Help desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

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.

August 23

IPA guideline

Is there a guideline for when IPA should be used in an article? I've looked at many pages on IPA, but all I really see are explanations as to how it's supposed to be used, what it means, where it should be placed, etc. In other words, these Wikipedia pages seem to assume it's fine to add an IPA to any article, which, on the face of it, makes little sense (to me). Maybe I missed something in the quagmire of See also's..--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the use of IPA in pronunciation sections at the start of an article? If so, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, which explains how best to present pronunciation information. Or are you concerned about the use of IPA in articles on linguistics and language topics, in which case someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics may be able to help? If neither of these links help, you'll have to explain what specific article you have a problem with and what your problem is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first, which I noticed, as it doesn't address when you should include an IPA in the first instance, just how you should do it if you do it. Nor the second, either. The article is Frank Abagnale. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

I am looking for photos and or stories of captured German World War II Kubelwagens....the equivalent of the American jeep. In the past I have seen photos of Kubelwagens that were put in use only painted up in olive drab paint and white stars....so they wouldn't get shot at by our own troops. I have built a replica of a Kubelwagen, painted it the army olive drab color with stars. I'd appreciate any help you could give on this............Thanks, Dale Herd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.133.245 (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMedia Commons has a [collection of photos here] - mostly in original Wehrmacht colours. Roger (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help me with public domain copyright help me

I have uploaded a new picture to the article Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold where Harris points to the camera with a pistol. That footage was released under public domain in 2003 by the Jefferson County Sheriff Department, but I find no public domain tags to put in the picture rather than the U.S. federal government work which I know is not the right one for the picture. Can you help me? Which public domain tag is right for this picture? Thank you Nienk (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-release}} might work... I can't find anything more specific that would apply to this. You may also want to ask at Wikipedia:Copyright problems - while that board says it's intended for suspected violations and the like, there are links pointing there if you have general questions as well. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

health problem

my husband has pulmonary fibrosis on the lungs do you think hew ould benefit his problem with the ozone generator in a glass of water a day thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.5.32 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ~~:This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. Please post this question on the reference desk. Cheers, TBran dl ey 05:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer, and contact an appropriate medical professional.Mdann52 (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong West Football Club

I have been a member of the Geelong West Football Club for over 10 years and for a large portion of that time have been doing some historical recording with the club. I designed and wrote the club website; www.gwspsc.org . I overhauled Wikipedia's existing article on Geelong West Football Club on June 22 2010 and re-wrote the whole piece and added many facts and figures and also lengthened the entry. I have not been in since except for today where I see that what I had contributed and extensively written has been completely wiped and the smaller, condensed version which is vastly inadequate when compared to what I had added has been restored. I see that the reason for deleting my contribution was because of copywrite violations and that it had been lifted from the club website. However, in this instance, I am the one that wrote the original piece on the website and then added it to the Wikipedia page. Hence both authors are one and the same. I would really like what I wrote to be restored to Wikipedia as it is a far more extensive and comprehensive history on the club. My name is Justin Brown. I am able to verify that I am the original author of both pieces. Please advise. Kind Regards. Justin.125.168.7.89 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But note that, apart from un controversial factual matter, everything in the article should be referenced to an independent reliable source. Referencing the Club's website, whether you wrote it or somebody else did, would count as referencing a primary source, and is not adequate to support material in Wikipedia. You would need to get your history published by an independent reputable publisher in order to use it to support the Wikipedia article. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone responsible for this?

Is there someone at the WMF responsible for contacting potential copyright holders or organizations? In the case at hand it needs to be determined whether a specific logo is officially being used to represent an organization (actually three organizations). See the discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:BD tri-service badge.png. Whom should I approach? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the Foundation's job. It is the responsibility of the uploader of an image to make sure that it complies with the licensing requirements at Commons or the non-free content criteria at Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) There's nothing to stop you contacting them yourself - see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. WMF has a very small staff and most work is done by volunteers, which means you and me. Wikipedia:Non-free content review is the correct place for handling this - it's heavily backlogged so it may take a while to reach a conclusion, but if you are patient they should get there in the end. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCE says "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". In other words, if it is necessary to contact the (potential) copyright holder then that's the duty of the users wanting to keep the file in an article. Also I already did a Google search and was unable to find this badge being used anywhere on the web. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not being used at all of course, but those who want to keep it have to provide a proof to the contrary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Brimson entry - changes

I've noticed that Dougie Brimson's entry has been edited several times in the lat 24hours - every time someone mentions his association with the stopthegrbullies bullying website, it gets deleted. I myself have mentioned this in his entry, and, following advice, had properly sourced it. This has now been removed and the article has gained 'semi-protected' status.

