Help desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

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 5

Google Earth kmz file reference

Hi there,

I'm trying to reference some legal suvey data - specifically a pipeline right of way for the Ibex Valley article. I can see where it is using the Canada Land Survey System overlay (.kmz) in Google Earth. I got the kmz file from the CLSS website. Is this a referencable source? I can't find anything decent that is on their website (I imagine because they have this overlay, but I don't really know).

Its a bit convoluted, (i.e. you have to have Google Earth which is free and then you have to download the kmz file, which is also free and public information as it is on the government website) but it all seems like public info from a reputable source to me. Any advice? Thanks --JonGDixon (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this one, but you might be slightly ahead of the technological curve in terms of sourcing on Wikipedia. Does the file have any sort of identifier or unique reference #? It's something we'll have to think about as more data becomes accessed as discrete elements within databases, rather than traditional documents. The problem I see is that the overlay layer is just an element of a source, not the whole thing. Are there any other possibilities for sourcing the location of the pipeline? The Interior (Talk) 05:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I will continue digging. The kicker is that each parcel of survey is numbered uniquely, but searching their site with those numbers yields no results! Damn gov sites! By the way, is there something I can put there to note that I know I need a reference for it, and am searching so that someone doesn't come along and delete my unreferenced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonGDixon (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on how long it's going to take you, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. If another editor challenges/removes it, it can be re-added when you have your reference together. To be proper, you could just add the {{cn}} "citation needed" tag to the content. The Interior (Talk) 06:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear about it, but this sounds to me like a primary source. Wikipedia references are supposed to be secondary sources, where somebody has written about the information from a primary source. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Colin, maybe I will try out the local newpapers. Maybe this will even give me a chance to and check out our new library! Thanks for tips folks, I will keep working on it. --JonGDixon (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone else is interested, but I did find this: Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles. I think that for this application, the NLSS maps are acceptable for showing the pipeline right of way as there is no interpetation of the data, even though it is a primary source. That being said, I will try to find some more references, as the article also notes that it is preferable to reference more than just a map. Note that I'm using the overlay .kmz file as a map - this may or may not be a correct assumption though. Playing devil's advocate in my head, I can argue it both ways. Nothing's ever easy I suppose. Colin, thanks for your help, this exercise has helped me to better understand wikipedia's policies about sources.--JonGDixon (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the above - so I just revisted the above link and discovered that it is indeed an essay and not a policy (although it is in the See Also section of Wikipedia:No original research, which is a policy). Sorry for the confusion and the edit spamming. I am going to try the geography project, to see if they have any thoughts about it. Again, thanks for the help. If it isn't already obvious, I'm pretty new here and still learning the ropes. Thanks for the help and patience. --JonGDixon (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, just to clarify - secondary sources are required when any interpretation is involved. However, there are many cases where primary sources are appropriate. Referencing hard data - such as elevations, co-ordinates, distances, etc. in geography articles can be done with reliable primary sources. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." from policy page WP:OR. It's preferable to find a secondary source for this data, but if not possible, a primary can be used. The Interior (Talk) 16:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI for anyone out there, I've posted this question to the Geography project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography#Google Earth .kmz file reference. Thanks for the help.--JonGDixon (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the recent work with KML/KMZ going on at WP:HWY and WP:GEO, it may make sense to work something into {{cite map}} for handling KMLs as references. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Baker's Drumming - How to add info

Hi. I have tried to add info to the article on the song "Sunshine of Your Love." Maybe I have not done the sources correctly, but the info is good and interesting. I will try to do the footnotes better in the future, but please take my info. I am an expert. People will like this info. People will add to it. Am I sending a question or adding to the article here? Yish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbuktom (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for experts, Wikipedia does not accept the unpublished personal knowledge of experts. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability by reference to reliable sources. Experts don’t like it; but that’s the policy here. So if you want to say that Baker’s drumming on the song is unusual, you need a published reliable source that says so in so many words. It is not enough to conclude that by combining the usual drum pattern and your observation that the performance does not conform to that pattern. Sorry. —teb728 t c 05:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking explanation and some assistance

I am new to editing Wikipedia. On January 7, 2012, I added a paragraph to "low level laser therapy" that discussed the FDA clearances that Erchonia Medical had obtained pursuant to randomized, double blind clinical trials with placebo control. This is the history log entry when I added this accurate paragraph. 11:05, 7 January 2012‎ Lesisko (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,208 bytes) (+625)‎

