Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance): Difference between revisions

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Credibility of Wikipedia Articles

My school has recently adopted the policy of banning students from using wikipedia to do research and marking down students who have wikipedia in their bibliography. The teachers say this is done because "Wikipedia can be edited by anybody and therefore is not a credible source" Do you think this is justified? What can be done to show that Wikipedia is credible? -Tom

I love Wikipedia, but I agree with your teachers. In general, the web is full of misinformation, and students should turn as much as possible to primary sources or established reference works. Read Wikipedia for fun, but reference the World Almanac or the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Rick Norwood 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use World Almanac or the Encyclopedia Brittanica either. Use real sources. Rmhermen 04:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, primary sources are best. But not all schools have good libraries, and not all students are savvy enough to tell a good internet reference from a biased one. Also, while the Brittanica has gone downhill in recent years, I still find the World Almanac a good source for current info. I use Wikipedia as a reference all the time -- but that is because I think I have enough experience to know when Wikipedia is wrong. Rick Norwood 13:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, no encyclopedia belongs in a bibliography. If I were a teacher I might make be flexible in a few rare cases. Wikipedia has a lot of obscure articles so you might find something that names book references that aren't in your library about a subject that isn't covered well on the Internet, such as the Battle of Jargeau. If the article is stable and you really can't locate anything better, then talk to your teacher before the deadline and ask them to allow it. Durova 04:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I once worked with a Polish Wikipedia to write the best English-language article online anywhere about a particular Polish general for Napolean. It was one paragraph long. However I would expect anyone writing a school paper about such an obscure topic to also be advanced enough to use better sources. Rmhermen 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a great place to start research - it'll quickly send you in interesting directions - but a terrible place to end it. Your teachers are right. - DavidWBrooks 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You (and your teacher) might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For most topics, Wikipedia is best for a superficial overview. There are some well-researched in-depth articles (like my own article on Roger J. Traynor) but they are a minority of Wikipedia articles. To do serious academic research, you need to visit a public library. The bigger, the better. K-12 school libraries (at least in the United States) tend to be small and badly underfunded.

At many public libraries you can get access to databases like ProQuest and Infotrac that will enable you to access tens of millions of articles not yet available on the Internet (due to copyright restrictions). If you live near a community college, or a university, try visiting their library (most have public access policies). --Coolcaesar 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia is always edited, those edits are limited due to things like copyright violations, and other barriers that make it impossible for Wikipedia to many really in depth detail articles, as this is just an encyclopedia, not a virtual library. There will never be a truely free 100% accurate, avaliable to everyone, high speeds, virtual library ever due to limits of technology, human greed, and scarity of resources. Wikipedia at best will only give a glance about subjects. If you wish for more indepth and more accurate information, it's best to go buy a book. Thus your teacher may be right about disqualifying Wikipedia as a source as the details on Wikipedia are not strong enough with most articles to make a report with. --Masssiveego 06:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly right, except that the rhetoric about greed is slightly overblown. Professional journalists and authors have to eat, you know. As any historian knows, modern science, literature, and arts didn't really get started until the rise of professionals who actually made a living from such things full-time, as opposed to doing them part-time as amateur hobbies. Previously, almost everyone was just raising crops or hunting game and trying not to starve to death.

For example, most scientists were amateurs right up until the late 19th century, when the successes of modern chemistry gave rise to big firms like Bayer and Du Pont that could afford to hire professional chemists.

Also, I should point out that the effective collapse of copyright protection during the French Revolution is often blamed by historians for the almost total lack of any decent novels from late 18th century and early 19th century France. There was simply no economic incentive to create, and so most rational persons dedicated their time to more practical activities like writing political pamphlets instead. --Coolcaesar 07:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity

User:RubyMowz is creating vanity articles. Can someone take a look at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.251.27 (talk • contribs)

I took care of it. In general if a new article is obviously a vanity article you can add {{db-a7}} to the top of it. "db-a7" stands for "delete because CSD A7", and CSD A7 stands for Criterion for Speedy Deletion of Articles, #7 (see WP:CSD for a list of these reasons). — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

Can anyboby look to Asturian cuisine? Something strange hapens.

