Help desk
< December 25	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 27 >

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.

December 26

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Women and Music

Dear editors: The above abandoned Afc submission contains a lot of interesting information, but needs some editing for tone by someone familiar with the subject. I know that there has been discussion about the acceptance of articles of the type X in Y, even if X and Y are both notable. Should this article be improved and added to the encyclopedia? If so, can someone suggest which Wikiproject I should notify to find someone to work on it? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to only be about African-American female musicians in the 20th century. That's more like X and Y in Z and W, a lot of intersections and maybe not a good idea. You might ask for interested editors at Talk:African-American music and not just a WikiProject. Maybe some content could be merged there. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word "Black" needs to disappear from the title. It really is ONLY about African Americans, not about "black" women everywhere. The writer seems confused about what "21st millennium" means. And it's really only about popular music (of the vagarious times covered). Doesn't seem to mention any classical musicians or composers. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a user space draft move directly to AfC. It appears to have been written in furtherance of Wikipedia:School and university projects/Black Women in Contemporary Times. There is a lot of sourced information in the draft article. If someone else agrees, I would be happy to move the AfC article to something like African American female popular music entertainers in the 20th century and then list it at AfD to see whether it is of a type of article consensus would keep. That is a lot of intersection, but perhaps someone at AfD will have a good idea on how best use the information. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title seems reasonable to me. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gaski Ango

Samuel Gaski Ango, a native of Dabai district of Zuru local government area in Kebbi State, Nigeria, is a retired Major General, diplomat and public servant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosposky500 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC) He was born on the 28th February 1949 in Zuru.[reply]

Thank you. What is the help you need about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Categories of "Filmed Deaths" and "Filmed Accidental Deaths"

It strikes me as a bit redundant to have these two categories, when they would all fall under the umbrella of "filmed deaths". Is there really a need to have two categories that essentially cover the same topic? 67.137.68.210 (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filmed accidental deaths seems a reasonable category and likely meets Wikipedia:Categorization. There appears to be many articles that include information about filmed deaths. Category:Filmed deaths is further divided into accidental and on purpose (assassination, execution, suicides, etc.). There should be a somewhat parallel category scheme between Category:Deaths and Category:Filmed deaths. We have Category:Accidental deaths, so it seems reasonable to have Category:Filmed accidental deaths, particularly given all the articles already listed under Category:Filmed accidental deaths. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cerys Cooksammy-Parnell

Hello, Wikipedia,

My daughter, Cerys Cooksammy-Parnell, as you are probably aware had a Wikipedia page. We are now unable to find the page. We have assumed you have deleted it and we are just curious as to know why and if it could be possible to put it back up again.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.218.227 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerys Cooksammy-Parnell. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for having a stand-alone article about a subject are that multiple reliably published sources have covered the subject in a more than passing manner and for living people, that the coverage extends beyond a single event. The article about your daughter was deleted because it did not meet those criteria.

Note that as someone who is closely related to the subject of the article you and your family have an inherent conflict of interest about the subject and need to limit the methods and participation about the subject . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying Book Sources

I have no access to many of these sources; how do I actually find out whether or not this citation is actually legitimate? Some articles cite book sources that I cannot examine. Dustin talk 18:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the core of WP:AGF: we begin by assuming the reference is legit, unless the claim is extraordinary or there is solid reason to challenge. (I assume you've tried Google Books and the like?) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize library services have been cut in many countries, but I assume you can still access one if you really need to? Arjayay (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is a possibility. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wasn't sure what I should do, because this one article seemed to be going mostly off of one source, (which in itself, is already an issue,) and I couldn't even access it because it was a book source from a book that was evidently written in the early 1900s. Thank you for the response. Dustin talk 15:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Message..I just wrote to.. RonHJones

Why on Earth,do you keep deleting my pages?Even when i start a new page,you delete it,Why?These are my past Pages Username: Catwoman125mom Username: DonncarchrMH2000 Username: Marandalaw10 Username: 2012marandalaw Username: GiftedOne(USA)

Can Someone Please Find Out The Answers to My Question?I did not Log Onto this Website,To be Cyber Bullied..Thank You GiftedOne(USA) 19:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiftedOne(USA) (talk • contribs)

Did you (based on similarity of user names) also previously edit as user:Marandalaw59? RJFJR (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its highly likely that they were deleted because they did not meet the Wikipedia requirements for pages. If you are writing articles, the basic requirements re here and if you are talking about your user pages, the basic requirements are here. Note that any page that is overly promotional is subject to immediate deletion as per here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pretty clearly it was an attack page. Having seen the content, I'm astounded at your complaint of "cyberbullying'. Dloh cierekim 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was Audrey Hepburn

DFTT

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please tell me if actress Audrey Hepburn was saved by Jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Kenworthy (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask her, or him. This page is for asking questions about how to edit Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 19:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't save her. She died of cancer in 1993.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 October 24#Was Actress Audrey Hepburn Saved By Jesus?. Deor (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratchout

How do you write Scratch out? 64.92.53.159 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "strike-out": <s> text </s> gives result: ~~text~~ ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How and where to post this?

