Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question or MediaWiki Help instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

2000 death of a man at tabbimobile in a volvo

Where exactly is this info from? I use to go to wik for info but now realise its an ignorant space. Cant see Richard Saunders anywhere in your pathetic attempt at the death roll. Be responsible for claiming such an important space or just fuck off and get out of our space sicko computer nerds that have nothuing else to do but pretend you know everything when you dont —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.250.112 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain what article you're talking about? Right now, your comments are pretty unintelligible. Corvus cornix_talk 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's an article that lacks important information, go ahead and add the information. Tempshill (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "death of a man at tabbimobile in a volvo" is a Captain Beefheart song title? RomaC (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

List naming dispute: "in" vs. "of"

I figured I'd ask here since none of the other possible talk pages have been very active, if at all.

I'm currently embroiled in a tiresome argument with Noroton (talk · contribs) (see our respective talk pages) over the fact I moved his List of mammals in Connecticut to List of mammals of Connecticut. Long story short, the only reason most lists in Category:Regional mammals lists are at "in" is that I haven't gotten around to move them (they were generated by bot in 05 or 06). Otherwise, lists of organisms are at "of", but he's now arguing that because lists in general (as opposed to the relevant topical lists) have both "in" and "of", I can't argue against placing this list at "in". Can anybody try to weigh in? Circeus (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore Circeus' attitude and stick to the subject: I did some thinking before I named the article and even changed the name once. When possible, the names of Wikipedia articles of any standard type should be uniform so that readers who already have a sense of how Wikipedia names things can search for an article with a minimum of fuss. We tend to name geography-specific "List of people" articles as "List of people from Foo" for instance. I don't see a consensus on "list of organisms" articles. Lists of birds by geography, for instance, seems to be done as List of North American birds. (I was wrong: Most bird lists use "of") I did see what looked like a norm for mammals lists at Category:Regional mammals lists, where the vast majority say "in". IF we're going to standardize "List of X by geograpnhy" articles, then we should follow common practice already in place unless there's a good reason to change it. The vast majority of geography-specific lists use "in Foo", especially when the items (buildings & structures, police districts) don't tend to move ("List of rivers of Foo" articles are an exception, and there are a few others). Take a look at Category:United Kingdom-related lists and Category:United States-related lists, and Category:Canada-related lists for examples.Noroton (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (later self edit Noroton (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC) )

The double "of" sounds clumsy and they don't belong to Connecticut. I can't see merit in the change, which shouldn't be done without consensus, and the "nowhere else does it like I think it should because I haven't got round to fixing those" is a bizarre argument. Colin°^Talk 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Of" categories would be reasonable for cases when the subject appears only in that country naturally, like certain trees, etc. "In" makes more sense if the subject appears in multiple locations. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. "In" makes more sense. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, there's a case to be made for "of", based on my idea that we should make the names uniform so readers can easily guess what the name would be. Would the readers we want to serve be familiar with the similar Flora, Fauna, Bird and Reptile "List X-species by Y-geography" articles? Most of them use "of" rather than "in": Category:Regional reptiles lists, Category:Fauna by country, Category:Fish by region, Category:Birds by country, Category:Regional bird lists, Category:Molluscs by country, Category:Biota by country, Category:Flora by country, Category:Trees by country. The other editors commenting here make excellent points as well, and outside of these species lists, "in" is much more common. As of this point, count me neutral. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, I've actually tried to mimic the categories (though these are actually pretty odd). If we categorise as "Mammals of", I feel weird to have a list at "mammals in". A point has been made in the past for adjectives, but it was decided against because too many countries have unwieldy or extremely ones. Circeus (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Stronger case for "of" with this diff, made by the creator of the article five days after creating it. Noroton (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For argument's sake, "of" usually means originating there, belonging there, endemic to. For example, the national flower/animal etc of a country is one native to the country. There are usually many national flowers/animals "in" a country that may not come from there and may be national emblems "of" other countries. (Is there a syllogism in there?) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I just chose whichever was most numerous in the existing lists, so "of" won. Too much analysis for too little return, the readers aren't going to give a damn. Put a redirect in for the of/in if it niggles at you. Yomangani^talk 12:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda lost

