Help desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Boolean operators & wild cards

I assume Boolean operators & wild cards are not available for Wikipedia searches, right? How about providing them? --- Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.154.219 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boolean logical AND and OR and wildcards are supported. See Help:Searching RudolfRed (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding related sites links

What if I am adding related sites link for different wiki pages, I am doing this to ease wikipedia readers about related websites / blog URLS so they may learn more. Is it wrong or good please do let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faheemvenom (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs should normally be linked in an article about the blog. Links to a recipe are unnecessary; there are thousands for some recipes, so unless the article is about the chef, and it is their recipe, it fails Wikipedia:External links guidelines. Dru of Id (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New film trilogy categories

Hi, I've created two film trilogy categories Category:Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy and Category:Spider-Man film trilogy (2002 - 2007). I hope I did not offend anyone by merging multiple categories. Also, I'm not sure if I named them properly. I'm also thinking about doing the same thing on Star Wars series, but afraid might offend people.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a poor idea to me to move three Batman films out of Category:Batman films and three Spider-Man films out of Category:Spider-Man films. The total number of films is small enough to need no subcategorization. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film would be a better place to discuss. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a notable person contribute to wikipedia?

I have a peculiar case regarding the contributions of a notable contributor in one of the Indic Language community. The said wikipedian is "notable" because he is a famous literary person and a historian. And he has many books to his credit published by universities or private publishers. And he has article about himself in wikipedia since he is notable. Now the issue is:

A notable person is contributing to wikipedia (yeah, that is a problem for some wikipedians :))
He is writing articles about the topics on which he has good knowledge.
Unfortunately for some rare topics the only available reference is his own books.

Few community members have objections to his contributions. They cite various policies including original research.

My questions are:

Can a notable person contribute to wikipedia?
If yes, can he contribute on the topics of his area of expertise?
Can he use his own books (which are verifiable resources) on these topics as reference?
Even if other reliable resource are available can he use his own books also as reference?
Will these issues be non-existent if a third person work on the same articles and use the same books of this notable person as refernces?

Please let me know how we can handle this peculiar issue.--Shijualex (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem as long as he is keeping a neutral point of view and not trying to own the article(s). As you said, the books are verifiable. It's not completely against the rules to work on an article about yourself or a topic that you are actively involved in. It's just discouraged since people have a hard time writing objectively about themselves. The first Wikipedian with an article that pops to mind is Cory Doctorow who has done some work on the article about himself before and probably (I haven't checked lately) still does. Dismas|^(talk) 10:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Quick answers:

Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia.
Yes, indeed, expert knowledge is greatly appreciated. See WP:EXPERT.
Yes, if they are published by major publishing houses with a reputation for scholarly output. Additionally, he could also use self-published works if he is suffiently well-respected as an authority in the field; see WP:RS.
Yes - although obviously, the more sources, the better.
Yes, assuming point 3 is met.

If the area in question is a contentious one and the Wikipedian in question is known for taking a polemical position or is closely associated with the subject, it might be more appropriate for him to propose changes on the article's talkpage rather than entering them himself. However, if it's a general historical topic, I see no reason why a published author should not use their own work as reference - as long as the information added is directly derived from the published source, it doesn't really matter who adds it. Yunshui ?‍? 10:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that if these are scholarly works, they themselves should be full of citations which can be mined. Thus, if I am J.R. Jonesh, writing about Latvian literature, and my own work from the University of Riga Press, Great Monologues of the Latvian Stage references a 19th-century Latvian anthology Let's Lett!, then rather than provide references to my own work, I should provide references to Let's Lett! instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This area has few hard-and-fast rules; we expect editors to use restraint and good judgement in situations where they may face a perceived conflict of interest. The conflict of interest noticeboard (shortcut WP:COIN) can offer guidance in these sorts of situations. Many Wikipedia editors tend to get a little worried when they see an individual who links exclusively (or nearly exclusively) to their own books and articles; we expect subject-matter experts to be broadly familiar with the important publications in their field, and to cite those other scholars' work in addition to their own. As noted at WP:SELFCITE:

"...Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article."

If there are disagreements about the appropriateness of a source for use in a given article, editors should attempt to resolve their differences on the article's talk page. If that should fail, or if broader discussion seems required, editors at the reliable sources noticeboard (shortcut WP:RSN) can be invited to lend a hand.

