Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 April 26

Help desk
< April 25	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 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.

April 26

edit help

I want to edit FERNANDA ROMERO article. There is more information to provide for her Bio.

how to proceed ?

A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abietoiber (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the previous reply: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Fernanda_Romero_-_biased_article. You can raise issues on the article's talk page. You should avoid editing it yourself due to the conflict of interest RudolfRed (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Portions of formula rendering at different sizes

Something's wrong with this userpage of mine. Even though I've added no formatting to the radicals and fractions in the 1° box (which I intend to do to decrease the expression's width), they're displaying at different sizes. And if you don't have your browser set to render as MathJax, then you get a parse error and the expression won't display at all.

Also, how can I centre the expressions in the tables? Pokajanje|Talk 01:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about math markup nor do I know what the equation in the 1° box is supposed to be or look like. I guessed that, with such a long equation, the likely reason for the parse error is a typo. I discovered that the double backslash \\ at the end of the first frac may be causing the parse error. When I removed it the equation displayed without a parse error.

As far as I'm aware, the only way to center text in a table cell is to add css styling or <center>...</center> html tags. The css markup to center the 3° equation cell is:

| 3 || style=text-align:center | <math>\frac{\sqrt{30} + \sqrt{10} - \sqrt{6} - \sqrt{2} - \sqrt{80 + 16\sqrt{5} - 40\sqrt{3} - 8\sqrt{15}}}{16}</math>

and the html markup:

| 3 || <center><math>\frac{\sqrt{30} + \sqrt{10} - \sqrt{6} - \sqrt{2} - \sqrt{80 + 16\sqrt{5} - 40\sqrt{3} - 8\sqrt{15}}}{16}</math></center>

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed double backlash. --CiaPan (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

<center> is obsolete— use {{center}}. --  Gadget850 ^talk 11:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; now how can I create a line break between the two fractions? Also, I've tested it and the "center" template doesn't centre the items within the table cells. Pokajanje|Talk 18:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. See the 3° equation in your table.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

College admission

I want to check the availability of admissions in those colleges which i checked now. can you help me for that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.169.23 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing footnote

Hi! I'm trying to cite a quote on the wikipedia page "Girl Power (video)"; however, the footnote does not seem to be formatted properly (although I did try and follow wikipedia's directions). Any instruction on this matter would be very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfalcone (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

When using that type of reference, you need to ensure you have

<references group="book"/>

at the bottom of the page. There is a Manual of Style regarding images at MOS:IMAGES and for technical how-to of uploading see WP:UPIMAGE and for formatting on page at WP:PIC. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Prefixing Wikipedia search with namespace or both namespace and page prefix

I am drafting a simplified version of Help:Searching, but am not sure about how prefixing a Wikipedia search with namespace—or both namespace and page prefix—is supposed to work (see note here). I think that I have seen this information somewhere, but can't find it among the WP labyrinths ;-). If anybody can help then it would be appreciated.  LittleBen (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This can only be done when on Special:Search (I believe, because in the standard search box I receive a timeout error). Simply precede the search term with wikipedia:. For example wikipedia:page edit. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I got another reply at Help talk:Searching#Help please and have rewritten the note at the end of the draft there. LittleBen (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

ETF Securities - editing profile

To whom it may concern,

ETF Securities would like to update their Wikipedia site to ensure that all the information is correct and objective. We have drafted a new profile with all facts referenced to secondary sources.

I just tried to upload this content to the 'talk' page and received an email which said it might be better to send through this draft for someone to proof read and to get feedback before it goes live.

How should I go about sending this through?

