Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 November 22

= November 22 =

new unreviewed article needs to be reviewed but how
I just created a List of Plasma (physics) articles and it still says new unreviewed article. How do i get someone to review it and make it official. Plus its still on delay for not showing up on wikipedia's search box. I need to change its capital P for Plasma to lower case plasma. Who do i find or how can i change it myself. Because i want to add this article in the see also section on other articles to get notable. Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In that box at the top of the article there is a link to Requests for feedback. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried that feedback.It says anyone can answer your question. What will happen if they do? Is there another way to get there attention to accept the article into wikipedia. I still cant find a way to change the articles name.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When to: Moving a page. How to: Help:How to move a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.44.192 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks should I add to it List of plasma physics and technology articles, or applications or is it good as it is except with the capital P.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think it should be an article - I think we should just use a category. We already have Category:Plasma physics.  Chzz  ► 08:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It has almost all plasma physics science technology applications. You can search it on the search bar unlike category plasma physics where You have to scroll all the way down. Categories are more hard to locate for a lot of people. And hard to edit them plus there is sometimes limits for the category where wikipedia wont let You add any more word articles. The list of plasma physics applications articles can be on any plasma related site under see also. list of solar energy topics Has a article. Plasma list is just as important especially for the future. It does not get in the way of anything and people that are die hard plasma fans of any plasma source would be thrilled to see a colossal list of plasma related topics. Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How to Donate
Dear Sir/Madam I am an Iranian and i can not donate for Wiki because of USA policy(you will be in great problem). May be if you change your add more from my country will help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.225.106 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you need help donating to Wikipedia, such as from a country or using a currency not accepted in the automated, online form, please email .  Someone will respond to your email to help you through the process.  -- Jayron  32  04:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Citing references
I am having trouble with the reference citing on this subpage, which I would like to publish as an article when it's ready. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoolsA#cite_note-11 Please let me know where I've gone wrong and how to correct the problem.

Thank you,

Jools JoolsA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC).


 * You need to add the template somewhere on the page to avoid the error message.  I have fixed this for you so you can see how it is done.  See Referencing for beginners for a guide.  -- Jayron  32  04:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Preload text
Hi, is it possible that a link preloads a text which was not saved inside a page? I'd like to have something like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Example/Page&action=edit&section=new&preloadtext=custom_text --151.75.44.192 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Preloaded text is used on the Article wizard and the upload form. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also be looking for Substitution and Transclusion for. Be careful how you use these, however, as they have limited uses in the article space. -- Jayron  32  04:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my bad English. How can I write a link which specifies the preload text directly in the URL? I can't use preload=blah, because this will load the page which is named blah.

I won't use it on ns:0, I just need it for a sandbox under my userpage --151.75.44.192 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how it works, though.  will preload the text that is in /blah, so you have to create /blah with the text you want preloaded; which will then be substituted when you click on the edit link that calls the template. E.g.   will call the template 'User:Example/Blah' and substitute it onto the edit box for User:Example/Page when the link is clicked. Hope this helps, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, and is there a variant that will just load the parameter's value instead of looking for a page name? I wonder if that's even possible. I checked the list that is on mw:Manual:Parameters to index.php but didn't find that. However, it says: Note: The information on this page is not complete. so I'm asking here to see if anybody knows.
 * What I'm trying to achieve is: have a lot of links, each of them having a specific preload text, but without the need for me to create lots of subpages. --151.75.44.192 (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you have to actually have the text saved somewhere. Once you do, you can use like at WP:RFA/N.  But what do you want it for?  Perhaps there is another solution.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just came back here to thank all of you for your time. :D --151.75.2.4 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

does wikipedia have a word finder tool to search an article for a specific word?
word finder tool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.18.246 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for the list of articles which contain a word, then go to Special:Search.
 * If you are looking for the list of words inside the article you are currently viewing, press Ctrl + F. However, that's not a feature of Wikipedia, but a feature of the browser that you're using to view Wikipedia. --151.75.44.192 (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the edit box, we also have a search and replace function (or you can use it simply to search, not to replace), under the Advanced dropdown, on the right side (the icon with paper, a magnifying glass, and a pencil).--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   04:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And, for more information, see Help:Searching --151.75.44.192 (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I find it easier to use Google with "inurl", so it searches on the Wikipedia website only. If you google for e.g. "sausage inurl:wikipedia.org" it shows just the hits on Wikipedia - see example.  Chzz  ► 08:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, i.e. site: (example) :D --151.75.2.4 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

UNITY IN DIVERSITY
Hi !

I want an ESSAY ON "UNITY IN DIVERSITY" IN TAMIL, please. Kindly load it.

