Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 March 27

Help desk
< March 26	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 28 >

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.

March 27

How do i do it?

I wonder how I can place a company profile in your site? Please help me with it. I am looking forward for a response. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Ballesteros (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the company must be notable. An article on a non-notable company will be deleted on sight. If it is notable, then take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Business FAQ. Be sure to write the article in a neutral point of view, cite everything with reliable sources, know that Wikipedia is not a place to advertise and remember once you press "submit", it's not your article. And finally, if you're not willing to read all of those linked pages, keep in mind that your article will probably be deleted. Xenon54 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Page Edits_ do not appear

I log in to extend the knowledge on the wikipedia. I make page edits, I see them in preview, I save them, logout and then click on the link to test it..When I return the "edits" are gone. What am I not doing correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web warriorcascas (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You edits edits were saved, however they were reverted by a bot, as it thought the links that you inserted were "spam". NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploading pages in different languages

I have created an article in English and I am going to create the identical article in several other languages. Does this mean I simply login through for example, the french wikipedi,a and create a new article again in French? If so how to I link it back to the English version, or does this occur automatically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.12.218 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a user account, you should create a unified login by going to Special:MergeAccount. You will then be able to log in to the French Wikipedia with your English account and create the translated article. See Help:Interlanguage links for how to link the two articles. Algebraist 01:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

405th Fighter Bomber Group

I am trying to contact someone from the WWII 405th Fighter Bomber group.

I am Maj. Charles E. Dills, president of the 27th Fighter Bomber Group in Italy, Corsica and Southern France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.55.208 (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Algebraist 01:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Dills, First allow me to thank you for your service. We do have 405th Air Expeditionary Wing, but I don't know if that would be of any help or not. Perhaps if you viewed the history tab of some of the WW II articles, you may find a name you recognize. It's a long shot I know. Maybe asking on the talk pages over at the WW II category section would help - I don't know, but just maybe someone might be able to point you in a direction that would be helpful. I only know of one WW II POW personally here in PA., but I don't remember which bomber group he was with. I will ask though - I do remember helping he and his wife find some friends through web-sites quite a while back, but I just don't remember what they were. I'm willing to do anything I can to help, but it may be quite a long shot. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 02:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Air Force Historical Research Agency can help? – ukexpat (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Understanding Archiving bots

I spent excessive time trying to learn the implications of this edit, without success. Is there a specific link where I can learn what it all means? Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo may be of help. – ukexpat (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start there. Like your username, if I am reading it right; my initials are different, but the last name is the same. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I get my article to go public?

Hi there....I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure exactly what I'm doing. I created an article...I'm not sure how to title the article and I don't know how to get it published. I saved it and the content is there but if I do a search for my article..the search comes up empty. Can you help me figure out what I should do.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polycom Telepresence (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

to copy from the HD/Template

To create an article, follow these steps:

1. Read Your first article carefully.
2. If you don't have an account, consider creating one (it's not essential, but it makes some things easier, especially communicating with other editors) and logging in.
3. Learn the basics of editing with the Wikipedia:Tutorial
4. Make sure the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article
5. Gather reliable sources to cite in the article
6. Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box and clicking 'Search'
7. Use the Article Wizard to create a draft.
8. Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines. Base the article on what the references say, rather than on what you know.
9. Once you believe that your draft meets Wikipedia's requirements, submit it for review by picking the "Submit your draft for review" button in the draft.
10. Be aware that many drafts are not accepted the first time, or even the second time they are submitted for review, for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are particularly likely not to be accepted, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones.

But I think that basically if you have already created the article in your user space - you just use the move tab to put it in main space. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh ... I see now, you didn't "create" it in wikipedia - rather on your computer I guess.. see the first parts. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you'll have to come up with a new name as well. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Image problem

In the infobox for Watchmen: Motion Comics, I can't seem to place this image that I uploaded. Help? Mjpresson (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done - it needed the full [[File:Motioncomicposter.jpg]] formatting. – ukexpat (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#I9

