Help desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 30 >

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 29

File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg

I do not usually challenge images but I believe that this image should be deleted because it may not have either a copyright tag or an acceptable fair use rationale. Even if {{Symbol rationale}} was added, it still may be rendered in too high a resolution. Also, I do not believe the source as given is correct. Can an expert look at this and make a determination. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they can copyright it. It is just a minor modification of the Betsy Ross flag which is probably PD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List notability and styles

This [[1]] has raised a style question with respect to listing a notable person in a list.

One editor feels that if someone is no longer practicing something they were notable for, they should be listed as "former". Their comment was:

"This dispute is simply about the word "former". Once a person is no longer doing what made them notable in the first place, they should have the word "former" (or something similar) attached to their description."

In this case it is a radio personality who at the moment is not on the radio. I feel that then style should refereence what the subject is notable for, not for what they used to be. Unless they we actually notable for being a "former radio personality". I don't see how that coud happen, but anything is possible I guess.

A very cursory glance shows that most lists in Wikipedia tend to follow my prefered syntax. Is there a style guideline which might be of assistance? I'd like to try finding one before asking for an RfC on such a minor syntactical issue. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any coverage in the Manual of Style pages, but radio personality seems like an individual could do it again on any given day for the rest of their lives, like 'author' or 'commentator'. He's a 'Former radio host', but 'Media personality', as he is actively podcasting. Lists in tables can be more clear, see the Prior Experience column of List of current United States Senators#Members by state, but unnecessary on location pages. Dru of Id (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake at "Marble Falls, TX"

Hello,

I was editing the current population of Marble Falls, TX, and the format was disrupted somehow. I was not able to resolve the issue. Could someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.221.153.112 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Replaced your )] with ]]. Dru of Id (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to make different versions in Wikipedia (Same Topic)

How do I create different version of the same topic in terms of language. For example I created a page in english version and I want to have it also available in german language for example without having to leave the english version page. I want it to be located on the left navigation of the page for the different languages. Do I have to create a page first for the german version and link it to the english version? how do I do that? Please advise. Visit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGS_S.A. for the sample of what I want to attain. It has different languages to choose from without having to leave the main page.Sgssm (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would have to create the German version first and then link the two with interlanguage links. Dismas|^(talk) 06:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The necessary tools should all be available through Category:Wikipedia translation, its subcategories, and articles. Many interlanguage links are added by bots, with readers and editors as human quality control, reporting errors. Dru of Id (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created the english version last week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGS_Agricultural_Services and tried to create the german version http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGS_Agricultural_Services of it the other day but it was proposed for deletion. why is that so? Could someone tell what is the process for creating the different language with the same topic?Sgssm (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My German isn't good enough to read their policies but it might have something to do with their standards for inclusion versus the English standards. Not all Wikipedias have the same rules as to what is allowed and what isn't. I'd ask at the German Wikipedia why the article is up for deletion. Dismas|^(talk) 06:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast feedback and help. I've read this under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/German/Translation_advice: "Interwikis Remember to code the bottom interwiki line "[[de:xxx]]" for the deutsch link. German Wikipedia bots edit its articles to backlink interwiki "en:" (within 5 hours); once "[[de:xxx]]" is added to an English article, the German article "xxx" is later bot-edited to backlink (with "en:") by various bots such as Alexbot or Grouchobot." -What does this mean? Do I have to put "[[de:xxx]]" at the bottom of my article in the english version? and replace the XXX with the name of the article I made in german version? For example: [[de:SGS Agricultural Services]]?? Did I get it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgssm (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - add that to the English version, and the bots should notice this and fix up the German version. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your help. I have already linked it to the english version. But I still have one problem. The page I created in german language has been proposed for deletion. What should I do? Sgssm (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to say the english version reads like a promotional page for the company and might well get nominated for deletion as well. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MilborneOne. Some examples are:

It may be appropriate somewhere in the article to mention the number of staff and the number of offices, but doing so in the WP:LEDE looks like promotional language
"a complete range of services" is peacock language. --ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue background?

