Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 January 19

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 19

To use this ID in another wikipedia

Hello, I wonder how this id can be used in another wikipedia. What should I do to use my account and where? please give me a tip. Thanks --Mar del Este (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

See the links at WP:SUL for help on this RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is ko:User:Mar del Este at the Korean Wikipedia your account? It has more than 5000 edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for both of you! Yes, it's my account, too! --Mar del Este (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. I'm confused by seeing "Home wiki: unable to determine" at Special:CentralAuth/Mar del Este but try ko:Special:MergeAccount. If that doesn't give you access to the unified account then try en:Special:MergeAccount and meta:Special:MergeAccount. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this original research?

I am unsure whether a decision that I made while working on the article Mike Disa would be considered original research or not. In one reference, Disa mentions that he had developed a film called Wings at Warner Bros. years earlier, but that the film was never produced. He does not give a specific time period for this. Another reference mentions that he developed a film at Warner Bros, but does not specify the name of the project. It does give some frame of reference for when he developed the film though. Although Disa worked as an animator on Looney Tunes: Back in Action at Warner Bros, this is the only film in his resume that has any ties to the studio, and working as an animator is very different from actually developing a project. Thus, it seems clear to me that the unnamed film mentioned in the second source is almost definately Wings. I chose to incorporate the chronology from the second reference in the article and used both references. I feel that this should be okay, but am a little worried that it might be considered original research.

Here are the two references

http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/04/an-interview-with-catholic-hollywood-director-mike-disa/

http://www.ctnanimationexpo.com/mike-disa/

--Jpcase (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To me that does sound like OR. However, I don't know if the following is considered a proper WP source, but...

According to Linkedin:[1]

Writer/Director Wings — Warner Feature

2004 – 2004 (less than a year) — Wrote script and Co-directed development for unproduced Warner Brothers feature film titled "Wings"

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that linkedin.com is considered a self published source and would be considered an acceptable reference as long as there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity and the article does not heavily rely on self-published sources. The article only has one other self-published source (not by Disa himself, but from the official website of another filmmaker) and contains fourteen sources from reliable, third party sources, so this should not be a problem. I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of his linkedin account, especially since the 2004 time frame is consistent with the time frame found in the source that I mentioned (I have even found another source dated to 2004 that mentions Disa was currently developing a project at Warner Bros. at the time - http://www.animatedbuzz.com/WB/52.html).

The only problem is that when I go to the linkedin page, I can't actually see his resume. There is a white box at the top, with his name, picture, occupation, location, the college that he went to, and a list of previous places that he has worked at (Starz Media, The Weinstein Company, California Institue of the Arts), but below that is a blue box saying "Full profiles for 3rd-degree connections are available only to premium account holders." When I google "Mike Disa Wings" though, the linkedin result does show information on Wings. Do you have a premium account then?

It does seem that sources that require payment to access are still acceptable under Wikipedia policy, so as long as this does in fact state that he worked on Wings during 2004, then it works. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, does the linkedin page mention a film called The Seven Dwarfs by any chance? --Jpcase (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but it is mentioned in his Portfolio/credit list:[2] ←(a primary source)

"Director — The Seven Dwarves - Disney Studios (development)"    ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that already. I was hoping to know when exactly he worked on the project. Oh, well. Thanks anyway! --Jpcase (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Browser emulator

Is there something like a browser emulator which can show what a WP page would look like on various browsers?   ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on which browser you are using. Some browsers allow you to change the user agent, which can give you a basic idea of what a page looks like. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing the User-Agent header will change the browser that the site thinks you are running, and therefore possibly the content it sends back to the browser, but it doesn't change how the browser interprets/renders it. Depending on the page, telling a site you are using IE when actually using Firefox could produce a page that looks nothing like it should in either. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are free and commercial browser compatibility test sites on the web. Smashing Magazine (not necessarily reliable) has a review of such products that may provide a guide. The Adobe Browser Lab (registration required) is one such free tool --Senra (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll check those out. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy/guideline for linking to off-wiki things that are copyright violations

Hi all,
Now, we all know how seriously Wikipedia takes copyright violations. Even to the point of discouraging links to external website that may contain copyright violations themselves, right? <blushes>I can't find the policy link for the latter.</blushes>
Help, please! --Shirt58 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:LINKVIO. Roger (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks mate!--Shirt58 (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Damon Dash

What's the status of the Damon Dash article? There is more than enough open source new articles than be used for this article. Remove block please.--Ron John (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a Wikimedia Foundation issue, an office action. That is, us ordinary editors, and by that I mean, users, administrators, oversighters, bureaucrats, etc.—all of us who aren't among the Foundation's handful of employees—can do nothing (well, I have the technical ability to unlock the article, and if I did do I would [rightly so] be desysopped in about five minutes). There is a legal issue that is pending. We are not here to second guess the Foundation's counsel and don't know the pertinent facts or issues involved. I suggest you drop this. the fact that there are "more than enough open source new articles than be used for this article" is immaterial to the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that someone was not happy with the way the Damon Dash article was progressing and the Wikimedia Foundation Office is looking into it. The article was temporarily courtesy blanked by order of the Wikimedia Foundation legal department. See Currently under scrutiny. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How long will this temporary ban be in place?? Sounds suspicious and who is Fuhghettaboutit to tell me to drop something?--214.27.58.2 (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that it's been blanked for 14 months is a bit excessive. Somebody in the Office needs to either release the article or have it deleted. RNealK (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this url on the blacklist?