I was going through the articles to correct "excessive fair use", and I found this: File:Hunter_x_Hunter_-_Kikyou.jpg, which the uploader falsely claims is {{pd-self}}, even though this is a screenshot from an anime. I was wondering if WP:CSD#I9 applied? Also, for fair use images just used as "embellishment", can I use {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} rather than WP:FFD? Thanks, much in advance NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 05:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Update it seems a majority of the images that User:KrAtul are also violations too... NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 05:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I9 would certainly apply. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you crack a avvvount for me? or I hare to Start ocver

What a methiod if i has been forgot the password amd i have no email assocated to ir, what have another way to take back or resotre, or i have to start over or i have to cracking it >>> JustbeBPMF (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you forgot the password and didn't set an email them there is no way to recover the account or have the edits reattributed. We can't crack your account's password. Just create a new one. –Capricorn42 (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Adoption? sorry

Any chance of getting a wikipedian to help me out some? sorry i posted this twice one on the new users board but just wanting a little help i know it's late sorry. --KingLeian (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of adopters here; you can contact anyone of them on their talk page. Just make sure they are active. What do you need help with, by the way? Feel free to ask anything right here. –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

just want someone to guide me so i can make actual good articles. --KingLeian (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:YFA and try editing some articles that already exist. You can create a personal sandbox at Special:MyPage/Sandbox for testing or to use as an incubator for articles. There is an WP:AFC process, in case you want your articles vetted before moving to mainspace. Did you try to contact an adopter from that list?–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have. --KingLeian (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is exactly the sort of editors I'd like to help. I offered him my help on his talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient sources

Hello, I have a simple question. To what extent an ancient source should/could be used as the main source in an article. Maybe (almost surely) this has been discussed, but I could not find it. I am particularly refering to Herodotus (see also Criticisms). Thank you.--Xashaiar (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• To be verifiable, the source needs to be accessible. In case of old documents that don't have copies, someone in the direct storage location of the document should be able to visit it or a reliable expert needs to have published about its exact contents (in which case you cite them and not the document itself) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a problem here! Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Insofar as the ancient source has been republished in modern times, and thus, copies are availible in libraries somewhere, it is probably just fine. Copies do not have to be instantly accessable, just reasonably accessable. For example, the works of Josephus were written some 2000 years ago, but are readily accessable... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Best practice is to use a modern scholarly work that may include information from other sources, show a more balanced view, and so on. In the case of Herodotus, modern sources should also be available on-line, and certainly in libraries. Many editors object to the direct use of ancient sources in this way, even though policy is pretty silent on this issue. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know passim. This is especially so if you mean the article on the historian himself. Even Ancient criticisms may benefit from the context given when they are reported by modern historians. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. I personally think using ancient source as a direct reference MUST be prohibited. We will not loose anything because almost 100% of ancient sources have been treated/examined/reviewed/compared by modern scholars. I was surprised that wikipedia pages (help/policies) do not mention this.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixing capitalisation

Resolved

 – Page moved. ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I started the Jessy Rompies article, but the capitalisation of the article name is not appropriate (need to capitalise surname). How do I fix this?Ordinary Person (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, looks like someone has already taken care of that for me. Ho hum. Ordinary Person (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone has already taken care of it for you. For future reference, you simply move the article to the new title (with the correct capitalisation) and the software automatically leaves a redirect behind at the old (uncapitalised) page - as has happened (you can see by visiting Jessy rompies). pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 10:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Ordinary Person (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Online Status

Hi Yann, This is reg hindi wiki. As u r an admin there, & also connected with wikimedia, I thought that u may see the request better.

I am thinking of a program segment, that senses the logged in status of a member, & places a green dot on online, red on busy, yellow on idle & grey on offline, just like orkut/google/G-talk, etc & many more. Can we have this fac, atleast for the sysops' status. If you can direct this issue to right hands, so nice of you.--आशीष भटनागर (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Several people have developed scripts for this, but here on the English Wikipedia the bots that automatically kept track of who was online was blocked (don't know the exact reason. You're free discuss making a Hindi version of the more recent non-automated versions of these scripts. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Best way to remove lots of red links

