Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 December 7

= December 7 =

Lansing crusaders
How to process this new page? It's external link is a mirror of Wikipedia that is used as a source? I think I'm missing something or this page has been deleted before. I marked it patrolled before I figured out what was up. Pirate Argh!!1! 03:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article seems to describe a high school football team. Usually, high school football teams are not themselves notable enough for an independent article.  Since the entire thing is unreferenced, you could simply remove all of the text and WP:BOLDly redirect it to the appropriate article on the high school itself. -- Jayron  32  03:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC )


 * Scratch that. Its not about a high school team, its about a "semipro" football team (read: amateur), and likely could be prodded or AFDed as a non-notable sports team.  Having a winning record is not in itself notable.  My church softball team won its league the past two years, doesn't mean it gets an article.  -- Jayron  32  03:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, an article at the correct capitalization was deleted via prod in May 2007. That article's what the mirrors picked up, apparently. Deor (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing legal documents
I'm wishing to cite legal acts. When using the citation template, what parameter(s) would I use to insert the chapter, section, and subsection? Furthermore, would the publisher by the government that published the document, or the department of that government? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the entries at Category:United_States_law_templates? I've not looked at them (and I've not got time to at the moment), but one of those might help. If not, let me know and I'll look into it tonight (UTC) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I found some at Template:United_States_legal_citation_templates, but they seem specifically for US law. Is there Canadian or international versions? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Inserting an image
I have loaded a new image to replace the old but the old image is still showing on the page. Why can't we delete old images and why is it so difficult to insert a new image on the page??? I don't have the time to read through pages and pages of garbled information explaining why - just a simple answer in response will do Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetha Griff (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * have you cleared your browser's cache? (if you specify what article you're talking about, preferably with links to the article and to the new image, so we know what we're supposed to be seeing, that might make it easier to help) Sssoul (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, it appears you're talking about the Ray Vanderby article, and this image:, which is what's showing on the page, but too small to be a very effective illustration. i hope some image-literate denizen of the help desk will now find it easier to assist you Sssoul (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ps: i've replaced the "gallery" parameter you were using with the plain old image style, and it looks better to me now. is that the effect you wanted? Sssoul (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

source problem in college
hello, i am a college student and my professors say that wikipedia is not a real source, why is that? i do not understand why, is it something simple or because some information could be false? either way its outrageous because this encylopedia has everything and has helped me over the years in numerous ways. if theres any explanation for my professors not accepting wikipedia as a viable source please come forth, because it is very confusing.