I tried last night and got confused so I'm turning to an expert on the liner.

Content titled: Universal Containment, Creation, and Projection

Decompression of any chemical inside a vacuum field. Think about:

Shape of the vacuum.
Decompression material used(think of a box inside a box that pulls apart a chemical in another box).
Chemical or compound stretched.
Connecting weaves of different chemicals.

Systematic containment of energy in unstable space of decompressed chemical(s) to stabilize.

For comparison think of an electron as our sun and the materials in the gravitational pull as stabilizing agents.
Think large and small scale: Sun could be a contained nuclear reaction or could be a quark as long as a ratio between gravimetric effects stay constant in relation to the velocity, weight, and distance.

After stabilization of initial energies add moon for planetary stabilization then use the moon as a solar projection addition of a circular "map" growth resonant wave.

Think of energy that moves in circles to store choices, thoughts, actions, of every biological movement.
Gives different beings the ability to input variables to measure statistical movements in correlation with the initial bacteria.

Add bacteria to stabilize or contain map to the planet and watch it grow.

Infinite circles each containing a single bacteria's variables surrounding it.
Think of infinite biological connections.

These four concepts or theories relate to the big bang because you have an initial energy input and also can relate to string theory because you can look at photons as strings of energy that can store resonant waves holding any type of information. If and only if you become advance enough.

Also how do you send this message and not save it? Mbauernfeind (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this information backed up by a source and you want to create or add to an article, or is it your own thoughts? Samwalton9 (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Universal Containment, Creation, and Projection — (wp:or) ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic stub

How is an academic stub converted into a regular Wikipedia article?

22:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)22:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Peretzfbis (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A stub of any sort is merely a very short Wikipedia article. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and it is made no longer a "stub" by the addition of content from third party reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help fixing the archiving at Talk:Apartheid

I was wondering if anyone was willing to take on fixing the archives of the talk pages of Apartheid. I closed a requested move recently from "Apartheid in South Africa" → Apartheid, and, as part of that move, noticed the screwed up archives.

First, the archive notice at Talk:Apartheid only lists 4 archives, which go through July 2005. However, I believe there is an unbroken chain of archives in existence, continuing through 2009, at the page titles: Talk:Apartheid/Archive5 and Talk:Apartheid/Archive6. Note the lack of space between "5" and "6" before "Archive", unlike the four listed at the talk page archive notice which have a space in the title before the numerals. I believe there has been no archiving from the end of Archive 6 (from 2009), through today, despite that the current talk page posts are all from 2013. I have always avoided playing around with archiving and am not sure how to get the bot to take over, even if I fixed it.

I suppose, though I am not sure, that what needs to be done is checking whether 1 through 6 is relatively unbroken; moving archives 5 and 6 to the same titling as 1 through 4, then creating the missing archives from 2009 through 2013, then fixing the talk page to list them all, and setting up the archiving template properly for the bot to smoothly continue in the future.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually, the talk page has posts from 2010, so maybe there isn't as much of a gap as I thought; I was fooled by the fact that the last post to the top thread on the talk page was added in 2013.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually links to those archives, and some others, in an infobox on the right side of the page, separate from the four archives that the talk header picks up. Unfortunately the infobox is so placed that the contents is INSIDE it, and the real content of the box is just BELOW the table of contents. I'm not sure how this should be adjusted, currently the links are there, but not at all easy for soemnone to notice. DES ^(talk) 23:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved archived 5 and 6. Several that seem to be subsequent to 6 are at Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era/Archive 1, Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era/Archive 2, etc. I am not sure if these should be moved -- probably they should, to Talk:Apartheid/Archive 7 and subsequent numbers. DES ^(talk) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes! I saw the first archive links and didn't look further on the page. Thanks for responding. I just purged the page cache and your move of the archives to the standard name made five and six appear in the talk header template, so now that discontinuity is fixed. I just realized there's a seven, moved that there as well, and it's also now showing. Now that I'm looking at it more closely with these fixes, it looks like the only gap between the last archive and the current page is 16 revisions between October 8, 2009 (apparent last post in archive 7) and January 4, 2010 (apparent first post on current page). I'm leaving it alone now--I overstated the problem by quite a bit. I do think it would be good if someone would set up the bot though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]