I just want to request an article on Chinese "Milk Names" but I can't navigate my way to the place to request an article. I know it exists, but where? -Chwoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.130.254 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for creation. Or you can create the article yourself, see Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to request that someone else write the article, then the place is Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you are an unregistered user, you should create an account, so that you can create articles, given that the account is at least four days old. Johnny Au (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Malaysia-related topics

There are some sections showing lists of stubs which I personally think is really unnecessary. Since the list is really long, I'm thinking to remove ALL the lists of stubs since it looks like there's no way to put up eg. [[Category:Sabah geography stubs]] showing right on the texts, but if there is, please enlighten me. — Yurei-eggtart 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you want. Do you want to link to Category:Sabah geography stubs? Algebraist 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You just showed me how to do it. THANKS lol. — Yurei-eggtart 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image license

This image is for a game that is licensed under the GPL, but the picture is of the Enterprise, which I assume to be copyrighted in some way. Which license should I use? SharkD (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The image you link to mentions "This is a screenshot of a non-free copyrighted video or computer game". Are you sure it is GPL licenced? effeietsanders 13:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblical references abound in Christianity-oriented articles

I'm unsure whether this is the correct place to bring this up, but I've discovered that a substantial number of Christianity-oriented articles are using Biblical verses in articlespace to "prove the point" rather than using reliable secondary sources as per Wikipedia convention/policy. I first came across this at Lutheranism#Central_doctrines and after discussing the issue on the talk-page and filing an RfC, I discovered the same sort of editing on other pages (examples: Jesus, Harrowing of Hell, Ascension of Jesus Christ, etc). It seems like this is a Wiki-wide issue that needs to be addressed by a substantial number of editors to correct this.

As far as I am aware, Biblical citations are not to be used in this way since Wikipedia is not a soapbox or pulpit, and it is admitted by some other editors that this style of writing sounds more like a church pamphlet than an encyclopaedic article. As I said, I don't know if this is the correct place to draw attention to this issue. If not, please let me know if there is a more appropriate place? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with you but I don't know what to do about it that isn't going to take a lot of effort. You might want to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lutheranism, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and post a comment. Your description of the use of biblical verse to "prove the point" in liu of actual citations of secondary sources is, unfortunately, tied up in some Christians reliance on prooftexting in making an argument. They might not get your point at all. Still, the fight would be worthwhile. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on nbsp usage.

I am trying to find out if I should have a non break space in an address such as 23 Railway Cuttings. Should I do {{nowrap|23 Railway}} Cuttings for example? The MOS does not have an example of this type. Also, I cannot work out where the best place to ask this question. MortimerCat (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sam, again

Another edit war is developing in the Sam article. At the suggestion of someone not in the current dispute, I implemented a compromise that satisfies (what I thought was) the problems that caused the previous edit war: That there are no references and that Sam can be used as a female name but is primarily a male name. This was done using a link that someone else provided, a link to the U.S. Census Bureau statistics page about first names. CorleoneSerpicoMontana has goofed up the formatting and is pushing the POV/original research/synthesis that "Although it is almost universally male, it has can also be a Female given name ...." I reverted this three times.

After checking, the third time was within twenty-four hours so I undid it. But in about an hour, it will have been twenty-four hours since the first so I'll be able to revert it again. However, I think that my change will be reverted by CorleoneSerpicoMontana again. This will probably be a WP:3RR violation by him, but that isn't what I'm really concerned about. My concern is the obvious (to me) POV/original research/synthesis when the statistics that are given on Sam can speak for themselves. I request administrative assistance, or this will continue. — Val42 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that the stats while useful do not belong up front as it were, they could have a place further down the article.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to revert three times per day. It might be a good idea to step back from the article for a bit while other editors look it over. (I'm not singling you out. I would give the same advice to CorleoneSerpicoMontana.) Generally speaking, dab pages don't indicate whether some use of a word is common, just whether there exists a use of a word which is notable enough to have its own article. I haven't looked at other name articles for comparison. Michael Slone (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but the statistics were added to avoid what happened in a previous edit war. I also have other comments too, but as long as they are about the substance of the Sam article, I think that they should continue on that article's talk page. — Val42 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Always trying to move the article forwards. I would venture to move the stats down the page.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User impersonation

I've been dealing with some high school vandals from Germany for several years. They've been very active in the past month and recently they've started creating accounts to impersonate me. For example:

• S-charrette (talk · contribs · logs)
• S-charete (talk · contribs · logs)
• Wehatecharette (talk · contribs · logs)
• Scharetteisfat (talk · contribs · logs)

They go to the point of copying my talk and user page to make their account look like mine. How do I go about having all these blocked?

