Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 July 24

= July 24 =

how to create a wikipedia page
how do you create a wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausie101 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, search Wikipedia to make sure Wikipedia does not have an article on the subject. If the article does not exist, you can click the red link at the top of the page to create your article.  Be sure to cite sources, and avoid writing articles about yourself, your friends, the company you work for, etc.  You can also look at this page for more guidelines.  Happy editing!  RJaguar3 |  u  |  t  02:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How to report a wiki user who is deleting content?
The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RainbowOfLight has deleted a external link which I have posted. My link is not any form of advertisement. I posted a link for more information of the Toyota Corolla Axio. The link is www.clubaxio.com. How can I report this user? I could not find any link to report such users. I assume if a user deleted content randomly then he should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Shorty23sin (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with her. See your talk page.  Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and I don't see how this page is any more notable than countless other webpages.  A link to the Toyota website, as it is the manufacturer, would be appropriate, but a fan site would not be.   D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 05:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. OK understand your point. But is Wikipedia not all about information as well? Have a look on the Toyota Wish page. They also have some links to fanpages which provide information. Can you answer me how I can report a user from vandalising? If you have a look on his or her userpage there seemed to be more then one argument. --Shorty23sin (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been no complaints about me deleting posts from my own talk page (which is acceptable to policy), nor content from other articles (outside of vandalism). I think what this user is looking at is the WikiDefcon on my userpage where it says the current Wikipedia vandalism level is 3. (For any other editors, this user is upset that I reverted his/her link here. ) Rainbow Of Light   Talk  06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind Wikipedia can be edited, literally, by anyone. While we try to keep it at a certain encyclopedic quality, sometimes things slip through the cracks. I suggest you read the external links article, and then be bold and fix it, if it has problems.  Wikipedia is about knowledge, yes, but not about free advertising. I think the external links article is quite informative here.  Also, while I'm not too horribly fond of users that keep their talk page clear, think of it as a work desk: it's not always good to have a cluttered workspace.  It looks to me like she's just trying to help, so I would certainly take a few deep breaths before worrying myself about reporting her for vandalism.   D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 06:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This user is now upset, on his own talk page, that Adolphus has removed the spammy links (which Shorty23sin did not post) from the Toyota WISH article. It seems that Shorty23sin does not understand that some deletions are okay on Wikipedia. Rainbow Of Light   Talk  06:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK forget it. Checked the link explanation page now. Also found how to report vandalising. --Shorty23sin (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with templates and translation.
Hi, I'm from a foreign Wikipedia. I'm translating an article from my native language, I will publish it tomorrow, firstlye, I need to know if I need to indicate that it's a translation from a http://es.wikipedia.org article, and the secondly, is there a template (in this Wikipedia) I can use to indicate that maybe "this article needs to be reviewed due to possible orthographic mistakes"? becuase there is one in my Wikipedia, but I can't find the English template of it. Thank you. Do you mind answering me here? EmilioPin's .es Wikipedia discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilioPin (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the GFDL requirements, it's probably sufficient to use as the edit summary for the article creation something like, translated from es:PAGENAME . As for the template, you could use or, depending on the severity, but I'm going to guess it would be the latter. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover you could post it on Translation/*/Lang/es. — Navy  Blue  formerly iDosh 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

mail address
i wanted to know the e-mail id of sanjeev rao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.99.194 (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This page you are posting to is about questions related to using Wikipedia. We do have a reference desk where knowledge questions are welcomed. However, a simple Google search of the name reveals multiple sites showing a person of the same name and their email address. I have no idea if these results are for the actual person you intend or another/others by the same name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reporting a bug?
Hi there,

How do i report a bug about wikipedia table format?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you describe the problem here we'll try to see if it's a "bug" or just an "unexpected feature". ;-)  Otherwise there's a BugZilla for MediaWiki somewhere or other, I'm sure someone here knows.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, the links to it can be found at WP:BUG. (But I agree that we should triage before a bug report is made.) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok i have noticed that on articles like list of freesat channesl etc, they have coloum sorting, but if you have coloum sorting and a row use rowspan then it breaks for some reasons.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) if you like i cna provide a exampel fo the table here
 * Already reported as bug 8028 70.1.178.29 (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Venus Williams (edit 'war')
Hello!

I have repeatedly tried to edit the Venus Williams entry [from IP address (80.0.41.117] with a full and detailed description of her PLAYING STYLE (section title). The previous description (which now incorporates parts of mine) is (was) fragmentary and poorly written - i fleshed out the entire section, providing statistics which have been fully researched.   Sadly, the previous user keeps editing it back to verion closer (to what i imagine) was their own..

