Help desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

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.

July 31

Air Combat Information Group (www.acig.org) as reference for military aviation articles

Having searched for "acig" in the search box came up with 357 page hits. However www.acig.org is a WP:SPS an such cannot be used as a reference. Should all these references and material supported by it be deleted? One such article where [www.acig.org] is referenced is Mirage F1. AadaamS (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unfamiliar with this subject matter but it appears that the resource is questionable in that it is mostly just a forum. If this was me on a subject matter I was well versed in I would alert the Wikiprojects to this reference being used multiple times on their respective discussion or talk pages (not the article talk pages but the wikiprojects talk pages, the ones listed on the article talk pages that "cover" those articles). That was editors who are well versed and experienced with the topics and the resources available will be made aware if and how this is or is not a reliable source and in what limited areas it may be used as one. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at topics on acig.org that I am very familiar with and found it to contain numerous serious errors, so my (subjective) assessment is that it is not a Reliable Source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Gaming License and WIkisource ?

Hi! I just wonder... is it possible/legal to publish SRD of DnD 3.5 and other OGL games at Wikisource? I am not talking about making your own RPG that would be based on SRD, just publishing it as it is. --Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from OGL if it meets the requirements or not. You should at at Wikisource. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium. RudolfRed (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

I would like to get another editor to review an article that's on my works in progress page to see if it's appropriate. My last one was deleted.

User:Jillbdc/Peter_W._Cookson,_Jr.

Thanks! Jillbdc (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jill. Your references are utterly opaque. A good citation allows anyone to verify themselves by going to the source and viewing it. How could I possibly do this for any of the three sources cited since I can't tell what they are? A good citation (besides being to a reliable source, which is hard to tell here) provides significant details so that any reader can identify where to look themselves. For example, when citing a book, I would typically provide the title, author's first and last name, year of publication, name of publisher, location, isbn number, page number I am using, and if the book happened to be available on Google Books, the URL. Even if the sources were transparent, and reliable, the article would need more sourcing, especially since it is an article about a living person. Right now it's unclear whether the subject is notable and it's unclear whether the article is original research containing things you happen to know but which cannot be verified in published reliable sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit is correct, reliable sources in major media or books is an absolute must. What also may assist you is the Wikipedia:Article wizard and also (though some of it you have already done like registering) the Wikipedia:Your first article may assist. Remember that you also have the ability to slowly "build" an article on your Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and Wikipedia:Subpages at which point you may get the feedback of other editors at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Hope this assists you and Welcome to Wikipedia!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "respected" needs to be cut from the lead for WP:PEACOCK. Also, why is he notable? What makes him more special than anybody else who has a job? Because he manages a "think tank"? Because he writes stuff? If he is so respected, surely there is plenty of info in the ether to detail him and his contributions. (While seemingly harsh in tone, these are the types of questions that should be answered in the article.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music Rating link goes to wrong site

For Bob Dylan's "Another Side of Bob Dylan" page (Another Side of Bob Dylan), the review "box" shows what is supposed to Rolling Stone magazine's rating but the source (footnote 15) is really a link to a RateYourMusic site (http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/RollingStoneAlbumGuide/strm_a/bob+dylan/1) that then leads to purchasing options and is no way related to Rolling Stone magazine. How do we correct this?

Thanks,

Larry 04:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archhill581 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Larry. First please try to always "sign" your discussions with ~~~~ so we know what editor ID we are speaking to/of, small but important point. To answer your query it appears that all is right with the source web link in that the website it goes to has at the very top of the table on its 2^nd column the item "Rating" and proceeds to list each items rating in number of stars. Although the perfect source would actually say "Album X is rated Y" there is nothing wrong with a source such as is listed on the current version of the wikiarticle. As I try to lend a hand to many editors here from time to time a quick fix I usually use is the CNTRL and F key which takes me right to any and every instance of a word or combination of words on any website. To be honest I may have also missed the "rating" on that website as well if not for immediately using the "find/CNTRL F" function. Long story short the "Rating" is indeed listed on that source, and thanks for raising the concern with us. :-) ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't the rating but the rater. The ratings table in the article links to the Rolling Stone magazine. Larry claims the source http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/RollingStoneAlbumGuide/strm_a/bob+dylan/1 is no way related to Rolling Stone magazine. I disagree. It appears RateYourMusic is hosting an online version of The Rolling Stone Album Guide, a book which is a sister publication of Rolling Stone magazine. The article doesn't use RateYourMusic's own user-based rating at [1]. I don't edit music and don't know whether "Rolling Stone" is considered an acceptable link for ratings in The Rolling Stone Album Guide. Another complication is that different editions of the album guide apparently have different ratings.[2] The 4.5 stars is in the most recent edition. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting PrimeHunter, as a fellow non-editor of music and in light of your findings my recommendation would to have OP go to the wikiproject covering that and ask there. Though this is a valid and important question the "complication"(s) inherit in "rankings" of something as subjective as music is why I never spent much time getting to know more about it. Editors who have would most likely be found in the wikiproject talk page.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life?

