Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 June 13

= June 13 =

Apparent vandalism of article redirect
The merge box at the top of this article (Talk:Stephen_Colbert_(character)) contains a link to Stelephant Colbert which appears to be an invalid redirect. I am sure this is wrong and I don't know how to fix it. Didn't someone take a vote that decided that Stephen Colbert is no longer allowed to edit here?Jarhed (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The result of this deletion debate was to merge the material seen in this old revision into Stephen Colbert (character), as a brief mention.
 * It would appear that "Stelephant Colbert" then got redirected to Tagging of Pacific Predators, and then the merge tag that you saw got messed up. I think I've fixed everything up; a brief mention of the Stelephant needs adding to the character article - I'll try to do that ASAP. Thanks for pointing out the problem.  Chzz  ►  02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Random Question About Page Moves
I'm curious: What would happen if someone tried to move a page to "#"? (Not that I'm planning on doing it, of course.) -- Intelligent  sium  02:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They would receive the message MediaWiki:Articleexists in large red type. Algebraist 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "#" is not a valid character for page titles so it would try to move the page to a blank title, which cannot be done. Icewedge (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How does category page know under which letter to list an article?
E.g. consider the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Vietnamese_diaspora category page. Over there article Vietnamese people in Japan is listed under the letter J whereas article Vietnamese Student Association is listed under letter V. How does the wiki engine decide which letter to list it under? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Help:Category explains this but basically some appended sort keys to the categories. So in Vietnamese people in Japan the sort is as Category:Vietnamese diaspora|Japan, Vietnamese people in. In Vietnamese Student Association, no such sort is applied Category:Vietnamese diaspora. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What justifies links per words in an article
This question has been floating around my head for some time. Most, if not all artilces on wiki have links to other articles within sentences. What justifies a link to an article? Some words have an article associated with definition/information but are not linked and others are. I see that you only link a word once, if it is repeated the link is not repeated. What stops linking every word in every article with the wiki mark up if there is a page associated with it? Is there a rule to follow that I cannot find?

Thanks

Ivtv (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See the discussion at Linking. —teb728 t c 05:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I figured there was an article I missed.

Ivtv (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

change the text size
how od i change the text size, the writing is all small —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.51.150 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You change the text size setting on your web browser. It is probably different on different browsers. On my browser I can change the text size either by rolling the scroll wheel while pressing the Ctrl key or by selecting View > Text Size. If that doesn't work for you, ask at Reference desk/Computing. —teb728 t c 05:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Renaming
At my editor review it was suggested I worked in renaming images with better names. However there has been confusion on IRC if what user rights I require etc. Can someone please set me in the right direction? Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't need any special user rights for this (you do need to be autoconfirmed, but you already are). You just have to upload the image under the new name. I think they tested admins moving files just like articles, but that apparently didn't work and it's not available now.  C h a m a l  talk 08:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was just for renaming images. For working in the given area (Category:Media renaming requests) you just have to place a template on it so that a bot can handle the job. But as you said, it's not clear what is meant by 'trusted user'. I'll see if I can find something.  C h a m a l  talk 08:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Difference between the templates
What's the Difference between these two templates:

1. Template:Pp-template 2. Template:Permprot

I suppose that one is for the template page and the other for the talk page? Should every permanently protected template have both of this? --Siddhant (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that all permanently protected templates need both, because the first template is usually used in "small mode" (lock icon only) and might not be noticed. Xenon54 (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do my edits keep disappearing?
I've made a few edits and added genuine sources for reference and have saved fine. When I check back a while later, they've completely disappeared.

What am I doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger greeneyes (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, your first edit was reverted because we cannot accept external links to imageshack. There have been too many problems in the past and such additions are reverted by a bot. Your other edit didn't seem to be very encyclopedic, however, you may be better served by discussing the issue on the article's talk page and seeing what other editors think of it. TN X Man  14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

rules / guidelines for editing an existing article
I am new to editing on Wiki. I found an article that I felt was not well written, confusing and somewhat biased. It was speaking about a specific religious artifact, and included much circular logic, like: "the object disappeared in the 13th century and hasn't been seen since, but because it wasn't reported destroyed, its likely it still exists," Much of the article is like this, without reliable sources quoted.

I researched the subject and then edited the article, hoping to provide some clarity and other perspectives, including quoting and referencing from experts in this field of study (religion and religious art). However, the original writer of the article keeps removing my edits, as if he doesn't want clarity or truth to be presented.

How should I best deal with this, so my changes can be accepted?