Tension can be reduced or avoided altogether if an author proposes the use or addition of particular sources on the article's talk page before adding them to the article. Allowing at least a day or two for an article's other editors to comment on or consider a source (as well as to suggest reasonable additions or alternatives) can go a long way to smoothing a scholar's interactions with other editors—and can help to produce better articles, in the long run.

Obviously, the comments and advice you've received here are only general in nature, as you've declined to identify either the editor or the articles where these issues have arisen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much for the immediate replies for my query. The main query i faced is, can notable persons contribute to wikipedia on their area of expertise?

These answers will help me to guide the respective language community by providing the general guidelines for dealing with this issue. I haven't identified editor or articles because similar type of issues arised atleast from 3 language communities. So they require a general guideline regarding this topic. The above answers will help me to provide them the general guideline. Thanks once again for the timely support--Shijualex (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in place?

Hello,

I work for an organisation called London Elects, and I have just gone on to edit the copy I had put in place on 4th February 2012 (it was certainly still there and unedited until Monday 30th April) - and the page now automatically redirects to something else. Do you have any way of un-redirecting this page? The two pages should be separate so not sure why some user has done this.

Thanks Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claireachristie (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The page was redirected on 4 May by the user Amisom with the edit summary 'all copied from webssite'. A quick Google search shows that it was copied word for word form the londonelects site [1]. This copyright problem would have to be fixed before the redirect could be removed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you work for the organisation please read the guidelines governing conflict of interest. Roger (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page should have been reverted to the version before the copyright violating text was pasted in on January 26, 2012, not redirected entirely even though it had preexisting content going back to 2008, unless all of the prior content was also copied and pasted. I have searched and do not find any indication that that is the case. (If all prior versions were copyvios, then the article should also not be redirected, but speedy deleted under CSD G12.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to post on Facebook when editing Wikipedia pages?

I am looking for a way to post some of my edits to Facebook or another social network.

This may be a dumb idea, don't know, but since people can share the stupidest things, maybe sharing about an interesting edit or as a way to ask for help on a subject would be useful. Might even encourage people to get involved in editing Wikipedia.

Maybe there already is something like the Mediawiki Facebook extension?

--Kai Carver (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social media website. If you've just expanded the article on Yuri Balashov, just post to Facebook as your status, "Editing Wikipedia article on Yuri Balashov; really think it's an improvement" and maybe cut-and-paste the URL for the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes I guess Wikipedia is not primarily a social media website... though it is pretty social. I just wonder if it would benefit from being a little more fun, a bit more like a game. But maybe that would spoil it as people tried to "game" it in various ways, worse than they already do, to the detriment of content. --Kai Carver (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Ture Is This Office and the link {http://www.euro-resource.co.uk/?x=jobs_in_canada}

CONSTRUCTION RECRUITMENT AGENCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.46.169 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of keeping this page orderly, I took the liberty of removing most of what appears to be a copy and paste of a company's webpage. 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. Cresix (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DOUBLE STANDERS OF "NOTABILITY" BEING USED FOR MY ARTICLE SUBMISSION

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Regional Airline Association My article on the Regional Airline Association has now been rejected twice on the grounds that the association it covers is not "notable enough". You have got to be kidding me?? I have linked its notability to PBS, Fox News, The FAA, United States Congress, AND Business Week magazine. Yet, you get these single airplane operations that only have their very own website as the only element of notability, like, Bimini Island Air and Air Cargo Carriers. Where are the short-sighted-reviews of my article failing to see this????--XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting so sick and tired of this I'm about to leave wikipedia!--XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken the time to read the details about your submission, but you can create an article yourself. See WP:SAA and WP:HEP for more details. You might also read WP:ORG for notability guidelines for an organization, and WP:V and WP:RS for information about providing reliable sources. If the article is nominated for deletion, there may be some constructive criticism and improvement by other editors that could improve the article so that it remains. I added a welcome template to your talk page with a lot of helpful links. Best of luck. Cresix (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cresix. I'll do just that to get around these little Napoleon's.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. BTW, you might want to be careful with the innuendo about other editors. We're all volunteers here. Cresix (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely I was not offered the same kind of kid-gloves that are being suggested of me. One can be equally, if not more, personally insulted with the rejection of an article on such nebulous a frontier as "It's not notable enough". I've already been insulted.

