Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Overdoing it with maiden names

To my dismay, I learned early on when beginning to contribute to Wikipedia articles about historical people, that a woman who was a queen of a country, for example, normally is not called that in an article's name but she is referred to there by her often obscure maiden name plus maiden title which thus can lead to text entries and image captions like Queen Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp (a German location which has never had any queens) rather than Queen Charlotte of Sweden and Norway which to me would be more logical as well as give due credit (even in her article's name) to the more important of a woman's titles and legacy. I have corrected hundreds of such misleading text errors by now.

This maiden name stuff is carried too far, in my opinion, when some editors, who are very busy with articles on royalty, in a manner that borders on WP:own, will not even allow a woman's higher and more important and more famous title to be given in bold type in her article's lede. That must be confusing to many readers. OK, so I've accepted the maiden title stuff as incontestible, but I see no logical reason for this latter development of the principle, and I think it should be curtailed.

Where, please, can I start a constructive discussion on this topic? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the rules you're looking for are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Use your browser's in-page search ability (usually activated by doing Ctrl-F once you're on the page) to search that page for the word maiden and see if that's not it. But haven't you already had that discussion there in 2009? And it would appear that just that point has been raised as an RfC there ending just six months ago ending in no consensus. But maybe you're talking about something else and I'm not discerning it. Are you? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) PS: I would note that the closer of that RfC concluded:

There was agreement that the current conventions on the naming of consorts is insufficient, but because of the nuances in participants' positions, no particular solution was wholly agreed to. I recommend starting a new RfC where one or two concrete proposals from this discussion are put forward...

No one did that, so perhaps you might want to do so. If you do, you would be well advised to read the closer's entire remarks about how the new RfC should be formulated. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with TransporterMan here. A specific course of action might be to start spitballing ideas at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), looking at that archive page for possibly courses of action, etc. prior to actually starting a formal, widely advertised RfC. You're of course going to want to advertise the RfC at relevant WikiProject talk pages (WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage), Village pump, and possibly T:CENT. My advice with framing an RfC is that you should have a single, concrete, concise, polished proposal, otherwise discussion is going to go off in every direction. I can't say you're likely to have a positive (or negative) outcome, but from what I've seen with RfCs, it's essential to keep it as narrow as possible if you want a specific outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for these very constructive suggestions and links to previous discussions! I do not believe this specific detail has ever been proposed or discussed before.

How about this?

Proposal: When for an article about a married royal woman we use her unmarried title and geographical origin as the article's name, it is appropriate to mention her married title in bold type in the article's lede. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty concise proposal. You may want to add an explanation of why you feel that's the correct course of action at the head of the discussion section of the RfC (see WP:RFC#Example), or perhaps in a statement, while making sure that your explanation is neutral as possible (obviously since you're advocating for a particular outcome that's not going to be perfect). Anyway, be aware that RfCs can take awhile to really run themselves down if they take off (and not all do). I can't tell you if it's going to work, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has brought it to my attention that this matter already is covered by WP:R#PLA, and indeed I think it looks that way. Almost all these married titles of royal women, I'm sure, already exist as redirects, or should. Would you agree, or do you think an RfC is still a good idea? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get the idea here a bit better. Your intent is to leave the article titles as they are, but where the article title is the royal's unmarried title, her married title should also be bolded in the lede? Sounds like a pretty straightforward application of WP:R#PLA, both in letter and spirit. Someone searching for the person by that married title might be confused when confronted with an article on a facially different person, and may not immediately understand that the linked title is about that person. This of course presumes that your intent is only to start bolding married titles in such articles, rather than moving the article to a different title... in which case WP:NCROY should control. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you should probably post at WT:NCROY or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility suggesting that the bolding of alternative titles (where a redirect might reasonably exist for such title to that person) be added to the relevant guideline (whether NCROY or the Royalty and Nobility project's guideline). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic complaint about this request. The request is about how to seek policy change on a specific issue. The request was answered.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can live with seeing you badmouth me on talk pages of other users, SergeWoodzing, but I would very much appreciate being informed and/or pinged when you mention me on project pages. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Relevance to this discussion? Ok then, anyone interested (hopefully nobody) can easily check and see that you have badmouthed, ridiculed and bullied me about 10 times more than I have ever even mentioned you by name anywhere. Som man bäddar får man ligga. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Take it elsewhere guys. @Surtsicna:, your comment was more appropriate for SergeWoodzing's user talk page (if anywhere). EAR isn't ANI. A thread here doesn't have the sort of impact that one there does, and at least at this time we don't mandate the same brand of notification of a discussion. And even then, this isn't a thread about a behavioral issue, it's one about a content issue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Please name ten instances when I spoke ill of you behind your back (ten being the smallest possible number, given that you claim I did so 10 times more). Otherwise I will have every right to call you a liar and will not hesitate to do so. Alternatively, you could name one instance (with a link, of course) and earn yourself the right to be called very dishonest. I will gladly show you where you disparaged me behind my back, but you already know what I am talking about, so I doubt you will need that. Ako laže koza, ne laže rog. And your definition of ridiculing and bullying is so absurdly broad that you have accused virtually everyone you came into contact with of bullying or ridiculing you, which has had consequences of its own. I am very sorry for this outburst, pathetic as it is on both sides, but you can only tolerate these things up to a certain point. Notifying a user in these cases is basic courtesy, especially if one is making accusations against them, and never bothering to do so is obviously not a simple lapsus. Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Koi fish Hanako - misinformation - no reliable source whatsoever