An issue I have with some BLP's is the specific "Personal Life" vs. the generalized "Life and Career" sections. Bio articles such as Justin Timberlake, Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce, Jay Z, Rihanna, Katy Perry, Carrie Underwood, Bruce Springsteen, Kanye West, and Adele all have "Personal Life" sections. Other bios like Christine Aguilera, Alicia Keyes, Britney Spears and Madonna do not have "Personal Life" sections, but instead have all their personal info spread out among all their career info in a (usually much larger) "Life and Career" section. No offence but... this is a pain in the ass. Often times, someone may want to look up a specific item of a personal nature about a notable person and, of course, they're gonna come here to reference that. But who wants to go sifting through paragraph after paragraph of career and other info just to try and find what they're looking for?
From what I've seen, many bios have "Personal Life" sections. But now, some of them are being removed and the info spread out over the majotity of the article. Who's idea was this anyway? Having a look around some relevant guide pages, I couldn't seem to find anything about this for assistance. Can anyone here offer some insight on this? Thanks.
(not the right place to ask this? lemme know) - thewolfchild 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(*note: all 4 of the bios without personal life sections mentioned above have multiple entries on their talk pages from users complaining about these missing sections. - wolf

If you click on the Talk (or "Discuss") tab on the articles you have mentioned there will be various Wikiproject bars at the very top that when expanded will have a blue wikilink for "discussions" or "talk" most likely. Discussing this topic on a wikiproject's talk page of say "music artists" or "pop stars" etc. (I am unsure of the specific ones but you'd want to choose a wikiproject that covers all the BLP's you seek policy clarity on) and engaging those editors on your perspective would probably be the best route. Any unknown policies they will make you aware of and you will have an opportunity to build consensus for a possible change to how those type of BLPs are structured and written. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "correct" Project to discuss this is WP:WikiProject Biography. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roger Dodger67. Small caveat, OP's listing of "biographies" are more the type to show up on TMZ, rather than C-SPAN or write a Wall Street Journal editorial. "Personal life" sections thou treated the same at wikipedia tend to have far more and different coverage for those listed above. Editors who are up to date with a Kanye West probably would have a different perspective for consensus than those editing political leaders or Nobel winners so engaging those in consensus may be useful for the OP even if it isn't the exact Wikiproject. That said, you're suggestion Roger Dodger67 is correct & the one most relevant. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well... Mr. "Roger" and Mr. "Cross-streets", I will say thank you for taking the time to leave your suggestions here. Were they helpful? That remains to be seen. I have re-posted on the WP:WPB page and there has yet to be a response. But what I would like to ask of you now is, why just a suggestion? Why not comment yourselves? You are both experienced editors with 8 and 6+ years on the project, surely one, or both, of you could weigh in here (or there) with an opinion or some guidance? - thewolfchild 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation, trust me I have tons of empathy for you, I am currently in the middle of about 6 different projects that are multi-faceted with about 20 different aspects from reliable source verification and searching to coding and styling.

If you are frustrated with the results of the wikiproject talk pages there is a WP:BOLD ethos where you can with the understanding that other editors will jump in and discuss or seek a compromised resolution. My suggestion and one that I have used to some success before is to basically leave notations on 'ALL possibly connected wikiprojects and "flagship" articles with neutral RfCs.