(The whole vandalism thing with them is documented on the origininal account, Eduardo89:. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:U says that admins can block Disruptive usernames that have clearly been created only to cause trouble. I suggest requesting blocks at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good place to know about. Thanks. The accounts are now blocked. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Latex Help

Hi, I'm writing the Inelastic collision article and I need a little help on writing:
V_f=m₁·v_1,i+m₂·v_2,i [the following are under the fraction sign of the previous] m₁+m₂
in Latex. Thanks!-- penubag  00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean you want $V_{f}={\frac {m_{1}v_{1,i}+m_{2}v_{2,i}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}}$? Algebraist 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(or possibly $V_{f}={\frac {m_{1}\cdot v_{1,i}+m_{2}\cdot v_{2,i}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}}$) Algebraist 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The top one's good! Thanks!! -- penubag  02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation template

Is there a citation template suitable for citing a cdrom version of the Encyclopædia Britannica? DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If {{cite encyclopedia}} isn't quite right, you could try the generic {{citation}}. WODUP 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a specific citation template at Category:Citation templates, there's a guideline for doing it manually in this edu pdf, which offers the following examples:

• Bodyworks: Discover the World Beneath Your Skin 1995, CD-ROM, Softkey International, Wimbledon Common, London.
• Rosen, M. 1998, CD-ROM, 'Marx, Karl', in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Craig, Routledge, New York.
• Interactive Physiology 1999, CD-ROM, vol. 2, Muscular System, Instructor's edn, ADAM Software, Atlanta, Georgia

Note that I have not incorporated formating. Johnny Au (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How to handle - users essay style writing & vague cites

Boykovladimir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, I don't know how to handle this, RFC & AN/I seem too severe. This user writes in an essay style and has added a link to an essay writing service - [1] which may explain it. I belatedly put up the welcome message so that they had the opportunity to view the WP guidelines and a couple of people have reversed edits and explained why on his talk page. He has created some articles Mature Products, Cyclical Products & Taiwan Language policy with vague cites (eg Johansson, 2001) which I have been unable to fully verify (some authors known, some not, paper titles ommitted) for existence, reliability and pov. His citation style continues throughout his edits. There may well be some good info. here so I'm reluctant to remove it. All 20 edits occured on 4 January, with nothing before or since. What do you make of it ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack... these are horrible. I am not even sure I understand what they are about or if the topics are notable. My instinct is to delete... but I do understand the desire to not jump hard on a newbie.

My advice: if you can salvage the articles with a rewrite, go ahead and do so. If not, discuss the problem on each of the relevant talk pages... point to some articles that are well written, so the editor can see the proper way to write an article. Give examples of how to write a valid citation. etc.

If someone responds by trying to improve the articles, then all is good. Set the creating editor up with a mentor if you do not have the time to do so yourself. (I think there is a volunteer group that does this)

If, on the other hand, there is no response or improvement to the articles after a reasonable amount of time... I'll say three weeks (an arbitrary choice of time span on my part)... then put the articles up for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just userfy them and tell the editor that the alternative is deletion, plus you'll be available to move them back into mainspace after he fixes all the citations and removes unsourced material? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar & John. There are some more comments about non verifiable references on his edits to William Blake - Talk:William_Blake#.27London.27. As I said there, I am now of the opinion the the references are false until he proves otherwise. Unless anyone here disagrees I propose to delete all of his amendments and userfy the articles he created. I have placed a message to this effect on User_talk:Boykovladimir. What do you think ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue with userbox

I want to create some userboxes, but before creating I want to discuss if all the userboxes will be suitable with wikipedia guidelines or not. (I am here giving the texts which will be displayed on the userbox).

