Help desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 29 >

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.

October 28

Notability for railway stations

What is the notability guideline for railway stations? Is it under NGEO, or is it in the subdivision of artificial features related to infrastructure? An example is Nanatsuya Station. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DatGuy, have you seen RAILOUTCOMES? Thanks. Lourdes 16:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Thanks, that's great help. However, what do they mean by "usually". I don't really like that type of uncertainty. It doesn't really tell me how to determine if it is notable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) gives some more details, although it is an essay. And usually simply means what it means. You just have to go by our standard notability measures to determine notability, at the same time keeping in mind that !voters at Afds tend not to delete such articles even if reliable sources are not readily available. Lourdes 16:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings in infobox images of people

Gerald Scarfe brought this to mind. What's the guideline on using drawings (amateur or otherwise) of people in the infobox for the article about them? †Dismas†|^(talk) 19:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For people from the past when no photos are available they are used quite commonly. Ruslik_Zero 20:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah. But Scarfe is still alive today. Many years after the invention of the camera. †Dismas†|^(talk) 21:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the metadata to that drawing, but I am guessing that it is a self-portrait. I think that, in the case of an editorial cartoonist, a self-portrait is even better than a photograph would be, because it not only shows the subject but shows the subject's work. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article or user page?

Hi everyone,
by random search, I found a strange page that I can't figure out. This looks like a regular Wikipedia article. And I don't think I would even have gotten there by random search if it wasn't a regular article, would I?
The corresponding talk page however looks like a private user talk page.
I can't quite figure out the talk page history either. The talk page of another user seems to have been moved over there, for whatever reason, and there is a redirect from that user's talk page to this one.
Did something go wrong there? --Josy (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the user wrote the article on their userpage, then moved both 'article' and talk page to the main namespace, then it was all moved again, but not really cleaned up. I've now put the talk page back where it belongs. The article can remain a proper article - it's not uncommon for users to do this, sometimes repeatedly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation, and for the cleanup! --Josy (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?

Hi once more,
as a new user, I am a bit reluctant to go right ahead and propose the deletion of an article, so I would like your opinion and help. I found this article with a bunch of templates from 2010. One of them seems sort of comic, it says "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" - well, no, this article has no sources whatsoever, and probably never had any.
Now I know absolutely nothing about biking, and I am really not at all interested in having this article deleted, but this seems somewhat unsatisfactory. --Josy (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should check is this team is notable. If not, just propose it for deletion. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would I check if this team is notable? My expertise on biking ends with knowing that a bike has two wheels. --Josy (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Josy: Though broadly, expertise might allow you to find sources where others could not, such as in trade publications, in general, notability is an objective standard. The general notability guideline requires that to warrant an article, the topic be the subject of substantive publication in reliable, secondary, independent sources. As such, performing a few searches, such as in google books, news and news archive for existence of sources, or not, is due diligence before proposing that an article be deleted.

Then (depending on what you find of course) you might Prod the article ({{subst:proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}}) stating in the rationale something like: "apparent non-notable subject; I performed searches of Google Books, News and News Archive and there does not appear to be substantive treatment of this topic in reliable, secondary, independent sources to warrant an encyclopedia article." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing California Penal Codes

Hi. I want to know which template to use (at Category:Law citation templates) for the following two citations from FindLaw:

12031
171(c)

I am not sure how to correctly cite these two URLs. Please help, thanks.--Nevé –selbert 20:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Veteran Records From The National Archives

Hi. As a member of both the Military History and Orders, Medals & Decorations wikiprojects, I'd like to know how to properly cite released veterans' records. I requested a number of records from the National Personnel Records Center and have recently received one that I can use to edit a veteran's wikipedia page to better reflect their military service. How would I go about citing this source? Jionunez (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since those records have not been published, they cannot be used in our articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this interpretation is too narrow. The intent of the "references must be published" (WP:V) dictum is that a reader must be able to verify that the reference is legitimate. In this case, any reader can retrieve the record from the National Personnel Record Center, given a correctly documented specific retrieval request. This is equivalent to publication on demand. This is no different than a reference to a particular physical document in a manuscript collection at a library, e.g. in the british library. I propose that some member of one of these wikiprojects create a citation template and associated documentation for these records. However, this raises a separate issue: WP is not supposed to rely on primary sources. Therefore the problem here is not that the source is unpublished, but that it is a primary source instead of a secondary source. Therefore any use of these documents must follow the guidelines for use of primary sources. -Arch dude (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images in navboxes on persons

Are there supposed to be images in navboxes on persons, like in Shakespeare or Mozart? I'm asking because usually this is not the case...--Hubon (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: Template:William Shakespeare and Template:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Eagleash (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK underground has one as well. †Dismas†|^(talk) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As even the Daguerreotype was not invented until 1839, we have no option to drawings and paintings for many historic figures, but, provided the image is not copyright, these is nothing to stop the use of sketches or paintings for contemporary people. - Arjayay (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP's question was whether the images should be in navboxes at all. Eagleash (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, thanks!--Hubon (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd be concerned whether the images were accurate. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This question is about navboxes, not about images in general. IF we assume the availability of an valid image, THEN should as have an image in the navbox? presumably, the valid image is present in the infobox (or elsewhere) in the article associated with the subject of the navbox, so does it add to the usability or aesthetic appeal of WP to have it in a navbox that is used in other articles? -Arch dude (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need help in TALK section with advocating edits/corrections/verifications to my employer’s article stub

I need help in TALK section with advocating edits/corrections/verifications to my employer’s article stub which appears at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Micro_Center. Specifically, I want to use footnoted information from Forbes to show that my employer had 2015 sales of $2.4 billion and ranks in Forbes Top 200 Privately-held companies. Using Dealerscope (a trade journal), I want to document that my employer ranked in the Top 20 U.S. consumer electronics (CE) retailers in 2015. In the Infobox section, I want to use footnotes from reliable sources to verify the names already shown as the two company founders and update the Key People, Revenue, and Number of Employees. My understanding is that I can only suggest a need for the article stub to be updated and if that is OK’d by Wikipedians, I can markup proposed changes on a template in the TALK section. Although I use Wikipedia daily and have made monetary contributions using my credit card, I’ve never worked with editing or trying to use the TALK section to advocate changes to an article stub. I apologize that I initially posted this to your Tea House; I'm afraid that may be the wrong section. Any suggestions you can make would be greatly appreciated 4119Leap (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the answer to your question at WP:THQ, and please don't ask the same question in multiple places. RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]