Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Ad/Notice at the top of Wikipedia articles

Answered

 – --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone has suggested a change in the formatting of that ad/notice that is above the Wikipedia articles? It's the one that shows a profile image of someone and then asks for help either a survey, message from Wikipedia etc that you can close by clicking the X. The issue with that is the profile image in the ad is placed in such a way that when you are looking at a Wikipedia article about a person, the name of the person in the article appears immediately below that ad image. It makes it look like that is the profile image for that person in the article. I have seen a few people on Facebook who thought it was a mistake, a joke or that Wikipedia had been hacked. I looked to see what they were referring to and realized where the confusion was. I was going to take a screen shot but once I closed the box, it is gone until the next one I guess. Has anyone else pointed this out? If not I thought I would mention it and see if they might consider changing the formatting. Dani808 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The best place to post a question like that is WP:VPR, they deal with non-policy proposals. CTJF83 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How do I comment (in 'talk') on a specific entry?

I'd like to comment on a specific entry, and am having trouble figuring out how to do that. I've attempted to follow the FAQ on talk pages, but the page structure I see--when I click on "discussion"--is not the one described in the FAQ. If I click on discussion, I can then click on talk, but there are no options at that point to comment on the entry I'm focused on. Only an opportunity to view comments regarding articles I've written. Since I haven't written any articles, I'm basically stuck in an endless loop. If I follow a slightly different path, I'm given an opportunity to become part of the Wiki math community. What I DON'T get ... is an opportunity to comment on the specific entry under consideration. Just in case the problem is exclusive to the entry, here's the page I'm trying to comment on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transversal_%28geometry%29

Thanks for your help.

Jpseditor2011 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On Talk:Transversal (geometry) click "new section" on one of the tabs near the top of the page (link), enter a subject and ask the question. Please keep in mind talk pages are for discussing the article itself and improvements, and not general questions about the subject, but beyond that you can't go wrong. It sounds like you ended up somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics. Яehevkor ✉ 01:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See more at Help:Using talk pages. Can you give a link to the FAQ you mention, or was that it? Some users have changed their settings away from the default and don't have a tab saying "New section" near the top. Do you have the tab? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the suggestions, Яevkor. I don't know if I could find the FAQ I initially looked at. I do have a "new section" tab for the talk page. Even commenting here is new to me (I'm not sure I'm following the prescribed format).

Jpseditor2011 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TALK for further information. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing title of an article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am unable to change to the title of an article I wrote. How can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbangura (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you ought to focus on how to write encyclopaedic articles without copyright infringements or re-creating previously deleted material. Wikipedia is not a place to promote half-baked personal theories. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

... nor even fully baked ones. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I find this article to be leadin bias; whay is Pakistan associated with "weapons of mass destruction" but the same capabilities by India or Israel or just about any other country appears to be a "nuclear weapons' or, "nuclear program"? Wiki is an intellectual platform, but it is distressing to find bias that can only be attributed to an anti-Pakistan or, an anti-Muslim agenda.

Can the title be changed to a neutral title that is applied to other nuclear nations as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milmustia (talk • contribs) 06:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which article titles you looked at. Wikipedia also has the articles India and weapons of mass destruction, Israel and weapons of mass destruction, and many others in Category:Weapons of mass destruction. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Reposting of a previously deleted article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I tagged a previously deleted article and was wondering if it had been done correctly. The article itself is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soanya_Ahmad and the reasons for the article being previously deleted is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soanya_Ahmad Notice has been posted on that talk page. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Soanya Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You tagged it correctly, except that only one of {{db-repost}} and {{db-g4}} is necessary because they are two names for the same thing. But if you look at the page history, you will see that the deletion request was declined with the comment "decline speedy, substantially different from the previous version and better sourced, therefore g4 does not apply". -- John of Reading (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing articles on Roman religion

I am relatively new to WP and I edit almost exclusively on Ancient Roman religion. In the past I started a new article now named Glossary of Ancient RR and had some problems with editors Cynwolfe and Haploidavey: these people tended to act as meatpuppets and to edit many of my posts according to their views almost systematically. A great deal of my work was edited away. I asked for an informal mediation which left the issues unresolved. Thence I stopped editing that article at all. They deleted all my edits from article Mos Maiorum too, after agreeing on it probably by email.