Tammy Shephard (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What you have done is the correct way to go about it. The advice you recieved is a standard "boilerplate" text which is more relevant for completely new articles, not for changes to already existing articles, so don't worry about it. Please note that it is an encyclopedia article, not a company profile. The text would most likely be rearranged and modified to fit Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for providing references - although many originate from the company itself and should be used with caution - you have included a number of good ones from mainstream business news sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add more specifically that the timeline could maybe incorporated into the history section, and only include the most significant events, not significant as deemed by the company employees, but significant to the general public. And for the article in general, it would be great to include less jargon such as "collateralised exchange-traded currency securities" without explaining what it is, or linking to an existing Wikipedia article which explains what it is. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 12:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And please note that it is an "article" not a "profile".--ukexpat (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Number of contributions

On Wikia, by using Special:Editcount/Username (sample: [1]) you get an automatically updating number of edits. Is there something on Wikipedia that does that? I was hoping to put something on my user page.--Launchballer 13:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikia uses mw:Extension:Editcount. Wikipedia doesn't have a way to display edit counts in wiki pages. You can only make a link like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&ususers=Launchballer&usprop=editcount (fast) or an external tool like http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Launchballer&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia or others at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters. {{User edit count}} does this and includes a manually set parameter which displays as "over X". The easiest way to see your own edit count is Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Clean up message on the lead section of the Article Om Swami

Om Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Editor, I have edited the lead section to include the essential information as per the recommended Manual of Style/Biographies/Opening Paragraph and it is still showing the clean up message on the lead section. Can you please review it again and remove the message or let me know if you need any more information.

Thank you for your support Anjumodgil (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The tags are not removed automatically and this article still needs a lot of work. The whole tone of the article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia - it reads more like a marketing brochure than the neutral point of view that is required. --ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lifetime of talk page contents / cleanup of talk pages

on the page

Talk:Jenna_Marbles

What is the lifetime of comments? Some comments are ill constructed and were obviously written in haste. I think it is silly to have most negative comments preserved in their uneducated form while positive comments are usually written by people who sound educated and thoughtful.

Look at the atrocious spelling error in the beginning sentences of the paragraph below, the person sounds like a total tool. This subtracts from the credibility of anybody contributing on the same page who agrees with the negative argument, due to association with the less cultured people. I tried to correct the spelling error below, and was immediately reverted.

Article existence

Yes, she is a notable youtuber but I think this page has no reason to exist. She's famoys and all, but if a video that consisted in just nothing had a 500.000.000 views, would we make an article about it here? I guess no, because it's pointless. The same happens with her, most of her videos are conclusions that she considers facts based on NOTHING, pure idiotic speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.177.114 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Again, that is your own subjective opinion. Many would say otherwise about her contributions. And, yes, if most of her videos on youtube are over a million views, she's definitely famous enough to warrant an article. (174.89.42.81 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexcalibur (talk • contribs)

The guidelines are your friend. The talk page guidelines say: It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions (...) —is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Highly active talk pages do get archived from time to time, but all contributions are preserved in the history unless there are exceptional reasons, such as serious policy violations, for permanently deleting them. As for the notability issue, the relevant guidelines are at WP:BIO and WP:WEB. The number of YouTube page views is not a notability criterion. If this person has attracted sufficient substantial independent coverage to pass the notability test, then we can have an article about her. If you or anyone else think the article lacks proof of her notability, then you may wish to look for such evidence and add it to the article. If you can't find any, you can always nominate the article for deletion.

By the way, Wikipedia also has rules about civility. Please bear this in mind when you're commenting on other people's contributions, whatever you may think of them. - Karenjc 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Formatting

The formatting in checkmate is all messed up from See Also section on down. I've tried to fix it, but can't. There is a stray "|}" that might be causing the problem, but I can't see where it comes from. Can someone fix it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you  Fixed Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed in [2]. Many of the "end" templates just add a table end "|}", but not {{div col end}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reusing WP

I would like to replicate the introduction of the article Sarbanes–Oxley Act in an internal wiki at the company I work for. But I'm not sure how to go about attributing it to Wikipedia. Is it okay if I just say something like the following at the top of the article?

