Help desk
< June 27	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 29 >

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.

June 28[edit]

Referencing errors on Valaam[edit]

Reference help requested. I used the new editor to enter this ref. I couldn't find an ISBN slot, so I used the ISSN one. That' led to the error.Kdammers (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks, Kdammers (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have now been fixed. SpinningSpark 13:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change article title[edit]

Hello Help Desk,

I'm really sorry to bother but for the life of me I can not figure out how to edit the Title of an article.

Please let me explain briefly. I am a Japanese-English translator so from time to time I also access the Japanese side under the same username. Well over a year ago I made a note on the talk page of the Japanese (日本語 Nihongo) entry for the US Immigration Act of 1924. The Title of the Japanese page is 排日移民法 (Hai-Nichi iminhō), which literally means "Japanese-Exclusion Immigration Act." However, the accurate and linguistically correct translation (and the translation used by the Japanese government) is 1924年移民規制法 (Sen kyūhyaku nijū-nen imin kiseihō), or literally 1924 Immigration Restriction Act. You can verify this by going to the following page <www.jetro.go.jp/jfile/report/05000661/05000661_001_BUP_0.pdf> and looking at lines 3 and 4 of page 31. JETRO is an agency of the Japanese government.

This difference may seem trivial, but in fact it is a big NPOV problem. In my note on the above Japanese talk page, I noted that the title was not only not correct but not the official translation of the Japanese government, certainly in part because the word has strong ideological overtones, having been used by the former militarist government of Japan before during the war with the Allies. The editor of the Japanese site has ignored my request that the title be changed to the correct title. Therefore, since more than a year has passed, I feel justified in changing the title myself. This is a very important issue in Japan, and the very first hit on any Google search even for the correct version of the Act's title leads people to the Wikipedia entry with the faulty title.

Moreover, the Chinese title does use the correct, accurate characters (1924年移民法案). That is, as is the case with many Chinese and Japanese compounds, the Chinese characters and the Japanese characters are identical in this case. Only the reading or pronunciation is different. The Chinese title does not say "Chinese-Exclusion Immigration Act" but simply "Immigration Act." That is, the Japanese title should, to be correct, use exactly the same characters as the Chinese title (except that the leading word for "United States" in the Chinese 美国 (Meiguo) but is 米国 (Beikoku) which is omitted in the Japanese (not a problem). The Japanese government inserts the characters 規制 (kisei) before 法 (Act), which mean "Restriction." These characters are thus optional (and could be added in the Chinese title as well, but they are omitted in the Chinese and used in the Japanese government title. In other words, these differences are legitimate. The problem with the Japanese title lies in the characters 排日 (Japanese-Exclusionary). In fact, the Act was far more prejudicial toward the Chinese, yet the Chinese title does not say 排華 (pai-hua) or 排中 (pai-zhong). The Chinese title is therefore correct and non-ideological. The Japanese title is, in short, highly biased with ideological connotations.

For these reasons, I feel justified in changing the title of the Japanese article to the correct word. The problem is, I have searched and searched but I can not find any directions on how to change the title. Therefore, can someone please tell me in simple terms how I can do so, or else perhaps have one of your editors do so directly?

Finally, given the ideological nature of the current title, I fear that, even if I do change it, the editor or someone will simply revert it to the old title arbitrarily without any explanation. I would therefore like to know what is to be done in that situation.

Many thanks. --Gunnermanz (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the policy of en:Wikipedia is for the name of an article to be what its subject is usually called in published English-language sources, rather than its "official name". Thus for example the article on my country is called "United Kingdom" rather than "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Maproom (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the article Immigration Act of 1924, which already seems to be at a neutral title? Or asking for help in making a move request on ja.wikipedia? If the latter, I suggest asking on the Japanese equivalent to this page. There's a link to it in the left sidebar of this page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gunnermanz: Here on the English Wikipedia, we have a process called requested moves to deal with possibly controversial moves of articles to different titles. ("Moving" a page to a new title is the only way to change its name.) Basically, someone proposes the new name, and editors discuss the change, trying to reach a consensus on whether it should be implemented. The interlanguage links on the WP:RM page indicate that the corresponding page on the Japanese Wikipedia is here, so I assume that following the instructions on that page will allow you to propose the title change. Deor (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

banglore days overseas right[edit]

hi sir,
I'm sheejo varghese. I m doing malayalam movie distribution all over europe since last 4 years in the name of ASHIRVAD UK. now i just want to inform that , BANGLORE DAYS was my first movie deal to do the overseas except gulf. In the titles of banglore days you can watch that my company name and logo as overseas distributor. I am doing the movie all over europe, america, canada, autralia, singapore, new zealand, Hong kong, japan and first time a malayalam movie in african countries. so pls update my company name as overseas distributior

kind regards

sheejo 2.102.40.196 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2014‎ (UTC) Signed — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about the article about the film Bangalore Days. The article lists the distributors as "A & A Release, Star Movie US, Tri Colour Australia, Indian Movies UK". Are you saying that you want "Ashirvad UK" added to this list? Maproom (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need one or more impartial observers' brief input[edit]

