Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 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 29

Port Loko Teacher's College

your discription of port loko teaching college must be 30 years old.it now has no electricity'running water,not much infrastructure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.160.64 (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I made some minor enhancements, but we need to have reliable sources if we want to change the content. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Chesapeake Conservancy entry

Hi there, I am trying to create an organizational page for the Chesapeake Conservancy, just like the ones for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Defenders of Wildlife. My first attempt was removed due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Do you have suggestions of how I can create this page without it being perceived as a promotion and, thus, deleted? Thank you very much. Best, Twigatembo (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Chesapeake Bay Foundation as a model of excellence. The final paragraph is borderline acceptable, probably on the wrong side of acceptable.

In your case, sentences such as

"The Conservancy believes that connecting people to the Bay is vital to ensuring the long-term conservation of the Chesapeake Bay" is clearly promotional. It is often accepted to include a quote from the organization about the mission, but it should be a clear quote.

The article looks like it was written by someone who is promoting the organization, not an outside disinterested summary of the organization.

You need some references that are independent of the subject. Has it been discussed in newspapers or books?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not contain "organizational pages": it contains encyclopaedia articles, some of which are about organisations. I'm not just being picky: I suspect that you are having problems with the article because of the way you are thinking of it. This is not a directory, or a social networking site: it is a general encyclopaedia, and the articles should be appropriate in tone and content to that purpose. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

User Name / Pass Word

I have a user name but I can't log in because I have forgotten my password. When I ask for a new password and input my e-mail addresses the system tells me that there is no e-mail address connected to my user name. How do I get out of this mess. I am not even sure where I can read an answer if you have one. Thanks Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.179.30 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fred! You'll read the answer right here. Unfortunately, the only way to recover a lost password is through the email system you have tried to use. If you didn't enable email on that account, then there is no way to recover your lost password. The only recourse at this point is to create a new account. Sorry! --Jayron32 04:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- too bad. A lesson or two learned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.179.30 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

HSE Faculty of Sociology

Hello Help Desk!

Please, tell me what is wrong with this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HSE_Faculty_of_Sociology#HSE_Faculty_of_Sociology

The articles below were submitted. And I do not understand, what is the difference between them and the article HSE Faculty of Sociology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSE_Faculty_of_World_Economics_and_International_Affairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Faculty_of_Political_Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Faculty_of_Psychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Faculty_of_Materials_Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Faculty_of_Journalism

Thank you in advance!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BashOrgRu (talk • contribs) 12:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles you list as "were submitted" were actually not submitted through AFC at all - if they did go through AFC there would be a template on the talk pages saying so. They are all really bad articles, none of them have any references at all. You should definitely not be using any of them as examples of what a proper WP article should look like. Roger (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Roger,

Thank you so much!

And tell me please, what is wrong with my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BashOrgRu (talk • contribs) 12:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Self Published Book

I have recently published a book entitled "The Whole Truth: A Fresh Look At Reality". It is based on scientific fact and consists of original ideas and comments on a number of topics including reality, time, our universe, space, entropy and life. One example is that I propose the idea that reality is not a single subject but is composed of at least two aspects -physical reality and subjective, or perceived, reality which are independent, although inter-related. When reality is considered from this perspective one sees many subjects, such as time, in a completely different way.
I believe that my ideas are interesting, and that some could be useful, or even valuable to others. I would like to participate in Wikipedia discussions on a number of subjects, but I do not want to violate Wikipedia's principles or offend anyone.
I would appreciate any suggestions you might have. Sui docuit (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)sui docuit

Hi Sui docuit. What you propose is unlikely to be included in Wikipedia, since we have a policy on fringe theories that would proscribe it. If the only source for your theory is your own self-published book, then it does not meet the basic requirements for inclusion, and an article would not be appropriate. Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussing new ideas, we are an encyclopedia that reports on subjects which have received significant mainstream coverage. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Wikipedia does not publish Original research, citing your own work is considered bad form - other than that, there is no reason why you should not participate freely in improving the encyclopedia. You might want to take a look at WP:WikiProject Philosophy, as it seems to be the best match to your field of interest. Welcome to Wikipedia! (BTW I have corrected the indent on your post - the first post in a section should not be indented.) Roger (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(I reformatted your comments to remove leading spaces; that creates format problems.) Sui docuit, you are quite welcome to participate in any talk page discussions on Wikipedia if the discussion pertains to improvement of an article (they should not be general discussion of a topic, and especially not for promotion of your book). I have place a standard welcome template on your talk page. For more information about how things work around here, click the blue links. Happy editing! Cresix (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

datasets on contributions to Wikipedia and/or sister websites

Hello,

I'm interested in doing a statistical analysis of editing behaviors for a university research project. Where can I find datasets that contain information on edits made to Wikipedia and its sister websites? Information on each user that makes an edit to a page would also be nice. I ask because I think it would be rather inconvenient to have to look at individual page histories and user contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.115 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Database_download. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WRONG COMPANY DIRECTION

There is currently a Wikipedia page named Lonmin.