"From Wikipedia: ... "

TIA. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:REUSE.--ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)     also this. LittleBen (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

e/cWP:CW offers ways to cite wikipedia. It is discouraged trying to cite Wikipedia since text is mutable and changing frequently. You might have better luck using the sources directly and putting it in to your own words. Uhhlive (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly simple to cite a version of an article as at a specific date and time. The url of the current (as of 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC) ) version of the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act&oldid=552207533 the relevant URL can be obtained by opening the "current at the time of copying" version of the article from its history tab. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Folks we are talking about reuse here ("replicate the introduction") not citing, I think.--ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Copying a Wikipedia article requires attribution - a "say where you got it" statement - which is effectively the same thing as a citation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing list of watched pages

My watch list shows that I have 116 watched pages. Some of these pages are no longer of ongoing interest to me. Is there a way that I can review my list of pages and turn off watching on some of them? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Go to your watchlist page, at the top click "view and edit watchlist", select the ones you want to remove and click the "remove titles" button. RudolfRed (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Next question: Some of the watched pages were listed in red, and some were listed in italics. I assume that the ones listed in red had been deleted. What causes some of them to be listed in italics? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The one italic listing I have is a redirect, so that might be it. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but is it covered at Help:Watching pages?--ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirects are in italics like in other special pages and in categories. And non-existing pages are red as usual. It normally means the page was deleted after you watched it but it's also possible to add a non-existing page to your watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Museoparc

Hi, I have been trying to make a wiki page for the Museoparc.

It is constantly being deleted by Americans. I would like for you to have a Canadian admnistrator take a look. It is a very significant article as it is on a museum in Ottawa, part of the City and the Ottawa Museum Network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herecomestheslaughter (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Would a South African reviewer meet your requirements? ;) I really don't think the nationality of editors and admins is at all relevant. I have looked at your contribution record but cannot find any record of you working on such an article or draft. Please provide a link to the page concerned. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In your discussion on User talk:TParis/Archive 10, TParis explained the requirements to you. The material that TParis removed from Vanier, Ontario on 12 April still contained not one single reference. I don't agree with TParis that what they removed was entirely advertising, but it was not all netural. You are having a content dispute: please follow the procedure in WP:Dispute resolution - which begins with discussion with the other party. You were doing that, but your inference that nationality is irrelevant is a breach of WP:Assume good faith, and will not garner you much support. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that an article named either Museoparc or Muséoparc has ever existed or been deleted, and I too can find nothing in your contribution history or your talk page history relating to such an article. Are you sure you hit "save" rather than "preview"? I suggest you use the article wizard to start a draft of your article, ensuring that you save your work to a user subpage when prompted to do so. That means your draft will be in your own userspace rather than the mainspace, where you can work on it at your leisure until you are happy that it meets our criteria for publication. See also Wikipedia:Your first article. - Karenjc 17:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was Muséoparc Vanier Museopark.--ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah! So it got whacked with the A7 hammer. No amount of "patriotism" can cure a problem caused by a lack of reliable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A potentially contentious biography

Earlier today I approved a BLP Ivor Ichikowitz at AfC, I then did quite a lot of editing which included adding a (justified imho) "Controversy" section. A previous incarnation of the article was a subject of the WT:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations, so given that history, the potential for "whitewashing" might still exist. I'd also appreciate it if someone would be willing to check the article for any serious flaws I might have missed. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

List of newly created articles? Getting a multiple issues tag removed?

I created an article which was a biography of a deceased person. Within an hour after I created it, it was tagged for speedy deletion as not notable. (The user who tagged it is a deletionist who frequently tags articles for speedy deletion.) I infer that there must be a list of newly created articles. Where is that list?

Within a few more hours the speedy deletion tag was removed by an admin and replaced by a multiple issues tag. Does that mean that there is also a list of articles recently tagged for speedy deletion, or did the reviewing admin also go from the list of new articles?