I recently discovered that on January 12, somebody removed the paragraph that I added regarding Erchonia's FDA clearances. This same person, added paragraphs regarding quackwatch.com and a cigna study. This is the wiki entry for these changes: 17:30, 12 January 2012‎ Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,644 bytes)

My questions: why was my paragraph deleted? what do i have to do the next time so it is remains in place? I have copies of the FDA clearances that I can provide. Or is it enough to cite the FDA clearance number which is easily verifiable in the FDA's online database? I intend to expand the discussion of the research and published articles about low level lasers and want to make sure i reference them in a manner acceptable to wikipedia. 2nd question: How do i complain about the quackwatch and cigna paragraphs? Neither belong for reasons i intend to explain. Please tell me the correct procedure to do this. Thank you.24.94.67.24 (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Roger (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie reverted not only you but the editor before you, who added the paragraph about lasar generally and deleted the paragraph about the Quackwatch. (The Cigna paragraph has been there all along since August 2010.) Ohnoitsjamie did not explain his reversion, but I would guess that he deleted the lasar paragraph because it was unneeded in the article, deleted your paragraph because it was unsourced (and maybe a little promotional), and restored the Quackwatch paragraph because it is sourced. —teb728 t c 07:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help moving article from sandbox to main space

I just tried to move an article from my sandbox into main Wikipedia using the new title William Newport Goodell, but all I seem to have done is create another sandbox called William Newport Goodell. Now I don't know what to do. Thanks for any guidance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:William_Newport_Goodell 98.155.80.91 (talk)

98.155.80.91 (talk)

Hi, I've moved it for you. Thanks for a nice new article. The problem was that only registered accounts can create pages in the article space. Consider registering! The Interior (Talk) 06:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now located at: William Newport Goodell. You should consider nominating your article for our Did you know column. The Interior (Talk) 06:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new - help

Hey there, I'm the new kid on the block. I've decided to try out editing a little, but the problem is that I'm no article-writer. Is there any behind the scenes work that I can do? Thank you. (Isn't this how you sign?) YumYamNam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome YumYumNam. There's tons of things to do besides article writing. Check out the Backlog for some ideas: WP:BACKLOG. What would you like to do? The Interior (Talk) 06:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge lot of work to be done besides writing articles, simple things like fixing typos, grammar and layout errors, categorising articles, reverting vandalism, finding and citing sources for unreferenced content, etc take up the majority of my time here. See WP:GNOME. Welcome to Wikipedia! Roger (talk)

Paul Newman/marriage & family

There is an inconsistent list of information. Under the marriage topic there are three children listed for Paul and Joanne Woodward. There's Elinor b. 1959, Melissa b. 1961, and Claire b. 1965.

In the little blue panel box on the right side...the box with fast reference information it lists three children, but the names & dates do not match the first list. The panel list has Nell b. 1959 (Nell is Elinor) then Melanie b. 1960, and then Melissa b. 1961.

I don't know the correct answer so I can't edit this....perhaps there is someone who can check this out.

One other thing....Jackie White is listed as being married to Paul as 1949-1958...but later in this same paragraph it is noted that the two divorced in 1957. Since Paul remarried in 1958 it might be wise to correct this. Thank-you.173.190.187.181 (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody can sort this right away, you could leave a comment at Talk:Paul Newman. That way, people interested in editing or improving the article will eventually read about this problem and maybe try and fix it. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Draft article

Dear reviewer, I don´t understand why my article draft is turned down for the second time. The intermation of the article is taken from the respective journal´s homepage. Do you want me to include this information in a footnote? I would like to have a more detailled suggestion how to improve the article. Thanks in advance!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jahrbuch für Geschichte Lateinamerikas

Jalas.es (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is mainly that your draft does not indicate why the subject is notable and also does not cite any sources. You particularly need to add material from independent sources (not the journal itself) to establish notability. Roger (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upload a picture

How shall i upload a photo of bird that i ve taken ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fur elise (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading pictures and let us know when you need more help. -194.60.106.17 (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Sharon

On the English Wiki site his birthdate is 26.2.1928 but on the jewishvirtuallibrary site and on the Danish Wiki site it is 27.2.1928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.52.185 (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search (26 OR 27) February 1928 "Ariel Sharon" finds lots of sources for both dates. I don't know which is right. http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=125 says 26/02/1928. It also said that date in 2004 [1] when he was still active and Prime Minister. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably caused by confusion between Hebrew and Gregorian calendars as Hebrew runs sunset (don't quibble) to sunset. If he were born in the evening, he would have the Hebrew calendar birth date associated with the following day, and someone looks up a Hebrew calendar date and doesn't understand that it could be one of two English calendar dates and says the wrong one ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winning by endurance

Does Wikipedia have a process for handling editors who get their way by outlasting all those who disagree?

