Help desk
< March 20	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 22 >

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.

March 21[edit]

Main page versions[edit]

How can I retrieve prior versions of the main page? (I don't need to edit them. I'm interested in the "In the news" section for previous weeks.) The main page history tab only lists about one version for every six months and when you link to a previous page (like 18 February 2015 or 4 July 2014), you get the same current main page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ITN comes from Template:In the news, which has far more frequent updates. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Main Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request help with multiple category CfD[edit]

Please see Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Category title move. This is a WP:C2D due to the results of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 February#War in Afghanistan (2001–14). I have never done a CfD before, let alone multiple categories.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical Dna test article and Mowa Choctaw article talk page inaccuracies .[edit]

I would like to complain about two huge problems the Wikipedia Geographical Dna test article and the Mowa Choctaw article talk page.

both are related problems. There are several Scientists who say that Genetic ancestry tests are not accurate at all.

How come the views of those Scientists are not reflected in the Geographical Dna test article.

For example I have an email that UNC - Chapel Hill Anthropology Department sent me in 2010 and yes its still current unless I hear directly from Unc Chapel Hill Anthropology Department what they emailed me about genetic ancestry testing is still true.

UNC Chapel Hill's Anthropology Department responded to a question I asked about what Dr Loretta Cormier a Medical Anthropologist with the University of Alabama at Birmingham told me about Genetic Ancestry testing.

She said

" There is no such thing as a Native American gene , a European Gene or an African Gene, with Dna tests for race all you get is an allele saying you are more likely this or that and with racially mixed people you are mixing together the different alleles making it even harder to know what you are".

She said " there is nothing to show you your race though we wish that there were".

That was her response to the Genetic ancestry tests done on former chief of the Mowa Choctaws in Mobile and Washington Counties Alabama Wilford Taylor who is still an enrolled member of the Mowa Choctaw Tribe.

I also asked UNC Chapel Hill about the Genetic ancestry tests done on 350 Mowa Choctaws out of 3000 tested in 1976 by Dr Pollitzer where they supposedly came back 70 percent White and 30 percent Black, with very Little Indian.

Unc Chapel Hill Anthropology Department said " its true there is no such thing as a Native American or African Allele in the sense there are no Alleles (Alternative Copies of a gene) that are found in all Native Americans and only in Native Americans

there are some Alleles that are more common in Native Americans than in other populations but that's not a particularly useful way to trace anyone's ancestry.

they then said what these tests are useful for studying Populations.

And they said that Professor Pollitizer was trying to determine the level of admixture in the US south.

they then told me that for many reasons these tests can be considered only Rough Estimates.

They said the Real issue underlying all of this is that race has both a biological and Sociological definition and that those two concepts are often blended and confused.

They recommended I read a book on Physical Anthropology by Physical Anthropologist Jonathan Marks.

I know from an internet article Jonathan Marks wrote called the Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing that Jonathan Marks does not believe Dna tests for race are accurate.

For the same reasons UNC Chapel Hill's Anthropology Department does not.

He also said the Scientists who claim Genetic Ancestry testing is accurate are people who are unintentionall misleading the public to get more money and media attention for Genetic Research.

Finally the Mowa Choctaw Talk page should just say what UNC Chapel Hill's Anthropologists say about why Genetic ancestry testing is not accurate.

Dr Loretta Cormier of UAB is the Anthropologist for the Mowa Choctaws of Mobile and Washington Counties Alabama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.212.168 (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of fixing the formatting in your post. It was previously almost unreadable. JIP | Talk 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe an article contains inaccuracies, point it out on its talk page. On Wikipedia, if information is well supported by sources, it is included. If you have other sources that support a view that contradicts the one in the article, provide those sources on the article's talk page or add the information to the article with citations. Remember that everything on Wikipedia must meet WP:Verifiability, emails that have not been published by the sender do not. As a final note, you said Jonathan Marks said "the Scientists who claim Genetic Ancestry testing is accurate are people who are unintentionally misleading the public to get more money and media attention for Genetic Research," that statement is a logical contradiction, you cannot both be doing something with a motive (for money/media attention) and unintentionally. If it says that in the source it might cause an issue and so I would recommend finding multiple other sources in addition to that one. PhantomTech (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is still hard to read the above post even after the reformatting. It is also hard to tell what articles the OP is concerned about. The above post is the only post made from that IP address, so that there is no way of guessing what DNA test article is being discussed. It does appear that the other article is MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians. I agree that that article is poorly written, containing poor grammar and syntax, and unencyclopedic language. What article about DNA testing is problematic? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: If I understood it, the problem they're talking about is using DNA to check for race or the geographical origins of ancestors. PhantomTech (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I know that is what the OP is talking about. But the OP complained about two articles. One of them is MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians. It isn't clear what article the other one is, only what its topic is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical DNA test is a possibility. Deor (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band notability advice[edit]

Hi. I never realized how complex the inner workings of Wikipedia were until now, that i'm interested in asking advice. In advance, I apologize if this isn't the right place to be asking this.