Starting today, Wikipedia appears to have a blue background that stretches across part of every page. I've attached a screenshot depicting what I see. It's quite annoying; does anyone know how to get rid of it or what it is caused by? Thanks. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/FBUPt.png 174.63.29.45 (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly not a problem with Winkipedia. First thing to try is 'purge browser cache', second: reboot. ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for how to completely clear the cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared cache. Didn't change anything; this issue is specific to Chrome (tried Firefox and it was fine) it seems but I tried disabling all my extensions, full browsing history clear, etc. with no avail. Really odd. Anyone have any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.178.182.110 (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the problem in Chrome whether I'm logged in or out. If you completely cleared the cache under the Tools menu as described at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache#Google Chrome then I don't know what causes it. Does the blue disappear at any of these:

monobook has a different page layout. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm getting the same problem in Chrome (but Safari was fine). Clearing the cache did nothing, but the two "monobook" links above showed the normal white background. "Vector" links still had the blue bg. Is that enough information to know what's causing it and how to fix it permanently? It's quite hard to read at the moment! 98.218.23.245 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the cause or a general fix. It works for me in the current Google Chrome 18.0.1025.142 on Windows Vista. It also worked in 17.0.963.83 before I updated during this discussion. And it works in Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera. Which Chrome version and operating system do you have? You can change individual pages to monobook by adding ?useskin=monobook to the url, but it's not preserved when you change page. Registered users can change their skin permanently to MonoBook or other options at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. The default skin changed from MonoBook to Vector in 2010. Unregistered users always see the default skin unless they have ?useskin= in the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the most current Chrome (18.0.1025.142 as you have above) but on a Mac: OS X 10.6.8 to be specific. The blue background started just a couple days ago and wasn't associated with any software or other update on my end that I know of. Just now I did a complete software update to see if that changed anything but it's still the same, blue for no discernible reason. Googling the problem brought me to this webpage: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113711 . I'm afraid I can't make heads or tails of the coding discussion there but perhaps it will be helpful to someone here? Thank you to everyone who is spending time on this! 98.218.23.245 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I can now reproduce the problem in Chrome by changing the Zoom level to below 100%. Zoom can be changed up and down with Ctrl++ and Ctrl+-. It's reset to 100% with Ctrl+0. Zoom can also be changed by scrolling the mouse wheel while Ctrl is pressed down. Some people do this accidentally. Do you have Zoom below 100%? If so, is it on purpose? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP here (174.63.29.45 and 32.178.182.110 although my IP changes a lot). Bypassing cache etc. also did not work, but the monobook skin did. I'm also on OSX with this problem starting a few days ago. I purposely have my zoom at 67% or 75% usually just because I have a small monitor, and a small zoom let's me see a lot more information on it at once. I'm guessing due to the recent nature of the problem and the fact that it only exists in Chrome/OSX at small zoom, that it was a recent change in how Chrome renders zoomed vectorized images causing this. For now I suppose I'll just use Wikipedia at 100% zoom, as the blue background is surprisingly very annoying. Thanks for your help with diagnosis! 18.202.1.190 (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bug isn't OSX specific but just Chrome specific and caused by Wikipedia's attempt to be compatible with IE (sigh..). Detailed explanation for those curious can be seen in reply 21 here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?can=2&start=0&num=100&q=&id=113711#makechanges 18.202.1.190 (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under Windows XP, either Monobook or Vector, Chrome 17.0.963.83 was fine at all zoom levels. Chrome 18.0.1025.142 is fine at normal zoom Ctrl+0 or any level of Ctrl++, but shows the blue background fault at all levels of Ctrl+-. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:34551 has been closed with this post by User:Edokter:

"This is a Chrome bug introduced in Chrome 18. There is nothing wrong with the CSS, as any permutation of the CSS rule results in the bug being displayed. In essense, Chrome seems to ignore or mis-interpret the repeat-x/y attributes when the zoom level is below 100%. Short term fix: use 100% zoom level. There is nothing we can do about it, so I'm closing this as INVALID."

PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with images

When I click on an image, it actually opens in a new page. and when I again click on it to see its full view/resolution...it opens in a dark background. Because of this the black colour text is not visible... see this link.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Wikimedia-servers-2010-12-28.svg/2000px-Wikimedia-servers-2010-12-28.svg.png

Check the legends at the bottom of this page.. This not only happens for this image only, but for many images... Correct it soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram.aeropsn (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but I do know the next question to ask: what is your browser name and version? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That image has a "clear" background -- you must have your default background set to black, therefore the black text cannot be seen. (It looks fine with my default white background.