On a lot of metal albums a link to the article Metal observer and website has been added. The trouble is that the magazine/website are not notable and have been deleted by 2 AFD's, and the link itself is spam as it's selling the album on that page. It falls under the Links to avoid see relavent discussion here. So whats the best way to remove these links, quickly and efficiently? I tried removing them manually a while back but it was very tedious. Here's the full list. --DFS454 (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Requested? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't really see how that helps to remove all these redlinks, though a filter could be created to prevent this link in the future or it could be added to the title blacklist. Which do you think is better MGM? Back to the original question, would using some sort of script or AWB make this task easy? --DFS454 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about AWB (never used it) but there is a mass unlink backlinks feature in WP:TW.(Just tried it out)[1]

By the way, WP:LINKSTOAVOID is for external links to other websites, and here you are planning to unlink internal links. Do make sure the unlinking is in compliance with WP:REDLINKS before unlinking. Redlinks are useful sometimes. Capricorn42^Talk 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2)I must not be understanding you correctly, because I only see one link to that article, and that's the link you put in your own question on this page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there are a few more links on this page. This could easily be done by hand. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ::*I must have formatted incorrectly. Here's the full list. The internal and external link needs to be removed. For an example look on this page Decade_of_Aggression --DFS454 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, doing it by hand would get a little cumbersome. As far as AWB, I don't have a lot of experience with it (and I don't have it installed on this particular computer), but I'm pretty sure that it would work for this. I would check it out if I were you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I was able to do it for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the external link?--DFS454 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That, I don't have an answer to. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mido (watch) deletion??

I don't understand how an entry I wrote on "Mido (watch)" was considered blatant "advertising." This article was no more advertising than any of the other articles on the Swatch group found on Wikipedia, which I was simply trying to add to since several pieces are incomplete.

Obviously, the person who deleted this article didn't not attempt to draw any distinction, especially since the author (myself) certainly stands in no way to profit from such "advertising" as a watch enthusiast looking to expand the body of knowledge.

If this article is advertising then every article about any company on Wikipedia is also advertising, especially every watch company. Can you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyoung121 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Scyoung, It's difficult to tell without seeing the actual material but it seems the article was deleted twice. Speedily deleted once as a blatant copywright infringement and then as you say as blatant advertising. I'd suggest you try and recreate it in your userspace first and then getting contrsuctive feedback. About the other companies, bear in mind articles must pass the notability guidelines specifically in this case WP:CORP and the fact that there are other companies with articles is generally a bad argument. Best Regards, --DFS454 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

need to know how to get to sao paulo

i need to know which airline i will have to take to go from south africa to sao paulo196.211.118.19 (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the Miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.—Capricorn42^Talk 14:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I googled "airline sao paulo south africa". I got several pages of results, all of which would appear to be relevant. I would suggest you do the same google search and use the results to help you decide. Karenjc 23:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

make your own userboxes

where is the sight to make your own userboxes? Sorry, I alread posted this on the talk page. i was a bit out of it at the moment.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no site for userboxes. The best thing to do is experiment in a user subpage. – ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userboxes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes and Wikipedia:Userbox Maker. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus on lists

What is the consensus on including lists on Wikipedia? You can create a list on nearly everything, like Authors with mental illness. So are you allowed to do that? Antivenin 19:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you take a look at WP:List? – ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I did. It's got a section on verifiability but not notability. Antivenin 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE I found WP:LISTCRUFT. It's an essay, not a policy. So I'm hesitant to follow it. Antivenin 14:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists are a funny area, some lists that seem well-defined and encyclopedic to one user may be deleted in an AFD, while others that seem like random collections of facts may be kept. The best bet would be to be bold and create a list if you believe it is worthy of inclusion, yet not be offended if it is deleted. You could also post your idea with a link to the article built in your userspace at the Village Pump to see if editors would generally consider it likely to pass AFD if someone nominates it. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw, but your (the OP) example being considerded for deletion, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_27#Authors_with_mental_illness Livewireo (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. The AfD discussion is where I got the question from, actually. Antivenin 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:SALAT. Skomorokh 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP:SALAT seems to be perfect! Thanks. =) Antivenin 05:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing title

How do I change the main title of a page?Lewis597634 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to change the title, you will need to move the page to the new title. In order to do this, your account must be autoconfirmed, which means it has been active for four days and made at least ten edits. TNXMan 14:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Article has been moved to Tim Iredale. – ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Publishing the source

Hi, I run the website www.diydoctor.org.uk. We have thousands of pages of DIY and Home Improvement articles that we believe would be great content for the Encyclopdia...How to hang a door for example.