I should explain that i am a tennis writer, with in-depth knowledge of both ATP and WTA players playing styles. I also have a through knowledge of modern technique as i play to a high level myself. I can attach (supply) a published article, if anyone at the help desk would like to read it(?)

To make just point (concerning the original content), the proposition in the sentence "William's serve is among the most powerful on the women's tour", is rather weak and lacks weight.... It's a little like saying "Margaret Thatcher was one of the first [sic] female Prime Ministers in the United Kingdom" (!)

Venus Williams' serve is not 'among' the most powerful - it is *the fastest* (= 'most powerful") on the women's Tour, in terms of

a.) average first speed - by wide margin b.) fastest recorded serve

Also, her second average/fastest serve speeds to to be higher than any other woman on the Tour.

Thus, i provide clarification/correction - and added weight - to the statement, and approached the whole section in this manner.

Most people who follow tennis knows this (or are aware of the fact).... if you survey tournament statistics, week-in, week-out (as i do), it is a conspicuous fact.

I am not a 'fan' of Venus Williams per se; i follow professional tennis throughout the whole year.

Christopher Rourke

Here is my (completely) re-written version of the section:

extensive rewrite with factual and statistical data provided (checked and re-checked); technical clean-up of article.

{{hidden|style=border:1px solid
 * headerstyle=background:lightgrey
 * the proposed changes|content=

Playing style
Williams is an aggressive baseliner, equipped with an attacking all-court game. Across her career Venus has developed into a skillful volleyer and effectively utilises her long reach and relative quickness around the net. Venus stated during an interview at the 2008 Australian Open that she was working to improve her volley.

Venus is the most powerful server (by a margin) on the women's Tour, both in terms of average and fastest serve speeds, surveyed across tournaments throughout the year. At Wimbledon 2008, Venus struck the fastest serve recorded (by a woman) in the tournament's history, at 129 mph, in the women's final, Saturday 5th July 2008 (see: http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/match_reports/2008-07-05/200807051215270803593.html). This equaled the record for the fastest serve in a WTA main draw event, previously set by Venus at the 2007 US Open (first round match) at 129 mph. At Wimbledon 2008 Venus' average first serve speed was 115 mph in the 1/4 final, a remarkable 116 mph in the semi-final and 111 mph in the final (IBM/Wimbledon) - rather faster average speeds than any woman (including her sister, Serena Williams) records. To put this into further perspective, the top men's seed (and world no.1) at the tournament, Roger Federer, registered average first serve speeds of 119 mph (1/4 final), 117 mph (semi-final) and 117 mph (final) in his last three matches at the tournament (IBM/Wimbledon). This kind of confluence in men's and women's service speeds is unusual in professional tennis, and sets Venus Williams apart from her contemporaries in the women's game. To further illustrate the difference, the no.1 seed at the tournament, Ana Ivanovic, recorded an average first serve speed of 98 mph (fastest serve 108 mph) in her last match at the tournament. The no.3 seed at the tournament; Maria Sharapova, recorded an average first serve speed of 104 mph (fastest serve 111 mph) in her last match.

Venus Williams has always been a explosive hitter of the ball off the ground but her backhand is the more consistently reliable of her groundstrokes. Venus' backhand is equally effective hit down-the-line or crosscourt (frequently for a set-up approach shot). Venus' forehand does occasionally break down under pressure. However, it is still the more powerful of her groundstrokes, and a stroke that yields many winners, from a variety of court positions. Additionally, it is one the most powerful forehands in the women's game, frequently struck in the 85 - 90 mph range. In the 2008 Wimbledon women's final, Venus struck a forehand winner measured at 94 mph (IBM/Wimbledon). Only a few women (notably Ana Ivanovic, Serena Williams, Sania Mirza and the now-retired Justine Henin) hit to these speeds off the ground. Venus's forehand drive-volley (a shot that she popularised at the top of the sport) is the most decisive and devastating in the game.