thank you,

jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.35 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there Jim,
 * Your professor is right. Wikipedia is not a source. The reason for this is that anybody can edit it. Not only can the "source" change in the time between you using it and your professor reading it, but it could have been vandalized before they read it, and before someone could revert it.
 * However, what wikipedia Is, is a summary of sources. In articles that are reliable, the information should be cited. The citation will more often than not be a real source. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To get a little bit deeper into it; if you take information from Wikipedia, it IS a source for that information. What the professor meant of course, is that it isn't a TYPE of source that he accepts. There are many types of sources, and much like your professor, Wikipedia doesn't accept all of them either. There are reliable vs unreliable sources, transient vs. fixed sources, primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of a transient nature, and it's reliability depends on how well it sources the information it provides. Your professor is looking for sources like those we use in Wikipedia. Mostly reliable primary and secondary sources of a fixed nature. Note that a source is almost never forbidden in academics, they are only forbidden in certain usecases. (If you research Wikipedia, you are likely to have to use Wikipedia as a primary source). Knowing when to use which source of which type is a skill you should be developing in college (and this is all stuff that your professor should be teaching you, instead of a random person on Wikipedia). —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Citing Wikipedia and Researching with Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Never cite Wikipedia in a paper. Because, as explained above, it is a transient tertiary source that anyone can edit. However, what you CAN do is use Wikipedia to FIND other sources. The information on WP is only as good as its sources, anyway. Use WP to point you to the sources and then use the sources. Think of this way: I might ask a friend to recommend some books on a topic and use those books. But I don't cite my friend in my paper. Professors want to see scholarly sources such as books and journal articles. These are peer-reviewed, meaning they are reviewed by other academics. News and magazine articles are also often cited. For more information, see WP:RELIABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.216.24 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the commonly cited reasons for not allowing Wikipedia as a reference is that anyone can edit it. This actually is an amalgam of two different issues. First, the fact that anyone can edit it means that if you simply provide the straightforward link to the article, the text almost certainly has changed when the next person looks at it, possibly in a substantive way. This objection can be overcome, as knowledgeable people know how to link to a static version. The second aspect is that anyone can edit it, so you don’t know whether the person who wrote it knew what they were talking about. In some cases, they might be deliberately spreading misinformation, although it usually caught in a relatively timely fashion. This objection isn’t as easily overcome.
 * However, in my opinion, the main objection to using Wikipedia as a source is exactly the same reason Encyclopedia Britannica should not be used as a source in a serious research paper – it is a tertiary sources rather than a primary or secondary source. Wikipedia is a great tool for someone writing a paper, but if they are serious, they won’t take a single word from the WP article, instead, they will read the article for a nice summary of the subject, then track down the cited sources. Those sources (generally speaking) should be acceptable as cited sources in a college paper, but now you can write the summary in your own words, and you can do a synthesis of various sources (not allowed in WP) and original research (again, forbidden in WP). SPhilbrick  T  18:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another reason to not cite Wikipedia as a source is that it is an encyclopedia. In general, you shouldn't cite encyclopedias when doing adult-level or even high-school- or middle-school-level research or papers.  Yes, there are exceptions, but generally teachers frown on it.
 * For what its worth, most articles in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias cite sources. Assuming the sources are reliable, these are what you should be using, or if these sources are secondary or tertiary, consider following their bibliographies back to primary sources and use them.
 * One major exception: If you are writing about Wikipedia, about and article or other page in Wikipedia, a Wikipedia editor, or something else, then edits found in Wikipedia edit histories can be used as primary sources.  However, be sure to cite the edit, not the page.  You can find edits of a page by clicking on the "history" tab of a page.  The most recent edit, which is probably the one you want, is at the top.  Consult with your instructor or school librarian for more information on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using an encyclopedia as a source. Likewise, if you are writing about the Encyclopædia Britannica, you may cite it as a primary source, e.g. "Encyclopedia Britannica has 2 articles about fish on volume 2 page 23" with a citation of E.B. v. 2 p. 23. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary translation of a German wikipedia page to English
Dear Wiki people,

there is a short german Wikipedia page about a village in Hungary called "Szirák": http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szir%C3%A1k. I would like to offer to translate this page into English. For the time being, the information in the German page is sufficient, although as the village has an intersting history, I would be able to expand upon it in both English and German.

I am an English native speaker, but I have lived and worked for over 30 years in German speaking countries and I now live in Hungary, so I am familiar with both the language of the article to be translated and the subject matter.

Unfortunately, despite reading all the FAQs etc.l, it is still not quite clear to me as to how I should do this.

1) As the English page does not exist, do I have to create it first? 2) Do I then use the translation template to make sure that the copyright is attributed correctly to the German page?

I look forward to getting your response.

I am already registered with Wikipedia as a user

Psymmo (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you must create the page at the English Wikipedia. Create it at Szirák or Szirak and make a redirect at the other. Maybe you have already seen Translation which mentions Translated page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hi Psymmo. Yes, create the page with translated text and I suggest using a similarly situated page here, such as Diósjenő, for examples to use for some matters such as what infobox to place and how to format in place of the foreign. Then create a talk page for the article and place there . See the template link for how to find the information to fill in in the parameters provided. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee Studios - wtf!?
I asked this on the talk page of the article, but I'd appreciate someone taking a quick look at it now to be sure I'm not going crazy. Is it just me, or does this article contain a massive portion of Wikipedia policy (for no apparent reason) sandwiched with an odd spam-like article? There has to be some purpose I've missed, surely, and if anyone can enlighten me as to its purpose that would be great. SMC (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ARTSPAM was stuffed in there, causing it to transclude the guideline. I would presume the editor meant to add cleanup-spam. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for that. If I see any such odd behaviour again, I'll be sure to check the template syntax very carefully :P SMC (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Saul Ewing Page
The logo on the page is incorrect. Is this something that I can change or should I send you the image and you post it. I can't find where to change the logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulEwing (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Only autoconfirmed accounts can upload images to Wikipedia. One of us can do it if you give a url. Is it http://www.saul.com/images/misc/print_logo.gif? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for where to do it, clicking the logo on Saul Ewing leads to File:Saul Ewing logo.png where autoconfirmed users have a link saying "Upload a new version of this file". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * SaulEwing has been blocked as a violation of the user name policy, but on the basis of the above, I have uploaded the new logo in place of the old. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. The logo used on their website pages is from http://www.saul.com/images/bkg_header_logo.jpg but that is of poor quality compared to the one I found at http://www.saul.com/images/misc/print_logo.gif. I guess you converted the latter to png. Maybe SaulEwing should tell the company webmaster that the p in jpg stands for Photographic and the format is poorly suited for other things. See jpg. And before somebody says "but jpg compresses", note that the linked jpg is 3 times larger than the gif version. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Text search in category and its sub-categories
Does anyone know of a way to search the articles in a category and its subcategories for a text string? Using the standard Wikipedia search tool, I could search like this: "America incategory:Foo", but that won't search sub-categories of Category:Foo at the same time, which is what I'd like to do. Using the text-search function in AWB is limited to 1000 hits. I could, I suppose, search each subcategory in turn using the standard search tool, but that would be very slow. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencherlite (talk • contribs)