• Koi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of longest-living organisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maximum life span (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I have found 3 wikipedia pages with unreliable, unsourcable material. I have tried to delete the material myself, but other users keep reverting my edit.

Links and the info I find unsourcable / unreliable are as follows..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi#Health.2C_maintenance_and_longevity

"One famous scarlet koi, named "Hanako," was owned by several individuals, the last of whom was Dr. Komei Koshihara. In July 1974, a study of the growth rings of one of the koi's scales reported that Hanako was 225 years old.[14]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals

"Some koi fish have reportedly lived more than 200 years, the oldest being Hanako, who died at an age of 226 years on July 7, 1977.[53][54]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_other_animals

"Koi (A Japanese species of fish, 200+ years, though generally not exceeding 250) Hanako was reportedly 226 years old upon her death.[15][16]"

Is there any way to have this unsourcable information removed? Supposedly this fish died before anyone was using the internet, so the story / legend has followed on to the internet through word of mouth, not an actual reliable source.

It seems to be very misleading.

I'd like to show the most recent edit on the Koi page

" 17:49, 20 March 2014‎ CombatWombat42 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,449 bytes) (+487)‎ . . (Undid revision 600468346 by McGeddon (talk) Not a particularly exceptional claim, has been in the article for a long time, find a source proving hoax and I will be happy to see it deleted, else BRD) (undo)"

I think having to find a reliable source to debunk already unreliable information, is counter productive. Rather we should have definitive proof about this so called 226 year old fish, and if there are no reliable sources whatsoever, chalk it up to being a hoax / myth / lie, and has no place on wikipedia, just as the loch ness monster is not to be taken as fact either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note - also recently raised at WP:ANI#Koi page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

...and as advised in the ANI thread, the first thing to do is to discuss with other editors on the article talk page. It is an unfortunate fact that there is an awful lot of vandalism on Wikipedia from unregistered users, often in the form of unexplained deletion of a chunk of text. Such deletions are usually reverted without much investigation - which is why we advise to always leave an edit summary explaining what you are doing and why. You have been reverted numerous times by several editors (I am assuming you are the same person whose IP was blocked) and it is unacceptable to continue making the same edit against opposition. As I said, the way forward is to discuss the issue and try and reach a consensus. I don't know what the result of that discussion should be, but if the story is as widely reported as you seem to indicate then it should probably be in the article if for nothing else to say that it is not true since our readers may ne coming to the article precisely to find that out...and to say that it is not true requires a source saying that, hence McGeddon's request for a source. SpinningSpark 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to start off by saying there is no researchable evidence to say Koi live anywhere between 50 years and 226 years.

Based on not seeing evidence of Koi living past 50 years, let alone 100, 150, 200, etc, we can rule out the Hanako story.

But, since it's so widespread on the internet via unverifyable sources, I guess I can show you some links / discussion that disagree completely with Hanakos age.

http://www.koi-bito.com/forum/main-forum/2047-growth-rates-longevity.html

http://www.koiphen.com/forums/showthread.php?13181-Life-Expectancy-Of-quot-Kept-quot-Koi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.koiphen.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-35646.html

http://www.koishack.com/forums/topic/2270-how-long-to-do-koi-live/

I hope this is enough to keep the Hanako legend in the fantasy realm, rather than still being repeated as fact?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to take this to the relevant article talk page (likely Talk:Koi), as the users above, and in both threads you've posted, have directed you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Kinzelyuk Waterfall

One time as I was patrolling Recent Changes, I discovered the article Kinzelyuk Waterfall. It is a short article; the only information in it is its height and relationship to other geographical features. I'm afraid it may not meet WP:NGEO, but I'm not sure whether I should nominate it for deletion, as the Russian Wikipedia does have an article about it. Please help! ChromaNebula (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can take it to XfD if you like, but there is nothing wrong with short articles, or with stubs that are capable of expanding into something longer. There seems to be some sources out there in the Russian language. There is the paper by Fedorov cited in the article for a start and this book seems to say that the falls are the largest in Russia. That would make it notable in my book. SpinningSpark 20:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say give some more time for now. It does look like you pinged the creator at his/her user talk page in part about the issue. I'm a bit concerned that the editor who created the page imported a reference from the Russian Wikipedia page but didn't translate the author's name. I wonder if the editor has checked those citations... because otherwise this is essentially an unattributed derivative work of the Russian Wikipedia article. Anyway, WP:NGEO isn't exactly in force at this time, and either way WP:GNG would seem to be how we would treat this particular geographical feature anyway. I don't see any indication that it fails GNG. I'd probably !vote weak keep if faced with an AfD, unless it came to light that the sources were somehow bad. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