I recently returned to editing at Metrication in the United Kingdom. One editor there has posted far more in discussions at Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom than probably everyone else combined. I find his arguments often illogical, ill-informed and dishonest, but that's not really the point. He seems able to post many times a day without fail, without pause, without interruption. By always being there he succeeds in getting his way in the article while other editors come and go.

So, does Wikipedia have any processes to stop someone who has more time on his hands than anyone else winning a fight by wearing everyone else into the ground? It does not lead to good encyclopaedic content. It does not lead to consensual discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? It's a good overview of the options available. Serious misbehaviour can be published by blocking a user or banning them from editing some or articles. If you're concerned about a specific user repeatedly editing articles against the general consensus or against Wikipedia policy, you can post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You could also ask for the article to be protected if it is being vandalised, edit-warred, or otherwise disrupted (see Wikipedia:Protection policy). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make it clear above that this isn't just a simple dispute between me and another editor. It's about an editor who has far more time on his hands to push his perspective than those with different perspectives. It's about the bias in Wikipedia caused by someone trying to own an article by persistence, and effectively succeeding. Maybe my comments above were a bit narrow where I expressed my frustration over that particular editor. It's really an issue for all of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a specific issue you wish to discuss, you should take it to dispute resolution. If you don't, why does it matter that someone edits more frequently than others? Having someone intimately familiar with the topic area there to provide commentary and advice would seem like a good thing to me. --N Y Kevin @150, i.e. 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't looked at the Talk page, have you? HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have. My answer is still the same. If you want to talk about the correctness of this user, you need to take it to a neutral forum. I'm not going to unilaterally say "he's wrong" for you. --N Y Kevin @790, i.e. 17:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the point. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for missing the point (side note:civility is a virtue). What is the point, exactly? All I can see is that you disagree with another user (which should be resolved via DR). What else can I help you with? --N Y Kevin @852, i.e. 19:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A place to ask for help improving language

Do we have a forum where contributors can ask for help in writing better English by providing specific sentences that they want comments and suggestions about? __meco (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider WP:GOCE.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) People often use the Language reference desk for that purpose but it's not intended to be flooded with questions by a single person solely for that purpose. Dismas|^(talk) 11:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both responses seem relevant to my inquiry. __meco (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding image copyright

Hello, I'm very confused about how to acceptably insert images in Wikipedia pages I'm editing. Specifically, I have inserted 2 images on artist Bill Drummond's page, and I would like to add an image or two on a related page 'The17'. Firstly, on Drummond's own websites, he offers the images I use to anyone for downloading, printing or any other purpose as long as he is acknowledged as the creator (a belief in the free use of creative work is part of his artistic practice). Secondly though, to be sure when I began editing on Wikipedia, I contacted Drummond directly to ask if he was happy for me to use the images for this purpose; he responded that he was very happy. This however, does not tick the box that the "copyrighter is willing for the image to be used for Wikipedia only" because he is happy for the images to be used in other ways too. In short, how can I most appropriately define the copyright status for these images? Many thanks. Katrinacrear (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at File:Thomas Ecke photo of Bill Drummond.jpg, you seem to have tagged it that you are the copyright holder, but from what you say above that isn't true. File:The17 Choir, Poster 59, Bill Drummond.pdf has been tagged for deletion from commons. It therefore sounds as if both need addressing. It may be handy if you provide a url for where on the Drummond website it gives the permissions, then one of the experts on copyright can look and advise you. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing copyrighted material or vandalism

Resolved

– Removing user directed to WP:CPI. If they don't respond, make a decision at the article's talk page. --N Y Kevin @199, i.e. 03:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit removed a large part of the List of file signatures article and added a link to a pay website. The editor claims it is a copyright violation of his list that is hidden behind his paywall. Since he offers no evidence apart from his edit summary and his external link, how can we be sure his claim is true and not just vandalism designed to drive people to his website? Astronaut (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to verify a copyvio is for the alleged copyright owner to follow the process set out at Wikipedia:COPYVIO#Information for copyright owners.--ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have told the remover as much, although I linked to WP:CPI. --N Y Kevin @199, i.e. 03:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct kerning when using a quote in a citation