My issue right now pertains to the Musician WikiProject, which seems to be somewhat inactive (or I have no idea where to start looking for an active person), and the notability page it linked (viewable here). I was interested to find out if a moderately small band was eligible for a wikipedia page- so I read over the notability article, but I still wished to get some clear tips from a more experienced user (because to be fair, it can get to be a bit blurred or confusing), and I wasn't sure where to start (so I'm hoping someone here can look into it and give me some answers).

The band I'm talking about is a small pop-rock band based in New York (Poughkeepsie, if I remember correctly), mostly a cover band. However, as of March 2015 they have released numerous original songs & singles, two EPs (Infinity and Gravity), have been on at least 5+ tours (not sure if the tours are considered large, medium, tiny), and recently were signed to the record label Fueled by Ramen. As of April or so last year, there are three members (from the original five), Chrissy (Cristina) Costanza, Dan Glow and Will Ferri. The band was founded in mid-2011 (If I remember correctly, possibly earlier). Chrissy and/or the band have also worked with artists such as Alex Goot and Kurt Hugo Schneider I hope someone can look into it, and bring me a response and some WP advice.

Here are some links to the band themselves- Their youtube channel - Their website - iTunes and twitter

Thanks in advance. CentralFloridian (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most important element in the notability page, WP:Notability (music), is that the group have been the subject of multiple published articles in independent reliable sources). If the group has received an award, or has topped the charts, or been certified gold, it will almost certainly also be listed in multiple published articles. Has the band been the subject of published articles in reliable sources? (The links that you provide are not independent and so are not considered secondary reliable sources.) You might start by doing a Google search for the band by its name. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection with the band? If so, that is considered a conflict of interest, in which case writing about the band is strongly discouraged, because contributors with conflicts of interest are very seldom able to write from a neutral point of view. If you can find articles about the band in reliable sources, and if you do not have a conflict of interest, you may write a draft article and submit it via the Articles for Creation process. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a member of the band nor do I have any relation to them other than being a fan of sorts, so I think I'll do that (write a draft and submit it), thanks for the suggestion! :) CentralFloridian (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Small" as in number of musicians is no problem, a duo is fine. You need some reliable references talking about this band, books, journals, or similar. Self-published pages or YT videos don't count for "notable", forums and blogs do not generally count, and if all you find are two-liners in regional newspapers for their concerts it's also bad. Otherwise have fun, or be bold and ignore all rules, as they say here (ideally you'd know the rules before you ignore them, but I digress. :-) –Be..anyone (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link and a reference[edit]

Hi, can anyone tell me what is the difference between a link and a reference. Someone told me that Soccerway.com etc are links and therefore, profile of a player like this cannot be used as a reference. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need the context to see what they meant. Where were you told this? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Hi, you can check my talk page under the Igor Angulo heading. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "link" they apparently mean the "External links" section described at Wikipedia:External links, but this restricted meaning of "link" is not normal in Wikipedia. A more common term for that is "external link" but that can still be ambiguous. By "reference" they mean an inline reference described at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Apart from that, I'm not sure why they don't want a page to be used as a reference. Practice varies and in some areas it may be preferred that a page at a well-known site with significant statistical information is in an external links section and not "repeated" as an inline source for simple uncontroversial information. I don't know the reliability of the discussed sources but another consideration is that "External links" allows pages which are considered unreliable for use as references. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Djeak[edit]

Dear Help desk,

Djeak

He is a Real Person, Famous Person. What miss I so that this page is always gotten CSD A7?

with best regards,

Akorda Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akordakhan (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akordakhan: Merely existing is not enough. Reliably published sources not related to the subject must have discussed the subject in a substantive manner and you must demonstrate that by providing appropriate citations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is this to not enough ?

http://www.ekizceliler.com/files/cache/d21ec4d0282c89ad88590f0ab6c380c6_f24.png

Regards,

Akordakhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akordakhan (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akordakhan - Forum shopping, asking the same question or raising the same issue in multiple places in Wikipedia, is discouraged. You got the same answer at the Teahouse as at the Help Desk. What would you do if you got different answers? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon,

No not different answers want i, what i would is very fast and best answers, Today is my first day in Wikipedia so i must learn how living is in Wikipedia world and what the Rules is. There is much pages about Rules but not enough for me, thats the way i create my first page and asking in some help pages what i must to do etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akordakhan (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more Newspapers:

http://oi58.tinypic.com/bfhpw3.jpg

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2r2wrde.jpg

http://oi58.tinypic.com/fx8jtj.jpg

is now enough ?