If you've taken the time to check my userpage or contributions it becomes very apparent that I know less than nothing about the subject matter of these articles. I wouldn't feel qualified to really engage in & defend discussion views on this let alone defend edits to them. A statement that I thought articles such as these were basically unencyclopedic I really wouldn't disagree with. So although I appreciate the opportunity to share some knowledge at the help desk most of the topics of help desk queries are things that I might check out to learn a little about but would never trust myself with an edit of. October 5 1956 in Latrobe, Pennsylvania I'm kind of all over thou with hours of research, stylizing, cite checks and coding. It takes all kinds as they say. Happy editing!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must also plead inexperience - I tend to avoid editing popular music/musician articles, except for the occasional "maintenance" edit, as it isn't within my range of interests. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, guys. I just wanna be clear on something here... I don't particularly have any vested interest in most of the people these bio's are about, nor am I interested in the overall content of those pages. I just simply came across a problem that I would like to fix. It seems there was a standard lay-out, but now a handful of people want to re-do these pages their way. It's only seems to be on a few pages, but it is growing - despite the fact there are multiple complaints on every page about these changes. I would like to 'nip this in the bud', so to speak. And with that... I guess we'll see what happens. - thewolfchild 06:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw - the WP:BLP post is here - wolf

?

Please fix up my edit for James Kitson, 1st Baron Airedale Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I meant please fix up the edit for "Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale". Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the error message with this edit. Click that link to see what I did, and check out Help:Referencing for beginners for next time! -- John of Reading (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change my Username

How does one do this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolealade (talk • contribs) 11:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Changing username‎. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP only has one edit (the question here) so it's easier just to abandon the current account and create a new one.--ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the advice in the 4th bullet at Wikipedia:Changing username‎#Please consider the following alternatives to a rename:. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new page had deleted.

Hello Sir Madam.

Yesterday I created a new page :Antonio testa and it was deleted. :( I did use few sentences from the musician page since I have the permission from the musician to do it but still it was deleted.

Second thing is that at the head of the page it's written: Antonio testa - testa need to be in Capital letter. how we can change that. to Testa ? I didn't mange to do so. Thanks! Mira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira Amad (talk • contribs)

You can't just say you have copyright clearance; if the subject grants you permission, they must inform the Wikipedia administration of that fact, and do so in a manner that is verifiable. This is quite a arduous process, and it is usually easier for you to generate your own content. Also, the surname would need to be capitalised. I can't comment on this specific case, but you'd also need to ensure that your subject is notable. drewmunn talk 12:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! First please remember to add ~~~~ to the end of your post so we may see your "signature" and link to your talk page/user page, small but important point. I agree with drewmunn, however what may assist you is the Wikipedia:Article wizard and also (though some of it you have already done like registering) the Wikipedia:Your first article may help. Remember that you also have the ability to slowly "build" an article on your Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and Wikipedia:Subpages at which point you may get the feedback of other editors at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Hope this assists you.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems using hidden template

I'm trying to use Template:Hidden but I'm experiencing some issues. Namely, it seems to break when I have one template inside another. Is this a known issue with templates? Is there another template I can use to collapse a chunk of text / templates?

Namely, I'm trying to collapse some content on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Template guidelines. I want to collapse the "Template for multiple-recordings" and "Template for recordings about another page" sections (including text and templates) so they're hidden by default. Is Template:Hidden the best way to do this, and how can I get it to work? As it stands, when I try it breaks and some of the text just disappears when I encapsulate it within the Hidden template.

I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look now, Collapse works. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's something odd happening with the headers, it's appearing two lines above where it should. :-/ - X201 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing... very weird... CaseyPenk (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem definitely seems related to the template included within the collapse bounds. Namely, the template causing the problem is

{{Spoken Wikipedia-2|2005-04-18|Robert Oppenheimer intro.ogg|Robert Oppenheimer.ogg}}

CaseyPenk (talk)

Anyone have an idea what's wrong with Template:Spoken Wikipedia-2? CaseyPenk (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which problem you refer to. Try to explain it better and state your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the problem at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Template guidelines. I'm trying to collapse content including Template:Spoken Wikipedia-2 but not all of the content is being collapsed properly. When I remove Template:Spoken Wikipedia-2 all the content displays properly. When I add Template:Spoken Wikipedia-2 the content gets broken up - some is collapsed but some is not. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template issue, not a browser issue. Problem replicated across Firefox and Chrome. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. [3] fixed it, hopefully without causing other problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! I didn't think it would be a boilerplate problem since the boilerplate is used on multiple templates. Thanks so much for your help on this -- and if it broke something I'm not aware of it. :) CaseyPenk (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it did break something. {{Spoken Wikipedia boilerplate}} is used by 5 Spoken Wikipedia templates. 2 of them assumed it would have balanced div tags while the other 3 assumed it would have an unpaired </div>. I have made a new fix where all 5 assume the unpaired div. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we want to be included under "Ayurveda"

Hi,

I represent Scott Gerson, MD, PhD (Ayurveda)who is one of the senior Ayurvedic physicians in the U.S. He trained in India and currently holds faculty positions at both Tilak Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya and New York Medical College.

