Help desk
< June 25	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 26

Help me!

Reference: Malayala Jyotisha Vedi - Wikipedia

1. Is there provision to change the title "Malayala Jyotisha Vedi" to "Dates in Indian history challenged" and place it as a topic in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia / Dictionary? Please help me with by doing the above change. I am an old man and knowledge in technical matters is poor.

2. Kindly see the topic in the above wikipedia. The page-width has been exceeded in two paragraphs. Kindly do the "justify" alignment as in Page Maker pages.

Thank you, Mullappilly, Thrissur, India. 26-6-2014

--Mullappilly Parameswaran (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't appear to have any articles about Malayala Jyotisha Vedi, so I'm a little puzzled about what you want. Can you post the exact page address of the item you're asking about? Thanks, Rojomoke (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you are referring to an article in the Malayalam Wikipedia, and want to create a corresponding article in the English Wikipedia? If so, you'll find advice at translation. --ColinFine (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screams For Tina Info is inaccurate I can give you proper info

Jett Black I joined Screams For Tina in 1986 replacing Billy Budd.Did Many shows with them.We recorded Black Orchid,Creams White Room and In Her House together.I am playing on the live version of the song on You Tube recorded at The Zombie Zoo.I left in 1989 not long after that.Marvin and Warren stopped working together.There were two version of the band after that.I was in Marvin's version from 1992 till I moved to Canada in 1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.25.184 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? CTF83! 05:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have information to improve an article, please make a specific suggestion for the article on the article's talk page, Talk:Screams for Tina. But your change is more likely to be accepted if you can point to reliable published sources, independent of the subject, which confirm what you are saying. --ColinFine (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to add interwiki links?

I created Zdeněk of Šternberk and I don't know how to link it with https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zden%C4%9Bk_Konopi%C5%A1%C5%A5sk%C3%BD_ze_%C5%A0ternberka and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zden%C4%9Bk_Konopi%C5%A1%C5%A5sk%C3%BD_ze_%C5%A0ternberka PersecutedUser (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add them over on wikidata. I have done it for you; The relevant entry is d:Q168998 in this case. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

about the Variety Klubb page

Hello i'm Marco Juno admin and bassist of Variety Klubb and we owning all the content of the text we put in as copy/paste from our page as it's more practical... we'v been recommended by our manager to make this page thanks Have a good day and check our music :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Variety Klubb (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope reading this and this answers your query. "Unless the article you want to copy to Wikipedia is covered by CC-BY-SA, a CC-BY-SA-compatible license or is in the public domain, it cannot be used on Wikipedia." --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 12:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read, understand and follow our policy on conflict of interest - you should not be editing a page about yourselves. - Arjayay (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many names in citation

I tried to correct an incorrect citation in the "Japanese population in New York" entry ... the author was listed as Creg Robertson, when it is Greg Robinson. However, I received a message of "too many names in citation" and I can't work out how to either: correct my mistake or undo my edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonap (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. SpinningSpark 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Gabrielle article

I am Lea Gabrielle's agent and she is no longer married to Greg Sutton. I have edited this off of Lea's page several times, but someone keeps putting it back on. Lea is divorced from Mr. Sutton and wants his name removed from her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.238.17 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You both should have been careful of your edits in the first place. I'll try and track down some [WP:V|reliable sources]] and see if I can fix it. - X201 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, stop edit warring over the issue or you will be blocked from editing. Secondly, Ms Gabrielle not liking it is not a sufficient reason for removing information. Thirdly, since you are associated with the subject you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly at all. If you can supply a source verifying that Ms Gabrielle is now divorced please post that information to the article talk page and someone else may be kind enough to insert it in the article. SpinningSpark 15:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The divorce doesn't seem to have been covered by any reliable news source. Even so, it won't be deleted from her biography, it will just be changed to the years they were married (See Liz) Hopefully someone from the Biography project will read this and know how t get hold of the appropriate sources. what year were they divorced? - X201 (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x 2) Hello. I can understand that if they are no longer married, she does not want his name to appear in the article Lea Gabrielle; but it is not "her page": it belongs to Wikipedia, and neither Ms Gabrielle nor you have any authority over it. The further problem is that we have no way of knowing who you are and whether the information you are providing is correct. The fact of her being married to Sutton is referenced to a reliable source, but on a quick look I can't find a source which says that they are no longer married; I'm afraid that if there is not a reliable published source that says so, our article cannot say so. Since you did not provide such a source, Bwmoll3 was correct to undo your change.