Finally, Venus is a gifted athlete with excellent court coverage. Equipped with a long 'wingspan', Venus is able to reach shots that many other players would not even attempt a play on. Moreover, Venus is able to play an offensive shot from a defensive position - something that comparatively few women players are able to do. }}
 * Generally speaking, whilst a page is protected from editing discussion about proposed changes is moved to its talk page - in this instance you can find that at Talk:Venus Williams. That would be the best place to discuss your proposed edits. GBT/C 12:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your main issue is that you are not provided sources. User:Tennis expert says in his edit summary that your content is, among other things, uncited. See WP:CITE for information on citing sources within an article. You might also consider creating an account, there are many benifits including not displaying your IP address. Regardless, this is your choice. Scottydude talk 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to WP:CITE, see WP:FOOT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:CITET, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP. Several aspects of Wikipedia tend to surprise new users, especially the fact that on Wikipedia, what is "true" matters less than what we can reliably source. The problem with "truth" is that many people disagree about many aspects of what is true. But anyone who can read can agree on whether a particular published source makes a particular claim. Also note that Venus Williams is currently alive, so it is extra important to provide sources for any claims we make about her. See WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Given the fame of Venus Williams, it's possible someone has published reliably about her playing style. We can google for clues:
 * which finds this potentially reliable source that documents a 126 MPH serve by Venus:
 * Finally, see WP:EIW. --Teratornis (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, see WP:EIW. --Teratornis (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, see WP:EIW. --Teratornis (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

edit visible when logged in but not visible otherwise
I'm puzzled over an oddity, hope you can help. Yesterday I added a comment to the Talk:Holocene calendar page. It seemed to add normally. Today, I went to view the page from another computer. I was not logged on to Wikipedia. The comment was not there. However, when I clicked on the history tab the system seemed to think my comment was there, and it was visible by clicking on the date link in the history tab - ie this link. Also, when I logged in to ask this question, the comment appeared once again on the talk page. I'm sure it is not a cache issue, since I am on a different computer. And I don't think it can be a formatting error, since the change *is* visible when I'm logged in. Any ideas what's up and can it be fixed? WikiJedits (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It probably is a caching issue, at the server end. The servers keep http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=43separate caches for logged-out and logged-in users. I've purged the server cache, which should solve it. Algebraist 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That did indeed, thanks Algebraist. In future, would it just be a matter of waiting longer for the servers to update themselves? WikiJedits (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Either that or purging. Algebraist 14:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look in the "Gadgets" tab of Special:Preferences, there is a User Interface gadget that adds a little UTC clock in the top-right corner of your screen, which purges the current page when you click on it. This is pretty convenient!  :-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Started articles
Is there a place where one can see a list of only the new articles/redirects oneself has started? I can't find it in "my contributions", for example. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject edit counters reveals that this tool is what you're after. Algebraist 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Another way is to type in your username in the box at Special:NewPages to see this page. this will show you the edits you have made to the new pages, including edits shortly after the page was created. Scottydude talk 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NewPages only shows fairly new pages, though. Algebraist 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys! FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Login email
I'm a new member and I registered. By the time I went to my email to verify my membership, your code had run out of time and would not respond to my clicks. I asked for another one, but was told that I could only get one in 24 hours. Help please: chrisdog0304. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.86.130 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the confirmation email is valid for only 24 hours. The link should work, if not, you can try copying the URL directly into your browser. If clicking the link provided in the email doesn't do anything, there must be a problem with your email client, as the link itself has nothing to do with the expiration: if the link has expired, it'll still work, just the page you go to will display an error message saying the email has expired. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion
I am currently engaged in a debate / edit war with what appears to be either one anonymous user who logs in from multiple IPs or several close friends. The article in question is Battle of Szigetvár, where one or several Croatian nationalists are trying to remove any mention of Hungarians from the article. After several attempts to get start a discussion on the talk page, they have posted some comments. I have replied, and have continued to revert the page back to its original form, until some resolution can be reached.

The comment on the talk page promised that if I continue to revert, more Croatians will be "alerted" to "what is going on here." However, I want to both uphold the original version of the page until some resolution has been reached, and am afraid that if I stop reverting then they will no longer post on the discussion page. However, I am now skirting 3RR. While I am avoiding making more than three reverts in any 24-hour period, this is definitely an edit war and not obeying the spirit of the law. I am not, however, trying to be a disruptive editor -- just want to continue to discuss reasons for editing the article one way or the other, and to uphold the status quo until a solution is found, one way or the other. Since all the Croatian edits so far have been anonymous, semi-protecting the page could end the edit war immediately, but it seems like it would be too drastic of a move to make so soon.