Our website is www.ayurveda.md

Please include us in the list which appears under "Ayurveda"

Sincerely, Rakesh Sharma administrator, Ayurveda.MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.230.103 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 31 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't currently see how the person in question satisfies our criteria for inclusion; he doesn't seem notable. Being an expert in a field is not a precursor to inclusion on Wikipedia. We instead evaluate subjects by a series of criteria that are designed to ensure we produce the most accurate encyclopaedia we can. If you think that Scott is notable, even after evaluating him against the criteria, then further action may be taken by other editors. At this time, however, I do not foresee his inclusion on Wikipedia. Thanks. drewmunn talk 16:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CM Jason kirk

Jason kirk is also a correspondence chess candidate master — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.7 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a Wikipedia article? Jason Kirk is about a fictional character. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might be referring to this person and maybe tries to point out that we do have an article about the fictional character, but not about the chess player. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Hello. I created a new account and a new article but cannot figure out if it is pending publication on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkundanis (talk • contribs) 18:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Your draft is at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Longmont Public Library.~~ It has not yet been submitted for review, but if it was it would be rejected because at the moment it does not cite a single source that demonstrate's the subject's notability per WP:GNG. Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:Referencing for beginners.--ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place mentioned by ukexpat is the wrong location, but you also have a copy (with the same shortcomings) in the right place, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Longmont Public Library. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references. Is it ok now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkundanis (talk • contribs) 20:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the refs to the wrong version. Please add them to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Longmont Public Library. I will tag the "wrong" version for deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls III:Tribunal

Hello dear admins of Wikipedia, I have recently made the article The Elder Scrolls III:Tribunal but after about 2 months without visiting the page or Wikipedia the article I made was missing without a trace... I was working on it for about two hours and was very proud of it because it was very long and full of detail. Please respond.

Sincerely your fellow random unimportant editor, Arian JD --ArianJD (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean The Elder Scrolls III: Tribunal?--ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not the one; that article was created in 2004. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arian JD. Some of us are admins, some of us are not, but we are all volunteers; there is no central authority; you're another user here just like us, albeit most of the people who answer questions here have significant experience. What account were you editing under when you thought you made this edit? Your account, which was created on May 28, 2013, has never made a single edit other than your question here; a global contribution search finds no edits to other Wikimedia projects, it has no deleted edits here; and a filter that blocks certain edits but logs them, does not show it ever stopped any edit of yours. Accordingly, if you were logged in under this account when you think you made this edit, it appears the page was never saved (there is one other possibility but it is extremely unlikely – that your edit was oversighted, blocking it from view of all users and admins without higher permission). Anyway, since we already have a fairly well developed article on this topic, as linked above, now that you see that was your attempted edit needed?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from hr:User talk:ArianJD that you made a since deleted page at hr:The Elder Scrolls III: Tribunal at the Croatian Wikipedia. This is a help desk for the English Wikipedia. I don't know Croatian and cannot view deleted pages at the Croatian Wikipedia. You will have to get help there. Maybe hr:Pomoć:Sadržaj gives an idea where to ask. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article over redirect

I'm helping new editor Happybluemo create a draft article on Andrew Hussie. We need to replace the existing redirect with the draft and would prefer to preserve the draft's history. Is this possible? I made a stab at moving the redirect out of the way, and just made a bit of a mess. — Brianhe (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to request that an admin move the draft over the existing redirect. You can make such a request in the "technical moves" section of WP:Requested moves.--ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting an article that was improved

How should I resubmit an article that was improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilianarodriguez (talk • contribs) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In [4] you removed a box at the top with a "Resubmit" button. I have restored the box.[5] You can use the button now. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]