Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 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.

January 29

Units

Re: Clara Bow ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I just received a message from a "MarnetteD" telling me I was being "disruptive" in editing a page in which I switched an Imperial measurement to a Metric measurement. Metric is a world standard, so I fail to see how I was being "disruptive" in correcting an obscure, outdated system of measurement to a world standard. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kubrickrules: As MarnetteD linked to, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement describes how we choose the types of units for articles. For most articles (especially scientific ones), SI units are used. However, for articles on US subjects (including American actresses), units most commonly used in the United States are used. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

But the Metric system is the world standard. Wikipedia exists on the internet, which exists worldwide, not just in the US. The US is effectively the only country on the planet which still uses the outdated Imperial system. It is not incumbent upon the entire planet to convert one single country's outdated system of measurement. If US users refuse to learn the Metric system, that is not anyone else's problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The British also use the old system quite a bit. And Americans use the metric system when necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kubrickrules: Being disruptive means demonstrating cluelessness as to correct editing process. There are guidelines in place to assist editors in resolving disagreements in an orderly fashion. Although the community seems unable to fully get behind WP:BRD, it is still a very popular process. The box near the top says, If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. Thus, you deviated from the BRD process with your second edit, and then continued with two more of the same. The other editor should have linked to WP:BRD in the edit summaries of their subsequent reverts, so you weren't the only one at fault in that exchange. But the first error was yours and the whole episode could have been avoided if you had not made it. I would strongly suggest reading and understanding WP:BRD if you plan to do much more Wikipedia editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record the OP had already been made aware of the problem with the edit at this thread User talk:Beyond My Ken#Your reversal of my revision to the Clara Bow page. Thus discussion had already occurred. As the edit was a violation of the MOS and BMK had already explained that fact AND Kubrickrules had made the same edit two more times (oh my and then made the edit yet again) IMO there was nothing more to discuss. This was a MOS violation issue not a content issue so BRD was not applicable. KR was clearly ignoring the explanation and MOS links provided, thus the need for the warning on their talk page. I did more than post a warning as I added links to the same policy that I had mentioned in my edit summary. I have no way of knowing whether KR read the policy at the end of the link but there is little I can do about that. BTW nothing is "required" in an edit summary. While I always use the edit summary line I would hazard a guess that several hundred thousand edits are made each day with no edit summary whatsoever. MarnetteD|Talk 05:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

But there was no "error" on my part. The Metric system is the world standard of measurement. It is irrelevant whether the British "also use the (Imperial) system quite a bit," as they have officially adopted the Metric system years ago, and, as was mentioned before, the entire rest of the world uses the Metric system. Get used to it, because that's the way it is and will always be. The Imperial system is dead and gone. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus - and if the consensus it that we use Imperial system units in some circumstances, you will have to comply if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia. You don't have a personal veto, regardless of how right you think you are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, User:Kubrickrules does think that he has a personal veto. He apparently thinks that. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kubrickrules: The error is that you are editing Wikipedia against its defined set of policies and guidelines. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it also has rules. Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists as the style manual for articles. As Andy mentions, consensus from the community is what determines policy, and extensive discussion has lead to the unit standards we have now. One can always discuss policy, and even try to change it through a new consensus - but repeatedly making changes against policy or guidelines on your own is considered disruptive, and will not end well. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: BTW nothing is "required" in an edit summary. If that's in response to my comment about linking to WP:BRD, it's not about what's required, it's about what's helpful and conducive to peace. It's the recognition that some people have never heard of BRD, and it's giving them the chance to become better editors before we jump down their throats. If they refuse the help, that's a different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate what you are saying (and I also have as much respect for BRD) as any editor) I will point out once again KR had already been made aware of what the problem was and the edit was not a content issue which is what BRD is all about. As you have seen (and yes I know hindsight is 20/20) discussion was the last thing that was going to stop the edits made. Thanks for taking care of the last edit and adding another warning Mandruss. Your efforts are appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 06:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My €0.02, BRD is an essay, BOLD is a policy, and an R with a boilerplate rationale is utter dubious if the B was no vandalism. If there's something to discuss, just do it in explanations for the B or R. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How is the "consensus" that Wikipedia must use the Imperial system when no one on the planet except the US uses the Imperial system? Does Wikipedia not exist on the internet, a world-wide website? Don't the first two letters of "WWW" stand for "World Wide"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 06:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The WP:MOS has come about by consensus. The section that you have ignored WP:UNIT exists because of consensus. As does the corresponding policy regarding language at WP:ENGVAR. I can only say that you should read the advice given to you on BMK's talk page again. MarnetteD|Talk 06:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to sign each talk space comment with ~~~~. It's important to know who is saying what. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that (1) this discussion move to article talk where it belongs, and that (2) KR understand that they may not make this change again until and unless consensus for it is reached there. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kubrickrules is not only being disruptive by insisting on using the metric system for US articles, but is just being wrong in complaining about use of the imperial system. The term for the system used in the United States is US customary system. Referring to it as the imperial system is not only incorrect, but is deeply insulting to Americans. The imperial system refers only to a version of the British customary system that was enacted in the nineteenth century. I would prefer that the US adopt the metric system, but that is not happening in the US, at least not now. English Wikipedia, which exists to serve English-literate readers in multiple countries, uses the units for those countries. In complaining about the use of the customary system in the US, do not make things worse by insulting Americans by referring to the imperial system. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because on a fixed date in 1970 Britain went metric and now you can't buy beer in pints or buy tape measures calibrated in inches. It was so easy and everyone went along with it from day one. Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha yeah, right. Britmax (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Obsolete template still working?