1. "This user strongly oppose civilization." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
2. "This user strongly oppose capitalism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
3. "This user strongly oppose communism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
4. "This user strongly oppose both capitalism and communism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
5. "This user supports Animal Liberation Front." (this userbox may not be suitable becuse ALF is often considered as a terrorist organization)
6. "This user supports Nuclear weapon." (there is nothing controversial in this statement because most nations, including United States support nuclear weopon)
7. "This user supports Biological weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable because Biolohical weopons are prohibited by United Nations)
8. "This user supports Chemical weapon."(this userbox may not be suitable because Chemical weopons are prohibited by United Nations)
9. "This user supports legaligation of Biological weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable)
10. "This user supports legaligation of Chemical weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable)
11. "This user supports Nuclear war." (there is nothing controversial in this userbox)
12. "This user supports Weapons of Mass Destruction." (this userbox may not be suitable)
13. "This user think Osama bin Laden should be given death penalty." (this userbox will be suitable because it reflects majority opinion)

Please advice me out of the above-mentioned sentences, which will be suitable to be used in userbox according to wikipedia guidelines and which not.

• I cannot find that there is any offensive statement in the first 4 proposals. I agree that the fifth proposal may be controversial as it is associated with Animal Liberation Front, as ALF is often described as a terrorist organization. I think the proposals with Biological weapon and Chemical weapon also may be controversial as no nation is supporting these weopons and these weopons are prohibitated by United Nations. But I cannot find there will be anything wrong with the nuclear weopon proposal, because most nations support Nuclear weapon. And supporting Nuclear War is also not controversial. And the last suggetion may reflect majority opinion that Laden should be given death penalty. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This debate is moved into Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Issue with userbox. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

problem regarding the burning DVD

hi my name is amit. i m having win vista ultimate. when i burn any disc (DVD/CD).it is burned but when i insert it back it does not work. but inserted on another pc it works but at slower speed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit301 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please ask questions unrelated to editing Wikipedia at the reference desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's a subsection at the Ref desk here [2] where you can ask computer questions. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fair use" photo's for use in article

Can I claim "fair use" if I upload these three pictures [3][4][5] of aircraft in Reeve Aleutian livery for use in the Reeve Aleutian Airways article, where the copyright holder has granted permission? (evidence here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to claim fair use, given that you explicitly state the reasons why can they be used on Wikipedia. Johnny Au (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

School anthems

Is it appopriate to add its school anthem into a school article? I mean, any copyright problems or whatever thingy that's not cool about that? Thanks. — Yurei-eggtart 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics are copyrighted. Unless the anthem has been released to the school under a free license, then it wouldn't be right to include the lyrics. Even if the anthem is so old that the copyright has expired, it would be best to post it at Wikisource and link to it. Corvus cornix_talk 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Article on Aitken crater has been partially deleted

It appears that whoever was attempting to correct an error on the Aitken crater article yesterday has inadvertently deleted most of the article. [6]

Can the article be recovered? How would I request this? Bonnie108 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC) --Bonnie108 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit appears to have been a test or simple vandalism; either way, it's been reverted. Please see Help:Reverting on how to recover a page to a previous version. Nufy8 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Retiring fair use images before uploader's retirement

I have intentions to retire as a contributor to video game articles, but having uploaded a large collection of fair use images for two years, I do not want to be burdened by the prospect of bot messages inundating my talk page whenever mass deletions of the images are imminent. I have thoughts about removing all fair use images before leaving, but given limitations of the right to vanish, which declares removal of certain works to be disruptive, it's not clear what I should do now. Large portions of images uploaded are now violating Wikipedia's fair use policies, and I have witnessed one user vanishing along with fair use images uploaded by the user. Any ideas? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} ╫ 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not clear. You're retiring as a contributor, completely? If so, why do you actually care about your user talk page? Also, if for some reason you do care, is it that difficult to revert your user talk page to whatever its desired state is, whenever you happen (for some reason) be reading it? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 08:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm retiring as a contributor to all Wikipedia namespaces unless it's for the purpose of very minor maintenance or notices, and I have the intention of ceasing further management of images to avoid further copyright complications. I'm also expected to stop archiving my talk page (which involves separating bot messages and normal ones), so any failure to address the images beforehand will lead to bots overwhelming the talk page with messages that are clearly useless and dwarfing new user-composed messages. I have yet to determine the number of images I've uploaded, including those when I assumed another username (as User:25), but the number of images could still range from around 100 to several hundred. - ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} ╫ 10:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)