Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 November 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 7

Editing a headline

It was brought to my attention today that the article on me, Gay Hendricks, has a headline that says "Homosexual Hendricks". While my first name is Gay, I'm quite heterosexual and do not want to give hope to your homosexual readership or dash the hopes of your heterosexual ones. Needless to say, this headline also concerns my wife of 26 years. How do I/you fix the headline? Thanks, Gay Hendricks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.123.140.214 (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A vandal moved it 4 days ago.[1] I have moved it back to Gay Hendricks. PrimeHunter 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplicating Information Already Available on Another Website

A few days ago I was editing the Wikipedia article on "PFIQ", tuning it up by reference to my collection of that publication.

I have since discovered that there is a webpage by the former proprietor of PFIQ, Jim Ward, at

http://www.bmezine.com/news/jimward/20041024.html

which covers the same ground, but has the great advantage of coming from the horse's mouth, as well as being more precise on certain details.

It seems to me that there is no point putting information on the Wikipedia that can be easily accessed via a link to an external site. However, I cannot find any clear statment one way or the other on this point.

Is there a standing policy on such situations? Should I cut the wikipedia article on PFIQ down so it complements the webpage urled above, or should I leave the redundant information in place.

It seems clear that either way, the addition of an external link is in order.

Note that the information on the existing wikipedia page is original, not copied from the other webpage, even though it is essentially the same.

PS: It's me again. There's another specific case with that presents the same type of problem. I subscribe to the Pacific Bulb Society mailing list; the PBS also operates a wiki devoted to bulbs. Generally speaking, the PBS wiki is exhaustive, so for most Wikipedia articles on cultivated bulbous plants, hardly anything more is needed than a link to the PBS wiki. I guess the issue is that (to my mind at least) the Wikipedia shouldn't waste time & resources duplicating information readily accessible elsewhere, but what's the actual policy (if there is one!)?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.27.140 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 

Actually, according to WP:RS, Wikipedia consists precisely of (and only of) information that has already been published elsewhere in reliable sources. Wikipedia does not (should not) contain original research. Everything in an encyclopedia should merely summarize and restate what is already available elsewhere. The point of an encyclopedia is to have information available on a wide range of topics in a standard format, not to provide new findings, or information available nowhere else. Thus if a Wikipedia article appears to be a restatement of information you find elsewhere, that's exactly what we want. (I like the standard format of Wikipedia articles; almost every time I look up a topic that is unfamiliar to me, I find the Wikipedia article to be a better introduction than I can easily find from a general search of the Web. Many Web pages that are about some subject tend to pick up mid-conversation, as if the reader already knows what is going on, whereas most Wikipedia articles start off with a coherent lead section that lets the reader grasp the basics of the subject quickly.) For the question about external links, see WP:EL. Also have a look at the Editor's index to Wikipedia which has links to policy and guideline pages covering almost every conceivable issue that comes up in the building of our encyclopedia. On the issue of duplicating everything on a specialized wiki: we probably wouldn't do that, because Wikipedia requires topics to be notable, whereas a specialized wiki would probably tend toward comprehensiveness within its topic area. So, for example, a wiki specializing in music might cover a wider range of musical topics (such as very obscure musicians) than Wikipedia would. --Teratornis 06:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale

Can someone explain to me 10c of WP:NFCC#10c. I've uploaded several images with Fair Use Rationales, but each time I get a message about not having 10c. However, after reading it, I am unsure of what I need to actually do. -Zomic13 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NFCC 10c in a nutshell is: "You must write separate fair use rationales for each article the image is used in". For example, if I use an image of the Ford Motor Co. logo in Car and Ford Motor Co., then I would have to write two fair use rationales: one for Car and one for Ford Motor Co. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But what is the point if they are basically the same rationale? Also, for this particular image, it is only being used in a single article. -Zomic13 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The warnings you are getting are from BetacommandBot, which requires a very specific set of conditions in the fair-use rationale - basically, it has to appear in a section that includes a link to the article it's used in (this is, roughly speaking, so that you don't write the rationale for Car only to have the image removed from Car and added to Ford Motor Co., where the rationale may be different). I think making the section header read "Fair Use in (link to article title)" will get BCB off your back, or, failing that, make the first line read "It is claimed that this image is fair use in (link to article title) because:". Confusing Manifestation 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy advice

