Help desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 6 >

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 5

Mass deletion procedure?

Resolved

– AfD initiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Sharkey's Last Game. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well I may have encountered some sort of problem. This article is a list of films in which Harry Carey acted in. Now, I quickly looked at the first article, and seeing that it definitely did not meet WP:FILMNOT for notability (no reliable sources even mentioning the film), I decided to WP:PROD it. I went back and found the second article, and the same problem persisted. Another PROD. Now, upon going back, and counting the hundreds of articles in this man's filmography, I'm a little nervous as to what should be done if the grand majority of these turn out to be non-notable for inclusion. I tend to have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I'm not exactly willing to verify the bulk each article for an AfD if it turns out to be that way. So, what should be done here? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no way to go but AfD. We cannot assume that all the pages in Harry Carey filmography are deletion worthy. You can create an AfD for Bill Sharkey's Last Game and list the other articles worthy of deletion. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm about eight articles through, out of eight I've looked at.

Is there some sort of a template I could use at AfD to collapse the articles listed? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{Collapse|1={{la|Article 1}}<br />{{la|Article 2}}|2=Articles also part of this AfD}}, replacing Article 1 and Article 2 with the names of the other articles. Add as many of the following that you need: {{la|Article}} and <br /> right after to keep them on different lines. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. I can't wait to see the reactions at AfD when they find (AFAIK) 30–50 articles in one AfD. Although I did find one notable article so far, to be fair. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

considering the reaction to other as deletions, that might not have been the best advice to take. What I would suggest is that you really look for sources and see if you can find some criticism of the films, and limit the AfD to the ones for which you cannot-- it helps to be able to show the articles nominated are actually of equivalent non-notability--and to go in smaller groups. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check an edit, please

Could someone check an edit for me? I'm at work and don't feel comfortable checking where the IP claims to have read the information that they posted.

The article in question is Vicca. A new editor, Jackaubrey2010 (talk · contribs), added a birth date which I removed due to it being sourced from IMDb. I advised JA2010 that IMDb isn't a reliable source on their talk page. 15 minutes later, they added the date back again. I again removed it. Now an IP has added it back claiming that they are referencing both WP:OR (the subject's manager), IMDb, and some site called risque.com. I edit porn articles often but have never heard of risque.com and considering the subject, don't feel comfortable trying to get there from a work computer.

So, long story short, could someone verify the sourcing. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vicca's birth date sans year is mentioned in a blog post on risque.com here [1]. Not sure if it's reliable or not. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)TW beat me to it. I agree, you might want to check the reliability of risque.com when you get home. Astronaut (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a self-published blog, and therefore generally unacceptable as a source for BLP information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldn't figure out if it was a self-published source or if it was a company she works with or what. The format alone sent up some red flags.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Władysław

Surely Wladyslaw should be a redirect to Władysław (the correct Polish spelling) and not the current reverse situation? Astronaut (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia policy on Foreign names and anglicization "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". I am unaware of then English usage of the name in question, but I would imagine that Wladyslaw would be the more common spelling (if only for typographical convenience), which would support the current situation. Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, we have articles like France and Germany rather than République française and Bundesrepublik Deutschland which are redirects to the English names. --Teratornis (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that the non-english characters dont appear on english keyboards so are unlikely to be the common english spelling or be readily accesable except for a redirect or following a link from another article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggest the English spelling should remain as a redirect, so non-polish keyboards can easily type an anglicized version of the name. However, I was asking because the issue was raised on the talk page and I agreed with the comment. Astronaut (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

corporate lies from Whitefish Mountain Resort, Montana

why is whitefish mouintain resort allowed to keep their page protected? Why are they allowed to exagerate their elevation which is revealed by the USGS topographical maps as well as other sources? Why was a single pourpose account from the corporation allowed to edit by himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.60.213 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to air grievances. The article on Whitefish Mountain Resort is semi-protected, not fully protected. Do read our note on what is meant by semi-protection. You'll be able to edit the page after you become autoconfirmed. If you believe any editor has a conflict of interest, the correct method would be to file this issue at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Do note that you should not file frivolous complaints. Hence, necessarily read the guidelines on what exactly is meant by having a conflict of interest. Write back if you need any help in using Wikipedia, which is what this Help Desk is all about. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 16:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - they won't be able to edit, they are an IP. IP, you can request changes to a semiprotected article on the article talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source related question

I've re-read every Wikipedia policy and guideline on source acceptability and still can't figure out what I should do, so came here.