Regards,

Akordakhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akordakhan (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Local promotional event coverage does not provide "significant coverage of the subject by non related reliable sources." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. You were trying to rush Wikipedia into accepting an article. You certainly are not going to get the article accepted by throwing bare URLs at us at the Help Desk. Whether you will get the article accepted by putting the bare URLs into the article and resubmitting it is another question that I won't answer. I don't intend to check the proposed references further. I suggest that you take a break and be patient enough to learn that impatience in Wikipedia is not usually productive, but I don't expect you to take my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akordakhan: Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. As it recommends there you can create a draft article out of article space, where there will not be pressure to make it ready for publication, and you can work with an Articles-for-creation reviewer to get it ready. —teb728 t c 21:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obscene?[edit]

Dear friends of the English Wik. There is a controversy in the Spanish Wik. on the deeper meaning of the following limerick (poetry) which appears in the article of this poetic form. I think it's totally obscene, but some people think it is not necessarily. Could you help us about it?

The limerick packs laughs anatomical

Into space that is quite economical.

But the good ones I've seen

So seldom are clean

And the clean ones so seldom are comical.

Thank your very much. --Sürrell (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope not obscene AT ALL. it makes reference to the fact that limericks are often obscene, but it is not obscene itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then what does it mean, please? For example, what the hell is a "space quite economical", and "clean", clean of what, he, he?--Sürrell (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"space quite economical" refers to the fact that a limerick is only 5 lines . "clean" refers to limericks free from obscenities. and he he referring to the fact that some limericks are free from obscenities but those are generally not funny. which is quite clearly NOT obscene itself. Otherwise, the word obscene would be obscene because it clearly refers to materials that are obscene. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A translation of the poem would be "Limericks are a short form of humorous poetry, generally bawdy in nature. The limericks that are not racy, are not funny." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article saysː ″Gershon Legman, who compiled the largest and most scholarly anthology, held that the true limerick as a folk form is always obscene, and cites similar opinions by Arnold Bennett and George Bernard Shaw, describing the clean limerick as a "periodic fad and object of magazine contests, rarely rising above mediocrity." From a folkloric point of view, the form is essentially transgressive; violation of taboo is part of its function″.--Sürrell (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the English Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, it doesn't matter here, and I see the Spanish Wikipedia has a similar policy here - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, "not censored", and?... This cannot be an obscenity in anyway? I think it is, and I want to translate in this way for the article.--Sürrell (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a second meaning, the second meaning being penile. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perception. One looks for an obscenity because the limerick is often obscene. But "a space that is quite economical" refers to the poetic form of the limerick itself, and "clean" refers to the lack of obscenities. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if the stanza "limerick" is of type obscene, I think it must be interpreted as meaning, yeah: obscene. If this type were not obscene I’d interpretː "a space economical refers to the poetic form of the limerick itself”. Did I explain or not explain? The limerick is obscene or it is not. If the limerick is obscene it is not “the poetic form of the limerick itself”. It is another thing.--Sürrell (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The limerick is obscene or it is not": The above poem is DEFINITELY NOT obscene.

I have no idea what you mean by " If the limerick is obscene it is not “the poetic form of the limerick itself”. It is another thing.".

Are you stating Definition of a Limerick: A poetic form that contains obscenities. - that obscenity is inherent defining a limerick and so any poem without obscenity is by definition not a limerick?

If so that is incorrect, as a poetic form limerick is defined by its rhyme structure : AAbbA -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sürrell, are you suggesting that "space economical" refers to some obscene body part? I doubt it. It sounds like it's just talking about the poetic form. — Eru·tuon 04:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, I suggest that "economical space" refers to some obscene body part, besides the type of stanza. In poetry it is called syntactic ambiguity, also called amphibology or double meaning. Maybe is this a sin? Really? Amphibology doesn't work here? Impossible?--Sürrell (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you look hard enough, you will see smut anywhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

heh, heh, heh, he said hard. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACK, as it happens—cf. en-3 on my page—I "saw" the anatomical meaning before the syntactical meaning. But how on earth did this poetical issue end up on the help desk, it's off topic. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh, TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I usually see smut in predominantly obscene poetry as limericks are. And maybe I recently have read too much some James Joyce, an Irish writer in foreign parts. And, mmmmm, Be..anyone, please if you say that, could you translate this issue to the right place? I'm a sad dirtyminded editor of foreign parts and I do not know where to go. ;-)--Sürrell (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, maybe Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities, but it never occured to me to get an enwiki opinion for a dewiki dispute or vice versa, IOW, untested. ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. Very well. But maybe you can answer this additional questions. dewiki is german Wikipedia? What the hell (excuse me) does IOW, untested mean? Heh, heh --Sürrell (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox mountain pass[edit]

I'm having trouble getting the push pin map for Template:Infobox mountain pass to work. I copied the box to my sandbox to work on it User:Gaff/sandbox. Can somebody check it out and fix it or tell me what I am doing wrong? Then I will fix it on the article page. thanks --Gaff (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]