Do we have a policy regarding external links to sources of media of dubious copyright status? For example, in an article on a TV show which is not available to buy on DVD, can editors provide a link to a bit torrent containing an illegal copy? Astronaut 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:EL: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement."--Fuhghettaboutit 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that would be the case. So I would be in the right by removing just such a link that someone has added :-) Astronaut 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

help please

hello, I was in the process of making an article about a minor league baseball player. What happened was when i was going to save it, it was deleted for "not having importance". Number 7 of why articles would deleted. I had no problems last time making an article about a minor league player. Thank you to whom ever responds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzin93 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The administrator who deleted it was User:Tijuana Brass. Go to User talk:Tijuana Brass and explain why you think the player meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). The problem is, you didn't include any sources to establish notability, and minor leaguers are usually not fully professional; they tend to have another job to support themselves financially. But you can try and find sources to back up your belief that he is notable. Leebo ^T/C 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

reflist? How to add a reference.

24.5.197.240 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out Help:Footnotes. Hope this helps! GlassCobra 05:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To explain what that page says better, you can add <ref> and </ref> html tags. Between these tags, whatever you place will be put at the bottom when you click on the number in brackets. To create the list at the bottom, you can use the template {{reflist}}. If you want to create a more standardized reference, you can use the citation templates. I (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I found that Help:Footnotes wasn't all that helpful so I wrote up my own short and easy explanation of how to do it. Sbowers3 12:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How to submit first article?

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia and would like to start writing my first article in my account. Does it mean that my work will mean to be 'submitted' or 'launched' on wikipedia after I click 'Save changes' for my first article? Or do I need to go somewhere else to submit it? Pls help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedas (talk • contribs) 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're going to want to check out Wikipedia:Your first article. Hope this helps! GlassCobra 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Communicating with other users

How do I communicate with other Wikipedians without using their accounts and leaving a message on their talk pages. I did that once and I got in trouble for it! Nelsondog 7.11.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsondog (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The main way to communicate with other users is through their talk pages or on the talk page of a specific article when you wish to discuss it. You shouldn't "get in trouble" for leaving a message on someone's talk page, but make sure you don't put the message on their user page by accident! If you would like to contact a user privately, you can go to their user or talk pages and click the "Email this user" link on the left column. However, this will only work if they have provided an email address to Wikipedia. --Kateshortforbob 11:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It could seem from the above post and [2] that somebody else used the account of Nelsondog to leave a message for Nelsondog. It is not allowed for two people two share an account, and accounts can be permanently blocked for that. If you are not the "real" Nelsondog then you must either create your own account, or edit without logging in (or log out before editing if you have access to Nelsondog's already logged in computer). You can edit any users talk page, except a few which are protected. PrimeHunter 14:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Belkin fax machine

what are the facts about belin's portable fax machine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.229.231 (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions related to Wikipedia. You may wish to try the Reference desk, which specialises in factual questions in future - make sure you provide details on what you are looking for. Wikipedia has an article on Belkin; although it is short, there are links to the company's website, which may provide the information you are looking for. --Kateshortforbob 11:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lübeck Airport

I note that since my recent communication, the entry in respect of the above has been changed. However, it is still unsatisfactory insofar as the word "misleading" in relation to the use of the name "Hamburg". By comparison to Frankfurt Hahn which wiki state as 120km from Frankfurt, Lübeck is only 54km from Hamburg; one could therefore expect the article to be more positive about this aspect. I would also point out that London Stansted Airport is over 60km from Central London by road but there is no criticism of that distance in the relevant wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwilson (talk • contribs) 10:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your question?--SJP wishes you a happy Veterans Day 11:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. Be bold in updating pages but please make your changes with citation to reliable sources that verify the information added or changed. This place is not really suitable for commenting on specific factual changes to the content of one article. If you don't wish to change the information yourself, your best bet is to make specific suggestions on the article's talk page. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Someone should look up the earlier answer. I seem to remember someone explaining why the article was as it was and it sounded reasonable. - 131.211.161.123 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Table