Later I edited without problems some articles on Roman gods. Lastly I edited article Jupiter greatly expanding it and got high ratings at first. Now though this duo is doing once again what it likes deleting and removing content according to their own views and likings. This time too I suspect they agreed on it by email as they act in perfect sychrony without having communicated openly on their talk pages. I acknowledge they probably act in good faith from their POV but I do not think such overbearing behaviour is acceptable here: as if two against one is the only valid criterion . Please let me know about the most appropriate path for me.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where you have attempted to engage the other editors in discussion on these specific issues. Nor do I see where they have reverted your edits - but you haven't provided any diffs here either. Their comments on your talk page appear to be civil and helpful on other matters. Perhaps you should start a discussion on the talk pages of the affected articles and invite them to take part. If that fails please use the DR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the relevant talk pages? As for not reverting my edits: the article(s) in question have been maimed. It looks you have not looked at the talk pages carefully: my complaints are everywhere and yes I did try to engage them and start a civil discussion. I hope somebody here can give more significant advice and opinions.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Aldrasto, you've been on Wikipedia since mid-2010 but it seems you are not yet familiar with our system. Calling other editors 'meatpuppets' is a serious charge for which evidence is required. Your own editing was reported in 2010 at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zanzan1. In that SPI you stated "I have my personal views and if somebody does not agree with them I cannot help about that". You are welcome to your opinions but you are not the sole judge of what material should go into the articles. A review of your user talk page shows that Cynwolfe and Haploidavey have been making courteous efforts to work with you. I agree with Kudpung that you should be using article talk pages to win consensus for your changes. Your making a report here as though the other editors were misbehaving is not what we expect. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked for an informal mediation for the article Glossary and it got nowhere. I had to stop editing. My edits on Mos Maiorum were deleted, along with those of another editor, after this duo had agreed on it outside WP: just read their mailbox archives. They tend to act in concert and wage (in good faith I repeat it, once again) overall cleanups after agreeing on it by email. User Cynwolfe started a SPI against me for writing with another username on the talk page of Etruscan language. As I explained then I did so because I had put some posts there under this name before and wished to be recognized by other editors there. Is this behaviour on user Cynwolfe's part to be considered curteous and civil? Am I supposed to be only fool who believes in clean, polite behaviour? Months of work have been wasted because of these people. I agree this is not the right venue to make accusations of Meatpuppeting, but I cannot help remarking they agree on specific action against articles and act together (that is, after agreeing on it by email). I do not know whether this is called Meatpuppeting or what else, but I do not think it is fair play and allowed under WP rules. Apart from my articles and Mos Maiorum also Romulus and Remus were cleanedup this way. Let me know what I should do about it please, if you feel such a behaviour is reprehensible.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You, Cynwolfe and Haploidavey all appear to be specialists in this topic area and you all seem to be well-intentioned. Specialists don't always agree on what is to be done. We expect that you will be able to work out your differences through negotiation. WP:Dispute resolution lists several options for you to consider. There are ways of getting articles reviewed more broadly to see if others agree with the type of article changes that Cynwolfe and Haploidavey recommend. For example, you could open a WP:Request for comment. Another idea is to ask for a WP:PR peer review or a WP:GA good article review after you think you've brought an article to a certain level. I have notified Cynwolfe and Haploidavey that their names have been mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Aldrasto11 is a very erudite editor with an interest in the esoteric. There's a lot to be said here, but compare Aldrasto's preferred version of the article Jupiter (mythology) with the current one, and see comments on the talk page from multiple editors, which were acted on. As for the personal element, Haploidavey and I edit many of the same articles; that's how we learned we both like to make stupid jokes that would likely annoy other people. We are older editors with families, and share stories about parenting and such via email. This need not concern Aldrasto. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am neither erudite nor have any interest in the esoteric. Of course Cynwolfe denies any allegations about the issue I posed, this is only obvious and normal. I have clear hints on the issue. On my part I must say that it has become very difficult for me to edit when I know there is this inoxidable duo that has expropriated the area of ancient Rome and feels authorised to impose its tastes and POVs on readers: in fact the only other editor who writes on this subject is me, but I am interested mainly in the religious and linguistic areas with what comes along that. As a rule I never interfere with articles I did not edit or create (unless there are important mistakes). On the Glossary article which I created I had to abandon editing after user Ellen of the Roads intervened for a while in my help (as usual 2 against 1). Mos maiorum: I objected time and again on the cuts and reductive implant and scope of the article after its streamlining by the duo: til now to no avail. As I said on gods I was allowed to edit a few articles I consider reasonably good (rated B probably by user Haploidavey). Jupiter too I finished editing about 2 months ago and was rated B; the first box ratings were excellent, all 5s and 4s. (I just saw that after Cynwolfe's changes and cuts rating has gone down to 1 for all boxes). Then when the box was cleared they were lower but all above 3 the first time. My article though long had in the part I edited a clearcut structure, the same now I use editing articles on Roman gods: 1)Name and etymology, 2)Theology and epithets, 3)History of the cult, sacrifices, temples and political scope of the deity, 4)Myths if any, 5) Legends, 6) Rites or rituals, 7)Relationship to other gods, 8)Presence outside Rome. This structure is quite exhaustive and can accomodate all relevant info. It is obvious that the first three sections are the core of any such article in the given order of importance (though all the points are essential). After the streamlining now this structure has gone and the article has lost its coherence and logical consequentiality. The core section on theology and epithets has been dismembered and moved to a new article or relegated at the end of the article!!! Links have been put at the beginning to an article edited by these two people even though I would not and there was no necessity: what I had written was clear and sufficient. I do agree the article is long and the content of the last three or four sections could be moved to a subsidiary article. I am tired of meeting the unwelcome vigilance of an editor whose competence on the topic is limited and who arrogates the right of undoing a work that took months of research. It will also be very time consuming and boring arguing with this/these person(s) on the whys and therefores/pros and cons of every single particle of this article. I must be objective and acknowledge in this particular case user Haplodavey has been much more ponderate and has limited his edits to improving the form or style. Finally I wish to thank user EdJohnston for his helpfulness and suggestions. I will look into the DR options and/or ask for comment. Thanks.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to EdJohnston for letting me know about this. I see repeated accusations of meat-puppetry, "tag-teaming" and off-wiki attempts to foist a particular POV on articles and subject areas. These are serious allegations, not to be casually bandied about here. They require evidence, not surmise. They should be formally presented along with that evidence at the appropriate noticeboard.