Basically, the problem is this. An event happens that is poorly if at all covered in secondary sources, but is still deemed worthy of inclusion in the articles of the parties involved. So the articles resort to using those infamous primary sources - online forums, home pages etc. - but they happen to meet WP:RS in that case, so that's OK. Certainly not ideal, but acceptable and gets the event covered.

A similar event repeats a couple times, and the same always happens: they go into the articles using primary sources as references. Then a similar event occurs again, but with an added twist. Something controversial happens that is central to the event. Obviously, if that event goes into an article, the controversy should be mentioned, possibly even in detail.

Problem being that the controversy is still only covered by the parties involved, i.e. primary sources. And it's rather hard for a party to be involved in a controversy without making any claims about the other party. In fact, in all probability they'll do that a heap, in a way that's integral to the controversy. In the best case, they'll be saying things quite civilly but the other party is still a major part of what they say; in the worst case, we basically have a flame war that somehow manages to be worthy of a mention in our articles. A creative Wikipedian can edit out a lot of the claims about the opposite party and still get in most of what should be in, but at least some of the claims pretty much have to remain - those that explain why the controversy occurred at all - and this violates WP:SELFPUB point 2, even if almost everything's a direct quote and it's made clear that the claim isn't necessarily to be taken at face value. Worse, this could be just the sort of case that explains why WP:SELFPUB point 2 exists at all: those claims may be, well, controversial. So the only sources available can't be used, and the controversy can only be covered at all if it's pretty much reduced to "a controversy happened."

As far as I can see, we're left between the choice of an article that covers the event well but ignores all rules, and another that stays within the sourcing guidelines but omits important things that should be in and gives a lopsided, incomplete idea of what happened. What do you think should be done, or am I misunderstanding something somewhere? Sideways713 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a specific article/incident/source in mind, would you care to give it? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correspondence chess game between Natalia Pogonina and the website ChessGames.com. The website's team has previously played three World Correspondence Chess Champions and one grandmaster; all games are noted in the website's article, referenced to the website itself. Pogonina has previously played another website, and that's noted in her article, using pogonina.com as a reference.

This new game, still underway, featured an early controversy which had both parties blaming and accusing each other of various things and almost led to the game being aborted on move 2. Any good description of the game can hardly just omit that. The only sources available are the primary-source writings of ChessGames.com and its members on one hand, and Pogonina and her husband/manager on the other. Some of those can maybe go in, but many (I think) will fail WP:SELFPUB point 2. Sideways713 (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Department of History and Philosophy of Science Cambridge

I would like an explanation as to why the article on Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge was deleted without consultation by Cameron Scott. This is a major academic department with several members having entries so it deserves an entry in its own right.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it was Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, and Cameron didn't delete it. He simply redirected it, probably on the grounds that it was either not notable or the claims of notability weren't backed up with reliable references. You really should bring this up with him to see what he has to say. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at the moment, it is back; there's a discussion on my talk page at [2]. Crusio asked me about it, and I replied that I thought it might quite possibly stand. It needs considerable work, including additional 3rd party sources, as indicated by me and Bongomatic in that discussion, and I have put an underconstruction tag on it. I'd suggest we see what can be done with it, and after that anyone who still wishes to challenge it should use AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it because it's a bog standard academic department and the content and sources didn't indicate why it needed it's own entry. It still doesn't. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieces of paper

what is the meaning of CELEBRATING WITH PIECES OF PAPER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.226.254 (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Language reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]