Can someone improve this table User:Red/table - By making the widths of the cells more consistent. I have looked at the help and am unable to sort it out. Г^edʃtǁcɭ 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I modified the table on your page, so all the columns are the same width. You can change the 20% to another number if you want one to be wider or whatever; just be sure that they add to 100. Neier 13:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Г^edʃtǁcɭ 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

hate speech

Recently, a post to Talk:Media Bias in the United States was removed on the grounds that it was "hate speech", which it was. On the other hand, while such a post clearly should have been removed from an article, I am less certain about removing it from a talk page. What is the Wikipedia policy about hate speech (in this case, an accusation that Jews control US media)? Rick Norwood 13:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic; some editors consider it unacceptable. --Orange Mike 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your answer. Some editors consider hate on talk pages unacceptable or some editors consider removing hate from talk pages unacceptable? Rick Norwood 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I gave you the wikilink to further discussion. Briefly: some editors consider the deletion of such material from talk pages unacceptable, as verging on censorship. --Orange Mike 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cite error 3

When I tried to introduce a reference I received a red "cite error 3" message. Where can I find out what this means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhansler (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/References#Troubleshooting. If you still have problems then post the text here, or save the problem edit and post a link here, and somebody will fix it or say how to do it. PrimeHunter 14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article

How do I start a topic in Wikipedia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CIA-ROCKZ (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. -- kainaw™ 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting a new article into a category?

How do you put a new article into a category so that when viewing a list of those category's articles it is in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioevil087 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of the article, add the line [[Category:The name of the category you want to add the article to]]. -- kainaw™ 15:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom Joyner vs. Tom Joyner

I added some information about Tom Joyner (a white man who happens to work in radio) to the WCMC-FM article. But I included a link in case anyone wants to write his article. I don't have the courage to attempt a biography because of all the requirements. And I have very little information on him. Every time I try to do a search, nearly everything that comes up is about the black morning host.

I can't even find another name such as Thomas Aquinas Joyner or Tommy Lee Joyner. So I don't know how to identify him in a red link someone can use for writing an article. Right now there is a blue link to the morning host simply because I don't know what else to do. Vchimpanzee 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Tom Joyner you wrote about isn't notable, you don't need to link to him. You seem to be indicating a feeling that he's not notable. If he is, then you can make a red link by making it a piped link to some kind of disambiguation (Tom Joyner (WCMC-FM host) or something like that). Leebo ^T/C 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think in Raleigh, N. C., the white Tom Joyner would be considered notable. I could call him Tom Joyner (WPTF host). Thanks.Vchimpanzee 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Local notability" is not really a determining factor. I've appeared in local newspapers, but I wouldn't be able to pass that off as notability through multiple sources. You need multiple non-trivial reliable sources. If such sources can be produced, an article could probably be sustained. But it sounds like there isn't much to say outside of what you've added to the article, so there isn't a real problem. Leebo ^T/C 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you appeared in multiple local newspapers you could claim "multiple independant reliable sources". The content of those articles would determine if the mention it is actually non-trivial. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding Album Covers

Hi,

I am new to editing Wikipedia. Record labels hire me to handle the online marketing of their projects and I often obtain information that I would like to add to Wikipedia. For instance, I was given the official cover art for the new Wu-Tang Clan album 8 Diagrams yesterday and attempted to upload it to the 8 Diagrams Wikipedia page this morning. I am confused by a few things.

1) I was unsure as to what/where to write the explanation of fair use.

2) I had clicked the "Click Here to upload cover image" link, but I noticed that the image is not linked to the 8 Diagrams Wikipedia page.