Furthermore, as your are her agent, you have a WP:conflict of interest and should not be editing the article anyway. Your best course would be to find a reliable published reference which says that they are no longer married, and post a request on the talk page Talk:Lea Gabrielle that the article should say she is no longer married to Sutton, with the reference that verifies this. Then an uninvolved editor can make an appropriate change to the article (which will very likely say that she was married to Sutton, but is no longer, rather than expunging him entirely). --ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Browns

This is not the place to post draft articles. Please see WP:AFC for that, but note that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your business either. SpinningSpark 16:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name Edits in Russian

Hello,

I hope this finds you well. I work with the Garage Museum of Contemporary Art, formerly Garage Center for Contemporary Culture. Here is their page, which is in Russian:

[1]

We need to change the name from "Garage Center for Contemporary Culture" to "Garage Museum of Contemporary Art." This is the Russian text: Гараж Музей современного искусства. The page is in Russian, which makes it difficult for me to edit in English. Please help!

Best, Alina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinacerisse524 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be lucky and find a Russian speaker on this desk, but you probably want Wikipedia:Translation. You might also find someone willing to help in Category:User ru, and the native Russian speakers are in Category:User ru-N. SpinningSpark 16:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user appears to be requesting that an article at ru Wikipedia be moved to a new title, not a translation. This needs to be handled by the folks at ru Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg Terminal

I would consider the Bloomberg Terminal to be a reliable source, but how would I even begin if I wanted to cite it on Wikipedia?--ɱ (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubts that this is citable. Bloomberg Terminal is a real-time system. Are the pages archived? One cannot verify something that is transient. Also, it appears that one cannot obtain a single page of information or article. Verification is not possible unless one is prepared to buy and install the system ($24,000 per year). While cost of accessing information is not a barrier to citing it on Wikipedia, this in essence makes it unavailable to the public, even those willing to pay. I would thus put this in the same class as the private archives of a company. If it is not accessible then it is not verifiable and cannot be cited. Another issue is what kind of information were you thinking of citing? The main purpose of Bloomberg Terminal is to provide raw data to traders. That makes it a primary source and it would be WP:OR to draw any conclusions from it. We need secondary sources to draw those conclusions. Those we can happily cite after they have analyzed the Bloomberg data. Of course, I don't actually know anything about the system so I could be entirely mistaken in these thoughts. SpinningSpark 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having used it myself, I can tell you a few things about it. One is that although it has plenty of real-time market data, it also holds records on individuals, corporations, news, and a great deal more; plenty of which isn't on the World Wide Web. That's why several companies including my own have not one but several terminals; it's not an unsightly cost for most financial corporations. I intended to use it to cite more concrete secondary source information, including an individual's birthdate and history, a business' employment number, and other such details. You're right that terminal access is certainly not easy for an individual, but that doesn't make the information unverifiable. Also, the terminal currently has 315,000 subscribers paying those $24,000, which I would hardly call the private archives of a company or inaccessable.--ɱ (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that I, as a Wikipedia, editor cannot go to a public library and access a Bloomberg Terminal, I cannot buy an article from Bloomberg as I can from Nature or IEEE Xplore, and I cannot read it in a published source, even one I have subscribed to. SpinningSpark 19:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable means that anyone can access it, not everyone. If you're resourceful enough and know perhaps just a single person in the financial industry, you can have that information verified. As I said, terminal access may not be easy, but that doesn't mean the information is unverifiable.--ɱ (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a lot of the corporate stuff (eg company and executive profiles) available on Bloomberg's BusinessWeek portal?--ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's a great deal more on the terminal. They restrict that information to make companies want to spend the 24,000 dollars a year. Almost all of the information I want to cite is uniquely on the terminal.--ɱ (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some familiarity with the Terminal though haven't used on in years. The fact that the information you want to cite is uniquely on the terminal raises a red flag. Wouldn't the providers of such information be quite unhappy about seeing it in Wikipedia, even if rewritten in your own words? S Philbrick (Talk) 21:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If these are the current terms:

the Subscriber shall not:… 2.1.2 copy, distribute, reproduce, transmit or disseminate in any form any or all of the information comprising the Service (including any Report) to any other person, firm, company or organisation;