Would anyone have any thoughts on what to do next? Or whether I am breaking 3RR or not? Or perhaps whether I SHOULD break 3RR, if the need arises? Would there be any admin who could perhaps oversee the situation and warn me (unofficially) if my actions are disruptive, before taking any official action? Thank you for your thoughts. Korossyl (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add -- the last interaction I had with the anonymous IPs was when the comment was posted on the talk page. This pattern might continue, and the issue might be moot. However, I intend (unless counciled otherwise) to continue reverting, and it is in this case that I would like to guarantee that my actions will be appropriate, before I actually do anything. As I said, I am afraid that without reverting on the page, there will be no discussion, and I am quite insistent on the status quo, until it has been resolved otherwise. Thank you. Korossyl (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably everything there is to know about content disputes is under WP:EIW. There you will find instructions on how to handle the dispute, and if necessary to escalate it. --Teratornis (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Situation resolved itself completely -- other editor was very willing to work together and compromise. Thanks! Korossyl (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been getting an error msg for almost a week, trying to create an account
After I fill in my user name and new pswd, Ikeep getting this response: I have tried about 8 times in the course of 6 days.

the msg:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.187.124 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I cut out the internationalised text from that so we can see the error message more easily:


 * Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.


 * You may be able to get further information in the #wikipedia channel on the Freenode IRC network.


 * The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation which hosts some of the most popular sites on the Internet, including Wikipedia. It has a constant need to purchase new hardware. If you would like to help, please donate.
 * If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.


 * Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&action=submitlogin&type=signup&returnto=Main_Page, from 208.80.152.29 via sq25.wikimedia.org (squid/2.6.STABLE18) to 10.0.5.3 (10.0.5.3)
 * Error: ERR_ZERO_SIZE_OBJECT, errno [No Error] at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:24:45 GMT

I'm not sure if that is much help; is this just the standard error we sometimes get when the servers are struggling or is it something new? To be honest I haven't really paid attention to the "normal" error message very much, so I'm not sure if it has  or not! :-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This was a problem with the UsernameBlacklist extension. The extension has now been disabled. &mdash; Werdna &bull; talk 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try clearing your browser cache. What is your username? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, is it Extension:UsernameBlacklist causing all the ERR_ZERO_SIZE_OBJECT errors upon account creation? What about the other errors, the PHP fatal errors, etc... ? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing categories
How do I add my name to the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Clarkson_University_alumni