Depending on your browser, the background color setting might be in the browser's options, or it could be a Windows 'Appearance' setting, or it could be (most likely) a non-default browser 'skin'. ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suddenly noticing this effect when viewing clear-background image pages as well. Either there's been a change in the default in Wikipedia's Vector skin in a recent update to Firefox (I'm using v11.0 on OS X). DMacks (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does original research apply to images? WP:OI

File:Alemannic-Dialects-Map-English.png is very interesting, but it is very vague about its sources and cites lots of examples. Is this synthesis of existing arguments/data, or Original Research? --Qu e ntin Smith 09:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't have the answer, but I'd suggest the principle problem with the image is it says its sources were German Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia cannot be used a source, it should be referencing the original source(s). Whether it is synthesis rather depends on whether it's saying something the original sources (whatever they were) don't. You'd either need to read German or know the subject to determine that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

doi pointing to jstor

In a specific reference there is a doi and a JSTOR link. The doi however points to the JSTOR page, thus both links point to the same page. Should I keep the doi or the JSTOR link? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think keep the doi. It's the intrinsic identifier of the article itself, not an identifier for the article in the collection of a certain provider. The doi is more useful for others to use when locating the article (bibliographic data other than just as a clickable link) and in the future the publisher could move it to some other provider. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent Wikipedia Signpost issue is empty

Why is the latest issue of Wikipedia Signpost, http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog/?p=555 (or http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog/), empty?

(However, Wikipedia Signpost (showing the last issue?) seems to have the expected content).

--Mortense (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The About page says it's maintained by HaeB so I would ask at User talk:HaeB. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I enable automatic categorization of tagged pages?

I created Template:Stub redirect (see the section 'proposed redirect' above from March 27, where the template was requested). How can I achieve that tagged pages get automatically added to a category like Category:Articles to be redirected from March 2012 the same way as Template:Merge to adds tagged pages to something like Category:Articles to be merged from November 2011? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work now. If you test it then note that the template must be in mainspace. This is automatically tested before placing the page in "Category:Articles ...". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. I don't have a page to test this right now, so I'll have to wait until I come across one where this would be appropriate. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can just preview. Categories are shown on preview. You can also use Special:ExpandTemplates to see the generated code on a given page. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the template markup and now everything seems to work as intended. Special:ExpandTemplates is a really nice feature I was unaware of until now. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much "notability" does a biography subject need?

I'd like to create an article about a cartoonist who has worked for several decades and whose work has been featured in local and national newspapers and magazines, such as the New Yorker, USA Today, Good Housekeeping, etc. He has won many awards for his cartoons over the years, especially from the Maryland Delaware DC Press Association.

He is in his early 60s and will be retiring soon, not from cartooning, but from a side job he has held for many years. I'm sure he will continue to create his wonderful cartoons for as long as he can and I believe he has earned a Wikipedia article that acknowledges his contribution to the cartooning industry.

Since he is not exactly a household name, I am concerned about notability issues. Will there be a problem with this article being accepted?

Thank you. Teresar WV (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:BIO help?--ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what ukexpat has said, I feel you can create an article on him (what is the name of the cartoonist)? After starting the article, you can send me the article URL in my talk page, I'll add the article in my watchlist and will try to contribute in that article too (if you need). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in:

The fact that he has worked for several decades doesn't imply notability.
The fact that his work has appeared (note "appeared" has a different meaning than "featured", which would mean the publication has devoted special attention or prominence to his work) may imply some notability. On the other hand, if I got a letter-to-the-editor published in several newspapers and magazines, would that make me notable? Being published doesn't necessarily imply notability.
Winning several awards of national or regional scope would work though.
And of course, if you can find reliable independent sources profiling him, that would help the most.

I suggest you draft the article in your own user space first. Just create an article User:Teresar WV/Cartoonist (replace "Cartoonist" with the man's name) and go from there. That way you can work on it at your leisure without worrying about it getting deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the list Amatulic offered. The most important one, IMO, is getting reliable independent sources. Also, the section on Creative people in WP:BIO talks about how he has influenced others. If he has, and this can be documented, it certainly is a contributing factor toward notability. --Tim Sabin (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few you may was to browse for ideas: Category:Canadian cartoonists--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that you cannot use other articles within Wikipedia to provide sufficient notability. You may, however, use the references found there for your own article. --Tim Sabin (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, everyone, for your responses. I'm still in research mode about the person in question, so hopefully I'll have worthy material to post. Looking at many articles - especially about artists and cartoonists - confused me because there are biographies of people on Wikipedia that are only a small paragraph with no considerable accomplishments of any kind. I still believe this is worth continuing and will try to do my best to create an acceptable entry. Teresar WV (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that some articles "slip through the cracks". If they don't have any significant contributions, it may simply be that no one has looked closely at it. When someone, sometime does look at little closer, it may either get improved, or proposed for deletion.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia

How can I get started. I have information I would like to add — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladygolf (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a few links onto your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you wish to add? If it's a biographic article, see the section above on notability. If it's anything else, you still need to establish notability. Read up on things like "weasel words" and avoid their use. Stay away from fringe theories. --Tim Sabin (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to take other editors' comments with a grain of salt. Your best advice is in the wikipedia guidelines on your talk page. Most editors will advise and link to the guideline or policy they are advising on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details

Hi,

I have placed a request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. It has been there for over 24 hours without objection, but it has also not been responded to. Have I missed something? It is quite urgent that this is sorted out because the current wording is potentially misleading people about the nature of a community discussion, with consequent ill-informed opinions being expressed.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For future reference, on a request like this you might add an {{Edit protected}} request to the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. Maybe the need for {{Edit protected}} should be mentioned at the top of the page and/or on Wikipedia:Watchlist notices. Yaris678 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old username on talk pages and changing username again

Hi, I have a few questions concerning my username:

I usurped my current username about five years ago. I changed my username for privacy reasons. However, my old username (as part of my signature) still shows on various talk pages. I know as a general rule, old discussions are not to be edited (so I've been putting off what I am thinking to do). I would like to edit those signature to change the username part (yeah, it will still be in the pages history, but at least it doesn't show up on the current pages). Would this be allowed?
I am thinking of changing my username again for SUL purposes. Am I allowed to change my username again?
Is it possible to request that my current username to be "returned" to the original user after my name change?

Thanks!--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User name issues are handled by bureaucrats. Not sure how many regularly read this page. I'd suggest asking at the WP:BN or Wikipedia talk:Changing username--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

names of fields of profession or study - capital letter(s) or not?

Hi, I wonder about the right spelling (starting capital letter or not) in cases like:

He graduated in BIOPHYSICS from the Moscow Institute...
He studied MOLECULAR BIOPHYSICS...
He did research in MOLECULAR BIOPHYSICS under supervision of...

I did not find it in MoS. I suppose that if it is an official name of a study program at the particular university, then there is a capital letter. And in other cases? Galapah (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on Wikipedia we don't use all caps for emphasis; see WP:ALLCAPS. Bold and italics are used for emphasis. However, in your case here the fields of profession or study doesn't need any special treatment (normal small letters in sentence case will do); a link to the respective articles would suffice. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think if they are just fields of study it would be biophysics, if it were a named faculty it would be the Department of Biophysics at the Moscow Institute.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. (I used allcaps in order to avoid one of the possibilities.) The article on which I am working now is Edward Trifonov but I meant it as a general question as I think it should be added to the MoS.Galapah (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it is in the MoS. Joshua above linked to MOS:ALLCAPS, which is a subsection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, and I think they together provide clarity on this issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Brian Wigglesworth page

Hello, I noticed there is no image for Vincent Wigglesworth on his page. Portraits by photographer Antony Barrington Brown are going on display at the National Portrait Gallery in London, and a portrait of Dr. Wigglesworth is included.

Here is a link to the version on the NPG's website: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw216089/Sir-Vincent-Brian-Wigglesworth?LinkID=mp80918&role=sit&rNo=

I'm willing to volunteer to contact the Museum and ask permission to use the image and perhaps any others they would be willing to allow. I've never done that before but am willing to learn.

Thank you.

Cheers, Josie Babin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spingus (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. It seems the copyright is that of the photographer's estate. You could upload a small version under fair use guidelines without permission. You may wish to look for free content images first though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(note)This image has a creative commons licence with atribution:http://jeb.biologists.org/content/207/1/1/F8.expansion.html--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The JEB license for articles (I'm not sure that applies to this photo) is CC-BY-NC-SA, which is not free enough because of the NC. —teb728 t c 00:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Linking

Respected Sir/Ma'am

I have added few links of my website in the See also section on few wiki pages. These links are appropriate on the respective wiki pages.