I have no desire to advertise on Wiki and do not want to break any rules but feel that mentioning the source of these articles would be fair. We have also written a book, as part of the "Teach Yourself" series which also contains much useful info. The info on the site and in the book has taken 10 years to compile.

As I said, we do not want to break any rules or upset anyone but do feel that recognition of the source is a valid reason for stating our name. How does this fit in with Wiki policy ?

Mike Edwards Director - DIY Doctor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diydoctor (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide so I am not sure whether your content fits with Wikipedia's general purpose. If there is other material that may be useful for the project, you can release it for use on Wikipedia by following the process set out at WP:IOWN – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The material may be more useful at Wikibooks --DFS454 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could use it for WikiHow. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia will not display math formulas or illustrations.

About a week ago Wikipedia articles stopped displaying math formulas or illustrations (except for text). My browser is Firefox 3.0.7 running on Mac OSX 10.4.11. This may have started when I upgraded Firefox, but I am not certain. I would surely like to get Wiki running right. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.60.100 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia the only site affected? If not, it might be worth also checking under Tools > Options that you have "Load images automatically" checked. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When it's just so wrong...

hi, new user and i don't have the balls to randomly try editing stuff willy nilly, I have just looked at the 'Bitter (beer)' page and it seems to me to be completely bizarre and wrong, for example the rambling about IPA in the 'session beer' section and the list of 'popular beers'. also simple facts like the claim that 16.9% of beer sold is below 4.1%abv and 2.9% sold is above 4.2%abv, surely that means that the majority of the beer sold is between the 2 which seems implausible even though they have apparently verified it. fundamentlay my question is that (given i have limited internet access at work and cannot counter verify my knowledge) is there any way i can get an experienced wikipedian to have a look at the offending article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Raise your concerns on the talk page. We also have WP:BEER and you will find folks interested in Beer-related articles at WT:BEER Capricorn42^Talk 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The step you've already taken, commenting on the article's talk page is perhaps the best way of doing that. This'll bring your concerns to the attention of interested editors. You could also identify the facts you think are wrong by adding a "check source" template to them within the article text, and mark sections you think need expert attention with the {{expert}} template. But really, why not consider having a go at the changes yourself? If you've found your way here, you're doing a decent job of navigating the wikimaze, and someone willing to read with a critical eye is always an asset to the project. You don't need that much time, or much in the way of balls. I have precious little time and no balls at all, and I get by fine ;) Gonzonoir (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, you don't need internet access to verify your knowledge, books, newspapers and magazines are acceptable sources too. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I know why the figures seem impossible: they are percentages of pub sales rather than of bitter - i.e. under 4.1% strength makes up 16 or so percent, over 4.2% 2 percent and other drinks 82%. Article needs to be made clearer though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How to get list of all articles in a category

Is there a way to generate a list of all articles in one category? Maybe with the pywikipedia bot? Because its not feasible copy&pasting all names when the cat has several thousand entries (eg. ) --DieBuche (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser can generate a list of all category members, but it won't be in wikilink format, if that's what you're looking for. The API can do it to, but I'm not sure how many category members it can list at a time. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Article draft question

Hello I am working on a draft of an article. I have a copy of the draft here. Ok my question is if an opinion piece in a news paper like The Wall Street Journal should use a {{cite news}} template, a {{cite web}} template, or if it should not be used at all (see the citations in the comment box at the end of the article). I would also like any comments that you have about the article in general, like what it would need before being moved to main space. —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

Sorry forgot to sign ZachInOhio (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you're worried a opinion pieces cannot be cited with "cite news", using "cite web" is a fine alternative. (I wouldn't be worried; I see the word "news" as shorthand for newspaper in that template. Either way, I would recommend using one of the citation templates even if it was just {{Citation}} for consistency. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Also what should be added, deleted, or changed before I move it to main space? ZachInOhio (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mindwipe