Can you advise why you are editing well documented truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.195.180 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the information can be sourced doesn't mean it is notable. You might want to discuss the matter with The Rambling Man, who reverted your edits and protected the page. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor acronyms/codes are not covered in the Wikipedia Glossary, makes discussing with them difficult.

An article I created was the subject of a speedy deletion debate. During the 7 day discussion period, editors threw around acronyms like they were going out of style. While I understand the efficiency acronyms allow for, to the uninitiated they mean nothing. Looking in the Wikipedia glossary, some are not covered (ie: A7, G11). Common practice for using acronyms is to write out what the acronym means the first time it is used on a page. This would go a long way in aiding the newcomer's understanding of what the reviewers are talking about, and afford them a greater opportunity to understand what is going on.

So, my question is: Where can one find the list of codes, as mentioned above, that are not in the glossary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.27 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion criteria and their codes such as A7 (No indication of importance) and G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) are listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These particular codes are for sections of the criteria for speedy deletion: "A" stands for article and 7 means it's the seventh criterion applicable to articles. The other codes from that page: G=General, T-Template, U=User, P=Portal, F=File, R=Redirect. Since these codes, unlike many other shortcuts you may come across, don't have a written out version exactly, they can only be described and linked. and when they are used in warning templates they usually are, e.g. "A tag has been placed on NAME requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion because..." Anyway, there are indeed many shortcuts (←that link is to Wikipedia:Shortcuts, which has it's own shortcut, "WP:SC") on Wikipedia and sometimes users do use them too much without at least linking so that a new user could follow easily. There's at least one essay about this floating around but I haven't found it at this time. Anyway, anytime you see something like a Wikipedia internal acronym but it's not linked, shove "WP:" in front of it, and see if that takes you anywhere when you drop it into the search field.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have trouble with three-letter acronyms, (so much so that I started a user subpage about them) and I still see a new one from time to time. I think WP:Wikispeak should help you with that. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 17:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VolkerRail

Hi there, We have been trying to edit our company page (VolkerRail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) for a while now but none of our edits have been approved. A lot of the information on our page is outdated and many things have changed- we think a couple of the reasons you may not be approving our changes is based on lack of referencing, of which we can only really reference a few sites because most of the information is internal or that it may sound like an advert. This is not our purpose- we are only putting down facts. Please let us know what we can do to get the edits approved. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there back atcha! You may find that Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations is a helpful page when trying to add information about your own organization to Wikipedia. The best, most succinct advise I can give to help you if you are having trouble is to use the article's Talk Page to provide information you would like to see added or corrected in the article. The talk page is located at Talk:VolkerRail. If you can a) describe what changes you think need to be made and b) provide links to reliable sources so that others can verify the validity of the changes you think need to be made, that would be very helpful to other Wikipedia editors who may be better at writing in Wikipedia's required neutral point of view. In other words, everyone here at Wikipedia, like you, wants the article to be as correct as possible, but Wikipedia has a house style and tone and also has standards of referencing added information so that all people reading it can check its accuracy. If you help us help you, we can all get this article improved. --Jayron32 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coby Electronics

There is incorrect info stated on this company's page. Under key people, there is or never has been any such person named "Michael Garafalo, EE Coby King"

Please delete this.Thank you.

Jodi Sally, VP Marketing Coby Electronics Corp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojo starbux (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- John of Reading (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with editing an article of someone I represent

I edited the article about "Sheena CHohan" and added, improvised the details. However a day later it went back to what is was. Also I had added 2-3 images and that too disappeared. I do not know how to resolve this and there is no troubleshooting for it.

Can someone please help on why this would be happening? It has happened twice already.

Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aahutimistry (talk • contribs)

The history for Sheena Chohan is sadly lacking in edit summaries. May need to ask the editors on their talk pages to figure out what was happening. RJFJR (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File File:Sheena Chohan, Tune Factory, March 2012.jpg still exists but is now not used in the article. RJFJR (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you have removed, without explanation, material that appears to be reliably sourced. As you have a conflict of interest you should not be editing the article. Please use the article's talk page to request changes.--ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page not updating?

Hello,

My name is Luke Bourke. I recently created my first Wiki page (http://policy.lasallemedical.com/index.php/Set_Up_ODBC_Connector_and_Link_to_DSN) (not sure if anyone outside the organization can view the page) and when I edited it because of formatting mistakes I had made on the first attempt, I clicked the Preview tab and everything looks great!! The problem is when I hit the Save Page button - when I do that, it displays the first version I had created? I looked at the View History tab, but I don't know how to make it go to the most recent or if that is the cause of the problem or not?