As Template:Double image is deprecated, how does it still work and exist in some articles? Do I get it right that the noincludeincludeonly-text uses Template:Multiple image with adjusted parameters so that it does exactly reproduce what the old DoubleImage-Template has generated? --KnightMove (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing of this specific situation, but "deprecated" doesn't mean it stops working. It means we should work toward removing all uses, with the intent of eventually withdrawing support. Any help? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately no (I had already understood this), still thank you. Now I'm quite sure that the answer to my above question (with the correction in text) is "yes", however more information would help. --KnightMove (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Evert (left) and Martina Navratilova each won 18 Grand Slam single titles.

@KnightMove: The {{double image}} template was converted to a wrapper for {{multiple image}} about a year ago, following this discussion. As described there, it was converted to a wrapper so that all of the {{double image}} parameters would still work, and so give minimum disruption to articles that still had {{double image}}. There was a lot of misunderstanding, and you will notice that I spent some time correcting some misapprehensions.

In short: this edit wasn't necessary, since you could have altered the last two parameters from |[[Chris Evert]] (21 slams, 18 in singles, 3 in doubles)|[[Martina Navratilova]] (59 slams, 18 in singles, 31 in doubles, 10 in mixed doubles) to the single parameter |[[Chris Evert]] (left) and [[Martina Navratilova]] each won 18 Grand Slam single titles. in order to combine the two captions, see right. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. As for the edit:

1. As the template is depricated - isn't it desirable to replace it, if not systematically, at least given occasions like this one?
2. How would I, or anyone else, know how to replace the two captions by a single footer in double image correctly, as the description of the template is gone?

--KnightMove (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The TfD was closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs) as "merge", not "merge and deprecate". Only one person used the latter term, and the comment was "Keep and mark doc as deprecated, unless there is an automatic method to convert old usage" - and since the old usage was effectively converted with these edits, there should have been no need to mark it as deprecated. Nonetheless, that is what Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) - who had not taken part in the TfD - did some weeks later with this edit, where they saw fit to remove the documentation too. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, KnightMove

It is deliberate. As Redrose64 said earlier, it was I who added the deprecated tag; the reasons is what Plastikspork actually did: When a template becomes a strictly syntactic wrapper, deprecating it is the only performance-friendly option with no drawbacks. But wasting time and energy replacing 2834 transclusions while they work flawlessly AND we have more important backlogs to clear, is not worth it. It works. So, yes, it is deliberate.

As for "how to replace the two captions by a single footer", do that by switching over to {{Multiple images}}. That's the purpose of deprecation: To make you switch over.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: - regarding "how to replace the two captions by a single footer" - I demonstrated in this thread at 12:22, 29 January 2015 how it can be done using {{double image}} --Redrose64 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: "As for "how to replace the two captions by a single footer", do that by switching over to {{Multiple images}}. That's the purpose of deprecation: To make you switch over." - that's exactly what I have done, and so I had to replace the {{Double image}} with {{Multiple image}}, as no more explanation for Double image was available.

