Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 August 7

= August 7 =

Information with No Supporting Sources
I was reading through the Fingerprint powder article, and came across the mention of anthracene as an example. I did some Googling and the only sources that turned up were WP and mirrors, unlike others such as "dragon's blood". Is it appropriate to remove this since I can't find any supporting sources? Waiwai933 (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should remove the material after making a "reasonable effort" to find sources. (WP:BURDEN) Xenon54 (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a photo here or to Commons?
I took some photos of buildings in New York and New Jersey today. Can I upload them to Commons or do I have to upload them just here at en.? According to this, I can't. But there are other images of, for example, the Goldman Sachs Tower and the Colgate Clock (New Jersey) at Commons. So how did they get there if pics of buildings aren't allowed on Commons? Dismas |(talk) 02:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction, the Colgate Clock image is here at en. So what's the diff?  Dismas |(talk) 02:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're seeing there, but commons:Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama is quite clear that you are free to take a picture of a public building and upload it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. I'll save it for when someone wants to delete my image.  What I saw there is right at the top.  It says I can upload pictures of "Photographs or videos you have created of: "natural landscapes, animals, and plants" or "useful or non-artistic objects (tools, dinner plates, etc.)".  Since a building is neither "natural" or "non-artistic", I thought I'd be limited to en.WP.  Dismas |(talk) 03:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo in the Commons
I am new to all of this. I've tried for almost an hour to put a photo on a page that did not have one. I copied the text as I was told to do and edited it with my photos info. However, it didn't upload. So I put it on the Commons area. Now how do I link it to the page? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumsmiles (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Link just as you would an image uploaded here:
 * Xenon54 (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be better than "File:"? I've never understood why some do that and some don't.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter; the image prefix used to be the mainspace name, but it was changed to file because the namespace also includes other documents like videos, sounds, and pdf's. The capability to use image as the prefix was never removed because it would have caused too much confusion and too many broken pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Vatul(city) Title change to Vatul (Village)
I have edited page vatul but information which i have put with that you have created new page i.e Vatul(city. But Vatul is not a city but it is village.Can I change page title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun106 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm going to tag that page as it needs to be fixed; really you should use the move button at the top of the screen for moves in the future, FYI. See Uw-c&pmove Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I add a reference to table without screwing up the formatting?
I've been working on adding cites to our article on Olympic gold-medalist Jennie Finch. Currently, we have 3 tables with her high school, college and professional statistics. I'm currently trying to add a cite to support the high school stats, but I'm not sure where exactly it should go in relation to the table. If I put it at the section header, it screws up the formatting. If I put it at the end of the table, it looks stupid (IMHO).  Can anyone provide any guidance on how to add references to tables? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the page. It's done. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  13:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but unfortunately, the numbered upper-case hyperlinks for the cites appear in the table of contents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's a problem...one of a few situations where it would be nice to be able to add something to a header without it affecting linking to that section or its appearance in the TOC. What if those three titles (each with its ref) were used as table titles instead of headers? Given the shortness of the parent section and its clear title, I don't think there is substantial loss of navigational/reader functionality if her three different levels of play are not listed individually in the TOC. That is, all three short tables would be loose in "Career statistics" instead of each in a lower-header subsection. DMacks (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I made two edit-passes on the first of the three tables in that section of the article: first to avoid manually doing lots of text-formatting that can be handled automatically by the table class, and second to demonstrate the caption approach I mentioned. See Help:Table for more information about all these obscure-until-you-see-them-and-then-they-often-seem-obvious table features. DMacks (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So while DMacks has provided a good option in the first table, I have provided you another alternative in the second table -- I have emboldened the font and increased its size by 3 % . That gives the appearance of a section header, allows the reference to be put, and (but) does not appear in the Table of Contents. And of course, the third table header still retains the first option I had provided. Take your pick. Please feel free to write here for any further support. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  17:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wifione and DMacks: Thank you both for your help. It is very much appreciated.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please post neutrality notice to Antisemitism page
Good morning, I'm having difficulty correcting the initial paragraph on the page for "Anti-Semitism" and would like help warning readers that the full contents of the page are entered by a host of internet spammers with Zionist political agendas. They make it read as if it has something to do with religious hatred toward real adherents to Judaism or some form of racism against the decedents of ancient Hebrews, when it is nothing more than a slang phrase invented to give a false appearance. Semitic is about middle eastern linguistics not race, religion or political agenda.