 * Whoops, forgot to sign this question earlier... Any ideas, people? BencherliteTalk 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of WikiProjects for improving and creating articles related to Oxfam
Hi there, I'm trying to get together a small group of people to try and improve the information about Oxfam on Wikipedia (both the main article and other articles connected with it). I get the impression that WikiProjects would be the best place to organise this but I'm slightly confused about all the different categorisation within that.

Would the WikiProject on 'Organizations' be the best place to start or would Oxfam and related information be better placed under a different parent project? Should I be adding myself as a participant to that project then adding tasks related to Oxfam?

389melanie (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oxfam seems a too narrow topic to get its own WikiProject, and it doesn't have enough similar articles to set up its own guidelines. Perhaps it would be best to simply ask for interested editors on a relevant WikiProject talk page, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International development. Some WikiProjects have task forces but Oxfam also seems narrow for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, will try that. Thanks! 193.133.69.201 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How to store a document for reference material
I have a word document that I would like to use as a reference. But, it is not on a web server. Is there a way to store a document and then use it as a reference in an article? GloverEpp ( talk ) 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Has the word document been published before in a reliable source? Has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, or a major newspaper or magazine, or been published in a book released by a major university press or reputable publishing house?  If none of these, then it cannot be used as a citable reference in a Wikipedia article.  If it HAS been published before, then you would cite the original publication.  It need not appear online, if you have the bibliographic information for the journal or book, you could simply cite it per standard MLA or similar formats.  -- Jayron  32  16:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