Please let me know and Thank you for your assistance in advance, Luke Bourke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.15.29.77 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can only offer assistance with the English Wikipedia, however it sounds as though this is a caching issue. Try clearing your browser's cache, and if that doesn't work, go to the edit screen for that page. In the address bar of your browser, replace "action=edit" with "action=purge" and hit Enter. That should force the server to display the most recent version. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stats on pages in a category

I've been trying to work out how to get a figure for the total number of article pages in a category but can't find out how, other than going to the category page and noting the number of pages in that category, then all the subcategories with their number of pages within them and the sub-subcategories with their pages, etc. and totalling the numbers up. Rather laborious to drill through, plus there are likely to be some pages in multiple categories, so I would be counting them more than once. Is there a simpler, and more accurate way? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:CATSCAN for this. Put in the name of the category and it will tell you how many articles there are in it. It also allows you to drill down through subcats. Dismas|^(talk) 17:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Just to assure myself I'm on the right track, I tried CATSCAN for Category:Medicine putting "2" in the "Depth" field resulting in a "count" figure at the bottom of 22826. Does that mean there are 22826 article pages to the depth of subcategories of subcategories? If so, does this also include those pages in the parent category (depth "0") plus those in the first level of subcategories (depth "1") or would I have to to add the figures for 0, 1 and 2 together to get this? It crashes if 3 or higher is put as the depth incidentally. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand of it, yes, you have it right that it adds the totals of the parent cat as well as the subcats that are two levels deep. And it may not crash if you don't choose such a big category to begin with. Medicine is a huge field to begin with. When you start drilling down more than a couple layers, the number of articles can quickly grow into the hundreds of thousands. Since I have no idea what kind of resources the script has available to it, I can't say what number of results will lead to a crash. Dismas|^(talk) 23:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC from the last time a question like this came up, it crashes when the number exceeeds 2¹⁶ (65536). Roger (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper header

