Help desk
< September 19	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 20

Proper way to handle problematic deletion

I wrote an article on the Theta Alpha Omega fraternity, based in large part on content that I had written as the admin for the fraternity's official website. The article was (justifiably) flagged for deletion for copyright concerns, and although I posted a release on the page in question (http://www.thetaalphaomega.com/aboutus.htm), the article was deleted. When I contacted the admin who deleted it, he stated that he could not see the release on the website, and me specifying the directions has not helped. Should I begin a deletion review, post a request for undeletion, contact a different admin...? Orsonscottcard (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give the admin time to reply to your most recent post, it was only a couple of hours ago. From what he has said to you, he seems to be willing to restore once he has seen the licence on the page. SpinningSpark 01:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting on the thread on their user talk, I appreciate the help. Orsonscottcard (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your page has a coding error which is treated differently by different browsers. For example, Google Chrome doesn't display the license text and doesn't indicate there is a problem. <div id="footer> should be <div id="footer">. Otherwise it can look like the following is part of the id. Fix it and contact the admin again. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I never would have caught that, since I don't use Chrome. Thanks! Orsonscottcard (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I primarily use Chrome. Should've tried it in Firefox to see if that worked! The article has been restored now. Airplaneman ✈ 02:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orsonscottcard, have you read WP:COI? If you are the admin for the fraternity's official website, you need at the very least to declare your interest on the article's talk page. (Perhaps you did, I can't tell because the article hasn't been restored yet). --ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New style of disambig'ing article titles?

Is there a new precedent on how article titles should be disambiguated? This edit is what leads me to this question. The edit is a page move from Terry Farrell (actress) to Terry Farrell: actress. When did this start? Dismas|^(talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The subsequent edit reversing this move tells the tale.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see that now. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new term

Hello everyone, writing in from Australia and I was thinking of entering an article into Wikipedia.

There are many fine articles on the punk genre, ideal and culture but there is a new term that I would like to add to the mix. 'Omnipunk'

It is a specific word; with specific meanings but you won't find it in any dictionary** because my dear lady wife and I created it several weeks ago. My question is, is Wikipedia the right place to put it?

Thanks for your time in reading this. Regards, Hawk62

- Merriam Webster online show it because we submitted it to them but they entirely discarded our definition and replaced it with their own ~ hey, that's hardly cricket...!

In a word, no. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor the place to put your new words, theories, or ideas. See WP:NEOLOGISM for more. Dismas|^(talk) 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beam etc

Hi. I need to say "'I' cross section" (ie 'H' cross section turned 90 degrees) - but there are no wings on the I.. Is there as standard method for getting a 'winged' I that still looks right in different fonts. ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. If you could find a suitable image, you could display it inline, like this:

, but that one probably isn't quite what you want. See Commons:Category:Beam drawings and Help:Special characters. --Teratornis (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way to get a serifed font is to surround it with <code> tags, I for example. SpinningSpark 07:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a monospaced font? I guess it will always be a wide I then. Yes thanks that's better than nothing.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it's the easiest way, not the only way, you can change the font to whatever you like with inline css. Look in edit mode to see how it's done. SpinningSpark 21:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks again, I'm not having the brightest of days, I think everyone will have times new roman too. Now I've got a choice :) Thanks! Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article by quality

In WikiProjects there are lists named articles by quality. Each article is scored. Can you please direct me to a text which describes how the articles are scored (importance, class, no of watchers, no of edits etc.) ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nedim Ardoga. You might want to see the Wikipedia assessment page WP:ASSESS. Cheers! ~ Elitropia (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Most Wikiprojects use the assesment scheme shown at Template:Grading scheme. There are exceptions, some projects such as military history have a well established scheme of their own. I don't know of anyone using a scoring system, can you link to an example? SpinningSpark 09:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with non-neutral POV and justification under WP:LABEL

