Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 May 17

= May 17 =

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input
Paul Haines, poet. Tried to add info on 3rd child in family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metricmama (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As you can see from your edit, you added ref tags but didn't put anything in them. Normally, between those tags would be a link to a web page or name of a magazine with the month, title of the article, etc.  That information was missing.  Please put your source for the information between the ref tags the next time you try to add the information.  To find more about making references, see Referencing for beginners.  Dismas |(talk) 01:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Beside that, you put your info in the edit summary, not on the page. —teb728 t c 02:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Question on reliable sources
This question is in regards to citing reliable sources. Would this be considered a reliable source for an article on Jessica Ortiz:

http://www.nalip.org/files/past_editions/1326828147.html

Thank you. ATL2NYC (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as the page identifies her as a member of the organization sponsoring the site, I would say it is not independent. —teb728 t c 02:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And therefore can't be used to show WP:notability. However, it should be fine for referencing the information contained therein.  Rojomoke (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Translation
I wish to find out what the English translation is to the motto: "Major virtus quam splendor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.210.130.28 (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An answer for something like this is always one Google search of the phrase (in quotes) away: "virtue is greater than splendour". See here. For future reference, this page is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Knowledge questions like yours belong at the reference desk. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref
Hi I have some issues regarding the PRE-Christian SEPTUIGENT I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it does NOT exist ; AND never did. how can I get my observations on this site or any otgher site?> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.113.104 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By finding WP:Reliable sources that say this and adding mentions. Your own WP:Original research has no place on Wikipedia at all - get it published if you can. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And to add to what said: this has nothing to do with the content of the research, or whether it is mainstream or not: only what reliable sources have said is accepted in Wikipedia, not anybody's original research. --ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Search engine indexing of pages
I noticed that 2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms will only appear in Google search engine results if I specifically type "2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms" or "2009-15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms". If I make a change as minor as adding the "20" to "2009-2015 Oklahoma earthquake swarms", this page does not turn up at all. It will show hundreds of outdated and useless news pieces, but it won't show this article at all. Why is that? What title is more likely to actually appear in search engines? The way I see it, there are two types of viewers. One type is already on Wikipedia and is using Wikipedia's search engine to look up articles. The 2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms article is getting that kind of viewer. The second type of viewer is the kind that is just looking up something like "Earthquakes in Oklahoma", "Oklahoma earthquakes", or "Oklahoma earthquake swarm", but that type of viewer will most likely never even learn of the existence of Wikipedia's 2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms article. I noticed that 2011 Oklahoma earthquake shows up plenty, so I decided to add a hatnote linking to the 2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms article in an attempt to notify more potential viewers of the article's existence, but this is just an attempt to circumvent the issue. Is there a method, perhaps a better title to use, through which I can get 2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms to actually show up in search engines? Dustin ( talk ) 15:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Some comments, maybe not helpful ones:
 * I can confirm what you say about what Google finds.
 * This odd behaviour is Google's, not Wikipedia's. Even if anyone here can understand what causes it, there may not be an acceptable way that Wikipedia can fix it.
 * Some users (like me) who are already using Wikipedia may still prefer to use Google to search for Wikipedia articles, because it usually does a better job.
 * Maproom (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What's more, this behaviour is peculiarly Google's. DuckDuckGo accepts "2009-2015 Oklahoma earthquake swarms" just fine, as does Bing, each returning 2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms as the first entry. I have no idea why Google is suddenly so literal. NebY (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you put a space before 2015, it works. So "2009- 2015 Oklahoma earthquake swarms" has the wikipedia article as its first choice, without the space it doesn't. In fact, the article in Wikipedia doesn't use a hyphen at all, it uses an endash and if you use an endash it works. So the question is why "2009-15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms" doesn't find the wikipedia redirect of the same name. Maybe google is taking the hyphen as subtraction and looking for 2009-2015 which equals -6??? Just throwing out ideas.Naraht (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Google doesn't do subtraction but it's often hard to guess why a Google search does something. The 2009-2015 search finds external websites which don't have 2009 and 2015 near eachother. I don't know why 2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms is omitted. It says both 2009 and 2015 in many places. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I know it is an endash; I created the page. The reason why I brought up that example with a hyphen-minus instead is because most people aren't going to actually use an endash in their searches and don't have an endash key on their keyboards. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My Account
I had an account as Bowkie. Lost password; requested pw but received no email. I suspect Wiki was sending pw to old email address instead of current one.