When you search for the company Lonrho it automatically takes you to the Lonmin page as though Lonrho is now Lonmin.

This is completely wrong and actually Lonrho has no involvement with the company called Lonmin at all. The direction of search for Lonrho, points to Lonmin, this must be cancelled/ changed as the company Lonrho does not want to be related to the business actions of Lonmin and consequently appear associated with the company. This is completely mis informed information and can have a negative knock on effect for Lonrho.

Lonrho for some reason is in the url for Lonmin.

Please may you inform me of the change to this misdirection. The company Lonrho are looking to hold their own Wikipedia page.

Please conifrm receipt of this email and what action will be taken to rectify this.

Many thanks and best regards,

Miss C Bushell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonrho Plc (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The references in the article make it clear that Lonrho plc was renamed to Lonmin plc in 1999. Many readers, however, will remember the company as Lonrho, and it is quite reasonable that there should be a redirect from Lonrho to Lonmin. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the redirect with a (very brief) stub at Lonrho. It was not a simple name change - the company actually split into two separate entities. Roger (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This ref from the company registrar makes it a bit clearer. The company now known as Lonrho plc is what until 2007 was Lonrho Africa plc. The company that was previously Lonrho plc became Lonmin plc in 1999. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good find! The organigram at http://www.lonrho.com/About_Lonrho/Strategy_~_Vision/Default.aspx?id=745 also helps. Roger (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be open to question which is the primary topic in this case. I expect that most people who recognise the name Lonrho will be thinking of the old Tiny Rowlands company, and the history of that is covered in the Lonmin article, rather than the new Lonrho. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AIUI Lonmin was split off from Lonrho, so that history should be moved to the Lonrho article. It seems to me that the company split was misinterpreted as a name change by whoever worked on the article here on WP so they simply moved Lonrho to Lonmin instead of creating a new separate article. Roger (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

When the split happened, the name Lonrho plc stayed with the part that subsequently became Lonmin. It was the part that for 9 years was known as Lonrho Africa plc that was eventually renamed to become the current Lonrho. The Lonrho plc share price before and after the demerger would imply that only about 20% of the company had been demerged into Lonrho Africa plc. It appears (from that & from the registrar's information referenced above) that what is now Lonrho was split off from what is now Lonmin, rather than vice versa. I wonder whether it might not be clearer to have 3 different articles, one for the old company before the 1998 split, one for what is now Lonmin, & one for what is now Lonrho. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible solution - the current Lonrho could possibly go under the name Lonrho Africa - looking at it's organigram the current "Lonrho plc" is just a "top structure" added above "Lonrho Africa Holdings" except for "Lonrho Transportation" which appears to simply be a shell that owns an airline. (Why do companies like this go out of their way to make stuff so complicated for us?) Roger (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A similar situation existed with Voestalpine and Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau. My research suggested these were two different companies, and I imagine many people were confused because most people have never heard of either one, but if a person read something about one they would think it was about the other. The companies have been separate since one split off from the other in the 1950s, and now Siemens owns the company that split from the other.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Lombardo, composer, needs to be added...

Robert Lombardo, composer, is referenced in other Wikipedia articles, but there are no articles about him or links to his website. ( http://robertlombardo.net ) He is an important American composer. He was a student of Arnold Franchetti Arnold_Franchetti for whom an article does exist and Robert Lombardo is listed as his student, but there is no article on Robert Lombardo. There should be an article about Robert Lombardo. I can't figure out how to enter him into Wikiepedia. I can't enter a link to his external website. PLEASE HELP. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Final4one (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The place you want is Wikipedia:Requested articles, or WP:1st if you plan to write it yourself. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page: Climate Disclosure Standards Board