I would think even citing would be problematic. Presumably you are using the cite to support some fact, which, if available elsewhere, could be cited elsewhere, but if not available elsewhere seems to be covered under the terms.S Philbrick (Talk) 21:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they claim to hold ownership of all of that material and forbid anyone to republish, still the mere information cannot be copyrighted, that would only be the case if whole sentences were used (i.e. plagiarism). Their claims therefore aren't valid in this case, but I suppose even if Wikipedia could be using the information, it would still be violating Bloomberg's TOS and therefore I suppose the releasing company could be responsible. Oh well for that, I suppose.--ɱ (talk) 6:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Test pages?

Dear editors: I have asked this question before, but the discussion was sidetracked and I didn't receive a useful reply. I have been working with the db-g13 eligible abandoned Afc submissions. Sometimes new editors submit pages that are blank (except for the submit template), not realizing that they should write the article first. These are declined, and in most cases the editors write more on the page and resubmit. Occasionally, though, one is neglected and arrives six months later, still with no text, to be deleted as a stale draft under G13. This doesn't seem to make sense, though, because someone may come along and ask for a G13 refund, which would be a waste of time. Would it be more appropriate to delete a page with just an Afc decline template, and maybe a title, as a G2 (test page), or under G6 (housekeeping) since it has no useful content? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, if we do that, then how those in most cases the editors write more on the page and resubmit. instance be able to work without the decline? I could see maybe supporting a 14-day PROD like process on such things to make sure the author has had time to see the decline and figure out (or ask for help on) their error. I would, however, be more inclined to improving the wording of G13 (specifically the notice) to inform them that since there was nothing on the page, there is no need to request a refund, just start writing about the topic on the now empty page. Hasteur, I would like your input on this as well since your bot does most of the notifications. I'm assuming if I was to use my templateFu to add a parameter to the notification template that HasterBot uses, it wouldn't be too hard for HB to determine if the page is otherwise blank and use that parameter with the adjusted wording, am I correct? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13, I am having trouble understanding your reply. Could you read it over and maybe clarify the first part? These pages are abandoned, it's months later, and they are about to be deleted. This is not about the pages that have just been declined, at which time the new editors need the template. If that was the case I would have brought it up at the AfC talk page. There is no need to adjust the bot; it just nominates. Admins can write any wording they want, or change the deletion code if necessary, when the page is actually deleted. This is a straight which-number-to-use-when-deleting question. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Then I guess I misunderstood what you are asking. Could you please clarify your original question? I read it as can these blank pages be deleted faster than the six months it takes for a G13 to run its course, but apparently that isn't your question. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, my question is whether blank or nearly blank pages which have become eligible for db-g13 (so of course they must have been abandoned for at least six months) should in fact be deleted under G13 and be misleadingly eligible for a refund, or whether it might be more appropriate to use G2 or G6 instead, as is done with other pages which have no useful content. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing all the fact, but not letting that stop me :), would it make sense to see if the bot, in the case of a blank submission, could still do a G13, but one without the misleading here's how to get it restored?S Philbrick (Talk) 21:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the bot has anything to do with the text that appears in the edit summary when a page is deleted. The bot only nominates. The text is added as part of the actual deletion process; of course, the deleting admin can add extra text to clarify. Often abandoned pages that are eligible for deletion under db-g13 are also eligible under other rationales as well. My suggestion is that if another rationale is more appropriate, why not use it? We do it already in other cases; for example, if a db-g13 eligible draft is found to be an unambiguous copyright violation, it's usually deleted under db-g12, with no expectation of refund. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't but it most always has everything to do with the notification of impending deletion left on the submitter's talk page which is where they are first informed about refund. Regardless, if the draft has sat around abandoned for six months, it is only logical to delete it as G13. Now, if you want to talk about these pages not sitting around for six months first, then perhaps one of the other criteria is relevant. However, I would prefer (and will work on) a mechanism to make it difficult to submit a completely blank submission (or at very least auto-decline the second they click save) which should inform them that they made a boo-boo. I'll make it as friendly as possible and set up a test case to get community consensus to use this method on the project's talk page of course before implementing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the recap so far (as I undersand it):

Anne Delong suggests that pages that are stale under G13 that are effectively blank have the option of using something like G2 or G6 in addition to the G13 nomination.
Technical 13 suggests adding a extra parameter to {{Db-afc-notice}} which is what both the bot, AFCH(R), and Twinkle use to notify the user that a CSD nomination has taken place
Some back and forth about edit summaries that the bot/deleting administrator use
Technical 13 suggests auto declining (or making more difficult to save) submissions that are effectively blank.