Yes, most of the article has been written by editors who specialise in the topic area. But is it therefore to be aimed at specialists? I think not. I'd welcome non-specialist views on the earlier and current versions. And one further point, hopefully to be my last on this page - like it or not, no-one owns anything whatever on wikipedia. Haploidavey (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I made these allegations already at the time of the SPI, anybody can check. And anybody can read the involved users' mailbox archives. I do not wish to turn myself into a detective just as Cynwolf did at the time. It is however a situation that cannot go on like this and these two people should take good note: any aggression on well written and referenced articles edited by myself and the pushing of their peculiar POV in them will meet strong resistance in every venue and with every means. In this particular case my article had been first rated B and the rating box gave all 4 and 5s. Now the present version has unravelled the original structure and approach and is pushing a particular POV on Roman religion that is not balanced: simply the cart cannot be placed before the horse. Moreover my piece on the theology of the god has been displaced at the bottom of the article with the ridicolous heading Early theology of J.This implies a god changed his theology over time and of course is nonsense. The theology of any major (di certi and selecti) Roman god was established in the books of the pontiffs and did not change to the last day of public cult (390 AD).

There are one or two things I am considering: asking for a third party comment on the article. And opening a free discussion of the issue of the bullying behaviour by users Cynwolf and Haploidavey on the project page. In case I will transfer there the content of my posts here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

About owning: I welcome constructive changes, i. e. additions, clarifications, correction of possible errors. In a word anything which improves the value of an article. I cannot accept ad hoc changes, cuts, streamlinings which alter the basic meaning of an edit or article, deplete its core significance, introduce a different perspective that belongs to a different POV. I do not agree with the content and perspective of most articles edited by this duo (e. g. religion in ancient Rome: the title itself is wrong; Romulus and Remus; Mos Maiorum) but I have always made my polite remarks on the talk pages (which were all duely ignored) and never ventured in streamlinings. When I added a line on article by Cynwolfe it was promptly deleted. So please learn a bit good manners and fair play.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for removal of blacklisting of the Homeless Hub

I understand that the Homeless Hub as an article has been blacklisted. The Homeless Hub is a research related resource for those interested in homelessness. it is not for profit. This is a critical research resource in the areas of homelessness. It is one of the leading examples of knowledge mobilization in homelessness research, and has an established international reputation in the area of homelessness. It is well respected, it is not commercial or spam, and i am not sure why it has been blacklisted. For those interested in homelessness and homelessness research it is an important resource, and its absence from Wikipedia is a bit surprising.