I just took a look at it and nothing looked particularly unusual. What strange happenings are you seeing? -BinaryTed 18:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desks in the United States Senate

There is a legend in my family that an ancestor made or helped make the original desks in the United States Senate. I've been unable to determine the truth or lack of truth in this story. Can anyone help?

You don't give your ancestor's name, so we can't help you there. According to the Senate site, Thomas Constantine built the 48 desks in 1819 after the originals were burned by the Brits in the War of 1812. Couldn't find anything about the pre-war desks, though I imagine someone has written it down. Please update Traditions of the United States Senate if you find a source for these earlier desks.

No article for Desks of the United States Senate? Shocking oversight! ;) - Banyan Tree 04:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image usage

I've placed an image on my user page of an album that qualifies for fair use for the article is corresponds to. Recently, a user informed me that WP policy discourages the use of these kinds of images on user pages. Any suggestions on what I could do to either keep this image, or find a similar substitute? Tijuana Brass 01:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could write to the artist's agent and request permission to use the image on your user page. Durova 19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga

User:Dandelion1 added a section to the article on Naked Yoga, a variant of Yoga. Yoga has several variants and following Wikipedia:Manual of Style, not all variants are described in the main Yoga page otherwise the page would exceed the size limit. I removed the section and added the conerned material to Naked Yoga and the moved the material which it previously contianed to Naked Yoga (film). User:Dandelion1 reverted my edits on both Yoga and Naked Yoga page giving the following reasons:

rv last edit, unjustified, as separate article made by me was on film Naked Yoga, not variant Naked yoga and
rv edits of User:Deepak gupta reason: this page is on a specific film not a variant of yoga.

I need some help! --Incman|वार्ता 03:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Yoga Dandelion1 06:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

collagen fibrils

hey

i wanted to know exactly what collagen fibrils mean? do they contain mineral platelets embedded in them? i am confused. hope someone clears me in this matter. An exact structure with composition on collagen fibril will be helpful. thanx in advance.

User Talk page Archive

Just tried to archive my talk page. No luck. How is this done properly ? Martial Law 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Had a glitch in my keypad, corrected same. Martial Law 03:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

So you are OK now? No outstanding question? - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just replaced the batts. in it(its one of those wireless units). Now, about the archive situation, as stated, tried to archive my talk page, but failed. Martial Law 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I'd like to how to do this too. --Masssiveego 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. If there's something that's not clear, feel free to ask again. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so, and did this:" /Archive" as someone suggested. Got a red link, and it went nowhere fast. Martial Law 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Help needed interpreting a guideline

The following comment was placed on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (assistance); I've moved it here where it belongs. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline, WP:ASR (avoid self-reference) is being understood differently by several editors. Some help would be appriciated. At Dianetics, the article at the top of the page presently reads: "This article is about the set of practices and ideas about those practices known as Dianetics" as its first line of text. Some editors view that as sort of disambiguation while other editors view it as an unnecessary self-reference. WP:ASR states: "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project, such as: This Wikipedia article discusses ...". Dianetics is a single subject and not a commonly used word. Some help please Terryeo 20:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I find this "disambiguation" sort of redundant (the article on Dianetics is about Dianetics? really? who'd have thunk it?), it is not a self-reference of the form WP:ASR applies to. The point of ASR is references to Wikipedia itself should be avoided to facilitate Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Wikilinks from article space to user or talk space, or text that directly or indirectly makes the reader aware that he/she is reading an article at the Wikipedia web site should be avoided. The text might not be at Wikipedia (it may be forked at another site). The text might not be on the web at all (it might be in a book using Wikipedia originated content). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

different logins for different languages ?