If this is the case I have some thoughts:

Testing Copyright violations is beyond the scope of G13 nominations. I do recall that there was talk of having the Copyright infringement detector bots traverse the Drafts/AFC space, but I haven't seen a great amount of them trolling through so I can't get a good feeling for what the intersection between G12 (Copyright infringement) and G13.
I could see a case where the bot could add a sub test to determine, before nominating for G13, if when we strip away the components of AFC ({{AFC submission}},{{AFC comment}}, the hidden HTML comments) and whitespace (newlines and spaces) if the page is under ~50 characters, also nominate it under WP:G2.

Obviously this would be new functionality, so I think I need to get an endorsed consensus by AFC (with some admins like Sphilbrick who have dealt with deleting G13s and staffers of WP:REFUND for good measure) and then a WP:BRFA pass to support this. Hasteur (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the G12 comment is coming from, unless you are interpreting Anne's comment very differently than I am. I've been working on a user script for detecting CVs that reviewers could use (still kind of in alpha phase, so it could do funky things at any time and if it does it is wise to first check the edit history for the script to see if I'm working on it), and that script is located at User:Technical 13/Scripts/CVD.js for those interested in that (it simply tries to pull a list of URLs from the page and will open a series of new tabs or windows with dupdet and copyvios to test the current page against all of the URLs listed on it). That's enough shameless self promo on that topic for now though. My point is, CVs should be something reviewed by and determined by reviewers. I'm not sure 50 characters is low enough, when I say blank, I mean 0 other characters. I know there will have to be a couple character buffer in most cases, but it really shouldn't be much more than that. If the page really was blank when it was deleted, then it doesn't hurt to do a refund, but it is likely just in the best interest of the user to just dive right in to creating their draft from scratch (since there was nothing lost). What I'm thinking, is that the submission template, could check the page size against a page with nothing except the template on it and if the difference is less than a few characters, show a blue box (or gray or yellow or anything except red/pink) that explains to the user that they just submitted an entirely blank page and they should go back and try and add at least "some" content. Like I said, I'll probably have to mock something up that can be seen, and then propose it to the project. Either way, I don't think deleting drafts that are G13 as any other criterion is appropriate with the exception of G12s and that is simply for the legal aspects of G12. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13, I believe that it does hurt to do G13 refunds on pages with no useful content, since it wastes the time of a willing editor, who can't see the contents, requests a refund, waits for an indeterminate length of time, and then is disappointed. It also wastes the time of admins who perform the refund and then likely have to redelete the page. However, you have made a good point that the message left on the user's talk page will lead them to expect a G13 deletion. In the future when deleting pages which are eligible for G13 deletion but contain no encyclopedic content I will delete using db-g13, but add an extra comment to the deletion summary, such as "blank page" or "The text consists of less than one sentence." or some such. This will be visible to all and should discourage unnecessary refund requests without requiring any technical changes. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Anne, but the question still remains if you support or oppose the idea of ~~preventing~~ technically reducing the number of blank submissions by the methods I mentioned above? I am just thinking it is better to deal with the root this issue instead of the result. Thanks :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to discuss that further, but I think that the discussion should be at the AfC talk page, and I recommend waiting three days until the backlog drive is over before starting it if you want significant participation. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New changes why?

I don't like your new format, I can't find the thing I want nor is it easer to use, you have turned a good service into a less good service, it feels more like a reacher aid not something I can dip into and find interesting information. I will give it a few more days but if it's still hard to use I wont be coming back. I have started to use google to find out what I want to know which is a regreat to me as I support the great things you have been doing.

PS it took me 12 searches to find this page over 2nights and I am not sure this is the correct page to have a go at.

Tom mccann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.17.227 (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What new format where? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the request is about finding information, perhaps the Reference Desk is meant? Has it changed lately? I agree that if a user doesn't know about namespace prefaces such as WP: that behind-the-scenes pages like this one can be hard to find. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desks look the same to me. RJFJR (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP is referring to the new iPad layout which has been the subject of some adverse comment?--ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]