So, my request is that the blacklisting be removed. For more information, feel free to contact me:

Stephen Gaetz Director, Canadian Homelessness Research Network Associate Professor, Faculty of Education York University 631 York Research Tower, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 ( (416) 736 2100 x20050 |* sgaetz@edu.yorku.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Gaetz (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#homeless_hub. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Answered

 – I B D Shank (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dcshank/Somewhere I Have Never Traveled (edit | [[Talk:User:Dcshank/Somewhere I Have Never Traveled|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) How can or can I quote a source in English when the original source is in traditional Chinese? (i.e. whose translation is correct?) IBDShank 07:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Does WP:NOTENG give enough detail to solve your problem? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes!  Thanks a lot.  So much Wiki to learn. :-)--I B D Shank (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

removing ISBN codes from citations

I'm concerned that Carrite (talk · contribs) is removing ISBN codes from citations on Wikipedia (examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]). A discussion (scattered here and here, argh) indicates Carrite is annoyed by their marketing use and imprecision. On the other hand, removing them is making the 'pedia worse. I don't know where to turn with this, which is why I've come here. Thoughts? tedder (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How does removing them make Wikipedia worse? ISBNs are marketing tools, not bibliographical ones. Admittedly, I'd rather he spent his time removing spamlinks to Amazon; but such edits are certainly harmless, IMAO. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

They are commercial in origin and can be imprecise, but they can be very helpful for locating some some items (titles with non-standard characters, rare books, titles that are common to several books, etc). Whenever I have to request items with inter-library loan I generally use the ISBN since call numbers are not universal. In the interest in having additional ways to locate items, I think it would be best if they were included whenever possible. A13ean (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ISBNs are much easier to use when verifying sources than an ambiguous title. There's a reason ISBNs are parsed automagically even outside of citation templates. It's the equvalent to not including a URL to a New York Times story because their site is geared towards the paywall; if URLs are available, they lessen the work to find a story. tedder (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ISBNs are of particular value with little-known books. An ISBN which can be found on worldcat.org gives evidence that the book really exists and is respectable enough to be held in libraries. ISBNs in citation templates are clickable by the reader; even without a template they are still useful. If Carrite continues his program of removal without getting consensus for his changes I believe he is open to sanctions. I'm notifying him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a specious argument, since not every book has a UPC/ISBN number, they are not at all useful for confirming the existence of a source — that must be done by Title, etc. to view the universal set, "books actually having ISBN numbers" is a subset of that. In my view, this is a matter of inertia in the final analysis — we use ISBN numbers, ummmm, because we used to use ISBN numbers... Carrite (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

@OrangeMike: I wipe out spam links to Amazon, too, trust me, but nobody is ever going to run me up the flagpole for that. Carrite (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. My view is that use of ISBN numbers is a relic of the earliest days of Wikipedia, before WorldCat was a freely accessible search engine. ISBN numbers are a far inferior search metric to Author, Title, Publisher, Date of Publication, and the cumbersome competing Wikipedia search engine that uses them is....... essentially unused due to its inefficiency. If you don't believe me, try it sometime for a book with less than universal placement. Basically, it was a nice idea which life has passed by. ISBN numbers are nothing more or less than UPC numbers for books, a marketing device that has a publisher number, followed by an item number, followed by a check digit. They clutter footnotes sections and make them more difficult to read, obscuring the information that NEEDS to be seen in favor of a wall of pointless blue numbers. They are not universal to all books and each FORMAT of a book has a number; when a new edition is released, those numbers go out the window again — making this an absolutely unsatisfactory search parameter unless one is trying to buy the current edition of the book in question. Selling books is not Wikipedia's function, fortunately. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to try making this argument at the WP:Village Pump. See if people agree with you. Maybe you can change the practices for review of Featured Articles while you are there. Perhaps you can persuade people to remove the recommendation of ISBN usage from WP:Citing sources#Books. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Per your message on my talk page: "I spent a lot of my Wikipedia time in my first year here fixing broken ISBNs on rare works. If I had thought someone was going to remove them when I was finished I wouldn't have bothered contributing." — We all have our vested interests that we zealously defend, do we not? Wikipedia is a practical exercise in inertia... That which was always will be, whether there is a rational basis for it in a changing world or not. I understand your position and hear your sabre rattling. I suggest that there is potentially more productive work to be done improving the encyclopedia in other areas. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, what is specious your argument (above) that ISBNs are "not at all useful" since not all books have them. Their lack in older books does not diminish their usefulness for books that do have them. Your complaint about different ISBNs for different editions is also specious: ISBNs are useful because they distinguish editions and revisions that can (and often do) vary (often in very small but possibily crucial details) – you would rather have to rely on including the printing date?