Regards, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.221.127 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are editing from a different IP address than the one you edited the article with. Since we are unfortunately not mind readers, could you tell us which article you are referring to? Xenon54 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Its [] about the veil of veronica. Best, David


 * I looked at the page history but it only has one edit in the last three weeks and I have not found the edits you refer to. Are you sure that is the page you were editing? Are you sure your edits were saved? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Template find
I understand WP:OWN, but I once saw a template that, in effect, says that a certain editor has volunteered as a focal point for supporting the article; something like, "EditorX is a major contributor to this article...". Can anyone find the template I'm talking about? It is used on article talk pages. --76.4.35.246 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The one you're looking for is maintained. haz (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome...thanks! --76.4.35.246 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Special:New pages
I have looked at my own new pages at Special:New Pages and see that two articles and a disambiguation page have been patrolled, and two have not. I went on to look at Philadelphia Inquirer Open near the end of the list, and added two templates (Golf and no footnotes) to that article.

When and how do articles switch from yellow highlighting (not patrolled) to white? For example, when would the Philadelphia Inquirer Open article by User:Hokeman be switched to patrolled? Or maybe what I did does not count as being patrolled? I am still learning the details of Wikipedia, so explain the new articles process for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can read all about it at WP:New pages patrol/patrolled pages. Also, see Help:Patrolled edit.  hmwith  τ   18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That page was very helpful. I marked Philadelphia Inquirer Open by User:Hokeman with the No footnotes template. Should I add the template that this article has been patrolled? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No such template exists. You patrol pages by going to them from Special:NewPages and clicking 'Mark this page as patrolled'. I have done so in this case. Algebraist 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

about Vieta : important question (for me)
hello, i have finished my page about Vieta... here [] Is there somebody kind enough to read it, correct it if necessary, directly or in the page 'discussion' ? Two probems : my english looks like "pidgin" (i think so) and Vieta is a difficult suject. This is quite a translationof the new page from WP france. Are you agree for the changes ? What can i do to make it better ? Thanks for answer and help. Jean de Parthenay (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out, make some changes if they're needed, and discuss it on the talk page.  hmwith  τ   18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page to your userspace, rather than the space of a non-registered account (you omitted the 'h'). I'll also give it a copy-edit (i.e. tidy up the English a bit). Fairly good if rough round the edges, from a quick look. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, we already have a François Viète article, which appears to be the same person that you wrote about (Viète François).  hmwith  τ   18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming you didn't know, there is one large problem. A page on him already exists: François Viète. If you wish to make additions to it, do so, but it will always be the main page on him. Editing your page now is unnecessary, as the current page is superior, particularly in prose and presentation. If there is still information to add, be bold. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

fix urls
As i noted, some of the urls linking to Wikipedia on the section above the "discussion button" does not use relativ linking, so people using Wikipedia over https can not correctly use the https-version --213.168.120.68 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does "discussion button" mean the tab called "discussion" at the top of pages? There is only one line above that, and when I checked all links were to https except in "Help us provide free content to the world by donating today!" which only occurred when I was logged out and had "donating today" as a link to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Now/en Is that what you refer to? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that "tab" i mean. --213.168.120.68 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which urls do you see not at https, and are you logged in at the time? I only saw the url mentioned above and it doesn't link to Wikipedia but to the Wikimedia Foundation. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Review Sites as References
Can review sites be used as references?