I have been using my editor's account to contribute in the French speaking section of wikipedia so far. Recently, while trying to edit an English article, I failed to login into the English speaking section with the same account information. Do I need to create a separate account in order to edit English articles ? If not, what am I missing ? (my username is Sphinx)

I'm afraid that there is no single sign on system. You will need to create an account on every project that you want to contribute to. Alternatively, you can forego the sign on and contribute anonymously. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Strangely enough, I can't create an account with same user name (sphinx) in the English project. So there seems to be a shared users database between all wikipedia projects. Hence, why not sign on with that same account on any project ? sphinx.

No shared database, just that we already have a user with that name, though he was only active for a single day around two years ago. See his contributions. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTI Steering Wheel

Hi, Does anyone know if the steering wheel from a mk 1 GTI will fit a Mk 2? Thanks, Claire

Biography

This is a very non-traditional question, but I work for a large Film Development Company in Hollywood that produces bio-pics. I am currently in the process of collecting a small database of people in history whose lives would make compelling films. I love the Wikipedia site because, though not always 100% accurate, it doesn't seem to miss any interesting tidbits about people's lives.

I'm always interested in finding new stories of people in history that I hadn't heard of, and was wondering if anyone knew of some off beat interesting people in history. So if anyone knows of any offbeat interesting people in history, my ears are wide open. Thanks!

A Fan of Wikipedia,

71.109.193.125 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Frank Roess[reply]

Robert Esnault-Pelterie

Ferdinand de Lesseps Suez Canal (successful), Panama Canal (failure). Too much ego led to success, then failure.

John von Neumann Figured out how computers ought to work and made it happen. Involved in H-bomb program. Figured out how DNA had to work. Famous mathematician. Not remote, a fun party guy, so not too boring for a movie bio.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel One of the first big-name engineers. Big trains. Big ships. Big bridges. Big money. Knighted.

Philippe Jean Bunau-Varilla Parisian, politician, lobbyist, diplomat, creator of Panama, and one of the most effective wheeler-dealers of all time. Strong movie potential. Read "The Path between the Seas".

William Randolph Lovelace II

--Nagle 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobaccoism

Tobaccoism Here we have a nicely laid out, well written article. And as far as I can tell, it's completely phony. I placed a "needs attention" tag on the article and a note in the Talk section, and both were deleted by the original poster.

The user's Special:Contributions/Scottdevonport other contributions should also be checked. Many pictures are listed as "user created"; some are obvious copies of old pictures, and others, not linked to articles, seem irrelevant.

This person seems competent, and if they can be redirected in a productive direction, they might be useful to Wikipedia. Would someone like to try? --Nagle 20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else confirmed that the article is a hoax, marked it as such, and the original author then removed the "hoax" tag. I reverted the article and added the usual warning #1 to the talk page. I hope this author can be reformed; he writes well, even though the content is nonsense. If not, please apply the usual sanctions. --Nagle 20:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a place for hoax articles. It's too good to delete. Rick Norwood 21:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous pairs

Will somebody please edit this page? For my money it could be deleted; there is no value in listing everything that happens to come in groups of two. But there is one link in it that I'd like to correct -- assuming the page must stand -- and I can't even fully load the page, let alone edit it. It is far, far too long.

I'd like to ask some kind soul to split the page into 3 or more manageable pages. Thank you. John Reid 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Covais on "Jimmy Kimmel Live"

I've been working on Kevin Covais, and would like to add some details on his Jimmy Kimmel Live appearance, but I didn't see it. Does anyone have a transcript, some quotes, or even just a description of what he said (beyond that he wants to continue singing)? --zenohockey 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (cross-posted at Talk:Kevin Covais#Jimmy Kimmel Live)[reply]

Brockton, Massachusetts - sexual harassment

Hope this is the right place for this Q... There has been some back and forth as to whether the Brockton, Massachusetts article (see its talk page) should have a reference to the recent sexual harassment case in which a Brockton 6 year old touched another youth on her waistband and was suspended for sexual harassment. Granted it has received national news coverage, but does this type of material belong on a city's page? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks much --AbsolutDan ^{(T a lk)} 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion on the article's talk page, the text has been removed from the article. --AbsolutDan ^{(T a lk)} 18:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the homosexuality article unimportant because it's "widely viewed as a deviancy"?