RajaS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.70.94 (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|20px]] Please do your own homework. Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can or . If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept.  Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia.--   Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This must be the most blatant, shameless "do my homework for me" request ever. Previous homework questions I have seen presented a specific question, and asked to supply the answer. But this is asking to write an entire essay. It is like the person posting this is not even trying to study, and not even bothering to hide, or feel ashamed about, the fact that he/she is cheating. It's pretty much like asking "Could you study through my entire degree program for me, so I could get my degree for free, without having to lift a finger?" J I P  &#124; Talk 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shameful, isn't it. I do have some musings, in Tamil, on unity in diversity though: நாங்கள் அனைவரும் வெவ்வேறு மக்கள் இருக்கிறோம், ஆனால் நாங்கள் யாரும் உங்கள் கட்டுரை எழுத வேண்டும். (En: We're all different people, but none of us will do your homework.) Brammers (talk/c) 23:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Style conflict
I've gotten involved in a disagreement with another user about the formatting of a list on the page Family Research Council. The edit I made was reverted on the grounds that articles ideally shouldn't contain lists. The user who reverted my edit has agreed that I can revert his reversion if I feel it necessary. I'm looking for someone more familiar with the Manual of Style than I am to determine what the best way to format this section is. Regards,  —Entropy (T/C) 10:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See Manual of Style/Embedded lists and Manual of Style/Lists. Prose is preferred to lists in most cases (if it can be converted to paragraph form, it should be converted). Whether the subheading should be in bold type or not, however, is not covered by guidelines AFAIK. But I too think a heading which explains the lists following it more clearly is preferable to a more visible but shorter heading, unless it has already been explained elsewhere as in the case of lists of taxa and cladograms in biology-related articles (i.e. I kinda agree with User:Dmcq).--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the MoS addresses this precise issue, which relates to an introduction to an embedded list, but style manuals that I have worked with recommend an introductory sentence or paragraph, especially to a long list. For the sake of clarity, I would avoid using single words ("telegraph style") to replace a sentence, as in your edit. Hohenloh + 14:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I think I'm just going to convert it to prose so there's no more need for debate.  —Entropy (T/C) 16:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the bulletted list is fine, and more readable than prose would be. Hohenloh +

Redirects for spelling difference
I have set up a redirect from Ste-Agathe-Des-Monts to Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Quebec but cannot find how to put the correct link into the end article. I have had a look at Condoleeza_Rice but cannot seem to see the link when I go to the edit page of that article. What am I missing please? Edmund Patrick – confer 10:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about your use of Template:Redirect in the target article, it doesn't look as if it's needed as I don't see any sign of a disambiguation page to point to, so I've removed it. If you are worried about how you see the small print "(Redirected from Ste-Agathe-Des-Monts)" at the top of Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Quebec if you get there from Ste-Agathe-Des-Monts, this is done automatically by the redirection from Ste-Agathe-Des-Monts. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * obvious if you know how, many thanks for your time. Edmund Patrick – confer 13:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ro icon - Technical issue
Hello,

The template is not working any longer on the article Toma T. Socolescu since a couple of days. Same issue for ... Any clues?

--Albacore60 (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Toma T. Socolescu is currently in the hidden Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls because occurs a lot and uses #ifexist. fr and some other languages are hardcoded in lang to avoid #ifexist, but ro is not. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I will decrease significantly the Ro parser function calls hoping that issue. Thanks.

--Albacore60 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding a colletion of images to an established reference article
I have an anthology of images - taken in 1970 - that relates directly to the Balsall Heath, Birmingham article. I would very much like to upload a selection of these images as I believe it will greatly enhance the article. However, I am not too sure how I can actually achieve this and I would like your advice (and permission of course) as to how to do this. The images are my copyright.

kindest regards,

Des E Gershon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.76.123 (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Des. First and most important question, did you take these photos yourself? Only the copyright holder can release images under the compatible licences required by Wikipedia, without Wikipedia would be unable to accept them. If you are the copyright holder, you would first need to create an account, as IP editors are unable to upload files. The best place to upload these would be Wikimedia Commons, a related project, uploading them there would make them accessible to all Wikipedia projects, not just the English one. For that you can create an account here (you can link this with an English Wikipedia account later if you wish) then I believe the easiest way to upload the images would be to follow the instructions at the Upload Wizard. If you have any more questions, please let us know.  Я ehevkor ✉  12:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bettendorf High School
I am a 1964 graduate of Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf Iowa. The photo displayed is not the building I attended school in. There are photos available of the old high school building. If the building I attended can not be shown, I would prefer to have the present photo removed. It's a personal thing. Our school was much smaller. Thank you for your assistance.