This complaint that ISBNs are "commercial", so we should be so holy, holy, pure that we don't touch them is b.s; by the same argument we shouldn't list the publisher, lest someone uses that information to engage in a vulgar commmercial act.

Having ISBNs is no harm, but removing them is a loss of useful information, and diminishes Wikipedia by impairing the ability to do WP:Verification. Arbitrary removal of ISBNs should be sanctioned. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away, please. Carrite, I do not think it is helpful to go about removing ISBN numbers, they are useful tool for looking up references--for example, my uni library alone searching by ISBN and that search is very easy compared to searching by author's name and title. Removing them may very well be your vested interest, but it strikes me as bad form to remove anything that makes verification easier. If nothing else, consider leaving them as a favor for us old folks who are used to them. If you wish to pursue this, I think the suggestion of taking the issue up at the village pump is an excellent one. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting another opinion... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• ISBNs are often incorrect as they refer to the wrong edition. In particular this makes verification more difficult when someone hasn't bothered to confirm ISBN against place of publication, publisher and year. This is especially true about en_GB / en_US publication issues, and "reprint" houses that make the bulk of their academic revenue from repressing works from over 30 years ago. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that the fact that ISBNs differentiate between different editions very useful. For example, think about all the various printings of the bible, or versions of books which are notable for illustrations that appear in some editions. A13ean (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

They are also a useful tool for (when in question) for verifiability (in the non-wiki-sense) that the specific sources exists, and, when correct, provide specificity of the source. I.E. forces clarity where someone may prefer ambiguity or a haze.North8000 (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• That some editors use ISBNs unrigorously (eg. linking to wrong edition) does not undermine the inherent value of using ISBNs. As said above, ISBN is the easiest parameter for supplementing ambiguous book titles. Where page numbers are used, ISBNs help locate the correct page by finding the correct edition. Where the original ISBN is correct, the removal of ISBNs should be considered the removal of sources and should be undone. Deryck C. 00:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Some times editors get the title, or even the author, wrong. (So shouldn't use either those, right?) If they have the ISBN right then the conflict is a warning of error, and the ISBN may be easiest way of correcting it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was asked to try to describe fully the basic logic.

There are advantage of redundant identifiers when dealing with human artifacts. The identification of publications has evolved from the medieval period, when the identification was normally the first words of a manuscript, through the period where authors were specified, to a period in the nineteenth century where it was thought that the author-title designation was enough for a reader, and the addition of place and publisher made it unique for a scholar; the cataloging codes derived from Dewey and Cutter that we all use are still based on that. But it turns out it is not enough for uniqueness, and not enough to prevent ambiguity. It also became realised that people need to describe at several levels: The Iliad is enough if one wishes to describe the plot; but if one wishes to discuss the style, the language must also be specified, and the translator. If one wishes to buy a copy, you also need to know the format, and if a literary scholar, which of the various editions, for they all are slightly different. And if you are interested in rare books, you need to know the particular physical copy in hand. Similarly for virtual objects: There's Wikipedia, there's the English Wikipedia, there's a particular article in it, a particular article state at a particular time described to the minute, and when necessary a particular word, or even a character, or a character styling. (That's how the most flexible computer-oriented identifier is deliberately constructed: the doi, usually used to describe a particular version of a particular paper, but extendable downwards to the character level.)