Ok, let's say we're adding a citation with a quote within a quote. Since the {cite web} template automatically adds double quotes around your quotation, is there any way to get the right kerning – a little gap between the " and subsequent ' ? Also, is there a way to type {cite web} with the actual double brackets so that it doesn't transform into a real citation. Tried the code thing; didn't work. Thanks. Vranak (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your second question, use <nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki> to get {{cite web}} - David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try a thin space:   You can escape templates using {{tl}}; example: {{tl|cite web}} gives {{cite web}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You could use {{tl|cite web}} to get a helpful link like {{cite web}}. As for the kerning, I can think of one way to do this, but it is a 2-stage process. Remember that templates are just a handy way of dropping common bits of markup into a page. You can use {{subst:template_name}} to force Wikipedia to expand out the template's markup before storing the page. You can then edit it again to modify what the template has created for you, and make it do anything extra you need it to. All a bit long winded to get a bit of space and many templates are very complex, using templates within templates, within ... Maybe there's a better way that someone else will mention. Astronaut (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't subst a citation template, as it will generate an enormous amount of markup. If this is referring to Toilet paper reference #4, then I have to question the need for the quotation in the first palce. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, templates should not be subst'd under normal circumstances (unless the template itself imposes it on you). I'm simply suggesting that subst'ing can be used as a mechanism to tweak the template output to your exact needs, but note it does come with the possibility of adding a lot of extra and complex markup. Perhaps you should mess about with the technique in a sandbox first. Astronaut (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place I can read about when to include a quote, and when not to? (Also, thanks – the   worked well.) Vranak (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:QUOTE seems a good place to start - it's got sections on recommended usage and how to notice and avoid overusage. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)+[reply]

How do I create a new user sub-category

Currently there is a category named Category:Wikipedians by computing or engineering organization. It now has only two subcats named Category:Wikipedians in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers‎ and Category:Wikipedians in the Institution of Engineering and Technology‎.

I want to create one more subcat, named Wikipedians in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. How do I do that? I placed the coding [[Category:Wikipedians in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers]] at the bottom of my user page (where my other categories are), but all I got was a red link instead of a blue link. How do I create the new user subcat that I want? Step-by-step, please .... or just do it for me if you can. Thanks, mbeychok (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like any other page, if you click on the red link that's now on the bottom of your user page, you can put some text in there explaining what the category is for. You can use the IEEE category as an example. Your page is categorized there, though; a category doesn't have to be blue-linked for pages to be placed inside it. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category for you, basing it on the IEEE category as Hersfold suggested. If you click on the now-blue category and click Edit, you can see what I entered. If you can improve it, be bold. —teb728 t c 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold and teb728, thanks very much to both of you. mbeychok (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ralph McQuarrie should be "In the news"

Hello, My name is Toph Gorham and I am a concept artist in the video game industry. This last Saturday March 3rd, Ralph McQuarrie passed away at the age of 82. Ralph McQuarrie was the production artist that defined the original Star Wars trilogy, and I doubt anyone who loves Star Wars would disagree. I know that he was a very important figure in the art, film and video game development community. He was one of the most important inspirations for most of us, and I am very saddened to see that his memory has not been honored on your front page in the "In the news" section. I love Wikipedia, and it is my home page in my browser. Wikipedia is the first thing I see on the internet every morning, and that is why it is very important to me that Ralph McQuarrie be featured prominently in the news of these days. Could you please feature the news of his death? Thank you so much in advance for correcting this oversight.

TOph Gorham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.154.155 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toph. In The News stories are discussed at WP:ITN/C. McQuarrie's death has been suggested there, but it doesn't look likely that it will gain a consensus for inclusion. Obviously, he made a big contribution to his field, but I think that people are not in favour of posting the news because it was not a shock (due to his age) and because ITN is very selective about reporting deaths. --FormerIP (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user above meant to post a link to the criteria rather than candidate page. Anyway, see WP:ITN/DC as well as Wikipedia:In the news/Death criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

need an article on macarthur scale of subjective socioeconomic status

I cannot find a simple definition... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.185.228 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might very well be a worthy topic for an article, but no one has written it yet. There are many gaps in Wikipedia's coverage despite our vast catalogue. Subject are written by volunteers who are interested in a subject; there is no central authority determining what to write about. In any event, you can read about this subject here which a Google search found very quickly. I suggest when doing such a search use just "MacArthur Scale" as your term (note the quotation marks), which is specific enough to capture generally only links on this subject, but not so specific that it will miss entries that do not use the full name you provided or alternate names (in fact, the common name appears to be MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]