John Calhoun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.219.7 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are photos which meet Wikipedia's copyright requirements, you could include one in the article, though sensibly it would not replace the photo of the current building. See Image use policy. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What problem do you have with the current photo? "It's a personal thing" isn't of itself a valid reason for making changes to Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Why all the begging?
I would prefer that you just sell the above spot above for advertising. Just keep it tasteful. Anything is better than seeing your pleading picture. It's like the old commercials with Sally Struthers crying out to help feed the Ethiopian kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.109.1.11 (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not believe that advertising belongs in a project devoted to education, and one that is driven by the values consistent with a balanced, neutral encyclopedia. Our global volunteer community have always felt that advertising would have a major effect on our ability to stay neutral, and ultimately ads would weaken the readers' overall confidence in the articles they are reading.
 * The current models for web advertising are also not supportive of our views on user privacy. We do not want to deliver ads to users based on their geography or on the topic they are currently reading about. Contextual advertising (similar to geo-targeted advertising) reads the content you are viewing which goes against Wikipedia's strict privacy policy for users. We respect your right to online privacy, and bring you the knowledge and information you are looking for.
 * If you don't wish to donate, you can hide the fundraising banners by clicking the [X] in top-right hand corner of them. Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above. I would much prefer to see a full-page picture of Jimbo Wales pleading me to donate cash for a full day once a year than to see even the smallest, most inconspicuous advertisement anywhere on Wikipedia. And I will gladly donate money to Wikipedia during every fundraising campaign just to ensure Wikipedia stays completely, utterly, 100% free of advertisements. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Help naming this article name
I have created a List of plasma (physics) applications articles but it use to be called List of Plasma (physics) articles should I go back to the fist name or change this new name. This article has every element and aspect source with plasma technology in it. So I still don't know what to call it. I thought about adding to it plasma physics science articles but maybe the science could be mistaken for all types of plasma's like plasma blood cell. And when you search for this article You have to type in List of Plasma p to find this article in the search box, why doesn't it have the whole name automatic after at least list of plasma. There is only one word in the search box and not a whole list of list of plasma related articles. Does it take time to add the whole word into wikipedia's search box system as your typing. And It still has no applications in it yet but it will. Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on existing naming conventions I see at Category:Indexes of science articles, I would call the article "Index of plasma physics articles". Just like that.  Do you need help moving it to that title?  -- Jayron  32  17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks it's ok I actually had that earlier than i added applications to it. Should i really change it back. I will try ask people on the plasma physics page to get there perspective on it too to see what matches all plasma physics related articles.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Add hyperlink to text
How can I make the name of my company a link to the website?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.174.34 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, what is the process to add information to the site? Is there a fee?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.174.34 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't permit advertising in Wikipedia, period. Full stop. Beyond that, I will refer you to our guidelines on conflict of interest and on attempts to advertise or promote yourself. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Donation to WikiPedia
I was heart touched to read the personal appeal by founder Jimmy Wales. I am among many people grateful to Wikipedia for being such a rich source of data. I am asking you to accept donation through PAYPAL in order for some people who cannot donate thru transfer or credit card. if u make this possible; I will be ready to donate and alert all my frnds and students to donate to help save this valuable site that I cherish. Personal respect to Mr. Wales... S.Jasim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.13.240 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can donate through Paypal! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising also please do not list your e-mail. C T J F 8 3  18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

External Link info
Is there the potential of an issue occuring if I am adding the same external link to multiple pages? The link is to a university map collection concerning state geography/history of OK. I have identified certain pages that researchers would benefit from using this external link. I am not adding it to random pages. Please let me know what I need to do so that any problems are limited. Thank you. Athiker99 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Two concerns. 1. Are you connected with the university and specifically to the map collection? 2. Do these links genuinely contribute to the usefulness of the article, as explained at WP:EL? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How does article name suddenly get deleted from watchlist?
Sometime between 12.40 and 13.12 today, an article name (Bobby Fischer) which has been on my watchlist for months & months sudddenly didn't show there. I did not remove it. I had to make a null edit to get the article back on my watchlist. What happened to cause the removal from my watchlist?

(A vandal was hitting the page today, during the above timeframe. Could that possibly be related to the reason? How?)