I am engaged in a disagreement about what the proper header should be in a Wikipedia article. So, I would like to solicit some input and advice on the matter here at this Help Desk page. The article is question is Robert Mone. As far as the references section, one editor opines that the header should be "Footnotes", whereas I believe that it should be "References". Our conversation, reasoning, and arguments about this matter are located here: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Robert Mone. And, of course, the Revision History of the edits for this article may be found on the appropriate tab of the article page (which I cannot seem to link here, for some reason). Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank this is a pretty lame dispute. In any event and for what it's worth, in my experience either is acceptable, but "References" is slightly more common, "Footnotes" being used in the circumstances described at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Alternative system.--ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this is a "lame" dispute (whatever that means) in your opinion, this is a valid question that merits a valid answer. I do not see how those are "explanatory" footnotes, and I see them clearly as "citation" footnotes. I could edit war, like many others do. But, I decided to take the high road and come here. Your calling my question "lame" is hardly helpful. So, errrrr ... thanks. I guess. Anyone else can be more helpful, please? Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say your question was lame, I said the dispute was lame. There are much more important things to worry about. But as I said, I think "References" is more common. You should discuss on the article's talk page as is the standard practice.--ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look ... this is not an edit war. Rather, it's a valid and legitimate question. I am not "worried" about it. Rather, I want an answer to my valid and legitimate question. Thanks. I will await input from others. Your "help" seems like you don't want to help at all. Pretty off-putting, I'd say. Thanks, anyway. Best. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it's possible that Ukexpat could have framed their response in a manner that you would find less antagonistic, their advice is correct IMO; you should discuss this at the article's Talk page and attempt to reach a consensus there. If no other editors chime in within a few days, you can attempt to get a 3rd opinion. Doniago (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is an article with little to no traffic. In fact, the article has an "orphan" tag on it. Second, this is hardly a major issue or controversy. I am sure that no one would weigh in on the (barely traveled) Talk Page, other than the other editor in question and me. Third, this is a pretty general question, not necessarily specific to this exact article and this exact set of references. I must say, I am beginning to regret altogether coming to this page at all. It's a "help desk" that offers anything but? To a pretty simple question, mind you. Wow. Just wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the short version is that the answer is that there's no hard and fast answer. Policy allows for either to be used, as was indicated previously. As there is no default answer, your next step should be to attempt to establish a consensus, which means bringing it up on the article's Talk page...I feel I should note that you probably could have already done that by now, quite quickly. This needs to be done as a matter of course, to establish that you're making an effort to resolve the issue in a proper venue. As I said above, if nobody else chimes in, you're then welcome to bring the matter to WP:3O, where usually an editor will offer a third-opinion and consequently reach a consensus with one of you or the other. You may want to review dispute resolution, which covers this in a lot more detail. TL;DR - while your question was simple, the answer is not, and the best way to get an answer, if you care enough to be this upset about it, is to follow the steps we've already outlined. Doniago (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, actually the answer is indeed very simple. Either those footnotes in the Robert Mone article are "citation footnotes" or they are "explanatory footnotes". It's a pretty simple and straight forward matter; thus, it's a pretty simple and straight forward question (and answer). I appreciate your reply above. Unfortunately, you are missing the forest for the trees. Your reply is so overly concerned and preoccupied with "process" (Wikipedia rules, procedures, bureaucracy, etc.), that you are making a very simple question/answer into some long drawn out affair. That's my opinion. The bottom line is that these are clearly "citation footnotes", not "explanatory footnotes". It does not take a lot of process, procedure, and bureaucracy to see that (or, even, to deny that). You seem more concerned with invoking a process, procedure, and bureaucracy ... than answering a very simple and straight forward question. Again ... wow. And this is a "help" page. LOL. I most certainly do regret stopping here first. Next time, I will either edit war or just leave the damn mistake in and let it remain as an error. This (above) is hardly worth my time, energy, and concern. Just unreal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So present your thoughts about this on the talk page (and then 3O if nobody responds). These are the proper venues to discuss if you're having a content dispute (which is what this is). Even if you believe your suggestion is most correct, others may not. Or perhaps people will agree with you and disagree with the other user. Or even somewhere in the middle. If you and the other user just stick to your opinions and aren't open to discussion, it's quite possible this could turn into an edit war, and that could lead to protection or blocking that renders both of you unable to edit the article at all. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. And this help desk is mainly for questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, not "I'm having a content dispute and I want you to give me proof I'm right." - Purplewowies (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite humorous. For a "help page", it seems that everyone's goal is to avoid giving help. Everyone here is so overly preoccupied with "process", that they are missing the main question for which I sought help. Not one reply above addresses the question of whether these are "explanatory footnotes" or "citation footnotes". Not a one. And that is the thrust of the question. It seems you ask a simple question, and every Wikipedia editor completely tunes out the question and goes into "bureaucracy and process" mode. Quite humorous. Yet, hardly helpful. Again, this is supposed to be a "help desk". Far from it. Sorry, just being honest. I am quite bemused that every single response so quickly jettisons to "process" mode ... and not a one has in any way addressed the substantive issue for which I sought help. That is, whether these are "explanatory" or "citation" footnotes. Again, just unreal. Take a step back and look at what you are doing. And what "help" you are offering. LOL. Thanks, nonetheless. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider your own advice. You're speaking in a way that many editors might consider antagonistic, and consequently, even if they might have feedback that would be more helpful to you than what others have offered, they may withold it. You catch more flies with honey, and all... In any event, I offered my help and you opted to ignore it, so I'll leave you to someone who can better assist you. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I understand your question. Everybody who has responded is basically looking at the root of why you want us to give you the answer to that question (that is, you're in a dispute with another editor and want it to to prove your point). We are (or I am, anyway) assuming that you're going to use the information to revert without discussing, which could result in an edit war (which would be disruptive and why I linked "point" above). Information about different types of footnotes can be found at Help:Footnotes, but please consider our advice instead of going "that's not what I wanted and I won't even consider it/this 'help desk' is a farce LOL/process/". - Purplewowies (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your question was not whether they were explanatory footnotes as opposed to citation footnotes. Please review your starting post again. Since it so plainly evident these are exclusively citation footnotes, I'm not sure why you have recapitulated your question in this way or what use it is to have a response here in the affirmative (as you can read this last sentence as being). What you really mean to ask, I think, the rub here, is whether we agree with you when you said at your talk page: "...That section of the MOS says that the term "footnotes" is used when we have explanatory footnotes only. It goes on to say that the term "References" is used when we have citation footnotes..." Close enough. I agree that the subject section of the MoS says this essentially. To be clear, it says in full, for a section with citation footnotes alone, that it should be termed ""References", "Notes", "Endnotes" ("Citations" may be used but is problematic because it may be confused with official awards)." I would not necessarily support your position because this says this. Policy and guideline are not statutes and I always question the assumptions, especially because I have spent much time discussing and making changes to policies and guidelines, so I see them as quite protean ("it does say that, now should it say something different?" is always what I think). However, in this case I do support the change to a "references" section header because I think it is clearer, less surprising and more informative to the reader, and supports the goal of having some degree of consistency in article format.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor with whom Mr Spadaro is engaged in a "dispute". Frankly, I think he's managed to blow it out of all proportion. I have written many articles for Wikipedia, and personally, I always use the header "Footnotes" for inline citations and "References" for other works which may be useful but which do not have inline citations. I originally added the header to the article, so that's what I used. "Footnotes" seems to me to be the common academic term for citations, which is why I use it. Frankly, I have no intention of getting into an edit war over such a trivial matter, but, as has been stated above, there is no "standard" header as Mr Spadaro claimed when changing the header and therefore the original author's choice of words should be respected (as I would always respect "References" when it has already been added by another editor). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Students altering my bio page