I was obliged to open a new account, as Bowkie13, just to be able to ask a question.

How can I now terminate the Bowkie13 account and reactivate the Bowkie account with my current email address and a new password? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowkie13 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I'm afraid that, if you no longer have the password or the email address, then there is no way of reactivating the account. I suggest you simply abandon it, and henceforward use Bowkie13. You can put messages on both user pages User:Bowkie and User:Bowkie13 explaining that the one is the continuation of the other. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually you may be able to request usurpation of the old name as described at that blue-linked page.--ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT UNDERSTAND CITATIONS AFTER CONVERSING WITH User talk:DemocraticLuntz
Hi, there... I have been trying to add some source citations on my father's Wikipedia page, which is just a pathetic stub.

EDWARD J. LAKSO

I have been talking with User talk:DemocraticLuntz but he doesn't have time to help me any more.

is it possible for someone to just example the proper method of. Typical of the references you added was this: <ref name=California Divorce Index. Two important differences are:
 * The valid one contains an actual reference between the tags. Yours contained nothing.
 * The valid one is to a credible published source. Yours was (meant to be) to a document that has not been published, so readers of the article cannot verify what it says.
 * Maproom (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing title of article
The Wikipedia article about me is entitled Douglas Arthur Watkinson. I am known as Douglas Watkinson by fans and professional colleagues alike. How can I change the title? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Watkinson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been moved. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to Douglas Watkinson. I guess that the article was created with the longer name to disambiguate from other articles about people named Douglas Watkinson; but as Wikipedia has none, this seems unnecessary. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Douglas Watkinson - Please do not edit the article. You have a conflict of interest.  If there are errors that you want corrected, request them on the article talk page, Talk:Douglas Watkinson.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Image of a title card
What licence do I need to upload an image of a title card? Pickuptha&#39;Musket (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I don't know what you mean by a 'title card'. But assuming that it is something which can be copyrighted, the answer is the same as for anything else: the owner of the copyright needs to license it under a suitable license such as CC-BY-SA. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See title card. These days it's generally a frame where the title of a movie or TV show is on the screen.  You can see an example at M*A*S*H (TV series).  Dismas |(talk) 08:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're unlikely to persuade a studio to release a title card under CC-BY-SA, but in most cases you could make a case for Fair Use. If you upload the file to Wikipedia (not Commons), and it is only used in the article about the TV show, and you comply with the other requirements at WP:NFCCP, then it can be used without a CC-BY-SA licence. Yunshui 雲 水 10:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Msg. for R. McClenon
Robert McClenon - what a mess! I've been using the internet since its inception and I've never seen such a confusing hash. I absolutely cannot find your message to me at the Help Desk. Believe me, I tried and failed. My throat is all tight and I just want to cry. I asked for help, but instead you've decided to erase my work that was in progress. I didn't "admit" to breaking the references. (What a way to phrase it! Makes me think I've been on trial but didn't know it.) Good grief, man...I asked for some help understanding how to make the references which, had you just given it to me in a simple format, I could have gone in and fixed everything to your satisfaction. Hey...I was a litigation secretary when everyone was still using DOS! Legal pleadings are an exercise in voluminous citations, so the theory isn't lost on me. Just your METHOD. I've also been using the internet since the very beginning OF the internet. I'm not unfamiliar with the basic premise. I just need some help with an example of the method. I am exhausted from all of this. I have to go take a nap...and have some tea with bread and butter. Perhaps i will try again some other day. I bet my father is rolling in his grave, poor man. Please see: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSsr=81&GSmid=47218846&GRid=146594355&

As you can see, I'm frustrated. Perhaps another day.