Thank you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An article should never be removed from your watchlist unless you removed it yourself (perhaps accidentally). Reach Out to the Truth 19:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also note if the page is renamed it still appears on the watchlist under the different name but as far as I know as Reach Out to the Truth says only you can remove it, even deleted articles remain on the watchlist. You should not have to make a null edit to get it back on your watchlist either just click on the little star. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a way one can 'accidentally' remove a name from a watchlist without going into "View and edit watchlist"? (Because, I personally am not aware of any, and, I did *not* go into "View and edit watchlist" today until *after* I was already noticing the problem [previous edit changes for the article were no longer being displayed by "My watchlist"], in order to inspect whether the name was there or not. [It wasn't.]) Thank you for a followup! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, one can accidentally remove an article from one's watchlist by clicking the blue star at the top of the page, perhaps while trying to click on the "View history" link or the "Search" box. But the software normally responds with a message to say you've done that. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Every article has a tab (either a star or the word "Watch" depending on skin) that you can click to add/remove the article from your watchlist. Take a look at the tabs at the top of this page. If you didn't realize it was even there, I can see how you could have accidentally clicked it without realizing what it did. Reach Out to the Truth 20:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That explains it! (I was totally unaware of both functions of the star. I'm sure I accidentally hit it. It may have issued a message back - I probably just missed seeing it.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Polyorcahdism
I read in your article pertaining to Polyorcahdism there are only about 100 cases cited in Medical History. I have "Polyorcahdism". I have been attempting to report this to Science for years to frugal success. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of a leading university or governmental agency that will record my gift and the pleasure above and beyond the call of duty many women have cherished memories of.

On another note;

Artificial Sweeteners kill with prolonged ues.

www.GlobalCampaignToBanAspartame.org

stay well, be safe,

Marvin J. Rosenthal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.161.34 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I take it you are referring to polyorchidism? Congratulations, but I don't think Wikipedia can help you get noticed. If you follow one of the references in the article, they might point you to somebody who would be interested. --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Smells like an unusual request to me... 217.251.166.206 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia believe that ads tarnish the educational value of the website and invade people's privacy?
Why does Wikipedia believe that ads tarnish the educational value of the website and invade people's privacy? Is Wikipedia allowed to choose who can advertise and who can not? Can Wikipedia encourage educational and philanthropic sites rather than vile, pornographic sites to advertise on the website? Why does Wikipedia believe that geo-targeting-whatitsname can invade people's privacy? Can people just ignore advertisements? On which scientific/academic study does Wikipedia base its no-advertising philosophy? What happens if there are not enough financial contributors to the project? Does that mean that Wikipedia must downsize its quantity of articles or lay off some of its workers or reduce its employees' salaries?

I am just curious why Wikipedia is so adamant on adhering to this no-advertising philosophy. 164.107.190.78 (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * An argument I've seen used against ads, which holds some appeal to me, is this: How could Wikipedia claim to hold a neutral point of view if it allowed people/companies/etc. to pay Wikipedia for exposure? There are other arguments to be made, of course, but that's the one that's compelling to me (I was initially pro-ads before I saw that). You can find in-depth discussion of this topic at WP:Advertisements. Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

bot and lingonberries
While editing an article on lingonberries http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccinium_vitis-idaea&oldid=456559063 I noticed in the edit history that apparently a bot had come along at some point in the past and removed a reference to an external website Vaccinium vitis-idaea Sweden native Plants because the person who edited it in is perhaps associated with that website. I'm not sure I have deduced this correctly. However, if you look at that external website, it is quite a dandy site, with a humongous amount of information about plants, and had that editor not been associated with that site, I think the ref might have been left in. I am wondering if I have deduced what happened correctly, if so are there exceptions to this policy, and if there are would the bot be prevented from removing that link if it went back in. Trudyjh (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you link to the edit in question? It's a lot to go through. Anyway, bots usually remove external links per WP:EXT because they are in the body of the article.  External links may belong in the external links section, but even there, they shouldn't be too many; it's not often that ones are good to have within the text itself.  There are a few things that Wikipedia is *not*; one of them is a directory or link repository.  I'm glad you found a good website, though! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the edit in the history 18:16, 23 October 2011‎ EdBever (talk | contribs)‎ m (12,882 bytes) (Removing external link: *.flowersinsweden.com -- per m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/flowersinsweden.com.) (undo). If you click on my link to the version of the article in my original question, you will see the subsequently removed link to the external website in the External Links section, it's the second one. By the way, I took the first one out subsequently because it gets to a non-English website which brings up a warning box in a non-English language. Trudyjh (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sorry about that, I didn't notice that your link was to the historical version. All I'd point out is that it wasn't a "reference" per se; it was just an external link. If you feel that it's a valuable external site to have, you're allowed to just put it back in; it might be a good idea to read WP:ADV to see the rationale behind removing it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Messages
I am getting messages saying that I am making improper edits and they have been reverted. To my knowledge, I have never attempted to edit a Wikipedia article. What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.179.23 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you're reading (or editing) from an IP address; IP addresses don't necessarily uniquely identify you, so disruptive edits could be coming from someone else with the same IP address. If you have no intentions of editing Wikipedia, you can just ignore the messages; they won't ever affect your ability to read Wikipedia.  If you'd like to try your hand at editing (do it, it's fun!), or if you just don't want to see the "You have new messages" banner, then I'd suggest signing up for a user account.  That will keep you from getting messages that aren't addressed to you, and it's really quick and easy to do.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The edits from your IP address are listed in your contribution history. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy status of "singular they"
I edited Faster-than-light to replace the distracting "singular they" with "he or she" (in several places -- see diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faster-than-light&action=historysubmit&diff=461903375&oldid=461863804). Another editor reverted the changes, with reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gender-neutral_language. On that page, I see "There is no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the singular they ("Each politician is responsible for their constituency"). Although it is widely used in informal writing and speech, its grammatical validity is disputed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun was also mentioned, but seems to me unhelpful; I have revewed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language, as well.)