What happens when the article of a "religious movement" is mostly being edited by members of the movement (they admitted this themselves) ? Criticism of the article and desire to add a criticsm section is percieved as religion-bashing, edit war trolling, etc. Facing attempts to modify the article in ways that does not go with their religious beliefs, WP:LABEL is being used as justification for rejecting the usage of the word "sect" because of it's negative connotation... but what if the religious movement is indeed a sect ? Shouldn't Wikipedia articles at some point be more interested in truth than merely repeating what is said by other sources or pleasing it's editors who are clearly non-neutral (myself included) ? See the discussion page of Pentecostalism for example. I am confused by Wikipedia's editing policies WP:LABEL. They seem to enforce a LACK of neutrality, for the sake of political correctness. 76.10.156.172 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like other editors there don't agree with your editing approach, which is one issue. A seperate issue is use of the word sect in Wikipedia. Several articles in Wikipedia are saying that sect is pejorative when applied to Christianity. See for example Sect#In_Christianity. I don't agree myself - the phrase "Christian sect" is widely used and is not always taken to be pejorative. The difficulty arises from the way in which mass media conflate the term "sect" with the term cult, which frequently does have negative connotations. So it would appear that on balance it may be best to avoid using the word sect, even though there can be little doubt that Pentecostalism is, like Catholicism or Anglicanism, a Christian sect. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it goes even further than that: I would even be at ease with sect being associated with cult in this case because that was my personal experience. Hence me being rightly percieved as non-neutral by the other editors, who in my opinion are also non-neutral (being members of this religious movement, and some of them appearing very reluctant to add criticism in the article). Thank you for your response. 76.10.156.172 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone editor in Wikipedia has personal views and affiliations; the important thing is to seperate those from the process of actually editing articles, so that if multiple views about something exist, adequate, sourced and informative coverage of those different views is given. It isn't wrong for those editors to edit something they are affiliated to per se, and they have stated their affiliation openly. Part of their annoyance with you derives from what they see as edit-warring on your part. It may be better for you to become a registered editor. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for further information. This would be a first step on the road to approaching article editing in a respectful way. A second step is to discuss proposed changes with other editors who take an interest in the article and see if you can achieve consensus first before making the change. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather astounding that Wikipedia often makes a de facto exception to WP:COI in the case of religion articles. I think this is further evidence of the privileged position religion has carved for itself in society as being above the type of criticism we routinely hurl at everything else (read a restaurant review for example, or listen to sports pundits critiquing an athlete's performance in the harshest terms). We frown on employees of a company editing the article about the company on Wikipedia, but we allow people who believe their religions are absolutely true in all respects to edit articles about their own religions. One could argue that a religious person has even more potential for a conflict of interest when writing about his or her religion, because an employee typically only cares about money and most people switch jobs more readily than they switch religions. A religious person might believe the fates of eternal souls are at stake in an editing dispute. However, the basic escape hatch on Wikipedia is not to make truth claims so much as to simply document what various groups of people verifiably believe. For example, we would not say "Jesus is the Son of God" - a claim not subject to proof or disproof from the available evidence - but rather "(some group of people) believe Jesus is the Son of God". Most people can agree on who believes what, even if they disagree with what some people believe. --Teratornis (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So applied to the particular dispute at the top of this thread - whether a particular religious group is a "sect" - Wikipedia takes no position on that. Instead, if there are some notable individuals or groups who label the group as a sect, and we have reliable sources for what they claim, we can attribute the claim to them. Anyone who objects to a pejorative label should beware of the Euphemism treadmill. I.e., the negative connotations of a pejorative label do not come from the label, but build up around the label due to negative features of the labeled entity. Changing the label at best buys a few years before the same negative connotations again build up around the new label, by reason of its attachment to the entity with negative features, thus requiring yet another euphemism to once again flee from the negative connotations temporarily. --Teratornis (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons image has same name as Wikipedia image

On a Wikipedia page, I tried to link to a Wikimedia Commons image (VSM.jpg) using "Image:VSM.jpg" for the link, and instead got an image with the same name on Wikipedia. The latter image is also in Wikimedia Commons under the name VslMuzeum.jpg. How do I modify the link to get the correct image? RockMagnetist (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use the same syntax, [[Image:VslMuzeum.jpg]]. The software knows to look on the local Wikipedia first, and if that doesn't work to look on Wikipedia Commons. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other image I want, the one called VSM.jpg in Wikimedia Commons. The fact that the source looked on the local Wikipedia first is the source of the problem. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of research, I've added a {{db-f8}} deletion tag on the local VSM.jpg. If I've done this correctly, once the image has been deleted you will be able to use the commons file VSM.jpg. (And a reminder to everyone to use long, descriptive file names for images). -- John of Reading (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and my heartfelt agreement on the file names! RockMagnetist (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems

I prefer Korean interface in English Wikipedia. However, sidebar on the left has some problems in Korean interface. Some of menu is displayed in English. Furthermore, the "위키피디아 접촉" doesn't make sense immediately. Regards. Irafox (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the way pages are displayed when you view in an internationalization preference should probably be addressed to this page on Meta, the project coordination wiki. – ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registered trademark removed from quotation

In one of the articles I created, an editor using AWB has removed a Registered trademark symbol from a quotation from a source for the article. I see that this editor has done the same thing with an unregistered Trademark symbol in a quotation in someone else's text, and was asked about it in the talk page. Before I put the symbol back, and perhaps start an edit war, I would like advice on what is the usual rule for quotations which include registered trade mark or trade mark symbols.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:TRADEMARK, which says: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs). Does that help in your context? – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search misses

After reading some of the recent 'redirects for deletion/discussion' entries (in particular, discussion of whether a redirect was a likely search target or not), I was interested to see what the most common search terms are on Wikipedia which do not have a page or redirect associated. Is there a list somewhere where this information can be gleaned? Or, better, has someone done this analysis already?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Most missed articles is what you want. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. SpinningSpark 18:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's precisely what I was looking for. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Duvall

Is Robert Duvall dead and, if so, when did he die?

You are at the Help Desk, intended for asking questions about using Wikipedia. However, I've had at a look for you at the Robert Duvall article and the links there to three movie databases, and have searched at Google News. I found no reports of his death. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

Is there any way to use {{sort}} for multiple columns? I'm having issues using this template when using the colspan command, both in the columns that are merged and columns after. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 21:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ionfly

Have attempted to place a CSD tag and an advert tag at Ionfly but was reverted, apparently by a new user. Being a new user myself, I do not want to revert. Have posted to the talk page but don't know where this request should be sent. Saebvn (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the tag--it was removed by the article-creator, which is not allowed--and left a note for the editor about it. The pink box from the speedy-tag gives you a suggested note to leave on the editor's talk-page about the situation. I did it. DMacks (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Saebvn (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now MilborneOne has deleted the article per A7 and G11. Might want to keep an eye on it for a day or so to see if it gets recreated and more action is necessary. DMacks (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now, it's been re-created and re-deleted. Will keep an eye on. Thanks again. Saebvn (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ionfly has been recreated. I don't want to tag it again without guidance from a more experienced editor. Saebvn (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted and salted for 3 days. If an article appears to meet the criterion you have tagged it with, there is no problem with continuing to add CSD tags to it upon recreation over and over, but after it's been recreated a few times, it makes sense to alert any reviewing admin that it has been tagged many times and maybe should be protected from recreation. This can be as simple as doing so in your edit summary upon the tagging, but a better way is to tag using {{db|explanatory text}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, though, (i) how do I quickly contact a reviewing admin, and (ii) doesn't this violate WP:3RR? Saebvn (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, adding a CSD tag doesn't even come within the ambit of 3RR since you are not reverting, in whole or in part, any content. A reversion is a condition precedent for 3RR to apply. Note that with regard to reverting removal of the speedy tag, 3RR does not apply because reversion of simple vandalism is exempt from 3RR and removal of speedy tags by a creator is simple vandalism. If that activity continues (removal of the speedy tag) warn with escalating templates in the uw-speedy series ({{subst:uw-speedy1}}, {{subst:uw-speedy2}}, etc.) and after a final warning has been given, and they remove it again, then report at WP:AIV. Otherwise, I don't know why you would need to quickly contact a reviewing admin on these issues. If you want to discuss salting, and don't think my suggestion above about using the generic db template with explanatory text is sufficient, you could contact the admin who last reviewed on their talk page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cell phone use while driving

With the smartphone and GPS technology. why cant the cell phones have a gps that shows the phone is moving at say 20-120 mph range and the gps does not allow phone calls to be made or recieved unless it shows the call is being made thru a ear piece or other hands free speaker device. Thus picking up the phone and talking would be eliminated while moving. When parked or stopped at a light the phone could be used; and when 20 mph is acheived the phone will be shut off unless you are using an ear piece or other hands free speaker.

This sounds smart to me and could possibly save thousands of lives in the process.

A concerned citizen trying to look out for others safety.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.149.24 (talk • contribs)

Have you tried the miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Non-free use Template hates me

File:Stewart-Colber-posters.jpg Trying to get the "Non-free use rationale" template to show up and its just showing as Raw data... any Idea what I did wrong? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed it. You had an extra opening bracket around one of your external links, and the template apparently couldn't handle that. Deor (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]