I'd very much like to recreate Mindwipe as a redirect to somewhere, to be able to make an article about Mindwipe (Transformers) and add a tag saying "Mindwipe redirects here. For the Transformers character, see Mindwipe (Transformers)." The reason for the redirect is that the article Mindwipe has already been deleted several times, and I don't want to make yet another article that will be deleted. My question is, what should it redirect to? A mindwipe is, of course, a fictional alternative for capital punishment, meaning deriving a person of his/her personality and memories, but leaving his brain and bodily functions otherwise intact, so he/she can essentially "become" another person. But Wikipedia doesn't seem to want to accept an article about it. I'm fine with that, but what should I use instead? Capital punishment? Science fiction? Wiktionary has an article about it at wiktionary:mindwipe, but how do I create a redirect from Wikipedia to Wiktionary? JIP | Talk 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Use #REDIRECT[[wiktionary:Page name]] --DFS454 (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as the fictional subject goes, if there are no published studies, there is nothing to draw on, and you're back in original research territory, which is why the last version was deleted. We are not a venue for original research; maybe you need to write something for Extrapolation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pipe in article title

How do I create an article with a pipe in its title? I'm interested in creating an article titled "EMP|SFM" as a redirect to Experience Music Project and Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame. I've created several articles before but a pipe in the title defies the methods I currently know to create an article. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would probably be immediately deleted as an implausible redirect, I'm guessing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that; it's the acronym the institution uses to refer to itself. See [2]. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the wiki-software allows pipes, for technical reasons, but I'm not certain. Perhaps you should ask your question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), the folks over there might be able to give you an answer. Sorry I'm not of much help. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pipes in titles are totally banned. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). Algebraist 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon I article

I was directed here when I tried to insert a comment on the talk page for "Good History articles." How can the Napoleon I article be good when the section on his Death is such a mess, his death comes before his marriages, etc.? There are large numbers of comments on the Napoleon I talk page that show clearly that the last words listed are not his last words (etc.), yet no changes - and it remains a "good article"? I don't think so. How does one get Napoleon I downgraded to a less than Class GA article? I think it's way below that. Levalley (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Try WP:GAR. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally rarely take this route, but you could try fixing it yourself! Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 23:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No thank you, I'm merely an observer on that page. Two very well qualified people have provided all the needed information (except citations) for someone to do the edits (where the citations may be is strongly implied on the talk page - but increasingly, I regard wikipedia as something of an undergraduate project, and do not myself have time to do these edits. Whoever saw fit to edit the article earlier, including the bad information, should either fix it - or some other equally enthusiastic person or group of persons should fix it (equally enthusiastic as those who created the article in the first place). I notice a lot of this on wikipedia - it's fun and interesting to start an article, debate and discuss, whip it into shape, but when the going gets tough (see the Death section on the talk page for Napoleon I for example of "toughness" - it really wouldn't have been that hard to fix, and the person who was trying to help might have at least been encouraged to do so - or acknowledged for her expertise, but instead, the previous editors apparently fell silent and nothing was done). I assume that the expert offered her views in much the way that many professors do, with the attention of helping, but without the time to fix Wikipedia and learn its ways and means. So, as it stands, Napoleon's last words are wrongly stated, the attentions paid him by his doctors are not described properly, and a very interesting amount of bona fide research into his last days is omitted in the actual article. I haven't checked to see if Josephine's death date has been fixed or if Napoleon's alleged death right after hers is still in the article (he died 7 years later, and there's no evidence he remained depressed for the entire period between J's death and his, etc.) Oh well.Levalley (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

How does one create a new article?

I want to add an anthropologist (John Collier Jr). I know I have to show he's notable (I think he fits the criteria). So how do I begin a new article? He's mentioned on the Visual Anthropology page, now I want to write his biography. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

This I've done. Thanks for the checklist. There's an article on his father, but not one on him, that I can see.Levalley (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

No close association.Levalley (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.Capricorn42^Talk 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is exactly where I needed to start. Sorry for not making it clear what I'd already done and making you type so much extra - I really appreciate the summary, though. Levalley (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