We also need to guard against errors. For some computer purposes, we can use formal error checking codes and multiple versions, but for physical and most virtual objects, we need to deal with the human propensity to make errors both predictable and unpredictable. so we have the 3 book identifying codes, which we use in parallel--none of them originally designed for the exact purpose they now serve. the oldest historically is the LC number. Originally it was a coded number used to purchase a set of 3 by 5 inch cards prepared by the Library of Congress to use in a library catalog. As the library of congress made a different set of cards for each edition, and designated edition by the title-author=place-publisher paradigm, they served to designate particular editions, but took no care to distinguish between those in different bindings or in special sets. (the number was arbitrary: the year of cataloging, followed by a serial number.) Eventually, once LC stopped producing cards, numbers continued to be assigned on the same basis; to maintain the familiar abbreviation, they were called LCCNN, Library of Congress Control Numbers. As LC cataloged almost everything of interest in American libraries, they served for most purposes. (For the books received by the copyright office , a different set of numbers was assigned also, to deal with the book the LC decided not to add to the collection; these remain in use also, though we usually don't specify them.) When the first computer catalogs were devised, they all used individually coded sequential numbers for whatever distinction were made that required a different record, which might or might not correspond with those of the Library of Congress. It happened that one system came to predominate, that devised by the Ohio College Library Center, and came to predominate to such an extent that the Library of Congress cataloging was incorporated into the system retrospectively, and essentially everything that had a LCCN also had an OCLC number--now called Online Computer Library Center. It too, normally refers to edition, though there are some differences. In the period the systems were merging it became conventional to use both, as checks on each other. But this did not satisfy booksellers: they needed a system which could be handled independently by many different publishers, and which distinguished between different bindings and different sets and packages for sale; they came up on their own with a separate number for each way a book could be sold, the ISBN. This has not been done retrospectively, so books from before this system do not carry these numbers. As time went on, the original 10 digit ISBNs needed extension, and 13 digit numbvers are now standard, but to maintain backwards compatibility , both are normally used.

So much for the US. In other countries, there normally was an official national bibliography, and these all had their own sequential numbers. As the book trade became international, the US system was used in addition to whatever national system there was, a reflection of the developing US dominance.

One can now find a book by any system, for the catalog records now record, but do not necessarily display, every possible number. Libraries are very conservative, but they also realize people will describe a book by whatever piece of information they have in hand, which is not necessarily correct. The more entry points, the better chance of a correct identification (It also serves to remove the need for final decision about a single standard. Discussions at Wikipedia about minutia should have taught everybody here how difficult such decisions can be) So, while the isbn has no real logical basis, it proves convenient, as people often know it. Any and all of the systems can make errors in any imaginable direction. There is an elaborate system in each of them to indicate corrections, replacements, and so on.

Wikipedia reflects the actual world, and we describe things so people can find them, not to satisfy any built-in desire for logic or consistency or conciseness. In practice, anything published anywhere in the world in the EuroAmerican type systems of publishing currently will have at least one ISBN number (the date they start depends on the country) , and any one of them serves to identify it. Books acquired by an American library going back to the dawn of printing will have an OCLC also, I think by now everything with a LCCN also has an OCLC, but they have the advantage for stability of being official. A bibliographic record without an ISBN or OCLC is defective--no computer based system or person can securely identify the item.As people will usually know one or the other, and most people are more familiar with the ISBN, for if you buy a book in a bookstore, it will surely have an ISBN, but the OCLC you may need to look up in a catalog. We therefore must give it if available. But we are not bibliographers or booksellers. We need to only identify to the edition level, and thus any of the ISBNs assigned to the edition will do (a 2-vol set will have three isbns at least; if it's produced by different publishers in different countries, or paper/hard cover/electronic, it will have multiple ones). A few percent of the time there will be an error or ambiguity, and then the OCLC number helps also. We could require both--if I were doing this for a library I would require both. But for us, either one would do. It never hurts to add another. It can hurt to remove one. When I enter a reference for a book, my personal practice is to add the most convenient 13 digit isbn if available, or 10 digit if not, or OCLC if neither. I have no objection if anyone adds more & if I see a reference with more , I do not remove it--it does not help to remove information. I do not trust myself or anyone to determine what is redundant without more identification than is usually practical here. I regard removing isbn numbers from records as unconstructive editing, very similar to changing dates to or from BC/BCE or British to or from American spelling. People doing as Carrite is doing are wrong. If they persist in it, they must be stopped. The ultimate merits of the systems are irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting! Rather long for a comment; I wonder if this could be the basis of an essay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Italian-American