Silver Parnell Silver Parnell (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In the thread that you started, three sections above, I see two comments signed "Robert McClenon". Does that help at all? Generally, we continue a conversation here, as in any talk space, by editing the existing section and adding to it, not by starting a new section. There is an [edit] link next to each section heading for that purpose. Good luck. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, : I'm sorry you're finding it frustrating. Editing a wiki is different from anything else, and Wikipedia is particularly picky about lots of things. Mandruss has pointed you to the earlier section (which I found by using my browser's search function to look for 'Parnell' on the page), where I notice that asked you if he might fix things by reverting your edits, but it was  who did so. Your work is (almost) never lost in Wikipedia: if you pick "History" at the top of the article, you can look at previous versions, and copy stuff out of them if appropriate.  Maproom did explain what was wrong with the references, though perhaps their explanation was a bit daunting for somebody who was already struggling with it. The point is that normally a reference should consist of the pair with the whole of the citation (enough for a reader to locate the item either online or perhaps through a library) between them. You seem to have tried to use a different notation designed for naming references so that you can cite the same one repeatedly, but not got the syntax correct. This is all described on referencing for beginners. I hope this helps. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine and @Mandruss - Dear Colin and Mandruss - The link in the email sent to me subsequent to your comments helped me get to this page where the information is located. Thanks very much for trying to help. I really appreciate it. I am going to save this task for a time when I have a few days to study Wikipedia's methods. It's very complex! As a side note, I might mention that, as an expert genealogist for more than 30 years, original source documents are considered far superior to "published" information in the world of genealogy research, since the point is not to satisfy the casual reader of one's veracity, but to get to as accurate a picture of the facts as possible. Books, magazines and periodicals, i.e., "published" matter, are famously unreliable as sources for much information and often contain egregious errors. I have witnessed this countless times. The information is only as good as the person reporting it or writing it down. Census records, though not "published" in a traditional sense, give a far more accurate accounting of certain types of facts than a newspaper article, for instance. Consequently, original source documents such as census records, birth certificates and divorce records, while not "published", per se, ARE just as available to the public as they are to me, though they require more effort to obtain and usually more expense. Human beings have a habit of lying about certain types of things under certain circumstances, such as marriages. I know a woman who convinced her 5th husband that he was her 2nd, and this is what she would have reported if someone were writing a book about her. Marriage and divorce records, however, are far more reliable under these type of circumstances. An obituary published in the newspaper is certainly a jumping off point for further research, but it is in no way definitive. Newspapers do not generally check obits for accuracy, unless perhaps the person who died was terribly famous. Generally, whoever is submitting the obit can write whatever the heck they want. Often, they repeat family myths, omit previous wives and children, and play fast and loose with a surviving person's age, usually if it is a woman. Nor can an obit be relied upon to provide all relevant information. Learning that Wikipedia requires published matter as source material, rather than other more legitimate documents, is a stumbling block for me, and I will have to give it some thought before I come back for a third try. thanks again for trying to help.

God bless, Silver Parnell Silver Parnell (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes,, I can see how that would seem odd to a scholar. The relevant policy is verifiability. Like everything else on Wikipedia, it is determined by consensus, and you are welcome to argue for a change in policy (WP:VPP would be the place to take it up). But in all honesty, I don't think you are likely to succeed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I am not invested in the website to the degree that I would be interested in changing the criteria. I was just commenting on it.  It is very interesting to find out that consensus and verifiability of the nature you describe is the standard for Wikipedia.  This is probably why other genealogists who are chasing down famous ancestors tend to discount Wikipedia as a source of information.  It's a good "jumping off" point, certainly.  (I've used it quite a bit in that manner when chasing down my own ancient rellies.)  I've already written a memorial to my Dad on findagrave.com.  I'll tweak it here and there and leave it at that. Again, I thank you for taking the time to explain the mysteries of Wikipedia to me!  I am no longer crying into my tea. I "get" where you are coming from.  God bless and good day.

Silver Parnell 75.161.120.171 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , do note that for Wikipedia purposes "published" means "made available to the public in some form", as stated in the verifibility policy. Note also that WP:PRIMARY says, in significant part: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The kind of public records you write of above are pretty clearly primary sources, and so can be used "with care" in accord with this policy. They are not excluded completely, a point which some editors misunderstand. DES (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)