I'm having trouble finding the part about publishing one's already edited article in the links provided. Whereas the articles you linked do explain a lot about tips with editing your article, my article is complete. I'd like to just publish it as-is.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy the raw article (including wiki markup), go to WP:WIZARD, follow the appropriate links, then paste what you have already written into the new article. Cresix (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've seen this before. This was how I created this article. Somewhere along the way the language in this article and/or all subsequent articles has derailed me. There is ambiguity in the section where it says, "Create a new article (by-pass wizard)". I thought I want this wizard to create an article. No other option in that category has the option to create an article. It has options to create a new redirect page, but nothing about creating an article by USING the Wizard. The tabs along the top of this artcile creation wizard directed me to submit my article to this review board. I'm a pilot. I'm not stupid. But this, is overly complicated. I'm sure it's intentionally so to a degree so not every moron on God's green Earth is creating an article about how they mowed their lawn last week.

Here are the options I've followed to create the article being "reviewed" now. Create an article now (for new users)> I'm writing about a company, organisation or foundation > My proposed article is about a notable company and is not advertising > My proposed article has good sources > My submission is neutral, establishes notability, and is not copy-pasted from anywhere else > That brings me here Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission. Both options available lead to this "Review Board". ? --XB70Valyrie (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other route, Create something else (for advanced users) > I would like to create a new article (bypass wizard) ..this again takes me to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission ...which merely expedites me to the review board. ? --XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, XB70Valyrie. Look at WT:WIZ#Creating a new article in mainspace for a way to begin from scratch. If you need to, you could do step 1 in your sandbox, create the article, and then delete the link in your sandbox. I must admit this is very awkward; it seems to me there should be an easier way. Cresix (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, notability is not a nebulous concept, nor is its denial an insult. It is a fundamental policy of the entire endeavour. Claiming that something is not notable may be an error of fact, but it is not a judgment, and so should not be taken as an insult. --ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Notability" in itself, is indeed not nebulous. Look at my article which I just published with help from other wikipedians. Do you see an issue with the failure to establish "Notability"? Regional Airline Association. But when asked to explain why the article wasn't notable, even though I had citations, link, and references to the Federal Aviation Administration, United States Congress, Fox News, the Public Broadcasting Service no explanation was given by either declining Reviewer. People who remain silent are more often then not hiding something. These reviewers are not magistrates, they're not federal judges either. Their behavior as such, in the light of overwhelming "Notability", is impeachable.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith we are all volunteers here and getting angry with other contributors will get you nowhere.Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect pages for mispellings

Resolved

I've just stumbled on this page; one redirect for it being the bizarrely misspelled page "Boys' schhool of st. pauls'" Shouldn't this redirect page be deleted? I thought they were only for (WP:R) "likely misspellings" amongst other things, not completely garbled text... :) OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Edit: never mind, I've just found Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion... OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hollis biograpy

A book entitled "The American Heresy" (1930) appears to have been omitted from the list of Mr. Hollis' works. Can you add it? You can observe a copy of it now for sale (used) on the Amazon website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whvineyard (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this edit. Cheers, benzband (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No flow text

I added an image of bids by state to 2011 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament.

When I first add it, the next sections flowed around it. I did not expect Sections to flow, just text within a section. I checked Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial which suggested adding |one as a parameter, but that did nothing.

It looks OK now because I added {{clear}}, but I don't think that's the right way to do it. What did I miss?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture tutorial says "|none" not "|one". At least in Firefox 7, "|none" seems to work, having the same effect as your {{clear}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. This version clearly has "none" but doesn't render properly. However, it works now so I won't worry about it. But it will haunt me.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Favorites

Does Wikipedia offer a Favorites feature where a user could "favorite" a page for later reading or reference? Dryoung22 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. There is a star up near the edit button. You can click on it and it will add it to your watch list. You can use that to watch of any changes to that article, but it can also serve as a list of favorites.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what SPhilbrick said, on your watchlist, below the My watchlist heading there are several links looking like this:

(Display watched changes | View and edit watchlist | Edit raw watchlist)