The image page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wu8DiagramsCover.jpg#filelinks

The album page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Diagrams

--Scullynj 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Scullynj, for the first part of your question you could refer to fair use criteria to see whether your image is acceptable. It would be also worth noting that if the image isn't provided with fair use or an acceptabe form of licensing, or an orphan (not linked to any page) then it can be speedily deleted. (See:Speedy deletion criteria for images). Thanks for coming here for advice. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Scullynj's fair use rationale at Image:Wu8DiagramsCover.jpg looks correct, to me. Corvus cornix 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I added in the rationale for you and added the image into the article. I think it would be good if you noted the source in the summary on the image page. Woodym555 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem of vandalism

How rife is vandalism on Wikipedia? Is it going up or down? --212.204.150.105 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out Template:Wdefcon. It gives you a brief summary of the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia, and is updated every few hours (as the situation warrants; sometimes the amount of vandalism doesn't change for a while) NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

Hi. First, I was wondering where I should go to see how I can get involved in fighting vandalism. Second, is there a section that shows me how to customize my userpage. Thanks.--Miss Pussy Galore 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol explains one of the most common vandalism-fighting techniques; Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism explains about vandalfighting in more detail. As for userpage design, see Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help. --ais523 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Miss Pussy Galore 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bambi Bucket Copyright Issues

Please be advised that A-Flex, a new manufacturer of collapsible firefighting buckets, has made repeated attempts to post information on the Wikipedia page entitled "Bambi Bucket." The name Bambi Bucket is both trademarked and copyrighted and these buckets have been in use for more than 20 years in 80 countries.

Please note that Bambi Bucket is NOT a generic term. It is widely known since it is the leader in firefighting equipment but that does not make it a generic term and, as such, the name cannot be used in this manner.

Despite repeated removals of A-Flex's information and a warning letter that legal action is pending, someone continues to repost this information.

A good solution would be for Wikipedia to change the heading from "Bambi Bucket" to "Collapsible Firefighting Buckets." Then a separate page for each company could be created. Those who are looking for information on the Bambi Bucket can then access that page separately.

Please advise of this action being taken.

Nancy Argyle Technical Communications SEI Industries (Maker of the Bambi Bucket) 1-604-946-3131 Ext. 123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.171.98 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. I think we might have to move the Bambi bucket article to Collapsible firefighting bucket, perhaps with a bit of rewriting. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm going to read up on trademarks a bit before I'll commit myself to doing all that. Does that sound reasonable to you? — Ksero ^{t c} 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done I've moved the article and rewritten it to avoid using trademarks as a noun, as per MOS:TM. Does this seem better to you? — Ksero ^{t c} 21:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Your changes were reverted. I've restored them; if they get reverted again without evidence that we aren't violating trademark, ask for admin intervention. I am not a lawyer, but we have to err on the side of caution. Ms Argyle's claim appears valid, I see no reason to assume otherwise. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather funny. Usually we're trying to prevent people from advertising their products on Wikipedia, and now we've got one that doesn't want their product name on here! -- Kesh 12:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but trademark dilutiongenericized trademark explains the issues. It seems like a reasonable request that we should treat seriously and the good work by Ksero and BenAveling seems to have done that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Search Article

My article will only come up in a search if you type in the exact title of it. How do fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.145.214 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the title of the article? Also note that article titles are case sensitive. - Rjd0060 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's search software is not very good; and also takes a little while (perhaps a day?) to catch up with changes made to pages. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish Bands - "is" or "are"?

Hi - I know we use "are" for british bands (e.g. Def Leppard are a british rock band) and "is" for USA bands (e.g. Bon Jovi is an american rock band) and whichever is used first for international bands (e.g. INXS is/are an austalian rock band). What is the guideline for irish bands? Are they considered "british" for this purpose? Do different criteria apply for Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland bands? Exxolon 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ENGVAR:

• An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.
• If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.

As you can see, there isn't really a specific answer, but you should probably use British English here. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)