Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 December 10

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.

December 10

are you being served

Resolved

 – Answer left on OP's talk page -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to find out where to go to purchase the complete collection. I have no idea where to start, please help me if you can. Thank You, Howard Sarquist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsarqui1 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has an article about Are You Being Served? but articles don't provide information about how to buy things. Have you tried the Entertainment section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left an answer on the OPs talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia & Instant-runoff voting (the topic, not the article)

I am ineligible to vote in the arbcom election, so I am unable to determine whether or not IRV is employed for the election (or, for that matter, any election). If it isn't so employed, then what committee may I communicate with regarding that matter?<br. />--NBahn (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IRV is not being used in the ongoing ARBCOM election, as was decided here. There have been elections in the past that used IRV or a similar ranked-choice variant (Schulze method), although what exactly they were escape me. I know there was at least one this year. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about elections, but I believe it was used for the Ireland naming vote Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

how to reference an article

I tried to understand the FAQ section but found it difficult. There is an article that I read that is basically word for word from a book that I read and no references are cited. How do you reference the section? Or, since it is essentially plagiarism, does it need to be deleted or rewritten?Jbooms (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Word-for-word copying is copyright violation, and should be removed post-haste. Paraphrasing, or rewording into your own words completely would avoid copyright violations, but failure to cite your sources is what makes something plagiarism. To sum up, copying is different from lack of attribution, you should never copy and you should always attribute. Also, a common "rookie mistake" is to make trivial changes to a copied text and claim that it isn't a copyright violation. It still is. The proper way to handle it is to read a book, think about it for a while, and then craft your own original prose from the information you found in the book, citing the book as described at WP:CITE. --Jayron32 06:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

To amplify what Jayron said: If you find a part of an article which is word-for-word (or nearly word-for-word) remove that part of the article. Say 'Copyvio' in the edit comments, and either there or in the article's talk page say where it was copied from. You can, and should, do this right away: Wikipedia should not contain any material in violation of copyright.

Having removed the offending material, you can think about what if anything you should replace it with - which may well contain a reference to the source of the original copyvio. --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Expanding on both posts above, note that for books published in the United States, if the publication is prior to 1923, then it is in the public domain and there's no copyright violation (that doesn't mean it's okay to plagiarize with no attribution but it should be said). Regarding what to do, if the page has no prior versions to revert to that are free of a copyright violation (check the page history), and you do not feel like taking on the task of a complete rewrite, then mark the article for speedy deletion under CSD G12. Our standard template for this, {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.example.com}}, is formatted for web sources as we get large numbers of those; you can use the generic db template instead and fill in your reason, e.g. {{db|as it is a word-for-word copyright infringement of page X-Y of NAMEOFBOOK}} You can also tag the page as a copyright violation for review by another by adding {{subst:copyvio}} to it and then follow the instructions in the tag. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After completing my B.Tech in Computer Science, what all courses can i join in ?

Since in todays scenario , without doing any other additional course after B.Tech is not valuable ...can you please help me to find a better carrer option .. which one's better MBA or M.Tech after B.Tech in Computer Science ?? In case there are more options , please let me know about that..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pracks17 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. --ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that your university will have a careers advice officer, personal tutor or equivalent that can give you reasoned advice. Otherwise, have a word at your Student Union - they may not be able to give advice themselves, but they could at least point you towards someone who can. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mixing citation styles

I want to cite a book several times for different pages and also to use web citations. I know that I can use Harvard referencing for the former and a cite web template for the latter but using both for the same article results in a messy and unprofessional mixture in the notes/references section. e.g.Anne Bronte. A GA reviewer has asked for page references for citations 4-7 in the East Riding of Yorkshire article. I tried using separate notes in the Leeds article but this was frowned upon by reviewer. Is there a way that individual book pages and web citations be incorporated without mixing styles, please?--Harkey (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to cite different pages of the same source, the method used in the Bronte article is the most common. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what style Anne Brontë is using. True Parenthetical referencing (Harvard) uses in-text citations enclosed within parentheses, whereas Brontë uses superscripted numeric links in brackets. This appears to be a variation of shortened footnotes. There are also explanatory notes in the mix. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

When I worked on the article Plymouth Colony, I seperated the "bibliography" section from the "notes" section. In the bibliography, I listed the full information for the books I used, and then in the "notes" section, when referencing a book, I used footnotes of the form:

Smith (2009), pp 275-278

when citing books. I had found several FAs which used this method, and I continue to use it. I don't think FA or Wikipedia in general favors any one citing style, as long as it is unambiguous and consistant. --Jayron32 15:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the Anne Bronte article, that's pretty much what I do. I have never heard objections to this. --Jayron32 15:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You can use any style, as long as it is consistent in the article. Plymouth Colony uses a mix of standard footnotes, shortened footnotes and explanatory notes. Chaco Culture National Historical Park uses pure shortened footnotes— it also uses an optional method to link the footnote to the reference. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all.--Harkey (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of Original Posting Needed

My son is working on a report for 4th grade. He chose water wheels and what we are looking for is the Date of the Posting of the original posting. The web address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_wheel

This is needed for his Bibliography.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.24.127 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the early history of the article shows that it was created on at 13:32, on November 23, 2002. Also note that there is a water wheels category on Commons that may be useful.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That version of the article was also probably very different from the article that's there now. The most recent edit to that article, at the time I'm writing this, was on December 7th. Misty De Meo (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You may also find this page on how to cite Wikipedia articles for bibliographies useful. TNXMan 15:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What he will actually need is the details of the version that he is using - unless he intends on using the original (7 years old) version! When you look at the article, on the left hand side of the page is a "toolbox" - which includes a link entitled Cite this page - if you click on this, you will be given advice on how to cite the specific version of the article he is using. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a few days ago there was a discussion about how Wikipedia should not be used as a source material, on two grounds: 1) Anyone can edit it, implying "don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia," and 2) adults and high school students should not be using encyclopedias at all when researching most topics. Obviously, the 2nd one doesn't apply to your son. I would, however, encourage your son to double-check the citations in Water wheel and not include anything in the report that isn't backed up by a reliable source. This means not only does he need to make sure there is a source, but that the source is reliable. If the source cited by Wikipedia is someone's blog, and that blog doesn't in turn cite a reliable source, that is usually no good and if I were the teacher I would consider marking off for that.

Teaching students how to use the Internet and how not to use it when doing research is a very good thing. I'm glad your teacher is letting him use Internet resources for his project. Best of luck to him. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox heading

When you edit the sandbox heading why doesn't it change the actual heading once you save it?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the sandbox heading seen on Wikipedia:Sandbox? That's Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading), and only administrators can edit it because it's permanently protected. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing a Historian (person) as a Source

I was wondering if it was possible to cite a historian as a source. They keep records that are public, but they are not on the Internet. Also it seems like some people do not like when you cite a book. Do all of the sources used have to be found on the Internet? Seems silly not to allow sources that perfectly good, just old. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyMemphisNative (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a book and in fact we have a template for that very purpose - {{Cite book}}. The key is verifiability - if someone can go and verify that the source actually says what it is purported to say when used as a reference, it's fine, assuming that it is otherwise a reliable source. – ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Further to Ukexpat's reply: note that Ukexpat says "if someone can go...", not "if everyone can go..." - if the book would have been generally available in its country of origin (in other words, not a vanity press or employees-of-the-company-only type of book), then it can be used. As a rule, if it was published in the UK, it should be available in some UK libraries (look at WorldCat) and/or the British Library; if in the US, it should be available in some US libraries (again, WorldCat will help locate them) and/or the Library of Congress. Other countries of publication would generally have a "national" library which would receive copies of most books and/or libraries. Hope this helps -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The above is all excellent advice, but to take a another idea the OP may have been asking about, the spoken words of the historian himself may not be a reliable source. If the historian merely says "trust me, this is true", but has no published statements to that effect, then you cannot merely say that "so and so said it was true". It may be true, but it is not verifiably true, since readers cannot simply call the guy up on the phone every time they wanted to check up on it... --Jayron32 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-published letters and interviews are typically cited as "personal correspondence" off-wiki. However, until they are published in a reliable source, they cannot be used. If the speaker is a recognized authority on the matter, his professional- or institutional-web site can publish the interview or letter, at which point it becomes a source. Whether and how that source can be used on Wikipedia depends on a number of factors, including the authority of the speaker, the "independent"- and "third-party"-ness of the source vs. the topic, and other factors. The source may be reliable enough to cite, but not independent enough to be used as a criteria for notability, for example. Here's an example: If President Obama wrote a piece on whitehouse.com about his dog, that would be a reliable source, but not an independent one. If I wrote my blog about my dog, it would be neither, as I could very easily have made the whole thing up. If Obama wrote a piece about my dog, that would meet both criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if he made it all up? – ukexpat (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking of people whose reputations have already established them as reliable authorities on a subject and as people who, when speaking "on the record," don't make things up. Obviously, of Obama made up lies about his dog, once those lies were exposed it would damage his credibility overall, and his "reliability" would be lower. The same thing would, er, did happen to a newspaper when a New York Times reporter got caught making up stories a few years back. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

commons image name conflict

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an image over on commons with the same name as a local one. I can't work out the syntax to say I want the commons one rather than the local one. The name in question is commons:file:Shopfront.jpg which would be an illustration for British Boot Company. I tried adding a rename template on the commons page but maybe I haven't done it right. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the only solution is for one of the images to be moved to a new name. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just done so for the local image. It is at: File:Mombasa shopfront.jpg. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, and I added a thumbnail to the British Boot Company article - resolved! – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. I've removed the rename request over on commons. Thanks all. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Having some trouble

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So I am part of Wikipedia Typo team, and I am having some trouble with a certain link: WP:list of common misspellings. I tried searching for misspelled words, but it just searched for articles with those titles. Paperfork ♠ 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

When I try it, the search correctly finds misspelled words that are in the article's content. This search finds an article that contains the misspelled word abberant. Maybe the misspelled word you were searching for isn't any any articles because someone else on the Wikipedia Typo Team has found and corrected it already. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It also works for me. Exactly how are you searching? You should be clicking links to subpages, for example Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/A, and click on the word you want to search. The search results page may start with articles where the word is in the title, and list other articles later (if there are any for that word). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, It must have been there were no misspelled words in the articles I was looking at. Thanks, guys Paperfork ♠ 00:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

uploading

I have uploaded a photo but it does not appear. What have I done wrong? Thanks. Violet Violethodges (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You have uploaded File:Charnovitz in 2009.jpg but the image has not been added to any articles. If you want it displayed in the infobox at Steve Charnovitz then click "edit this page" at top of the article and change image = Replace this image male.svg into image = Charnovitz in 2009.jpg. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

combined intitle: and incategory: search?

I was trying to figure out a way if a search could combine an intitle wildcard search with an incategory wildcard search. It doesn't seem that an incategory wildcard alone is possible, though. Is there some way to do it? If not, some way to request it? Шизомби (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Independence Day Reception

In Finland, it has been tradition for about eighty years now that on Independence Day (6 December), the President holds a party for government officials and other notable public figures. This event is well established in Finnish culture. There's a quite nice article about it on the Finnish Wikipedia at fi:Itsenäisyyspäivän vastaanotto (Independence Day Reception) but it's quite long. I would like to translate it into the English Wikipedia, to have an English Wikipedia article about such a notable event in Finnish culture. Is being so well known in Finland enough, or does it require international notability? And because the article is so long, I don't think I can translate all of it in one go. Would it be a better idea to start off with a small stub and keep on expanding it for a few days? JIP | Talk 19:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I always advise folks to write (or, in this case, translate) the article completely first; then post it. There is no deadline; no harm will be done by not having a stub as a placeholder where the complete article should go. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On your other question, an article doesn't require international notability. The notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability say that the topic has to have significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't say anything about what region the sources are from or what language they're in. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Orange Mike's advice. Rather than create a stub and expand that, create a sub-page in your user space (for example User:JIP/Independence Day Reception) and work on it there, bit by bit. Make sure that you use Template:UserWorkInProgress as well! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't {{newpage}} for newly created articles still under construction, {{Underconstruction}} for articles actively undergoing construction to list them in Category:Pages actively undergoing construction, {{inuse}} for articles actively undergoing a major edit for a short while to list them in Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit also be options? That would give other editors an opportunity to find the article and help on it. Шизомби (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions, Шизомби! I should have thought of those as well - JIP, ignore what I said and pay attention to Шизомби's ideas! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Translating from English to another language

how do I use wikipedia to translate from english to another language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.250.40 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean to translate some English text into another language? If that is what you mean, then you need to either use Google Translate, or leave a query on the Research Desk.

If you mean how do you translate from an English article into another language, it may not be necessary: go to the article and look at the left hand side: there may be a box titled 'languages': if the language you are looking for is listed, that means that there is a version of the article on that language's Wikipedia - just click and you will go to it.

If it is not listed, then you would need to go to the other language's Wikipedia, and put in a request for the translation there - we can't give advice on this, as we only know the procedures on the English Wikipedia, as all the Wikipedias are independent. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a translation service in the manner of Google Translate or Babelfish. Our volunteers at the reference desk can probably do small jobs but are obviously no substitute for a professional.

However, if you are reading an English article, and wish to read the article in another language, on the left side of the page is a list of links to the article in other languages' editions of Wikipedia, if the article exists.

For example, if I was reading the article on Das Erste, and I wanted to read it in German, then I would click the "Deutsch" link under "languages"; likewise, if I wanted to read it French, I would click "Français". If I wanted to read it in Luxembourgish, I couldn't, because an equivalent article does not exist on the Luxembourgish Wikipedia. Xenon54 / talk / 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)