Resolved

 – I decided to vent my frustration regarding the spam filter elsewhere. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a website I would like to use as a source in an article I am currently drafting in my userspace. I haven't tried to save the page with the link, but I remember that http://finance.mapsofworld.com/ is included in the spam blacklist. What is the problem with that site? Also it is not possible to get an exemption from the blacklist for my userspace (or my account in general), is that correct? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Do the replies at Url triggers spam filter in reponse to your 19 July 2012 finance.mapsofworld.com Help Desk request provide any assistance? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes that's why I recalled having had an issue with that url before, but I didn't remember exactly what it was :) Btw. I think the spam filter is worse than any NFCC enforcing bot could ever be, but the help desk is not the right place for this discussion.... -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be able to find the reasons it was black listed here. If the reasons no longer apply, then they probably would be willing to remove finance.mapsofworld.com from the black list. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like two IPs and two registered editors were spamming finance.mapsofworld.com into Wikipedia back in October 2007 and that generated Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/mapsofworld.com. That resulted in User:Beetstra adding mapsofworld.com to the black list 09:34, 16 October 2007.[3]. As noted in 2008 here, "somebody unrelated to mapsofworld.com was persistently adding links for that and other sites to many articles." Given that occured over five years ago, I think the reasons for the black list no longer exist. You might want to try to have the site removed from the black list. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I found another link I added to my draft. Thanks Uzma for your suggestion to get the link removed, but since I found a replacement this is not needed (and I don't care whether the url as a whole is blacklisted or not, I am just interested in that one link). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Double A-Side singles

Should Double A-Side singles be two separate articles or one articles, and should they be listed with one or two placings in an artist's singles chart. The one in question is "Break My Heart (You Really) / Heroine" by Shakespears Sister. What makes it even more complicated is that they were released as two separate singles in the US, and did not chart anywhere. How should they be listed at Shakespears Sister discography?--202.159.152.14 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest treat them as though they were different tracks on the same record. If each track is notable in its own right, there is no reason why each should not have its own article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so how should they be listen on the discography?--202.159.152.14 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, I wanted know What rules applies to renames. If user decides to renamed an article without any discussion, which appears controversial does the WP:BRD rules applies, or is he allowed to decide that his rename is a "fact on the ground" and that any controversy should be resolved as rename vote from his sneaked rename? --Mor2 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the 1st step is to revert the controversial move back to the original and then seek consensus on the talk page before a 3rd move. That is how I would go about it. I did that with Tin Can Cathedral and it stayed as original name with no contension.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mor2 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps by order of sales? RNealK (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi

Can someone check recent edits in Indira Gandhi article, not the templates, but, the sourced content they have removed and replaced. I have already done 2 reverts there! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be good now since the article has been semi-protected. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Amble article self-promotion

There's an issue on the Amble page where the owners of website, run as a business, keeps adding a link to said website. I have been removing the link, but they keep readding it. They have have one username blocked already. Is there a way of resolving this without it turning into an editing war?--Jcvamp (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow the guidance at WP:DR, or if it is vandalism or spam see WP:ANV. Don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You could also see about adding the link to the blacklist WP:BLACKLIST RudolfRed (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The issue might be resolved in terms of the page as the website owner has taken down the reference to their website, but they've left a note in its place saying it's because of defamatory comments on the talk page. This stems from the fact that they were claiming a community run charity website was also technically a business, and I asked them how they could justify lying about it. I realise using the word 'lying' was a bad idea, especially because they have threatened me with legal action. I really wish I'd phrased it differently.--Jcvamp (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw, it's perfectly acceptable to change [modify] your remarks using strikeout: <s> ... </s> Also, as a "disinterested party", I took the liberty of clarifying some external link descriptions. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC):modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Allowing some travel external links in that external link subsection that did not meet WP:EL created pressure for competing websites to include links to their travel website in Amble. I cleaned up the external link section.[4] An admin may want to keep an eye on the article history to see whether the external link contributors stop. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  Unlikely, since they've resorted to legal threats now. RNealK (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Newly created template doesn't work as it should

Resolved

How can I specify a url as a template parameter to be converted as an external link? See User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Google Maps link. When I use {{User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Google Maps link|url=http://maps.google.com/?ll=35.028028,-106.536655&spn=0.077172,0.126171&t=m&z=13|This is a test link}} I get User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Google Maps link. How can I fix this? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It'll work if you put 2= before "This is a test link" -- at the moment it's the first, not the second unnamed parameter. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That does the trick. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Question on an article title with a similar name

I plan to start up an article called the Komodo, which is a recently made 4x4 tactical vehicle in Indonesia. Thing is there is a Komodo dragon and this vehicle is made officially as the Pindad Komodo. How should I start this. For reference, I remember that the Anoa is made by Pindad. Later, it's renamed as "Anoa (armored personnel carrier)". Hoping for some answers to help me. Thanks. Ominae (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You should name the article "Komodo (vehicle)" or something similar. Then add a link to it from Komodo which is a disambig page RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll do that. Thanks. Ominae (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)