Recently I and one other editor seem to have been unable to resolve our differences regarding a certain point in an article, and I believe that outside neutral comments on this question would probably be much appreciated by both of us. The question is essentially: "Does a cite from a faith based site, automatically become unreliable?" A Google search on the two terms "Crystal Cathedral" and "ACIM" yields 34,000 hits, and nearly all of these state that the teachings of a book called ACIM were taught in the "Crystal Cathedral". Still, as can be seen in the recent editing history of the ACIM article, editor:Afterwriting adamantly refuses to acknowledge that any of the references that I've so far pulled from this list could be reliable, has well exceeded the three revert rule in asserting his belief in this, and seems to me to be quite upset at the possibility that any faith based site could have any reliable cite-able information in it. Any of your comments on the article's talk page about whether or not any of the available religion based cites used so far are/ were reliable would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the "other editor" let me state that this issue has NOTHING to do with the references being "faith-based" as falsely claimed (and already twice refuted by me) but EVERYTHING to do with them clearly failing any reasonable standard of reliability. Also, Scott P. has consistently been distorting the references to make spurious claims about Robert Schuller (a living person) in the article which are not even supported by these unreliable references. There is no reliable evidence that ACIM has ever been "taught" in the Crystal Cathedral ~ only that another person associated with ACIM ideas has been a speaker at this church. We have no evidence that anything that was "taught" was in any way whatsoever related to ACIM ideas. Also, as these polemical and unreliable references infringe on BLP principles the three revert rule does not apply and the references and any spurious claims based on them must be removed without discussion. Afterwriting (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afterwriting, your logic seems to me to be rather circular. When asked what you make of the cite's statement: "… for awhile, Schuller even hosted “A Course in Miracles” study groups in his church", you reply that the reference is unreliable, therefore there is "no evidence". You and I seem to have very different standards for the reliability of this type of reference. Scott P. (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is A Course in Miracles. I take my hat off to any "impartial observer" who can make sense of it. For example, the first sentence states that it is a "curriculum", while the second refers to "the 'Workbook' section of the book", although no book has been mentioned, let alone one divided into sections. I get the impression that the article is written by, and for, people who are already familiar with this curriculum/book/text/manuscript. Maproom (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is a book. That much at least is clear from the italic title and the ISBN number. SpinningSpark 13:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True it is about a book. But I believe that Maproom had a good point, so I updated the lead sentence accordingly. Thanks Scott P. (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find that independent sources 1 2 regard the book "A Course in Miracles" as based more on Hindu than on Christian teachings. Yet the text of the article includes "Christ" 14 times and "Hindu" 0 times. This seems to me much more in need of attention, than an argument about whether the book's teachings have ever been taught in a particular building in Orange County, CA. Maproom (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find difficulty in documenting that ACIM is somehow based on Hinduism as I have never seen any documentation that any of the three primary editors ever seriously studied Hinduism, or that they considered the work to be based on it. True, it does seem to have a few general Hindu overtones, such as its assertion that the world we see is essentially illusion, but such potential allusions can also be found in the Christian Bible, as Jesus often speaks there of the existence of another (presumably more true) world. ("I am not of this world".) Scott P. (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottperry: Random pages found with a google search are almost certain not to be reliable sources under Wikipedia's meaning of the term. It really does not matter how many hits you get on google, if the information does not also appear in reliable sources then it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. SpinningSpark 13:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: (btw nice ping function) Yes, but what specific content within a cite makes it unreliable? Scott P. (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A personal web page, blog posting, commentary, etc., which is written by an individual person without the oversight of an editor would be an example of an unreliable source. It doesn't mean that the information is incorrect. A reliable source to show that a religious course based on a book has been presented in a particular church would be a news report in an established newspaper with an editorial staff to check the facts. It could be a "faith-based" publication or not, since the item to be sourced is not a matter of faith, but just a report of an event. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the content of the site. It has everything to do with the fact-checking process of the site. Scholarly papers go throught a peer review, books (but not self-published books) go through checking by the publisher, newspapers have an editorial board and staff journalists. The majority of websites will have none of these things (although there are, of course, some exceptions). You also have it completely the wrong way round in demanding that other editors prove to you that a site is unreliable. On the contrary, if your material is removed, it is for you to show that the site is reliable. SpinningSpark 15:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both Anne and Spinningspark. With your encouragement, I believe I have now increased the quality of the reference, up to a level that should be acceptable by all (I pray). It is now a book reference, in a book written by an established author. Please see the new reference here.Scott P. (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how "established" this author may be, this is a polemical book of a very questionable intellectual and academic standard. I certainly don't consider books of this kind to be acceptable as a reliable source for information in Wikipedia articles. It should also be noted that the "publisher" of this book, Mountain Stream Press, only seems to publish books by this particular author. This hardly adds to the book's credibility as an acceptable source. As far as I can tell, therefore, this is in effect only a self-published book and it should not be used as a reference. Therefore, unless I can be persuaded otherwise in the next day or so this reference of highly questionable reliability will be removed in accordance with editing principles and policies. Afterwriting (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit box font size in chrome[edit]

(Not sure where to ask) having an issue setting the edit box font size in chrome - I've changed the monospace font size settings in chrome - but no change in the edit (text box) (about 13/14px). No issue in firefox. Is this a chrome issue. Solutions/workarounds etc Thanks.. 83.100.174.82 (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be lucky and find a Chrome user here who knows the answer, but you would be better off asking at WP:VPT or WP:RDC. SpinningSpark 15:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for review[edit]

Hi, I have written a draft page and tried to submit it for review but with no success. The draft is called Ian Potts. Can you help? Thanks Algavin1601 Algavin1601 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the page, User:Algavin1601/Ian Potts, there is a box at the top. In the box there is a link that says Submit your draft for Review!. If you click it and save the page it will be submitted for review. That said, if you do it, the draft will be rejected since you have not supplied any references. I have not read the article to see if there are any other problems. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners before going any further with your draft. I have also added a welcome message to your talk page with a lot of useful links GB fan 15:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]