Please add notice: The neutrality of this article is questioned because of Zionistic bias. Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved. (August 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.106.210 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * . The intro of the article even has cites from scholarly sources disproving your at best misinformed understanding of the term. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we cannot help you add that tag because it doesn't exist. Any issues about the tone of the article need to be discussed on the article's talk page. TN X Man  15:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The case of "Specifically human basic need".
Prof. Garai presented his hypothesis on Specifically human basic need in 1960's. From 1962 to 1968 he published 6 papers in two journals of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, in 1968 he defended his candidate's thesis that was published by the Akadémiai Kiadó [Academic Press]. Meanwhile the hypotheses was published by a French, a Spanish and two Russian scientific journals. The European Journal of Social Psychology published its longest ever book review on the book in question (F. Eros: "'Personality Dynamics and Social Existence', by L. Garai". 1974/3. 369-379.) For these and more details see Need for freedom, Specifically Human Basic Need (SHBN)

My question is: Why my article "Specifically human basic need" got deleted?. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, then why the above scholarly academic sources are not considered reliable? My answer is: Because those sources are published in non-English. If this answer happens to be wrong substitute it by yours. By one that, more generally, may explain why the article "Garai, Laszlo" got repetedly mutilated and the Hungarian scholar himself humiliated by a template doubting whether he is notable. Certanly he may not be notable if he published his scientific work in Hungarian, in Russian (see the encyclopedic article of the Russian Academy of Sciences Academic dictionaries and encyclopedias), in French. And only reviewed in English: The Structure of Reserch. Szalagloria (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Sir, kindly do first read Articles_for_deletion/Specifically_human_basic_need to get an idea about the deletion discussions that led to the deletion of the said article. You should also read WP:Notability to understand what kind of articles are considered "notable" to be included in Wikipedia. And to understand why there is a template questioning the notability of the individual László_Garai, kindly read WP:BIO. In essence, until a significant number of secondary reliable sources have reported on a topic/individual, there is always the danger of the topic/individual getting qualified as "non-notable" per Wikipedia standards. Almost all the sources you mention qualify as primary sources -- that is, dissertations/reviews Laszlo Garai has personally written -- unacceptable in general by Wikipedia standards. You will have to provide verifiable, reliable sources in case you wish to prove notability of the individual.


 * With reference to the question you have raised about the hypotheses, please read RS -> especially the 5th bullet point, which mentions that "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research." If you do have access to a significant number of reliable secondary (and not just primary) sources that prove the notability of the topic that you mention, do feel free to mention them out here or on my talk page. The two sources you mentioned above, related to http://www.staff.u-szeged.hu/~garai/Strukt.htm, are unfortunately again primary sources written by Laszlo Garai. We should necessarily advise you to kindly first read all the articles that we have mentioned above (i.e. WP:Notability, WP:BIO, WP:Primary sources, WP:Verifiable and WP:Reliable sources) to understand the situation better. Kind regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  18:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion which led to the article's deletion is at Articles for deletion/Specifically human basic need. Prof. Garai's papers are not considered to be unreliable due to being in Hungarian.  As you've been told before non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. I am unable to view the deleted article so you'll have to fill me in - what sources, if any, did it have besides the papers written by Garai? If there were no others then that would suggest that the deletion was appropriate. As Garai coined the phrase "Specifically human basic need" he is a primary source and his work is insufficient to establish that the term meets our general notability guidelines. Other sources, Independent of Garai, would be needed. Regards,  AJ  Cham  18:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this - http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/628599 - a secondary source. Certainly not, because you know it is written in Russian and not English, hence this texte of the Russian Academy of Sciences beats a dead horse. And what about those secondary sources I quoted in the above first paragraph. Sure they are secondary, but those Spanish, French, Hungarian texts are by no means sources, are they? 193.6.17.221 (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a wiki is presumed not to be a reliable source even if it's secondary. You continue complaining of language oppression, which any academic should know is a particularly weak argument. You have repeatedly been given links to our policies and guidelines on sources. I will also point you to WP:AGF: if all you do is complain about other editors' assuming the worst about you, that's your own peril and will not help you here. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

