Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 September 2

= September 2 =

How much weight does Wikipedia give to the opinions of experts in a particular field?
If there were some neutral, non-biased experts in a particular field who disliked how a particular article was written, should their opinions hold more weight on that Wikipedia article than someone with no professional qualifications on this topic? Futurist110 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No. We go by reliable sources and the style guide, not by a particular editor's preference. RudolfRed (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if this editor was a professional expert in a given field and had his/her work published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is that if Einstein writes an article about General relativity, he still has to cite someone, maybe himself :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is also difficulty confirming claims to be WP:Expert editors. It is one of the obstacles to WP:Expert retention. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends a bit on what you mean by "how a particular article was written", though. If experts are saying that an article is somehow misleading, or that it covers trivial issues in great detail while barely explaining key concepts, or that it puts undue weight on discredited ideas, then we would do well to listen to these experts (assuming their claims to expertise can be confirmed). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Robert Young and CalvinTy are correspondents of the Gerontology Research Group. They have said on numerous occasions that Kamato Hongo and Carrie C. White should be removed from the Oldest people Wikipedia page. I can provide their quotes for you if you want. The GRG is an organization that deals with verifying supercentenarians, so Robert and CalvinTy are experts in this field. However, a particular editor has a problem with modifying the Oldest people Wikipedia page right now despite the fact that he is not an expert in this field like Robert and CalvinTy are. He says that the GRG should modify an old list of supercentenarians, but Robert and CalvinTy said that the GRG doesn't modify these old lists anymore. Should we listen to Robert and CalvinTy in this case? Futurist110 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are experts in the field then it should be easier for them to provide reliable sources for proposed edits.MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They did provide reliable sources but Canada Jack thinks that these sources are not good enough, despite his lack of qualifications in this field of research. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor's qualifications do not matter.  What matters is the source.   See WP:RS on the criteria for reliable sources.  Also, read WP:DR for guidance on how to handle disputes.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but there is a dispute over which of the GRG's sources should be used. Wouldn't the opinion of someone who actually works for the GRG have more weight in this dispute than someone who never worked for it? Futurist110 (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why WP:DR and WP:RS/N and WP:DRN and WP:3O and WP:RFC exist. Get outside opinions from other editors.  If it's one editor vs. one editor, then the problem can't be resolved.  If it is 20 editors against 1, it starts to be obvious.  If one side is clearly in the right based on their sources, WP:CONSENSUS will bear that out.  -- Jayron  32  04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, Jayron. I will try to follow your advice. Futurist110 (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been following the general case off-wiki (though I don't know all the details of the dispute on-wiki), but a few issues stand out to me. GRG is notable, and treated as a (generally) reliable source by experts in the field. Robert Young is a researcher with them, who is possibly an expert on the subject of Longevity.  User:Ryoung122 appears to be topic banned by ArbCom, after a long stretch of incivility and WP:BATTLEGROUND. The original source for the disputed persons' (Hongo & White) inclusion on Oldest people was a page on the GRG website, listing them as unverified candidates for "oldest person".  GRG now considers them unverified non-candidates, but hasn't updated their own web page still being cited as evidence for Kamato Hongo and Carrie C. White's inclusion. I don't know that Robert Young (or GRG) can provide substantial proof that Hongo or White didn't live to the ages that were claimed. What they can do, is confirm that they failed to validate Hongo and White's claims.  There may be additional evidence beyond that.  However, due to existing ArbCom sanctions it may be difficult for some of the GRG people to contribute. I believe the sanctions were for behavior and not for lack of credential. My synthesis may be wildly off-base, but that's what I've seen.  It's a pretty kettle of worms. --Robert Keiden (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.grg.org/Adams/B2.HTM -- This table is the GRG's most recent one and the one that they (Robert and Calvin) said should be used. The GRG said that they no longer change their old tables, and that thus this new table that I just linked to should be the one used since it is the most up to date. The GRG has removed Hongo and White from its newest list due to the fact that they were debunked (I provided the links to their debunking on the Oldest people Wikipedia page). Anyway, since the GRG is an expert in this field and since they said that Table B2 is the table that should be used, I have changed the Oldest people article to have its info match up with that of Table B2. For the record, I am aware that the GRG also removed other disputed cases from table B2, and they said that they are no longer counting these disputed cases for now but that they might add some of these disputed cases (Mathew Beard, etc.) back to this table later on in the future if they will deem it necessary. As for their behavior, I deeply apologize if Robert or someone else from the GRG was a bit abrasive at times. However, their views in regards to this issue are still very valid considering that they are experts in this field. Futurist110 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not taking comments personally. I was trying to describe the scope of the issue from N (?) POV, and hoping I didn't botch it too badly. My feeling is that, by Wikipedia standards the list should only contain names from reliable sources. If there are "reliable sources" that meet WP's standards (but not GRG's) then the names should be included. If those sources are individually disputed, the Talk page would work. If there is dispute over the reliability of individual sources that the Talk page can't address, RS/N should be able to make a decision.  GRG doesn't WP:own the "Oldest people" page, and although theirs could be the best scholarship available, they're still only one source.  Wikipedia is a collaborative process, which sometimes works well and is sometimes awkward.--Robert Keiden (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Feedback is confusing
I went to the feedback page at Article Feedback/Help/Monitors. It says "To see the feedback page for any of the articles in our, (sic) click on “Talk” at the top of the article page; then click on "View feedback" at the top of the talk page." Besides there being something missing from the sentence, when I go to any talk page I do not see any link for View Feedback.--108.54.25.10 (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it just fine. If you look at Talk:United States, in the title line, right next to the page title, is a link that says "View reader feedback »"