Hello,

We updated the page referring to our organisation(Climate Disclosure Standards Board), which then was put on fast track delete, the reason being that google didn't show any results on us(it does, with our website on top). I tried contesting it but it was deleted without any response on my contest. All we wanted to do is put up a more up to date description of our organisation. We are a registered charity and have no intention of breaking any rules or guidelines set out by wikipedia. We would simply like to update the page referring to us. Please advise us on how to proceed. Best regards, Michael Zimonyi Project Officer, CDSB — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelZimonyi(CDSB) (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason the article was deleted appears in the deletion log as follows - "17:32, 29 October 2012 RHaworth (Talk | contribs) deleted page Climate Disclosure Standards Board (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" All article must prove that the subject is notable. This is primarily achieved by demonstrating that people not connected with the subject have decided that the subject is worthy of being discussed through the existence of articles in mainstream newspapers (excluding press releases and similar self-generated publicity produced by the subject itself) or other publications with a reputation for independence and quality. Roger (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if this organization is notable or not, it in fact may be notable. However, the article's style was not encyclopedic—the content was likely copied from the company's website. In addition, the article was too long—it contained lots of information not suitable for encyclopedia and contained no references except own website, facebook page and a blog. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello both,

Thank you for your input. The content was not copied from the website, we worked very hard to make it suitable for wikipedia. I apologise if the page didn't seem encyclopaedic, if you have any specific comments, please do share them with me. The reason there were no other links was simply because it was still being edited.

Our organisation has been referenced in many professional publications(we are not a public-facing charity), as well as more mainstream financial publications, like this article in the Financial Times. We are an active player in the field of sustainability and work with governments and organisations like the United Nations to shape policy and regulations.

I would be grateful if you could provide some specific feedback on what was wrong with our entry(thank you for the comments on the links, as I said before that was simply a matter of finishing the page). We genuinely didn't mean to break any guidelines and would simply like to add CDSB to wikipedia to share knowledge with the online community.

Best regards, Michael--MichaelZimonyi(CDSB) (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Before you attempt to re-create the article, please read WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI, and if your user account is being used by more than one person, please read WP:NOSHARE.--ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ukexpat,

Thank you for the links, I completely agree with the concepts described in those articles. I am employed by CDSB(as stated in my user name and signature above), but I am also an expert of this subject. Myself and my colleagues who have contributed to the entry have made sure to be objective and factual about CDSB and I'm currently going through the text again to make sure again that this is the case. The specific area we work in is very new and there are very few people who could write about our organisation at the level of expertise that we possess. My understanding of the conflict of interest article is that it is therefore acceptable for me to write about the organisation as long as I disclose this information(which I have in my username). Do you agree? My user name is only used by me, so there are no issues with that. I understand that all of your intentions are to keep wikipedia a source of facts rather than opinions. I hope that I have proven that I am able to guarantee that the information we would like to upload to wikipedia is factual. I am a scientist by education and I apply the same ethics to my current work as those in the lab. Best regards, Michael --MichaelZimonyi(CDSB) (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction to the Carnegie Library List in Washington

1. 10 - the Carnegie Library in Clarkston WA is no longer a counseling center for Clarkston High School. It is just part of Clarkston School District.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBrouse (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to List of Carnegie libraries in Washington? Do you have a reliable source for that change of use? This photo was relatively recent. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist now fully expanded always

Each entry in my watchlist lists all the changes to each page over the last day. Before today, it collapsed the sub-entries for each page and I could expand and collapse them via a small toggle in the left edge. Today, each entry is fully expanded and there is no toggle. How can I get the previous behavior back again? Jojalozzo 19:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been fixed, magically. Perhaps it was a coding error. Jojalozzo 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

new wiki page / subject

Hi there. how do I create a New Wiki Page / Subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheaonah (talk • contribs) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise you to start by reading Wikipedia:Your first article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Weird category name

There is something wrong with the article about Berlin. It's located in the category "Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from May 2,012". Shouldn't that be "Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from May 2012", as Gregorian year numbers don't include thousand separators? What is causing the thousand separator to appear? JIP | Talk 20:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd. After some long perusing through the article's history, I found that the verification tag was originally added there on August 6th and the category that followed with it was messed up as well as it said August 2,012. Perhaps the issue is connected with the template or something tied to it? I haven't a clue either. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also don't have a definitive answer, but the categorization is principally caused by the cat-date parameter of {{Verify source}}. However, the problem seems come from somewhere else. I am not sure from where, right now. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Searching http://en.wikipedia.org via Google I found that cat-date is defined via the meta template Template:Fix. I don't know where to go from here though. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved the verification tag down one entry in the infobox and it is fine now, but I think the original issue still needs to be looked at.Naraht (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Some templates make numeric processing of certain parameters which are only intended for numbers. This limits what can be assigned to such a parameter. Template:Infobox German state says:

|population    = <!-- Population (no commas or other text) -->

|population=3507004{{Verify source|date=August 2012}} contained other text than the population. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Attempting to publish article