To what extent should "There is no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the singular they" guide my editing behavior? Does the Gender-neutral language page supplement the MOS? I see it mentions "essays," but I don't know why.

Thanks! Jo3sampl (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The relevant point from Manual of Style is "As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." Further to that, your change put "he or she" or "his or her" 5 times in one paragraph and was therefore particularly stilted, so I think the reversion was justified. Note also that we prefer to use wikilinks like Manual of Style rather than internet links like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay -- I bow to the reversion. But -- what is the status of WP:Gender-neutral_language? Is it to be considered as strong as the MOS? -- I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to fight the singular use of "they", which I consider to be a sad mistake in a reference work. Jo3sampl (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This 'sad mistake' is evidently neither sad, nor mistaken. It is instead a long-standing usage - see our Singular they article. Or are you suggesting that Caxton, Shakespeare, Thackeray, Austen etc were wrong?


 * Please sign; your response is not an answer; your appeal to authority is not convincing. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't really a way for you to fight this "sad mistake." David Biddulph found the relevant point in the MoS, so challenging it would most likely involve challenging the long-standing support for that part of the MoS.  Taking your questions one at a time, though:
 * In Wiki-parlance, policies are strongest, guidelines are next-strongest, and essays generally do not have any authority unless there is a longstanding "tradition" of referring to a particular essay. In this particular case, since the essay is referred to by the guideline, you may want to consider following it unless doing so would violate the guideline itself.
 * Regarding optional styles, such as the "he or she" vs. "they", in general, there is longstanding consensus that changes to them should only be made if there is a strong reason why they should be changed that applies to the particular article being edited. For example, if Harry Potter was written in American English, it could - indeed should - be changed to British English because while Wikipedia considers the styles to be equally valid, the "Harry Potter" topic is strongly related to one of the optional styles.  (This one is common enough that it has its own guideline at WP:ENGVAR, but the principle applies generally.) However, for the article "air," since the subject is not strongly related to either American or British English, the original variation should be used in the article and subsequent edits should follow the variation currently used. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your time and effort. I've just read a Steven Pinker book on language, and I have an interest in the area; the idea that many "rules of grammar" are arbitrary (and used to establish invidious distinctions) is not new or unwelcome to me. ("Logical quotes" were new to me outside British English, but I'm happily on board -- I think that approach is reasonable and minimally distracting to general WP readers.) I am astonished that WP is apparently prepared to support the "singular they" in all contexts -- it's not based on reason, and it's quite distracting. Did you read the secondary reference to the Spivak pronoun? Not everything that would be useful is reasonable! Thanks again -- Jo3sampl (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_111 -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Links for Spanish Wikipedia on English Wikipedia site
Is there a way to click on a link for the Spanish Wikipedia from the main English-language Wikipedia for a specific topic? For example, if I look up "Catholic Worker" in English Wikipedia, I'd like to have a link somewhere on that page that directs a Spanish speaker to the Spanish Wikipidedia site for that topic, if there is a definition in the Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.23.146 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The interwikilinks to Spanish wikipedia versions are located in the leftmost column of the screen under the heading: languages. Jarkeld (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But in this case there isn't such a link. You could add Catholic Worker at the end of the article, but es:Catholic Worker redirects to es:Movimiento del Trabajador Católico which is the Spanish counterpart to the English article Catholic Worker Movement, not Catholic Worker. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added es:Movimiento del Trabajador Católico to the page, as that section appears to be about the newspaper, the Catholic Worker. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)