I want to use this site: http://animeworld.com/reviews/ghostintheshell.html

To support this statement: "For the Ghost in the Shell movie, Oshii elected to leave out most of the humor and character banter of Masamune Shirow's manga." From the Mamoru Oshii article.--Stepusual (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can say "According to (source), (insert claim here)". If other editors don't like what you add, they'll remove it. A claim about what someone said is verifiable, whereas the truth of what they said may be harder to verify. --Teratornis (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of source is needed where I won't have to use "According to (source), (insert claim here)"? --Stepusual (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In practice, that depends on whether the other editors are likely to challenge a claim. If nobody challenges, then maybe nobody will look too hard at the source. In the statement you give above, is anyone likely to disagree with the claim that "Oshii elected to leave out (something)"? There are two separate claims in your statement:
 * Oshii did something (left out the humor etc.). Perhaps this would be self-evident in the work, and not too controversial.
 * Oshii elected to do that. I.e., he purposely left out the humor etc. This is a claim about the intent of the author, and might not be self-evident in the work. Thus if you want to claim something about Oshii's intent which is not self-evident to the reader, someone may challenge that claim and demand a reliable source.
 * WP:RS says:
 * "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * A strict interpretation would be to avoid writing anything that we cannot reliably source. In practice, few articles provide footnote citations for every single claim they make, but anyone is free to remove any unsourced claim they disagree with. Since you cannot always predict in advance who is going to challenge what claim, you can take two approaches:
 * Just write whatever you want, and see what gets challenged. This risks having your work removed if you cannot provide reliable sources when someone challenges it. On the other hand, if only a low percentage of your edits get reverted, maybe that is a more efficient use of time.
 * Edit "defensively" by providing reliable sources for everything when you add it.
 * It is often easier to start with reliable sources, and look for places on Wikipedia to plug them in, than to start with an arbitrary topic or truth claim and then try to find reliable sources for it. The path of least resistance on Wikipedia is to start with sources we know to be reliable, and compare what they say to what Wikipedia currently says. If you start with some random claim such as the intent of Oshii at a certain time, you may or may not find a reliable source for it which will satisfy all other Wikipedia editors. As to what constitutes a reliable source, see the links under WP:EIW (specifically the subheading "what can be properly be used as a source"). An online review site is probably a reliable source for the opinions of its contributors - that is, it would properly support claims that a certain reviewer thinks a certain way about something. It might not properly support the truth of what the reviewers are claiming. This might sound circuitous but that's how Wikipedia works; we generally pass the buck on declaring what is "truth". Instead, we merely declare what various people have claimed in writing that they think is true. Also note that the standards become higher when an article is a featured article candidate. Before an article becomes a featured article, it must have comprehensive sourcing and the sources must meet a high standard for reliability. --Teratornis (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough response.--Stepusual (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
hi, just a quick note...i work for sherwood valley tribe, and i was trying to put together a short (BRIEF) history of the tribe to edit the intro to our personnel policies. thought i'd check out what you had in here. PLEASE change the county cited. Sherwood Valley IS and always has been in Mendocino County, NOT Sonoma County

thank you

judy fisch willits, ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawliga55 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for the information. That article link seems a bit weird; it links to the article on Mendocino county, but the text says Sonoma. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I have found several mentions that indicate the county as Mendocino. I'm going to drop a question to the person that wrote the article asking if there is a (historical?) reason for this. If you see anything in an article that needs changed, you can always edit the article yourself, or suggest changes on any article's talk page. -- Kateshort forbob  21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging
I am unsure of merging procedure re-GFDL etc. and was wondering a) if someone could confirm that something about Republic of South Carolina and South Carolina in the American Civil War needs to be changed and b) advise me how to, or just, do it. The latter was essentially copied from the former, but it's far more in line with others. Either one could/should be a redirect, but there's just a little separate content in the lead. Thanks, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Help:Merging should give you the necessary details about Merging. Please ask again here if you need more help on this. Cheers.  C h a m a l  talk 02:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can this go through quickly, given the pages in question, what discussion period do you suggest? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think both pages should exist. Can duplicate content just be deleted, presumably with an edit summary mentioning the page it's a duplicate of? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

template to hat a non-improvemnt talk page topic
What is the template that is used to collapse an off topic talk page section not related to article improvement? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * -NM got it --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File CSD Criteria
Hello, I have a question on WP:CSD and WP:CSD. I believe I may be confusing myself but, the way I understand it, CSD#F3 can only be applied when a free license (i.e. GFDL) is applied to an image which is obviously not any sort of free image (e.g. a book cover, movie screenshot). CSD#F9, on the other hand, is applied only when there is obvious copyright infringement on images which do not have a Wikipedia compatible license (e.g. Getty Images photos) but are claimed to have been released under free licenses (i.e. PD-self, cc-by-sa-3.0). Could someone please help clarify these for me? Much Appreciated - Thanks,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would apply F3 if the uploader says "The copyright owner gives permission for use only on Wikipedia" or if the file is licensed for only non-commercial use (but not if fair use is claimed). I would apply F9 to any of the cases you cite. —teb728 t c 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words use F3 if there is permission but it is too restricted (i.e. it doesn’t allow reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivatives). And use F9 if the claim of a free license is false. —teb728 t c 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be able to search for prior usages of the two criteria by other editors, and see if a precedent exists. --Teratornis (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help - It's appreciated! -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 02:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Confusion
What should the Infobox be for a person who is both a Comics creator and Film director?

EDIT: I'm also wondering why the color of the Comics Creator Infoxbox changes. In some articles its color is a light purple (Hiroaki Samura), while in others it's a dark blue (Jack Kirby)--Stepusual (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would pick the infobox I thought could best describe the most significant aspects of the person. The paramater  in Hiroaki Samura changes the color style. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ArchiverWhy is my avrcive bot not working?
I want to archive Now.. or to set the bot to one hour to clean my talk page and it is not working, please have a look (Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I don't think the bot checks your talk page that often but the documentation at User:ClueBot III doesn't appear to give that information. For another bot, User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo says "The bot runs once a day at a preset hour". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC))