Help desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

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 4[edit]

Request for help with article[edit]

Can someone enlighten me as to how to establish due weighting for the entire Emotional Freedom Technique article? There are two studies in major journals, both of which are low quality science (latter IMHO). There are many self-funded studies published in journals with a bias. And there is a very large userbase with several people heavily promoting themselves as an authority. Commenting on the thread at the bottom of the talk page would be appreciated for those who are sure about the policy, though I will keep an eye on this page. Thanks. Mindjuicer (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to say I'm no longer keeping an eye on this page. Please feel free to comment on the talk page or on my user page Mindjuicer (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the link for feedback on an article i created and it said to go here.[edit]

Hello there, I recently created the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Lee and would like feedback. I clicked on the link at the top of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback but it read "This process is currently inactive. Please consider asking for feedback at the Help Desk"

Please assist at your earliest convenience, thank you.

Rick Sparx (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Rick Sparx[reply]

Your article was deleted under G11, which means it was unambiguously promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Based on that I suspect the you have a connection with the Carter Lee that gives you a conflict of interest that would make it nearly impossible to write an article about him from the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. If my guess is wrong or if you would like to try anyway, start by collecting neutral, independent reliable sources about him, and write your article base on those sources as though you knew nothing else about him, citing your sources inline as though you were writing a research paper for school. —teb728 t c 06:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image rotated 90 degrees[edit]

As I was reading Languages of the United Kingdom#Scotland, I noticed that the image of the bilingual railway sign, which I'm including here at right, is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise (or anticlockwise, if you swing that way). When I click on it and go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PartickPartaig.jpg, the same holds of the preview that's shown there — although when I click on that and go to the file of the image itself, now it's right side up, which is, presumably, how the original user uploaded it. Does anybody know what is causing this behavior, and if there is a way to cause the image to display properly in the articles where it is used? (Or, perhaps, is this behavior unique to my browser?) Glenfarclas (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thumbnail is rotated incorrectly, as seen in the metadata ("Orientation: Rotated 90° CW"). I've requested rotation on the Commons page. Rotatebot will rotate it in a few hours. Goodvac (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Rotatebot is having problems at present, and quoting a few days rather than its usual few hours. Maproom (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I find it odd that, as it seems to me, the jpg itself is oriented properly — 90° clockwise from how the photo was taken — but the software that produces the thumbnail thinks it knows better and rotates it back again. I can't imagine what the benefit to that would be. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than wait for the bot, I have uploaded a rotated version of the file. – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I guess that works too. Thanks! -- Glenfarclas (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bad reference in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana:_The_Legend_of_Prince_Rama[edit]

in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana:_The_Legend_of_Prince_Rama there is a reference to http://www.matchless-gifts.com/store/ which i think is not related , inappropriate and more like a free advertisement to that web store.please check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.105.203 (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The link was inserted as a source in this 2008 edit by a good editor. I tagged the citation with {{fv}} and left a note for the editor. —teb728 t c 09:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nonprofit using Inc.[edit]

I'm curious how you're able to use "Inc." after your foundation name. I've been incorporating nonprofits for years and they cannot use "company" or "Co." or "Inc." after their name. I know there are 2 corporations -- are they both nonprofit? Please email me at <email removed>. If you don't send personal emails, how will I be notified when/if you answer? Thanks, C. Read, Seattle, WA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.55.118 (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different states have different laws; perhaps the laws of your state are different. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. is a Florida corporation. I don't know what other corporation you are referring to. I have removed your email address to protect you from being bombarded by spam and because like most helpers here I never reply via email (to protect us from being bombarded by spam). Instead we reply by appending a reply to your post. I will also post a talkback notice to the talk page associated with your IP address. —teb728 t c 08:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation is state-specific, unlike tax status. AFAIK the IRS does not impose restrictions on the entity designation for 501(c) non-profits, though it does make the distinction between "private" (individuals) and "non-private" (grants, donations) foundations.

As for the two corporations you are referring to, I assume you are thinking of Wikia, Inc., which was created by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales but is independent from the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Wikia is for profit; the WMF on the other hand is tax-exempt 501(c)(3).

In any case, we cannot give legal advice. See disclaimer. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the term "Inc." is not used for any company, instead two designations are used to indicate limited liability, PLC for Public Limited Company, which is basically really big companies and Ltd. for all others. A not for profit can be incorporated in a number of ways. The most usual is a "Company not for profit limited by guarantee' Such a not for profit MUST use the term Ltd unless it gets special permission not to. Many charities in the UK are just such companies which have separately applied to the Charities commission to be registered as a charity which carries tax advantages and then applied to Companies House for permission not to use the "Ltd." So it just depends what state, or country you are in..

Speedy deletion of unused files[edit]

Is it possible for me as the uploader of a number images here on Wikipedia that are now orphaned to request speedy deletion of these files? If so, what is the correct tag for such a case? The files in question are File:Page move test.jpg File:Screenshot 01.png File:Screenshot Toshio Yamaguchi.png File:Screenshot Toshio Yamaguchi 01.jpg and File:Wikipedia screenshot 2011 04 06.JPG. If not, I will take them to WP:FFD per WP:NOTWEBHOST#2. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general speedy criteria should apply to images, so you should be able to tag it with WP:G7. WP:G2 may apply too as they were uploaded to show errors, which I presume to be resolved now. Яehevkor ✉ 10:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tagged all of the files as G2. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a hoax and scam with the Karthik Nadar asking for money.[edit]

https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=L11_1202_KN/en/US

Having Karthik Nadar asking for money seems like a hoax and scam when you have Donate to Wikipedia on the side bar. I would remove it if I were you. And check it out to see if it is a scam. or Karthik's way just to get recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.133.241 (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this page is part of the annual fundraising effort. You can read more about the Wikimedia Foundation here and more about Karthik Nadar at his user page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't bother about your comment because I m no where a celebrity, neither Wikipedia gives me anything. If you still believe it seems like a hoax, I will request Wikimedia to remove, and will quit Wiki too. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the fundraising effort by the Wikimedia Foundation to show messages from ordinary editors. Unlike wikipedia.org, normal volunteer editors like Karthik Nadar and I (who is a Wikipedia administrator) cannot edit wikimediafoundation.org. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin says: "You can only login if an account has been created for you by the Board of Wikimedia". If you still have concerns then you can click the Donate link in the sidebar either here or at http://wikimediafoundation.org and mail the email address shown there: problemsdonating@wikimedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a suggestion for more information for a topic[edit]

Good day, This evening I was reading in Wikipedia about the Magna Carta. I know that there is a copy in the Cathedral at Salisbury, and another in the Parliament Building in Canberra in Australia (I have seen both). I don't know whether either is the original. I don't know if other copies exist. The article does not specify where the original is located, or whether it still exists, and where copies from that time are located. I would like to make a suggestion to the experts and editors writing about this topic that there is some information which has not been covered but which at least one reader would find useful, if anyone out there knows the answer. I could find no way to make such a suggestion. I recommend that readers cannot only edit the topics but can also suggest avenues of enquiry for those who may be able to supply the information. I recommend that Wikipedia provide a mechanism for such suggestions to be recorded. The reason I am using this mechanism to make this suggestion is that I could find no other. Thank you for considering this request. Oh, and if anyone knows where the original Magna Carta is, I'd be interested to know. :-) Cheers, Carl New Zealand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.53.163 (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carl, if you want to request changes or suggestions to specific articles, the place to go is the talk page, so in this case it would be Talk:Magna Carta--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

real time scheduling[edit]

An operating system designer wants to use a scheduling algorithm that reserves 50% of CPU time for periodic real-time tasks. The remaining time should be used round robin for non time critical processes.

(a) Describe how EDF can be extended to �t the requirements. (b) Explain for your scheduling algorithm how for a given task set it can be decided whether it is schedulable. (c) Describe which parameters of your algorithm will a�ect the average response time for the non time-critical tasks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.68.211 (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 search Wikipedia or search the Web.
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. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can this symbol be generated using HTML code[edit]

Resolved

Is it possible to produce the symbol seen between 2 and 5 in $2\nmid 5$ with simple HTML code, similar to how for example typing & equiv ; (without the spaces between & and e as well as v and ;) produces ≡? If so, what is the HTML code for that symbol? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I fixed it in this edit. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was using <math>...</math>. For pure HTML, use the entity ∤: ∤. — Edokter (talk) — 13:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. That's exactly what I originally looked for. I see you already changed it in the article. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link at top of the page asking for donations[edit]

I read the article on Charles Darwin and thought I'd donate. I clicked on the ad at the top of the page and the link didn't work. I clicked on "donate" and the link didn't work. So I went to other pages and clicked the same links there. Nothing happened. At all. Not a pop-up, not another page, not a Cap+click or a Ctrl+click reaction. Nothing. Nada. Rien. How do you expect to raise money if your links don't work?

I've spend 15 minutes trying to donate and testing links and finding this contact form and writing this message. At my hourly rate that would be approx. USD 120. It's my donation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you have had trouble with the donation links. Perhaps your browser has blacklisted the wikimediafoundation.org domain? Here's a direct link to the Wikimedia Foundation home page. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to view http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate and other pages at http://wikimediafoundation.org then perhaps you can try another browser or Internet connection, or you can send a mail to problemsdonating@wikimedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links - blogs[edit]

I edited an article - a book - South by Java Head by Alistair MacLean and I put up an external link - a book review which redirects to my blog(Google blogger). I had no intentions of spam / loading the page with irrelevant content and I wish to know why the bot removed the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tandyanderson (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia content guideline on external links is stricter than many editors realise. Links to blogs are rarely appropriate. In addition, since this is your own blog, you should look at the advice on conflict of interest. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Requests for feedback" process now inoperative - so how do new articles get reviewed?[edit]

Hi, I notice the "Requests for feedback" process is now showing as 'inoperative' and redirecting to here. So what is the correct process now for requesting peer reviews for new articles and getting the "New Unreviewed Article" tag removed, please? I have two new articles - Charlotte Melmoth and John Street Theatre which I would like reviewed & untagged: how do I request this? 'Charlotte Melmoth' was submitted under the old 'Request for Feedback' system shortly before that system became inoperative; I was directed to this page when trying the same process for 'John Street Theatre'. I then tried the 'submit' link instead, which simply gave it an 'articles for creation' tag.

Any help or suggestions gratefully received! Butcherscross (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looks like the Help desk regulars will have to learn to review articles! These look fine, well-referenced. I've tweaked them a little and have removed the "unreviewed" tags. I invite other help desk regulars to have a look too, partly so that I can learn from their edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, John of Reading! I appreciate that!Butcherscross (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need CityVille Hometown Reviewed[edit]

I just created CityVille Hometown and would appreciate if someone could weigh in and remove the unreviewed tag if you see fit. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JovanWelks (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, it's sourced, a few categories would be good. CTJF83 15:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://anexosolanadelmar.blogspot.com/[edit]

Hi, In my opinion this blog helps a lot to understand the history of the chair.

I recived this emeail from you:

Hello! I'm a bot created by another Wikipedia editor. I wanted to let you know that I removed a link that you recently added to the page Butterfly chair here. I did this because http://anexosolanadelmar.blogspot.com/ is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We usually avoid linking to blogs, forums, and social media sites. We appreciate your help in making Wikipedia better for everyone. If I made a mistake, feel free to undo my edit. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Help desk. Thank you! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.65.67 (talk)

Blog violate our policy on self published sources and guidelines on restricted external links, since anyone can write what they want in a blog they are unreliable sources and cannot be used. Яehevkor ✉ 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mating habits[edit]

Hello, I am looking for information about the mating habits of the following animals:

hippogriffs gryphons dragons unicorns flying unicorns winged horses phoenixes centaurs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.233.130 (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The male's sperm fertilises the female's egg. Paolo Napolitano 17:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange to say, a similar question has been asked before. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing ideas on Pakistan national rugby league team?[edit]

Can someone please take a look at Pakistan national rugby league team. I'm trying to get the boxes on the left to be in the same column and have had to resort to multiple < BR > to do so. The RLIF rankings include a reference, so the rankings template must be used prior to the {{reflist}}, but doing so without the BRs, pushes the first template box to the right to give really goofy listing. Personally, I'm not a fan of template boxes that include references that get placed on the page that they are in.Naraht (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit. Any good? The only proper fix will be to add three more paragraphs of sparkling prose, of course. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the change, that works. I agree on the proper fix. :) This came out of an effort to clear the list of articles with the "missing references list".Naraht (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

different log in pages - is there a font recognition problem? do i need 2 log in names?[edit]

i log in using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Main+Page&campaign=ACP3 without any problem. i am unable to log in using http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7%E7%99%BB%E5%BD%95&returnto=Wikipedia%3A%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5

after i log in, i went to edit a page in http://zh.wikipedia.org. wiki took my edit without recognizing my login name. but then when i tried to edit again, it no longer accepts my edit and requires me logging in first. however, i logged in using en.wikipedia.org. So, is it some kind of font recognition thing between zh.wikipedia and en.wikipedia? if you require the page i editted, then please let me know.

anyway, my problem now is that i cannot make edits in zh.wikipedia.org even though i can log in perfectly fine through en.wikipedia.org. do i need a separate log in name in zh.wikipedia.org?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopf (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't need two login names. See Wikipedia:Unified login, and see if the "Merge account" link on that page helps you. (It's too long since I used it, I've forgotten exactly what it did...). -- John of Reading (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:MergeAccount to unify your account. http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Hopf shows the username has the most edits at the Spanish Wikipedia. You may have to surpass that edit count to unify the account, or log in to the Spanish Wikipedia and use es:Special:MergeAccount if it's your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misrepresented myself here. I do not have 2 accounts. Neither do I want to create 2 accounts until I absolutely must.

Please let me give an example: i logged in using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page Upon log in, i can edit this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England but i cannot edit this: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%8B%B1%E6%A0%BC%E5%85%B0 the latter is the same page of the former in a different langauge. Similarly, I cannot edit these http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89 nor http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angleterre

The last 2 are the same of the first, in another 2 langauges. So, I want to learn how I can edit in other languages or what hoops I have to jump in order to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopf (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see if you go to Special:MergeAccount? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the below text is what i see in pink: The home wiki for this account (listed below) has a different password to the one you entered. Please enter the password for the home wiki.

however, i do not see anything listed below. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopf (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make four more edits at the English Wikipedia, so that your edit count here is greater than the 20 edits made by the unrelated Spanish Hopf account; then visit Special:MergeAccount once again. You will then become the owner of the "Hopf" account name in all the projects where there is no "Hopf" account already. To make four quick edits you can visit the Wikipedia:Sandbox if you can't find anything better to do. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Merge Account page again and it asked me to merge. Therefore, I believe I now satisfy the 20 edit requirement. I went through that merge process. However, how do I know I went through that successfully? I tried to make a test edit in another page that is not en.wikipedia. That, I did not succeed. the zh.wikipedia continues to ask me to login. Is there a load time for this to be effective? Hopf (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopf (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Hopf confirms you have the unified account and only miss the Spanish and German Wikipedia where the username was already taken. Set a checkmark at "Also log me in to other wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation" when you log in at Special:UserLogin. If you are not automatically logged in at another language or Wikimedia wiki then try logging in there with your normal password. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. i can now make edits in other languages. it all works. this ticket can now be closed. Hopf (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Telefutura[edit]

This is my first time doing this, so please bear with me. This article has a tag since January 2011, but because there are 28 valid sources (a majority of which come from Univision's website), I would like to know if it's alright for me to remove it or not. Platinum Star (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd day not, well over half the entries still lack sources. Яehevkor ✉ 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Hyman[edit]

I did my best to post an article about this world-renowned sculptor, who is my mother. however, i can't figure out whether I did it right or what will show up. I have no idea how to code anything. i believe she ought to be represented on Wikipedia but the system has grown much more complicated than it used to be. If anyone wants to edit this, you're welcome to do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdiamondme (talk • contribs) 19:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You created the article for review but haven't submitted it. I'm not familiar with the process, but I took the liberty of doing some edits to make it look a little better. It still needs a lot of work, though. Nonetheless, if you want to submit the article, go to this page and follow this instruction: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and hit save to request a review". Be aware that creation of articles by the subject or someone closely affiliated with the subject is problematic at Wikipedia. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and COI. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you've done pretty well at writing a neutral article, which is the biggest problem for writers who has a conflict of interest; but some of the details included are probably not encyclopaedic. But the big problem is that a list of "References" at the end is not enough: articles need in-line citations for (ideally) every fact mentioned in the article, so that anybody using the article to research a subject can verify everything in it. See WP:Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly problematic link[edit]

Re: page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_del_Ghisallo

There may be a problem with the first external link at the bottom of this article. I clicked on the Museum link and once I was on the site I clicked on (I think) the home page and ended up with some sort of virus. I got my pc running again but I'm too scared to check the link, so perhaps some nice wikipedia person could check it out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacara (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References in the "Further reading" section?[edit]

According to WP:ORDER, the references section should come before further reading section. However in Boxer Rebellion, the further reading section is so well done, with comments on issues such as about reading newspapers at the time, that there are references there. However since the {{references}} is above it, it gives the "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see thehelp page." error. What is the proper way to handle this situation?Naraht (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When engaged in a detailed discussion of sources, there is no need to refer readers to yet-another-section on sources. Cite the source referred to in full for the claims either using inline attribution or parentheses. For example: "David D. Buck, "Review," The China Quarterly 173 (2003): 234-237." is cited inline in that section of the article in full. For "One newspaper editor claimed that "half the telegrams were deliberately 'faked'," and much of what was printed was not true. [1] " => "One newspaper editor claimed that "half the telegrams were deliberately 'faked'," and much of what was printed was not true. (Frederic A. Sharf and Peter Harrington. China 1900: The Artists' Perspective. London: Greenhill, 2000. ISBN 1-85367-409-5.)" Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, meanwhile I've fixed the error message a different way. Take your pick. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both solutions look fine and since John of Reading's change fixed it, I'm fine with leaving it that way.Naraht (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding talk page banners in sandbox?[edit]

Should I wait until transferring a sandbox entry to add the Wikiproject banners or is it OK to put them on while the page is in the sandie?TCO (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can add them to the talk page as you would normally do it, except enclose everything in <nowiki></nowiki> so that your sandbox doesn't appear in one of the categories. For example:

<nowiki>
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Opera}}
</nowiki>

When you move the page into mainspace, the <nowiki></nowiki> should be stripped off. Goodvac (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like it!TCO (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Representations of Haiti[edit]

Can someone please take a look at Media Representations of Haiti? It doesn't feel quite right as an article, but I can't point to anything specific that makes it non-encyclopedic. While it looks somewhat more like an essay, it does have at least one reference. (It's creation and additions are by what appear to be an SPA, but one that has made a *lot* of edits on it.Naraht (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it does sound like an essay. The article also has some original research. I added some maintenance tags to the article. -- Luke (Talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've messaged the member who started the article about the tags -- Luke (Talk) 23:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]