Also, after I finish the work on the article, what is the procedure for getting the multiple issues tag removed? (I understand that the issues should first be corrected.) Should I post a request to the talk page of the admin? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Special:NewPages is the new pages list. When articles are tagged for speedy deletion, they are added to a category of articles tagged for speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the issue the tags relate to have been resolved you can delete the tags yourself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please print

Albert A. Pena Jr, (removing WP:COPYPASTE and possible copyright violation Singularity42 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.50.250 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIO about Wikipedia's guidelines for articles about people. Singularity42 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Movladi Atlangeriyev

Movladi Atlangeriyev is a mess. It was blanked for possible BLP violations, reverted, reblanked, rereverted, and now it has a weasel words tag. What should happen now? Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 19:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, in it's current form it qualifies for A1 speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The link to the article is red. It appears that it has been speedy deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Google

Does Google use Wikipedia's list of new articles to feed its spiders? Yesterday I created an article that was a biography of a deceased businessman. It was then tagged for multiple issues. I used Google to look for more information today about the businessman, and found the Wikipedia article toward the top of the list. (Obviously that didn't give me any more information.) Does Google look through Wikipedia for new articles? (Maybe this is a Google question rather than a Wikipedia question, but, if so, it illustrates something about Wikipedia being in the real world.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Google's indexing bots index Wikipedia articles and most other web pages periodically. That's how they produce their search results.--ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had Google find the article within an hour or two of page creation. This is precisely why I write articles offline, since I don't want my searches to be clogged by what I've just written. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Or you can create in a subpage and {{NOINDEX}} it.--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

With millions (billions?) of web domains, Google can't index everything immediately. (When I created a web site for a family foundation, it took weeks before Google would pick it up on its name.) With 4 million articles in Wikipedia, they can't index all of them repeatedly. So looking for the new ones in Wikipedia is a reasonable strategy. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is the 5th(?) most used web site or some such single digit figure, it's no surprise that Google wants to keep on top of what is being added. Dismas|^(talk) 20:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Bobby Sludds

This is to notify you, and your company that, recently a fan typed my name into google and came across your (this) website displaying an article about some free man movement, to which my copyrighted artist name was attached (Bobby Sludds) I trust, that this matter will be resolved and all information, remarks, posts and all in re of Bobby Sludds will no longer be available to the public as this has a damaging effect upon myself as an artist in the music business. I hereby respectfully wish to have it all removed immediately and I give you three days grace to do so as consideration to remove all posts, comments and all information as to the copyright artist name Bobby Sludds or you may become liable for prosecution for copyright violation.

If this notice is not responded to or ignored legal proceedings may be commenced immediately for which you will become fully liable as publisher and administrator.

Sincerely, Bobby Sludds. 27/4/2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.249.187 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats will get you nowhere on Wikipedia. That said, Freemen on the land does refer to a "Bobby Sludds" in Ireland but it is a person by that name[3] who presumably is not you. And, sorry, you cannot "copyright" a name. We have probably thousands of articles about people, or that mention people, with the same or similar names as other people. That's just a fact of life as we do not have unique names or serial numbers.--ukexpat (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you resolve a dispute over what should be included or deleted

There is a dispute over whether some information should be included in the article about Play-Doh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play-doh). I say something is appropriate. Someone else says it is not. We keep changing it back and forth (delete - undo). Is there a way to have others to check out the arguments for both side and come to a decision? Phil Konstantin (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion or dispute resolution.--ukexpat (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you and the other person keep changing it back and forth, that is edit warring. Don't do that. If you revert the same change, or make the same change, three times in a 24-hour period, that crosses a well-defined line, and you can be blocked by any admin. Persistent edit warring can even result in users being banned. Follow the advice above to seek a third opinion or go through dispute resolution. There are two types of dispute resolution, for content issues and for conduct issues. This is a content issue, but there is the risk that it could become a conduct issue due to edit warring. Be civil and seek consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it has gone into RFC. Phil Konstantin (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC process question

Should content RFCs, such as this one, be discussed on the article talk page? User conduct RFCs are discussed on their own page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)