I have attempted three times to publish my article. I have added a number of third-party citations and partner links to verify our company profile, CEO's credibility and product legitimacy. Compared to other articles - Pardot - I believe my article should be published. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracy.carson (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added additional third party citations to my article including; online articles from third parties, government press releases, listings with our partners etc. In reviewing other company listings - please see Pardot and BSI Group - I feel my citations are inline with what has been offered by other authors. Please advise as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracy.carson (talk • contribs) 20:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently your conflict of interest has blinded you as to our requirements here. Press releases are useless, since they are basically a species of advertisement; "listings with partners" are like listings in a phone directory; and marketing bullshit like "delivers best-in-class web solutions" has no place ever in an encyclopedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

images and references quotes

some images have text without references, basically a picture with the authors own interpretation, what can be done about images with incorrect interpretation and without reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triphala108 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Treat it like any other unsourced assertion(s), with appropriate "cite needed" tags and the like. Discuss it on the talk page as needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about the description of an image on its description page, as placed there by the uploader? Provided you have a reliable source to support your revised description, you can edit the description page. For an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at the description page for the image Alfred E. Neumann.jpg, where the uploader's original description has been discussed and corrected, with references. - Karenjc 21:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeremiah Jones Article

Hi, I was researching on Jeremiah Jones, a forgotten Black Canadian from World War 1. I found a lot of information but when I wanted to create a bibliography of where I found my info I couldn't because I don't know the name of the publisher or author of the article I was reading. Please Help me out. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.212.42 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Click here and type in the name of the article you wish to cite, but you might want to read Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia first. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's CSS is just plain too hard to read from

I know this sounds like a stupid complaint, but sometimes this website is too wide to read.

Sometimes this isn't a big problem like in articles with a lot of images which help push lines

of text into a narrower column, but in many pages, like this talk page for instance,

the lines are so long that my eyes get confused just trying to find the right letters.

I have a widescreen monitor which makes this a huge problem. I feel like I am back

in kindergarten, where you had to use rulers or long index cards when reading books

so you could keep track of a line. Can someone point me to some site-column shrinking

CSS that I can use on the user-custom CSS page?

Kelvinsong (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

One possible workaround would be to use the [+/-] browser 'zoom' buttons. Not sure of your browser, but Firefox has option for toobar buttons (not default). The downside is that in addition to shorter lines, you get bigger text -- which may or may not be a disadvantage. ~Just a suggestion ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm so un-savvy I don't even know what "CSS" means, but what I do in such cases (never at WP that I can remember) is hit the resize button in the upper right-hand corner of my screen, between the minimize and x-out buttons. Then I adjust the page size to my preference by dragging the margins in or out, up or down. Hope that helps. Yopienso (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

'CSS' = Cascading Style Sheet', which basically tells a page how it should look - usually if a user changes it, it is reset by the page and/or site when re-started; but there might be some sort of override? ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who create an account have access to a custom CSS stylesheet, which can be accessed at Special:MyPage/common.css. Here they can add any sort of custom configuration they want, which will automatically be applied to all pages (just for them). Theopolisme _Boo! 23:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the User-custom CSS, I've even fiddled around with it, and managed to get the readable columns I was looking for, albeit with floating "Read|Edit|View History|*" off to the side. What I'm wondering is if anyone has managed to create a working narrow wikipedia CSS I can use, or if there are other workarounds that don't involve browser zoom (giant text and blurry pictures), or window scaling (affects entire browser and you see desktop icons in the background). Kelvinsong (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a widescreen monitor too. I solve the problem by making my browser window only half as wide as the maximum. —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And now one-third. —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation

My problem is: I am citing information from a web source. The web source has a 'citation' tab. That citation tab specifies a formatted citation. That citation isn't very helpful for someone simply interested in verifying, or for wishing to find more related information.
My question is: should I just stick with the citation as specified, use URL citation based on " Although referring the URL might be enough in some cases..." , or add a 2nd citation (both), or ... (?)

• Web source of information: AnAge entry for Petaurus breviceps Classification (HAGRID: 02980)
• 'Citation' tab link: Disclaimers, Credits, and Copyright
• "...cite HAGR using: " de Magalhaes, J. P., Budovsky, A., Lehmann, G., Costa, J., Li, Y., Fraifeld, V., Church, G. M. (2009) "The Human Ageing Genomic Resources: online databases and tools for biogerontologists." Aging Cell 8(1):65-72.
  

~Thanks for your attention, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric! Wikipedia actually has several templates for citations—one of the generic ones is {{cite web}} (click to learn how to use). You can also use {{cite book}}, or one of the many others—see WP:Referencing for beginners. Thanks, Theopolisme _Boo! 23:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, see WP:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. Theopolisme _Boo! 23:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Been there, done that - but this situation seems like a judgement call to me. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A citation template is always better — more info to the reader, is it not? Theopolisme _Boo! 23:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)