(ec)Click on John Collier (anthropologist) and save something to it. Compulsory links to WP:BIO and WP:RS. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume that the tutorials mentioned above will guide me through compulsory link creation - thanks again! --Levalley (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

onesided article

I looked for a more appropriate place to turn to but nowhere did I find "how to deal with unwikipedia articles?"
I discovered the "2009 Arab Capital of Culture" which is pure political propaganda. Is that encyclopedic? could it be redirected? or whatever action to correct it? I left them a message suggesting they move it to a related article, and said it was onesided, (and also that I disagree but that's something else) well you can read all of it for yourself. anyway I was the only one on the discussion page and I do not know if anybody will come around reading that page ever, let alone react.
I would like to know more about the wiki view regarding these kind of politically loaded postings, we all try so hard to be "neutral" and some just go for it, throwing brutal comments, I felt, as a wikipedian used to our kid gloves, and the endless discussions on what/how/where/who etc. before accepting anything, that I suddenly was in another world! thanks for your help, and please leave me a message on my talk page Hope&Act3! (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what this is, is it a program analogous to the European Capital of Culture? TastyCakes (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• The program itself has nothing to do with political propaganda. It turned political as soon as government officials started banning cultural events. The coverage of that should probably be turned down a notch in practical size, but not being complete in covering it isn't neutral either. The best thing is to discuss it with people on both sides of the political spectrum and see if a consensus can be reached. Personally, I think a lot can be done by using different sources. Newspapers in Western Europe have covered this two and have been unfavorable to both Palestinians and Israelis in their views on the conflict. Using sources that have no particular agenda should improve this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

daniela mercury

Hello we are daniela mercury's international management and we would like to change the picture currently in page as we [ including artist] doesn't feel that it is representative---- what do we do? http://danielamercury.art.br/contato.php

Thank you <e-mail redacted>Elemcivs (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the image is copyrighted? If so the copyright owner should follow the process set out at WP:IOWN in order to release the image for use on Wikipedia. Then it can be uploaded to Wikipedia and the link in the article corrected. – ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you own the copyright yourself, you can follow the process given at WP:YOURPHOTO. — jwillbur 17:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Revising the rules for deleting articles on open-source software

There has been a recent intensification in the trend of deleting software-related articles. I think this is a useful enterprise, in order to declutter Wikipedia of dead projects or software with very little information to go about it.

However, there have been cases of articles on active software projects, with large user bases, being deleted on grounds of lack of notability (WP:NOTE). While notability is certainly desired for any article, I'm wondering about the particular situation of open-source software. OSS benefits from instant verifiability, in that anyone can download the code and check the claims in the article. Often, the size of developer base, and automatically-generated statistics about the project longevity and activity can be found on sites such as Ohloh (example for Foswiki) or GitHub (example for MojoMojo). Most such software is not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works". For example, the Mediawiki article does not satisfy these criteria, but nobody doubts its notability.

Maybe OSS doesn't have Wikipedia:Inherent_notability, but are there guidelines on establishing notability for open source software? Dandv (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The key to wikipedia articles is verifiability; while it is certainly possible for readers to download the software themselves, editors writing about the software (aside from obvious details) constitutes original research. We can only write about what has already been written in reliable sources, that can be primary (like documentation or the project web site) but it also must be grounded with independent sources in order to maintain neutrality. -Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)-

Look Over an Article

I have written an article on Alvin Powell in my sandbox, but I just wanted to make sure that it didn't violate WP:BLP. Because he was a drug addict, I just wanted to be careful. If no one feels like looking at it, can you please tell me where I should put this request. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 23:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. The best thing is that the facts that look biased have non-reputable sources. ZooFari 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I ment to say that the best thing is that the article HAS sources, not that they are not reputable. Reputable ones are those found in organizations and government pages. For some reason my keyboard did not continue typing. Sorry, ZooFari 00:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm... do you literally mean the best thing? Sarcasm doesn't really translate well over the Internet. I'll try to find some more reputable ones. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 00:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at it, I can't see any specifics. I know I'm still new at writing articles, but most of the controversial stuff is sourced from the foundation he founded. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You may want to try searching Google news, Google Books and Google Scholar for sources. If the reliable sources from a secondary source indicate something, it's usually acceptable to include it. {Exceptions may be personal information that should not have been disclosed in the first place.) Looking over the article briefly, I think it looks acceptable, and very well sourced. Looks to me like you've done a fine job. IMHO. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 08:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, thank you! Genius101^Guestbook 14:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)