. That brings you to the reader feedback section. -- Jayron  32  05:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not there for me. Let me try switching browsers.--108.54.25.10 (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not there for me either, using Firefox with Vector skin.--Shantavira|feed me 07:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out an error with your sic. A colon was missing in a link syntax so it didn't display. It now says: "To see the feedback page for any of the articles in our test sample, click on “Talk” at the top of the article page; then click on "View feedback" at the top of the talk page."
 * As the corrected text indicates with "test sample", only some articles have the feedback link at this time. Are you seeing it at Talk:United States? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not and still do not using Firefox. I do see it using Safari and Opera.--108.54.25.10 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It requires JavaScript. Do you have JavaScript enabled in Firefox? It disappears for me when I disable JavaScript in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating userpages for IP address
I just saw a reg. user who wrote on the user page namespace for IP address. (Just wrote welcome to my user page and misc. but nothing controversial) What should be done for things like this. Thanks in advance ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 12:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link? There's actually no rule against IP addresses having user pages, even though they don't have the technical ability to create them.  But if a registered user wrote "welcome to my user page" on the user page of an IP address, they might have made a mistake, and perhaps inadvertantly revealed their IP address.  If that's the case they might want their edit oversighted. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking newspaper publications
Template:Cite news states author names and publishers can be wikilinked. But what about names of newspapers, journals, etc.? Would there be anything wrong with making these names wikilinked, too? It's something editors preparing FA articles would like specified. (watching the page for a reply)Zepppep (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've participated in discussions about this before, but for some reason I can't find them in the archives. My memory is that in the most recent discussion, there was consensus that wikilinks can be used more frequently in references than in an article body, as reference lists are not read in the same manner as prose so there's no concern about low-value links "diluting" high-value links.  I think links to journals etc are valuable as they make it easier for readers to find more information about a source and therefore evaluate its credibility. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A-ha, so I'm not the only one who's asked this question (didn't think I was). But perhaps I am the first to ask the specification be noted on the page? Thanks for your reply. It makes sense. And to save editors creating articles and reviewers checking them, the item should be specified to avoid anyone needing to look up the answer in an archive! Zepppep (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though it might be necessary to clarify current consensus before putting anything in a guideline. Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_27 is the discussion I was involved in, and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking is the most recent discussion I'm aware of.  Note the more permissive view toward such links in the second discussion taken by Tony, who has been instrumental in reducing the number of wikilinks in Wikipedia. Based on a quick look through recent TFAs, it appears such links are permissible but not required.  It would be interesting to see whether there'd be consensus for encouraging (though not mandating) their use. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I added "may be wikilinked if relevant" to the periodical documentation. This is in line with the discussions and with other modules of the documentation. The major view is that linking well-known locations, publishers or periodicals is not that useful, but links to little-known elements may be of use. That is probably as definitive an answer as you will get. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing links to archived convos and for changing the wording! Zepppep (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you relist an AfD manually?
I had to relist WP:Articles for deletion/Rorgue for the third time, but my AfD script wouldn't let me. All I can do is add the relist template. How do you finish it? A boat  that can float!   (watch me float!)  16:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Coin Icon.svg If you're just trying to relist for the third time, I just do it with the script and then add my comment after the fact (resulting in an extra edit... but it won't kill anyone.) Are you saying that there's a malfunction with your script or something of that nature?  Theo polisme  17:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe there is. When I click the arrow next to the watchlist button I only get the button "Move". I'm using Timotheus Canens' script. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  17:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On closer inspection, it looks like I also had Mr. Z-man's script. I've removed it now but it still doesn't work. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  17:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 25 → edit → cut from the page → save → paste into Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 2 → save. Note that it appears your relisting text was reverted by the next editor to the discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Now it's been closed as a keep. Thank you Fuhghettaboutit! A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  04:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is my image embed code?
I've uploaded an image; where can I find the embed code to place it in my entry? Upon upload, the ended code was not automatically generated. Deadlinedd (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The page WP:PIC explains how to add an image to an article. RudolfRed (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to whether there was anything that led you to believe that code would be automatically generated for you. Could you tell me where it said this?  Dismas |(talk) 03:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)