‎:::А. А. Федоров would seem to be Andreĭ Aleksandrovich Fedorov, a botanist notable enough to have an article here. SpinningSpark 00:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it. I guess I'm more concerned by the creation of the article without changing that; it implies to me the content is just copied over, which means it may run afoul of our attribution requirements. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Help clearing talk page after archive

Talk:Rollercoaster (song) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm having trouble with archiving a talk page. The discussion is old and no longer relevant since the article has been rewritten. I have successfully moved the current talk page to Talk:Rollercoaster_(song)/Archive 1 but now cannot clear the main talk page as it appears to be vandalism. Can someone please help? I tried posting this in the false positive reports but has been days and no response.

147.69.137.58 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it needs archiving to me, and in any case, even if the 2007 threads were to be archived there really isn't a need to archive the one that is just a few days old. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, though it should be noted that archival was not necessary here. The vast majority of article talk pages are never archived despite having eight- and ten-year-old discussions. It's just not needed where the talk page doesn't get enough traffic for it to truly get overloaded with threads. I don't think it was disruptive in this case, and since it's already been done it should probably be left to stand. However I wouldn't advise you to make a habit of doing this, 147... it's just unusual and that can set off alarm bells for a number of editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Replacing a map!

I would like to replace all instances of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Roman_roads_in_Italy.png

With: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_topographic_map-ancient_Roman_roads.svg

The latter is based on data from the 1926 edition of the "Historical Atlas", by William R. Shepherd, traced by me (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Ancient_Roads_of_Italy_and_Sicily_nopng.svg), with a geographical map made by User:Sting (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_topographic_map-blank.svg) and combined into one by User:Flappiefh.

Do it?

--Agamemnus (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, first off, I was a bit concerned about the fact that you traced the roads from something produced in 1926, but it seems William Robert Shepherd died 80 years ago so that's probably okay in most countries. Hmm. Yeah, it seems like you'd be safe replacing the former with the latter, but you may want to let people at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome know. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Can a category from Wikimedia Commons be used in a main wiki article?

Hi! There is a category in Wikimedia Commons that I would like to use in an article, but no equivalent category in main Wikipedia. Is it possible to use such an imported category? Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot add a Wikipedia article to a Commons category, the categorisation on the two projects is entirely separate. However, you can create a category of the same name on Wikipedia. See WP:CATEGORY and HELP:Category. On the other hand you may have wanted to link to the Commons category from a Wikipedia article. In that case you can use {{Commons category}}.

By the way, you should include a datestamp in your signature. Either you are using three tildes instead of four or you have "treat as wikimarkup" checked in your preferences. SpinningSpark 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Gawd or God in English

Request unclear

 – Requires clarification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew GAWD- English GOD. Name of the Assyrian deity, and is repudiated by Yahweh in Isaiah 65:11 "But ye are they that forsake Yahweh, that forget My holy mountain, that furnish a table for God, and furnish a drink offering to Meni". Traina, A. (2007 reprinted). Holy Name Bible. Ronceverte, WV 24970: Yahshua Promotions. pp. 869–870. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) Holy Name Bible translation DamondLMitchellSr (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)DamondLMitchellSr

Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō

Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone help out on above mentioned article? Beginning edit war with IP user. 1. This article is not about Nipponzan-Myōhōji-Daisanga 2. This is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. When looking at the article's history its been a long way to reach consensus as Nichiren Buddhism relatated issues tend to be controversial by nature. Links to Nichiren Buddhism which leads to articles on respective schools included. Please note that Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō is the fundamental mantra to basically all Nichiren Schools who seem to have nothing better to do than to kick each others head in online – proclaiming peace. Cheers.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Kind of an aside, but what's up with the parenthetical in the name? It's a bit unusual to have an alternative spelling indicated that way in Wikipedia. My understanding is that where we aren't compelled to use a particular spelling by what's used in particular sources, we use the standard romanization for article titles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing / relevance / sourcing dilemma

Sale High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, This is a revised version of a request I posted on Talk:Sale High School a week ago, to which there have been no responses.

I came to that page while searching for information on Sale High School for Boys, attended by playwright Robert Bolt. The current co-educational Sale High School is completely unrelated to the old one, being the successor to Norris Road Secondary Modern School. On closer inspection of the page, I see that John Andrews, named as a Sale High alumnus, would have attended the old Sale High for Boys in the 1940s, unless he was one of the first pupils at the Norris Road Secondary Mod.