Click on View and edit watchlist to see an alphabetical list of the pages on your watchlist. Those pages will be grouped by namespace and are listed in alphabetical order in each group. You can use that as your favorites list. Of course you could always simply create a page in your userspace, like User:Dryoung22/My favorite pages. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk-ctb) 18:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing multiple AFD templates

Hi - How do I do this again - Collapsing multiple AFD templates - I have forgotten - I want to collapse these three - Talk:Arthur_Kemp - Youreallycan 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Old AfD multi has a parameter called collapse where you can specify the number of AfDs to show up collapsed by default or alternatively you can collapse all with collapse = yes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk-ctb) 19:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting - that seems like a fair amount of work - can't I just collapse them as they are, do I have to reformat them completely? - Youreallycan 19:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already collapsed them using {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}}. That seems perfectly acceptable to me, although other editors might argue it is not the accepted standard. I think it's not a big deal and I am not aware of any rule on that, as such a rule would possibly come over as some form of instruction creep. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk-ctb) 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Toshio - very much appreciated - best regards - Youreallycan 19:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which namespace does a specific page belong to?

Is there a rule about when to create a page in the Help namespace rather than the Wikipedia namespace? I have a page in my userspace about a specific editing problem which I would like to move but I am unsure into which of those two namespaces to move it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk-ctb) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no fixed rule. Wikipedia:Help namespace notes that there is significant overlap between the two namespaces. Practically speaking, you'll virtually never be wrong to put a page in the Wikipedia: namespace, and you can always create a redirect from the Help: namespace if it would be appropriate. (I suspect that a lot of editors have forgotten that Help: still exists....)

As a rule of thumb, I would suggest only using the Help: namespace for things that are entirely uncontroversial, and which focus primarily on the technical and mechanical aspects of how to accomplish a particular task or use a particular tool. In contrast, the Wikipedia: namespace includes the policies and guidelines and stylistic advice about how those techniques and tools should be used on Wikipedia. Compare the coverage and emphasis of Help:Table versus Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, or Help:Link versus Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking to get the idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page I had in mind is User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Help:Commenting out categories. However, I just found that there is already the page Help:Colon trick. Anyway thanks for your detailed reply, it is much appreciated. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk-ctb) 20:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Help:Colon trick is better. A two-line help page is generally a bad idea. It's better to mention such short things on existing pages but it's already in several pages, for example the main help pages for links and categories: Help:Link#Wikilinks and Help:Category#Linking to category pages. Also, "Commenting out" refers to comment tags or possibly nowiki tags but not to adding a colon to a link. This may change the functionality of the link but it doesn't render the code inactive. Is it OK if your page is deleted to avoid confusion in readers who stumble by it? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk-ctb) 12:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to long to read comfortably

I believe that the text of articles should be made into more narrow and multiple collums to make reading easier. As I scan across the articles, many times I loose my place. More narrow, multiple collums would be easier to read.

thank you, R. Rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.172.254 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you should post at the village pump's idea lab. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with multiple columns is where do they break - each section? each subsection? each paragraph? - whilst the reader has to do three times as much scrolling. Scrolling down, then scrolling up, before scrolling down again.
If you find the text lines too long for your comfort, make your page width smaller - the text will adjust to any page width.
Arjayay (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for Colombian government agency with very commonly used acronym

An important article in my work on Colombian television, Instituto Nacional de Radio y Televisión, has me baffled in terms of naming conventions.

This was the state broadcaster, most known by its acronym Inravisión (indeed, the Spanish Wikipedia article is located there). All of their on-air IDs used the short name. I'm thinking the "unless almost always known by acronym" clause of WP:NC-GAL might mean it's best to use Inravisión.
Almost all of the links to this article use Inravisión. Keep in mind that in the work I've done, I've added maybe just over half of those links. But even before my work the majority of the incoming links came through that redirect.
WP:NC-GAL suggests an English translation for a foreign language government agency, but something tells me that that might not be appropriate here.