Hi: A student or (s) who evidently got bad grades from me in my college course - altered my Wikipedia bio page somehow and now I see this complicated discussion below. I have no idea how to fix, delete, etc. all this stuff. Who's making these comments??? David A. Collier

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC) [edit]David A. Collier David A. Collier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats) (Find sources: "David A. Collier" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images) Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Accomplishments seem to be on par with any other non-notable professor in his position with his schooling. Dismas|(talk) 22:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Delete - Person doesn't seem notable. Article is completely without wikilinks or proper structure. The (two) sources seem to be self-published. Personal information is included, which makes it look like more like a classified ad than a Wikipedia article. Paper Luigi T • C 23:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Very weak keep - if there's a pony under all the autobiographical horseshit. What awards? Is this a named chair at a named school? Does he (minimally) meet WP:PROF? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - After a quick check through GScholar and discounting the publications quite clearly belonging to a quite different D.A. Collier, I seem to be coming up with an h-index of a bit above 20, the relevant publications being a mixture of single-authored and co-authored ones. Quite a few of these date back to the 1980s and some seem to be books. I'm not at all sure whether this is high enough to constitute notability in this field and will leave it to others to decide and/or dig deeper if they choose. PWilkinson (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Comment The FGCU business school has about 7 named or distinguished professorships/chairs, so he holds a senior position but perhaps not the most senior. I could only find 2 reviews of his books via scholarly searches Interfaces[1]. Marketing News[2] but he's also cited by literature reviews such as[3][4][5]. He seems focused on academic publication rather than the more popular works that get coverage in the mainstream business press. It does need a rewrite, but keeping is a possibility. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC) information This article was created by an s.p.a., User:Dcollierfgcu; the account has been blocked indefinitely because this username is apparently an impersonation of Collier, who has denied (in an e-mail to this admin from his official FGCU account) any connection with this account or article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Comment It's hard to tell whether or not this deserves to keep - the material may already be there, but it's written in a way which makes it hard to discern. Can someone who knows more about this person write it more clearly, to explain why he's notable?Chriscook54321 (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Delete claims of notability must rest on independent, reliable sources. There are simply none here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.163.147.198 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article about you. What this is is a discussion, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Collier, whereby the article about you was deleted. Your students had no hand in the matter at all. Wikipedia has minimum criteria (outlined at Wikipedia:Notability) for whether or not any subject matter is appropriate for a topic for an article. When a topic's suitability is questioned, Wikipedia contributors will have an open discussion on whether or not the subject matter meets minimum standards. What you are seeing is the record of that discussion, which decided that, based on a good faith search of evidence, the subject matter did not have enough reliable sources to justify its continued existance, so the encyclopedia article about it was deleted. Does that help explain what was going on? --Jayron32 20:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Your students didn't have anything to do with that. I'm the one that brought the deletion discussion up and I'd never heard of you before reading the article that we had about you. In other words, I'm not one of your past students. Dismas|^(talk) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One must wonder at a college professor incapable of parsing a simple deletion debate which includes a pretty clear explanatory introduction. Roger (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Table formatting

Hi, is there some way to set the alignment (left, right, centre) of all the cells in a table column without having to apply the formatting individually to each cell? 86.176.213.246 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. I don't think HTML tables provide that ability either. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Russell

Tried, after getting my Password sorted out, to get to edit page on Ken Russell, and found could not get to start editing as was blocked somehow.! Can I therefore pass on spotted mistake. In 2000's section there is a mention of 'The Fall of the Louse of Usher'. This should be 'House'!!!Ronald Stein (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it really is the The Fall of the Louse of Usher - if you go to that article you will find the title explained. What message did you get when you tried to edit? The article isn't protected from editing, so I can't work out what stopped you. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]