However, when I attempted to add a note mentioning the existence of the two earlier schools called "Sale High School" (the Boys' school and the corresponding Girls' school on a separate site) and the risk of confusion with the current establishment, it was removed by an experienced editor. I don't think the older schools merit an article of their own (and my information is purely personal knowledge, the only potential references being somewhat unclear Friends Reunited pages), so can somebody please suggest an acceptably Wikipedian way to stop the confusion of old and new. 90.246.91.194 (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest in the first instance you speak directly with the other editor involved to establish what the problem is. Their talk page is at User talk:Flyer22. It is not entirely clear to me from their edit summary exactly what the objection is. I can see several problems with your edit, but I couldn't say if this is why Flyer22 reverted you. Most importantly, you provided no source for your information, and have admitted here that it is all personal recollection. Presumably it would be possible to source this from somewhere but if it cannot then it does not belong on Wikipedia. I can see some books on gbooks ([1][2][3]) that might be helpful but there is no preview available. Of course, the entire article is unsourced, but that's another issue (someone might take it into their head to nominate it for deletion). Another possible problem (easily fixable) is the style of writing. We don't tell our readers what they should be noting or what is important—see WP:WTW. We are not trying to teach anything here, just present information. Feel free to come back here if you are still having difficulty. SpinningSpark 14:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me like there could be grounds for starting a disambiguation page if articles exist for those other schools. At the very least a {{about}} or {{for}} disambiguation link at the top of the article if there's only one or two existing articles about places that were once called "Sale High School" would work. But if those schools weren't called "Sale High School", but something similar, it's probably not appropriate to use the disambiguation link or disambiguation page structure to link people to those schools from Sale High School. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no article about the old school although it seems to have somewhat more notability. It would seem it no longer exists, presuming the poster is correct in saying these are two unrelated schools. In any event, article disambiguation is not an issue as there is no other article to disambiguate. SpinningSpark 15:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have managed to find a couple of sources which allow me at least to put in a basic note about the existence of the earlier pair of schools called Sale High School without straying too far into original research. 90.246.91.194 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If there's doubt about the "notable alumni", even if it's not based in sources, since that person's entry isn't supported by a source anyway, it should just be removed and noted on the talk page, rather than a clarifying note being made in the article. It really isn't encyclopedic tone in my view. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Next-Generation Incident Command System (NICS), marked for deletion

Next-Generation Incident Command System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can you please provide more specific reasons why you marked my content for deletion? The reasoning is quite vague. Jlrsn (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've also nominated it for deletion as a blatant copyvio of its sole source ([4]). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a notable subject (there are scholarly papers on it) and the speedy deletion rationales are dubious, but Mendaliv is quite right, you can't simply copy material from a website without permission or attribution. SpinningSpark 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I do have direct permission to copy the material. And I can attribute it, if necessary - any suggestions on how it should be attributed? I have spoken face-to-face with the author, the content is not licensed, public domain, free to copy. Jlrsn (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You want OTRS, though frankly I do not see that page being kept as-is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain more what you think I want on the OTRS page? Also, additional reasoning for, "frankly I do not see that page being kept as is" would provide more help in resolving this. Jlrsn (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually you might find Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials more helpful than the OTRS page, but OTRS is who you'll ultimately need to contact to arrange the permission for Wikipedia to use the material. The problem with the page as written is that (in my view) it's overly promotional. A Wikipedia article should begin with a short, neutrally-worded, and clear description of what the subject is. In this case, the first sentence being "NICS is a web-based command & control environment for small to large to extreme scale incidents that facilitates collaboration across Federal, Tribal, Military, State, County, & Local/Municipal levels of preparedness, planning, response, and recovery for all-risk/all-hazard events." is pretty meaningless to your average reader. It's software, used apparently in disaster management, for something called "command & control" (which isn't explained). The entire second half of the sentence, where it says it's for small, large, and extreme scale incidents, for collaboration between various organizations, etc. is fluff, needless wordiness, and frankly reeks of a marketing style of copywriting (where it's critical to get all the keywords in) rather than encyclopedic writing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mendaliv that it is preferable to rewrite the article in an encyclopaedic style rather than simply have its copyright released. However, if you are in control of the page, or can influence someone who is, you can simply put a notice on the page that the material is in the public domain. This is acceptable to us, even preferable to OTRS as all editors are able to verify the PD status of the material. SpinningSpark 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, while a lot of your feedback seems like subjective judgement - I think I understand. I appreciate the clarification and examples. Jlrsn (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Are these good edits?

I've already reverted these edits twice, so I can't revert again. But maybe I'm missing something. Are these good edits? [5], [6], [7]. Thanks for some help with this. 70.235.85.36 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)