in the Pages in Category section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnyard69 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't. That category is for people notable enough to have articles about them in Wikipedia, who are also known Clarkson alumns. Such categories don't include Wikipedia editors who fall in the categories. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Help:Category. Actually you would not add a name per se to the category page; instead, you would categorize an article into the category, which means there would have to first exist an article about you. See WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:AUTO. There are, however, many categories for users who share various traits. --Teratornis (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For example:
 * Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Clarkson University
 * which I found by searching the Category: namespace with this handy search from Help desk searches:
 * --Teratornis (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it violate WP:SELFREF to add a link (with the selfref template) to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Clarkson University from the descriptive text portion of Category:Clarkson University alumni? That would make this question self-answering. --Teratornis (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the OP would like to add themselves to the "Wikipedians by alma mater: Clarkson U" category, put on your userpage. If you don't like the userbox, add  . Paragon12321 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the OP would like to add themselves to the "Wikipedians by alma mater: Clarkson U" category, put on your userpage. If you don't like the userbox, add  . Paragon12321 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If I use Wikipedia in my computer, will I be charged any extra payment or it is 100% free?
I am a new user to Wikipedia. I'm a resident of India and want to be a regular user of Wikipedia. So, will I be charged any extra payment at the end of the month? Or else if it is 100% free, how should I donate money in Indian Currency i.e Rs.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Chatterjee (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is 100% free. If you wish to help keep Wikipedia running, you can make a donation here. However, I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation (where the money goes) accepts rupees. Depending on how you send the money, you will have to get it converted to a different currency (preferably USD). Paragon12321 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Wikipedia is completely and totally free in every way. There are no charges for any usage of the site. :) If you would like to donate money, though, the Wikimedia Foundation would be very grateful. Please check out http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate if you are thinking seriously about donating. Welcome to Wikipedia! Glass  Cobra  18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Other than maybe your electricity bill, I don't think Wikipedia will cause you to spend any more money than usual, because it is a free website to use, read, edit, and register on, and we will not charge you extra fees. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Understanding policies, guidelines, wikiformatting etc may also cost you a few fried synapses. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chat
How can I chat Online with another user of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Chatterjee (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:EIW and Help:Talk page. --Teratornis (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) If you just want to leave a message for a user, go to their talk page at "User talk:USERNAME". For example, yours is at User talk:Asim Chatterjee. If you mean you want to chat on an IM program, some users disclose their username for those on their userpage, User:USERNAME. Also, Please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: [[Image:Signature_icon.png]], but do not sign in articles.. Paragon12321 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct Broken Web Links (2nd Notice)
Dear Web Site Owner / Webmaster, The Baltimore County government web site has moved to http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov. Please update the following web page to use the correct web address: http://www.indopedia.org/Baltimore_County,_Maryland.html http://www.indopedia.org/Baltimore_County.html Thanks in advance. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.39.173.54 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. First, Wikipedia does not have a webmaster and is run and edited by the community. Second, Wikipedia is not affiliated with "Indopedia"; therefore, this isn't the best place to bring this up. Try asking somewhere on their site. If their site is anything like ours, you can probably change it yourself. Also, Please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: [[Image:Signature_icon.png]], but do not sign in articles. Thank you. Paragon12321 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify because many people are confused by this, a wiki is a type of website which uses wiki software. Wikipedia is a wiki—by far the best known—which means other wikis sometimes formulate names with "pedia" in them, but it is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, is unrelated to Indopedia as Paragon12321 stated, and for that matter, is unrelated to most other websites with names in the form "something"pedia or "wiki"something.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone who has a little bit more experience with the rules of the GFDL may want to check out Indopedia. It looks to be taking Wikipedia's text verbatim, and it doesn't look like we're being cited. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be fully compliant, but there is a note right at the bottom of the page (next to 'Recommended browser - Internet Explorer 6[!]'). Algebraist 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is not very much like Wikipedia: It requires login to edit, and according to Special:Userlogin registration is restricted. Perhaps this is why there are no Special:Recentchanges, and there are no Special:Newpages this year.
 * Content before 2005 is a Wikipedia copy with some but not all mentions of “Wikipedia” changed to “Indopedia.” For example, Indopedia:About contains the false statement, “Indopedia is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.” —teb728 t c 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of references; when is enough, enough
I have been trying to find a specific policy that addresses a sufficient number of references. Is more better? When is there too many? Can an article be over-referenced.--Storm Rider (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think any policy speaks directly to the question but the seminal statement on what should be sourced comes from our verifiability policy: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The question then is what is "likely to be challenged"? I think editors make too many assumptions about what is commonsense, plain as day, obvious. With some minor exceptions (plot summaries for example) I think every statement in an article should be verified by a reliable source, inline, and I write all articles from this perspective. When is enough enough? Barring the ridiculous (ten citations for each sentence) overciting is impossible. What is sufficient? Well, you don't need to place an inline citation after each sentence. If a paragraph contains nothing seemingly controversial, you can use whatever reliable source(s) you wrote the information from and cite them at the end. There is a proposed guideline a When to cite by the way. They include some examples of things that do not need to be cited, such as "Paris is a City in France" but this is something of a red herring. We don't in practice see such statements appear discretely, and an entire paragraph made up of such plain vanilla fodder is a rare animal so a citation will be needed at the end anyway. A person who raised underciting because the Paris sentence is not separately cited needs a slap with a wet trout.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, but on FA reviews I have seen this comment about being over referenced. Though I have sought for some policy as when is too many and when is not enough, I have seen nothing that guides the ignorant such as myself. I like think that it is best to approach an article from the position that readers will want to read sources and everyone will seek to verify information. Cheers and thank you. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Storm Rider, not policy but in the spirit of, my two bits about refs and links: I like to think the body of the article will be longer than the list of references; that not every word is blue linked, just the pertinent inclusions; that unless there is conflicting information about such things as date of birth, there's no need to reference it to the nth; that people leave the little years and months alone to streamline the links since when you click on them you just get everything that happened that year/date which takes you right away from the article among other deficiencies; that as much as possible the notes of information included in references might be placed within the article rather than the footnotes' asides; that anything juicy can be traced. What else... um, that anything that can be easily found by the reader is not a priority reference, but other specifics and their sources are; and kudos to lovely editors who take trouble to check the external links for useability, corpse status and promo intent. There must be heaps other, but this is from sloshing through articles. cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, about "being over referenced" there does seem to be (in some cases) a tendency to do the academic paper approach (the more the better or more credible) but it is an encyclopedia, not a journal article for peer review at that level and might indicate a lack of confidence in the material. Again, my 2 bs, Julia 09:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, There is no common sense, so perhaps we do need a definition of "over-referenced" that won't be subjective. The need for references is probably greater in an article about a controversial topic. I would say that for every article which someone could possibly consider over-referenced, there must be a hundred under-referenced articles, so I think it is somewhat misguided to remove references from any article before we fill in the yawning gaps in other articles. That is, the degree of improvement resulting from trimming back an excess of references in one article is probably smaller than adding a similar number of references to the grossly under-referenced articles. --Teratornis (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)