I hope I'm not doing anything wrong.

Thanks

Dr Jaskeerat Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.103.39 (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure an Admin will tell you that links in the 'See also' section need to have established some degree of 'notability'. You should at least make a case in the 'Talk' page for the articles as to why you think your links belong there. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin but I will tell you that you should usually avoid indiscriminately adding links to articles, even if you think they are useful, unless they are serving to reference the text. This is even more important when you have a conflict of interest with the website. The see also section in an article should only be used for Wikipedia links to articles which are related to the subject. Some articles have an external links section, but these tend to be restricted to a few, where they are important (such as the official website of a football club). I'll review the links you added and let you know what I do in a moment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Jaskeerat Singh. I'm afraid I have removed the links from each of the pages you added them to for the reasons I posted above. There might have been scope to keep them as a reference; however, because they are blog posts, they do not pass Wikipedia's standards of reliable sourcing. Thanks for trying to help - if there are any areas of medicine which you could help improve, I would encourage you to do so. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say: If you disagree with my actions, feel free to start a discussion on the issue. I would suggest posting a comment on the talk pages of one of the articles. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translations within articles

I've been editing on WP for several years, but haven't ever come across these two related issues that I find perplexing. I'm editing the article Wen Miao (Taiwan Confucian Temple: Tainan Kong Miao) (really just trying to add sections to it). First, it translates all years into another calendar style (for example: "It was established in 1665 (19 years Yong Li)." This is done about four times in the article.

Second, much of the article is written using Chinese terms, then translates them into English. For example: "The Wen Chang Ci (scholars’ shrine) and the Tu Di Ci (land’s shrine) were built inside of the Ling Xing Men (a big gate)." I haven't counted, but this is done at least 70 to 100 times in the article, sometimes three or four times within the same sentence.

Are either of these styles acceptable? Thanks in advance for any assistance. JimVC3 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few of the names beside dates. One seems to match close. 1665 (19 years Yong Li), is 20yr after the death of a similar name Li Zicheng. In 1684 (23 years Kang Xi) seems to not relate to a birth or death.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(note) It was 23 years into his reign.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about the subject at Taiwan Confucian Temple.--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is one of those 'merge' templates in order then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Joshua. The articles are substantially the same. I'd recommend deleting the one I'm working on rather than attempting a merge and will tag it. Thanks for the help. JimVC3 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adding external links

We are a 60-year old non-profit archives with online published finding aids on people and institutions covered by Wikipedia. We wanted to add external links to these finding aids, but received a threat that we may be blacklisted for spamming. The links do not go to our homepage, but directly to the finding aid where detailed inventories of collection material on that person or institution can be researched. Are we able to add such links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyn Pederson (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think threats are a no-no on wikipedia. You may have to discuss adding the links on each of the talk pages for the articles. If you get consenus or no response, you should be able to add them. If it is a good database I doubt it would be blacklisted. IMBD is used extensively, is not recommended as reliable; but it is not blacklisted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For greater clarity for other editors, the archive spoken of, appears to be onearchives. It appears notable enough to have it's own WP article.ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives --Aspro (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikitables

Hello, I would like to ask how to you get a "Wikitable" next to another one. For example in this article, in the charts and certifications section, the certifications wikitable is placed next to the charts table but in this article the certifications are under the charts table. How can I place them side by side? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWETrishMickiefan (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's function of between these nowiki tags, which you can see spaced ordinarily in edit mode: ==Section== {{col-begin}} {{col-2}} ===Subsection 1=== {| class="wikitable sortable" |- |} {{col-2}} ===Subsection 2=== {| class="wikitable" |- |} {{col-end}} .

Just add additional tables next to the others for spacing, if desired, and drop the nowiki tags. Dru of Id (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Charter Study Commission

Finding the right place for this comment is too time consuming...........but your firt line says that only those under a Faulkner Form of Government can use the Charter Study option to change their form...........very wrong. Any form of government can use the Charter Study Option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.170.37 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to, Charter Study Commission? —teb728 t c 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, the best place to discuss questions about it is Talk:Charter Study Commission. --ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time format

I am trying to locate a Wiki policy on how to present the time in an article, 5PM,1700, 5'o'clock etc.

I believe the guideline you are looking for is MOS:TIME. —teb728 t c 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]