It's been proposed on Talk: List of articles all languages should have, the Meta-based hub page for the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Vital articles, that because homosexuality is potentially controversial or offensive, it is not important for many language Wikis to have it (unlike, apparently, The Holocaust, abortion, evolution, etc.), and it's unacceptable for anyone to even recommend (the list is purely optional) that comprehensive encyclopedias address the topic. User:Blockinblox, claiming to be enforcing consensus, has argued that homosexuality (unlike heterosexuality) cannot be listed on the page because it is "widely viewed as a deviancy around the world" and dismissed any discussion of adding an article on homosexuality to the list of important articles with comments like "DO NOT force your agenda on the rest of the world. What you do in your country is your country's problem." (I had not been aware that my country was the only one with homosexuals, nor that I had an "agenda" on the issue, but I stand corrected.)

What I'd love more than anything is some fresh perspectives on the matter, whether they agree or disagree with my recommended additions and changes; it will be difficult to keep discussion from getting stuck in the mud with only two users with strongly differing opinions talking the matter over. So, anyone at all who's willing, I'd love some outsiders' views and arguments. -Silence 07:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Delany (Black and gay) reports that Greece has (or had) a simi-official policy that there are no homosexuals in Greece. What you are up against are people who live in the mirror universe, where Spock wears a beard. It is very hard to talk to these people, because their world-view is so totally different from ours. For example, in their universe, George W. Bush is honest. Rick Norwood 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in their universe, George W. Bush is honest - people, somewhere, actually think this? --Bob 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there's a major cultural gap in the area, but I don't see how a major global controversy somehow equates to "unimportant". This is a list of important encyclopedic topics, not of uncontroversial or "safe" encyclopedic topics. I suppose what I need most is a little support in this area, on the meta Talk page in question, to dispel User:Blockinblox's idea that consensus is on his side. Once it's safely established that "homosexuals don't exist" and similar views are in the minority, not the majority, I'll have a much easier time improving the list so it can become a useful utility. Discussion of whether "homosexuality" meets the notability requirements may certainly continue (though so far Blockinblox has only disputed the morality of the topic, not the noteworthiness), but at least a window will be opened for the possibility that homosexuality is an important topic. (Which most, and perhaps all, Wikipedias seem to already realize: Of the 25 Wikipedias with the largest number of articles, all but 1 (the Serbian Wikipedia, #19 in size) have "homosexuality" articles.) -Silence 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally distorting the discussion at Meta. I never claimed that I was enforcing consensus on this; I said it was a compromise that had been agreed to, not to require every language to have an article on a non-noteworthy topic, and you broke the compromise bringing the whole problem back again. Yes, it is the noteworthiness I am disputing, not just the morality. As you have noted already, many languages are not going to like being told that they are "required" to give any article space to homosexuality. Serbian is a good examples, and that's just in Europe, to say nothing of other continents. You have the right general idea when you say our world view is totally different from yours. By the way, noone in Greece cares much about whether George Bush is honest since they do not have to vote for him. Acceptance of homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon, it hasn't spread to many places yet, and this smacks of agenda pushing, not allowing encyclopedias in each language to be written independently, without being given a set agenda that they have to follow. Blockinblox 22:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, as Rick Norwood said above, "their world view is so totally different from ours", and every language comes from a culture that indeed has a different world view, that is not the same as yours, and perhaps you are only just now discovering this fact about the world we live in --- why on earth then would you dream of using the wikipedia mechanism, which is supposed to enshrine "neutrality", as a platform to disturb this balance or attempt to make other world views like your own??? Many languages are simply lack encyclopedic words to discuss the concept, because it simplt isn't discussed, except when discussing the western countries where men tend to lie with other men, and not with women. Don't you understand??? Note that I don't object to the article appearing in the English encyclopedia, because no doubt it is highly relevant to English speaking cultures. Blockinblox 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Acceptance of homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon, it hasn't spread to many places yet..." -- Blockinblox, 2006 AD

"O sweet boy like a girl, I see you though you will not look my way. You are unaware that you handle the reins of my soul." -- Anacreon, circa 550 BC.

