploading some, if anyone finds them of use, he/she may use them.--Leif edling (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image template

Resolved

 – Corruptcopper (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember noticing sometime ago a template that allowed two or more images to be shown side by side, but I can't remember what it was now. Can anyone direct me to this template? Thanks in advance. Chamal ^talk 13:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Was it simply {{Gallery}}, perhaps? Or were you thinking of a more specific layout? ~ mazca ^t|c 13:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not gallery. It was supposed to be used with one caption, for things like comparing two images etc. I'm sorry I can't be more specific about this, I was not very interested in it at the time so I can't remember exact details. Chamal ^talk 13:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's little I know about less than images and templates, and someone may indeed have created a template for just this purpose; but it looks as though what you want to do can be done fairly easily by putting the images in a table. See Template:Ph:Table. For the single caption, you'd just need to use colspan in the row containing the caption. Deor (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was {{Double image}}, {{Triple image}} or {{Multiple image}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It was {{Multiple image}}. Thanks a lot PrimeHunter, and Deor and Mazca too for your efforts. Chamal ^talk 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CHANGE USER NAME

HOW TO CHANGE THE USER NAME..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by C c k c (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As you have not made any edits apart from posting your message here, the easiest way is to just create a new account. And remember that posting in all CAPS is considered the equivalent of shouting. – ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, it is look like another wriring method like Taichung City or TAICHUNG CITY. JustbeBPMF (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

library of congress picture

I'm looking at this picture of Marie Arana from this site from the 2006 National Book Festival and wondering if LOC took that themselves, and if so would that be okay to use in the article about Marie Arana? I'll probably including a caption mentioning the conference, also talking about it in the prose. I have a strong suspicion that the answer to both my questions is yes but I want the input of another editor. E123 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The credit for the photograph appears to be "Keisha Manderson" - in the absence of any indication that the work was commissioned by the LOC, or that the photographer was working for the LOC at the time of taking the photograph, I don't think you can automatically presume that the copyright in the image vests in the LOC. _Gb^T/c 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keisha A.R. Manderson was the designer of the Oct 2006 LOC information bulletin.[1] However, you probably would need to get an answer straight from the LOC as to the copyright status of the images before using the photos in Wikipedia under a free use license. It seems worthwhile for you to follow this up.-- Suntag ☼ 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)