What is the best title for this article: full name as current, Inravisión, or English name (National Institute of Radio and Television)? Raymie (t • c) 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:TITLE help you decide? --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm thinking:

Recognizability: Inravisión hands down. It was in the channel IDs, etc.
Naturalness: The "actually called in English" bit here doesn't hold up. This is a topic for which all the major reliable sources will be in Spanish (which discounts the English name option). Searching the El Tiempo website (the best available reliable source in this subject area, with over 20 years of archives available for free) for the full name brings up 5,440 results; Inravisión turns up a whopping 13,000+ results.
Precision: There was no other institute with a similar name or acronym, so it's a tie.
Conciseness: Doesn't really apply because both are concise titles, though Inravisión is shorter.
Consistency (WP:NC-GAL): See above.

Now that I want this done, I need an admin... Raymie (t • c) 00:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson M. Cooke

I earlier submitted an article, "Nelson M. Cooke." This was rejected, and I prepared a total rewrite, specifically addressing the item cited for rejection (references do not indicate notariety). This has just been resubmitted, but the new text (as it appears on the Wikipedia page) does not have the same references that are in my resubmittal. Hwre is the correct list of references. Could this be attached to my latest draft as appropriate? Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ ”Biography: Lieutenant Commander Nelson M. Cooke,” Office of Information, Internal Relations Division, U.S. Navy, 17 August 1967

2. ^ Cooke, Nelson M.; Mathematics for Electricians and Radiomen, McGraw-Hill, 1942

3. ^ K&E Type 4139 Duplex; http://www.mccoys-kecatalogs.com/KEModels/ke4139family.htm

4. ^ Cooke, Nelson M.; "Mathematics for Electricity and Radio," invited paper, Mathematics-Science Panel of the New York Society for the Experimental Study of Education, 23 March 1943. Published in The Mathematics Teacher, vol. 36, Dec. 1943, pp. 329-332

5. ^ Watson, Raymond C., Jr.; Solving the Naval Radar Crisis: The Eddy Test – Admission to the Most Challenging Training Program of World War II, Trafford Publishing, 2007, ISBN 978-1-4251-6173-6

6. ^ Letter of Commendation. From the Secretary of the Navy, 10 Oct. 1945, Service Record. Nelson Mangor Cooke, U.S. Navy

7. ^ Biography, U.S. Navy, op. cit.

8. ^ ”Cooke Engineering Files for Stock Offering,” Securities and Exchange Stock Digest, 13 Sept. 1961; http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1961/dig091361.pdf

9. ^ ”Handbook of Naval Shore Station Criteria,” Cooke Engineering Company, Dec. 1956; http://www.virhistory.com/navy/manuals/92675/92675-00.pdf

10. ^ ”Buried Cable Radiation Study, Cooke Engineering Company, Defense Technical Documentation Center, 1959

11. ^ ”Power Line Induction Harmonic Tests,” Cooke Engineering Company, Defense Technical Documentation Center,1961

12. ^ ”Multi-circuit Switching Connector,” Cooke Engineering Company; http://www.ptodirect.com/Results/Patents?query=PN/3665129

13. ^ ”The Microtiter System,” Cooke Medical Research; http://jimmunol.org/content/88/3/local/advertising.pdf

14. ^ "Books for Technology," McGraw Hill Book Company, Catalog, 1962

15. ^ "Radio Data Handbook," Allied Radio Corp., fourth edition, 1947; http://www.repeater-builder.com/tech-info/pdfs/allied-data-handbook-4th.pdf Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Header added and References header demoted. --ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not as it stands, no, because while you have prepared it to look like a Wikipedia references section, that will be difficult to maintain if anybody edits the article substantially. You should edit the article to insert these references inline where they are used, as described in WP:Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are the shortcuts for this page displayed?

Resolved

As noted on the helpdesk talk page, the shortcut WP:Y leads here. I was trying to be bold and add it to the list of shortcuts listed in the box at the top of the page, but I can't tell where that box comes from. How does the "shortcuts" box get generated and how are new shortcuts added to that box? RudolfRed (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Wikipedia:Help desk/Header but I'm not sure WP:Y is a good addition because it's not very logical and has no connection to the page name. Many pages have several unmentioned shortcuts. See [2] for redirects here. Shortcut boxes are not meant to be exhaustive and we already list two more logical shortcuts. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attempt at cleverness, perhaps too clever by half. Read it out loud WP:Y (WP:Why?). Too clever by half, because we are more about What than Why. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]