• "..experiences of the Italian American Corleone family" in The Godfather

Should this term "Italian American" be hyphenated when used as an adjective? The article Italian American (noun), while not discussing specific usage, does in fact use the hyphenated form, Italian-American (adj.), and there is some talkpage discussion there. I've tried correcting the term in The Godfather article, then explaining the usage at the Godfather talkpage after it was first reverted. After no discussion I corrected it again but got reverted by User:RepublicanJacobite. He finally replied curtly (or obtusely) on the talkpage and apparently shows no interest in properly discussing the issue, which seems to be a pattern based on our exchange at the Sopranos article (which, incidentally, uses the term correctly in the lead). Later I found this WP article as another reference: English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_adjectives but that's been ignored as well -- another editor User:Sjones23 recently reverted to the incorrect un-hyphenated form, with the unhelpful edit summary "discuss on talk page" though he did not join the talkpage discussion himself. I realize this may seem like such a minor quibble, it should have been such a simple change, but details like this are important especially in the lede section. Thank you. (Please note: I am not notifying User:RJ of this thread because he ignored and removed my first attempt to engage him at his usertalkpage, and User:Sjones23 has his usertalkpage blocked to unregistered users). -Anon98 98.92.187.248 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep it on the talk page, or raise an RFC, there's not much can be done here. I would also point out that um-registrered editors frequently get less respect than registered editors. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Sprial of Silence

Will someone please edit the Spiral of Silence Wikipedia page. I edited it, and it is my first time editing a Wikipedia page. Here is the article Spiral of silence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

edit standpoint theory

Will somebody edit my page please. Its due for a class am doing. Thank you. Standpoint theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Due for a class"? Is this an assignment you are supposed to be working on? If you a question, or need assistance on some particular problem, please tell us what the question or problem is. (For some reason we don't seem to have any mindreaders here.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Schaefer

I am not the best writer n the world, but what I have written about Brandon Schaefer and brandon Schaefer Day is All True. I would Ask That it be reviewed and rewritten. it is all true. Some day, Brandon will have as many hits as J.D. Birkel. please help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonschaefer (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

All articles need to be about notable subjects, which Brandon is not.--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How to stop a article merger

Someone has suggested that Gosport_and_Fareham_Inshore_Rescue_Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a charity) should be merged with an article about Gosport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which is the town it is based in. The person who suggested this merger also hasn't signed their post.

I am still fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia but this merger is incorrect and should be declined.

There are two posts opposing it, but the article still displays that a merger has been discussed.

What are the procedures to stopping this suggestion of a merger? 85.158.139.227 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is only a proposal - and in my opinion at least, not a very sensible one. There are problems with the article (it needs to be edited to be a little less promotional), but I can see no logic at all in merging an article about a lifeboat station with one about a town. The best way to deal with this is (a) to explain on the article talk page why you think the merger proposal is incorrect, and (b) if possible improve the article. It could do with some third-party sources, which probably won't be too hard to find. I'll do the same myself, and hopefully we'll end up with a better article. If the merger proposal gets no further support, we can remove the template from the article, after an appropriate period. As for the missing signature, I think that can be obtained from the edit history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What are the rules regarding removing a post from a Noticeboard page?

Hi,

I removed a comment I had made on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[5] because I thought better of the comment and felt it was off the subject, and regretted it. No one had responded to it, so I thought it was ok just to remove it.

However, the removal was reverted and my comment was placed back on the page.[6] with the comment "You can strike your comments with a '<s>''</s>' but not remove)"

So I struck out the comments.[7]

Is it true that an editor can't remove a comment made in poor taste even if no one has responded?

The editor then places a warning template on my page which said in part, "You are welcome to rephrase your comment."

So I put [redacted] in place of the comment but that also was reverted. What are the rules regarding this? I've seen editors remove comments, but they are acting against the rules? I want to follow them but I'm confused.

Thanks,

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of any special rules for noticeboard pages, WP:TALK should apply. WP:REDACT suggests deleting or redacting should be fine, especially considering (in the diffs provided) no one had replied to your comments. Яehevkor ✉ 22:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)