There is no problem, however a decision whether non-expert users should be practically forced to replace the template for edits like mine wouldn't hurt. --KnightMove (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Aarya Babbar

Please change the name to 'Aarya Babbar' — Preceding unsigned comment added by NairSujata14 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I see it has been moved (from "Arya Babbar") already. Maproom (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving inter language pages: template for standard section names

I've been translating articles from the english Wikipedia and I noticed that there are no templates for creating the standard sections names, such as See also, References and External links. We must write ourselves those names in our own languages (eg: in portuguese they're called "Ver também", "Referências" and "Ligações externas"). It would be much better for the whole community if we could use a template like "{seealso}" (or an abbreviated one) in all the interwikis, so each section name would be translated automatically by the Wikipedia engine to the appropriated language. It would be similar to the Template:lang, but in the case of the section name it would need to write "{seealso}" without informing any parameters. It only brings advantages: revisors will not waste more time fixing errors on those lines, the translators don't need to worry about writing those lines in the correct form for each language, and it makes the inter language pages more compatibable. That's my suggestion.Faltur (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is the perfect place for such a suggestion, so I took the liberty of copying it there. The thread is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Because my eyes

don't work as well as they used to, I am having a difficult (read "impossible") time figuring out what is wrong with the latest entry at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2015. Also, there are no headings on the table and I think (opinion) that such headings are needed. Also the reference used needs to be formatted. Any volunteers? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Carptrash: It appears that new user Mwmccarrin (talk · contribs) overwrote the column headings, and didn't appreciate the importance of the |- marker to start a fresh row. I've added new headings and start-of-row markers, and then fixed the markup on the two new rows. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edward Mahon

I just submitted a draft article which Wikipedia should consider highly important and accept for inclusion. It deals with the biography of Edward Mahon (under that title), but it may appear a bit jumbled up as I cannot really understand the instructions in your so-called easy guide for creating a new article. I can develop many Wiki-links from the text as I submitted it if it is approved for publication, as well as additional links to document the validity of the article. Also images, drawn from the Mahon family archives to which I had access while doing by biography of Edward. So hopefully my initial effort is not all lost and with some help it can be launched. Walter Volovsek

Walter, where did you submit this article? Carptrash (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Otmarpub/sandbox is the draft. CaptRik (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The user seems to have reverted after your replies. It was decent, but has now been reverted to the sample page layout. - X201 (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Company site referring to previous owner

Hi there, I work for a company called Spectralink Corporation. We were divested from our previous owner, Polycom, in December 2012, but our company name redirects to Polycom's page. How do I cancel that redirect so I can make our own company page? If you search on Spectralink, it goes to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycom#Acquisitions

Here is the official press release announcing the divestiture of the Spectralink business in 2012 in case you need proof: http://www.polycom.com/company/news/press-releases/2012/20120510.html

Michelle

Hi, Michelle. Although Spectralink may be an independent company, that does not automatically imply that it should have its own article. The general requirement for having a separate article is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.). This coverage must be of Spectralink itself, not just of another associated company.

If you wish to write a separate article, though, I advise you to go to Articles for creation so you can prepare a draft for review, rather than risk a new article being deleted. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Manifestos

At Talk:Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015 it has been proposed that "the manifesto of each political party be included in the page for the sake of completeness of information on the topic"
Clearly we should not just copy-paste every manifesto into the article, but if people start trying to summarize a manifesto, I foresee endless arguments. Is there a policy that prohibits/limits this? - Arjayay (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL? Anyway it seems a very poor idea to include manifestos in an article. Links to published manifestos should be good enough. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt there is any policy or guideline about this. The editor who wishes to make the change should seek consensus for it on the article's talk page. If there is not enough participation there, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the common method for soliciting the opinions of outside editors. Opinions about article content are really outside the scope of Help desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Lines in tables

I edited a table in Julian calendar#Leap year error. Some of the lines in the table are separated by lines, some are not. Can anyone explain why this is happening? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything out of the ordinary with the formatting/rendering of that table. (I assume that you meant "rows in the table".) Every row and column is divided by a line. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It may have to do with a particular display and the display resolution chosen. I have no problems with my browser's default display size, but if I zoom out, sometimes some of the lines disappear (and not necessarily at the smallest sizes).--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Two similar dab pages

I made two pages into dab pages: Faith chapel and Faith Chapel. Should one just direct to the other? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)