what's the easiest way to
go back and read an old help desk question I submitted? found diff of my edit but need to see all subsequent responses. archives seem an unnavigable mess. even for like a 2 weeks ago item... too much searching blindly! helpthx. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Use the search at Help desk/Archives which is linked from the top of this page, enter in the title of the question you asked (I think a wizard got offended), et voila - Help desk/Archives/2009 November 23. Nanonic (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You could also go to your user page and click 'What links here', filter it to only show results from the Wikipedia namespace and - you get this. Nanonic (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing article
I've already butted heads with several administrators who seem to favor deleting articles rather than making information available on Wikipedia. I will continue to rant about the abusive article deletion policies on Wikipedia. It makes me cautious about spending the effort to create an article. Scattered throughout Wikipedia articles are literally hundreds of references to what I would think should be called "United States Olympic Trials (track and field)" or "United States Olympic Trials (athletics)" but all of them are dead. Comparable articles for other, lesser sports do exist on Wikipedia. About six months ago I started to create a simple generic article to initiate this subject, then after an hour found a superior article already in existence. I tried to then link that article into main articles where this information should be found. Well those links can't be found, the main article can't be found. Its all gone again. All I can imagine is someone with administrator credentials does not want this kind of article to exist and has once again destroyed information. The true scope of this article should be quite lengthy, which frankly, I don't have the time to generate and sub-reference. Before I go about creating another article to start to fill this void, I want to find out why such an article does not exist and why previous attempts at the article have apparently been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you go to Special:Log you can select the Deletion log in the drop down and then enter the title of the page you say was deleted. It'll show when and why. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't found the title of a deleted page. There are many articles with red links to articles that never existed. I'm not American but think the USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships function as Olympic trials in those years. As an administrator I can see deleted contributions but your account has no contributions to deleted pages about this. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Olympic Trials are a separate event that occur only every 4 years, and serve as the National Championships for that year, since 1988 at least. Its part of many complicated things that need to be explained about an obviously prominent event.  No, I never completed the article because I found another article that did contain the information.  However, either through bad labeling, that article is difficult to find; or by deliberate deletion that article no longer exists.  That fact that is continues to not exist tells me there is something more deliberate than mere omission on the part of a Track and Field community that has many experts willing to write on this recurring significant subject that itself certifies notability for many athletes in the sport.  I can see a need for tables of results from these events throughout history being appropriate for Wikipedia.   It could take several experts some time to mechanically post the depth of this subject that should be explored.  Obviously other people have made attempts to mention it.  After all these years, why is it missing?  Who is blocking it?  And on a deeper level I ask rhetorically, why are some of these abusive administrators allowed to do things like this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 December 2009  Trackinfo (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(UTC)
 * Administrators should try to follow Deletion policy and other policies and guidelines. If you disagree with a deletion then you can discuss with the deleting administrator and if that is unsatisfactory then take it to Deletion review. It's hard to say what happened here when you don't know a title of a page or the name of an editor who may have edited or deleted it. There are many possibilities which don't involve administrator abuse, for example that a page was redirected by a non-administrator, or some of the content was removed by a non-administrator, or a page was deleted by an administrator within policy in response to a request which was made and supported by non-administrators, or that the page still exists but hasn't been properly linked to other articles and eludes our searches, or that your memory of the content of the page or seeing it at Wikipedia is inaccurate. I have not found signs of such an article after searching different things in the deletion log and elsewhere. I'm not jumping to the conclusion that abusive administrators have been at play to destroy valuable information about Olympic trials against the will of the editor community, but I'm an administrator so you may think I'm just defending my own kind. Many editors complain about administrator actions but they often disagree about which actions are wrong. Administrators are supposed to follow consensus and policies which were made by consensus where all editors can participate. When a given complaint is discussed it often turns out that most non-administrators support the actions of the administrator. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we possibly talking about Foot Locker Cross Country Championships? Because that's still there! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through your contributions, I see you did some work on World Masters Athletics and Masters athletics (track and field). Alternatively, take a look through all the differences for each edit and see if anything jogs your memory; I'm thinking you made a link somewhere to the missing page.  I tried this for a few edits but didn't see anything relevant to your question (however, I did notice you wikilinked several dates and years - something that is discouraged in the Manual of Style here and here).  Astronaut (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Uploading Photos/Logos
Hi, I'm creating a Wikipedia page for a company, and would like to upload their logo to the page. Unfortunately when I go to upload, I get a message that says I'm an unauthorized to do so. Is there a way (besides making the required number of edits) to upload a photo? My account has been active since June. Thanks! Cb711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb711 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can request that your account be autoconfirmed at Requests for permissions. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics question
I translated the Finnish Wikipedia article fi:Ebdo Mihemed into English as Ebdo Mihemed. Now Helsingin Sanomat published part of the lyrics, as a comparison of the original Kurdish lyrics, the soramimi into Finnish, and the real meaning of the original Kurdish lyrics translated into Finnish. If I can dig the issue of Helsingin Sanomat containing the lyrics up, can I publish a four-fold table of the lyrics, containing the original Kurdish lyrics, the soramimi into Finnish, an English translation of the soramimi, and an English translation of the real lyrics, or would that constitute a copyright violation? J I P | Talk 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding lyrics is considered to be copyright infringement in most cases and should be avoided. Lyrics of commercial songs are most likely copyrighted to the original writer. Very old songs in the public domain ("The Anacreontic Song"), well-known songs that probably are copyrighted but no one cares ("Happy Birthday To You") and most - if not all - national anthems, and covers or remixes of any of those songs (provided they use the exact same lyrics) are probably exempt from this rule. Xenon54 / talk / 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The middle one is a BAD idea, and the third is also not a great recommendation. Unless something is a) old enough for all known copyrights to expire, or b) have been expressly released as copyright-free, the default position is to assume that copyright exists and the material cannot be used.  Being so "well-known that nobody cares" is not a legally defensable fair use claim.  Furthermore, copying lyrics wholesale, even if they are in the public domain, makes for bad encyclopedia writing.  Even if there is no legal hurdle, there are clear stylistic reasons why simply repeating the whole lyrics of a song isn't great in a Wikipedia article.  -- Jayron  32  21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayron is spot on. Indeed Happy Birthday to You is very, very much under copyright and people do care - both in the EU and a number of other regions. Unless 100% sure assume copyright and do not post on Wikipedia. Pedro : Chat  21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That said, if there is an important and documented "difference" (for instance, a censoring for cultural reasons) in the lyrics, then some small quotations may be appropriate under fair use. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)