"Hasn't spread to many places yet"! Rick Norwood 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon of the Mass

I recently created Canon of the Mass, using text from The Catholic Encyclopedia (public domain — copyright 1908). I've done some work wikifying it, but the article is so long. I sure would like some other editors to give it some attention, please. — MSchmahl 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider breaking it up into smaller articles, such as History of the Canon, then reference those articles in the main article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my english!

I made a translation of a page in my userspace on the dutch Wikipedia. Is there someone who wants to check my english?

The page is a little succes on nl:, and maybe you'll like it to?? See: Hotlist

Quichot 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few spelling and grammar tweaks. Superm401 - Talk 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Translation into English has a section for this type of request. Well several sections based on language. Rmhermen 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Superm401: Thank you

@Rmhermen: But that is for articles that are'nt translated at all. I Translated the article as good as I can, and yust wanted a check... But thank you, Maybe I find use for this page soon! Quichot 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: The Dutch version to see what happened in two months time.

And please use The English one - Quichot 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you place an entry in the Completed translations section on Wikipedia:Translation_into_English/Dutch it'll usually get proofread and copyedited within a week or so. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV in the article on Twinkies

Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but I need help NPOVizing the article on Twinkies. Some of the stuff on slang seems to be badly worded, but since I'm not actively involved in Native-American or Asian-American culture, I feel uncomfortable in modifying the section of the article on said topics. If any user who is Asian- or Native-American could help out, that would be good, however, I don't know how to go about finding those users.--The i kiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some users self-identified as Native-Americans can be found from Category:Native American Wikipedians. Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity doesn't have a subcategory for Asian-Americans. You might ask at Category talk:Asian Americans. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK......seems like a good idea.--The i kiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 03:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scandal developing -- please review article

please see my changes to Howard Kaloogian, regarding a scandal involving fake photos of Baghdad. Kaloogian is the founder of Move America Forward, a conservative organisation. Markburg 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle a botched AfD

A user placed an WP:AfD on a wikipedia:redirect, where an WP:RfD should have been used. Being WP:BOLD, I copied the votes over to WP:RfD, labelled the redirect in question with the RfD template, removed the AfD from today's log, and labelled the AfD page in question with a warning to point to the RfD instead.

I thought that'd do it; after all, the AfD voting page was no longer linked, right? But another user must've found it through someone's contributions list, and voted there anyway. I notified the user, but I'd like to know if I should better label the page in question, or is there a better procedure? Any tips?

Ideally an admin should just delete the voting page in question, it is redundant. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is public domain?

U.S. Navy photo by Journalist Seaman Ryan C. McGinley (RELEASED)[1]
This photo is public domain? I confused...help!! -- WonYong (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with long page

I'm currently using an antiquated browser and cannot add a comment to the end of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica because the discussion is too long. Can someone with a newer browser please append the following for me:

*'''Delete''' pending third-party reliable verification. Notability is not a valid reason for deletion, but this is. [[User:Ziggurat|Ziggurat]] 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ziggurat 23:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 242: / Line 242: @@
 * U.S. Navy photo by Journalist Seaman Ryan C. McGinley (RELEASED)[http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=18230]
 * This photo is public domain? I confused...help!! -- [[User:WonYong|WonYong]] [[User talk:WonYong|(talk)]] 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
+== Help with long page ==
+I'm currently using an antiquated browser and cannot add a comment to the end of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica]] because the discussion is too long. Can someone with a newer browser please append the following for me:
+<nowiki>*'''Delete''' pending third-party reliable verification. Notability is not a valid reason for deletion, but this is. [[User:Ziggurat|Ziggurat]] 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
+</nowiki>
+Thanks, [[User:Ziggurat|Ziggurat]] 23:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)