batch searches on Wikip?
No doubt a specialist dataminer has lots of tools for rapidly calling up multiple search returns in one swoop, but at the consumer and prosumer level it would be nice to have a feature on places like Wikipedia and google and youtube to insert a list of terms in order to perform multiple, simultaneous requests: kind of like the meta-search engine "Dogpile" in reverse. Instead of typing one search string and getting hits from multiple engines, the search tool I seek would allow a person to submit multiple strings at a particular search box (like Wikipedia). The result would be multiple tabs all opened and ready to read. Does this function already exist (in the advanced search, perhaps)? Or is there enough merit to ask the user community to develop it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.236.21 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The feature, as you outline it, is not available on Wikipedia as far as I know. To get something like this implemented, the best place to post would be at the technical village pump, where improvements/new features can be implemented. I don't know how feasible something like this would be, however. TN X Man  17:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:EIW and WP:EIW for clues about what's available. --Teratornis (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Date check template
Hi. I'm currently writing an article and one date is dubious - I've got 3 sources, all of which I expect to be fairly reliable, with a time difference for the same date of 20 years (this is about a letter in a newspaper) around 1800. Is there some tag such as or  I can use to draw attention to this issue ? 87.102.72.153 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Kindly mention all three dates, in case you consider the sources fairly reliable. Please read our article on verifiability for understanding this better. Do not give undue weight to any source in the process. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  18:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't upload song
I just created an account so I could upload a 30-second sample of a recording of Miserere (Allegri) (I think it would contribute a lot to that article, and I have a good recording of it). But the Special:Upload page says I'm unauthorised. How do I get authorised? Also, should it be a sample from the beginning of the recording, or can I choose a more illustrative section? Thanks, Denbosch (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which means it needs to be active for four days and to have made at least ten edits. TN X Man  19:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

movie search
Dear Sir/Madam: During the last week of July while channel surffing over the tennis channel,Link TV, and a particular movie I stumbled upond. In a nut shell,the movie was set in a large modern city, two young jewish kids had been hit by a car at an inter city intersection. The defending law firm representing the driver, purposed that the kids inadverdently walked into the moving traffic, and since there were no witnesses, the case was deemed a misterminer and was closed. Some years later the distraught mother appealed to a young lawyer to reopen the case, he soon found some inconsistances which lead him to the defending law firm and a female lawyer who was married to one of the heads of the firm. The two became attracted because her husband had been unfaitful. Intreged, the female lawyer sent her assistant to the accident sight where she found a deli that had a camera inadverdently fixed toward the cross streets in question, but had been disabled 1 day after the accident.The young male lawyer was in the process of putting the last nail in the coffin of the aledged driver when the female lawyer's assistant further found and notified her while in court that the male lawyer had no licsiense to pratice law.After some court rangleing She demanded that he finish the case and turn himself in to the authourties or she would. Really a fantastic movie,could this information help you identify this movie? If so I would be eturnally greatful, Thanks so much for whatever you can offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.139.108 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Please try asking at Reference desk/Humanities or probably better Reference desk/Entertainment - that is the usual place to ask for help with film identification problems. (sorry I don't watch many films). 87.102.72.153 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the name of the movie you are looking for, but here's one you should definitely watch: Akeelah and the Bee. --Teratornis (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
I know that this may sound goofy, but I figured I would ask this anyway. On the article titled Richard Marx, an editor wants to put a tag which labels the artist in a certain religious category without a citation. Is it alright if I revert that edit to remove that tag? Thanks in advance for your help. Have a great weekend! :) --Candy156sweet (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are right in the middle of the BRD cycle. The original editor has boldly added a tag. You've reverted them. The next step is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Can the original editor provide a reliable source indicating a religious preference? Can you provide a source showing a different one (or none at all)? TN X</b> Man  23:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There really aren't any citations that support that he is practicing the Jewish faith, which the original editor wishes to set as his religious category. Although there are many indicating links, that I have run across, where it shows he celebrates Christian holidays, there are none that state that he represents any denomination.  This makes me think that there shouldn't be any religious category listed.  I'm not sure whether or not that means anything, but that's the only call I can make.  --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be best to hash out a consensus on the talk page. If necessary, you can also ask for a third opinion. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  03:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the religious preference of the artist relevant to the artist's work in some way? There are many incidental details of a notable person's life which will be irrelevant to what the person is notable for. Wikipedia has many biographical articles which do not mention the subjects' religion. We would only mention it if third party sources had written about it. That is, the religious preference itself would have to be notable, for example by influencing the artist's work in some way, or because the artist had made a public issue out of it. --Teratornis (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should also look at this, WP:BLPCAT. The policy specifically says:
 * "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."
 * If he doesn't self identify and reliable sources don't say that his beliefs are relevant to his notable activities it doesn't belong.  GB fan  talk 10:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken the steps to bring in a third opinion, and I agree that the subject of religion has no place within the article whatsoever. There is no reason and no call for it.  The subject matter doesn't have anything to do with it.  Richard Marx is not a Christian artist, nor has he ever mentioned any religious denomination.  The third opinion party and myself took the time to explain the issue within the confines of the article's talk page, but the issue still continues.  This editor continues to revert and place these tags on the foot of the page.  I have placed another inquiry at the bottom of the help page detailing the issue as it stands presently.  Thank you very much for your time.  It is greatly appreciated. --Candy156sweet (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)