Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 14 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 16 >
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.


July 15[edit]

Language codes[edit]

The doc for Template:Lang begins

The purpose of this template is to indicate, via a code, that a span of text belongs to a particular language.

That's very nice, but if you follow the link you get a stub that discusses the issues of classification and coding and lists eight systems of assigning language codes, but gives no clue as to which system to use for Template:Lang. How in Hades is an editor to find the code to use for a language? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: They're just ISO 639-1 codes. For the most part, they are usually intuitive. For example, English is en, Spanish is es (for español), etc. You can also just look up the language's Wikipedia article and look in the infobox. For example, if we head over to Greek language and look in the infobox, we see "ISO 639-1" under "Language codes", where it reads el (for ελληνικά, elliniká). Scarce2 (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Scarce2: Thank you, but that's not quite the answer. For one thing, ISO 639-1 is hardly comprehensive: that's why 639-2 and -3 were developed. For another, many are far from intuitive, even for me, a research linguist. Malaysian is ms, Armenian hy, Egyptian Arabic arz (ISO 639-3), Cantonese zh-yue (not ISO or any other standard, but improvised out of necessity; see Cantonese Wikipedia#Naming).
Most of all, I was complaining about the documentation page's dismal failure to tell a user how to find the code for a given language. I will insert your suggestion about the Wikipedia infobox; that seems to be the simplest and most comprehensive solution. --Thnidu (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64 has taken care of it: Template talk:Lang#Which codes here? --Thnidu (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Montessori was not only 2 professions but 3 ![edit]

3) inventor of new educational free system and therefor also an FEMALE INVENTOR !! SHE HAD NOT 2 BUT 3 PROFESSIONS. IN THE WIKIPEDIA SAYS FEMALES CANNOT BE AN INVENTOR IN THE 19TH CENTURY?! MARIA MONTESSORI WAS 1) A WELLKNOWN MEDICAL DOCTOR IN ITALY. 2) OWNER OF THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL SYSTEM 3) INVENTOR OF THE NEW FREE INDEPENDENT CREATIVE SELFDEPEND MONGOL AND NORMAL SCHOOLCHILDREN AND STUDENTS.yOU HAVE TO ADD HER THIRD PROFESSION AS WELL AN NOT COMMIT DISINFORMATION. SHE HAD NOT ONLY ONE PROFESSION. YOU SAY SHE HAD 2 PROFESSIONS. BUT IN REALITY SHE HAD 3 PROFESSIONS BECAUSE SHE WAS AN FAMOUS INVENTOR AS WELL ! SINCERELY, EMERITUS MAGNIFICUS PROFESSOR DOCTOR DOCTORANDUS IN WORLDPEACESOLUTIONS AND WORDARTIST AND MOST FAMOUS INVENTOR OF THE INTERNET ETC. ETC. AND MOST POPULAR WRITER OF THE 21TH CENTURY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.26.224 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article you are talking about is Maria Montessori. Even without an account, you can edit it yourself if you think there is a problem with it, as long as you back up your claims with reliable sources. But she is already in the category "Italian inventors" and no-one is trying to "commit disinformation". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 07:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having trouble with your CAPS LOCK key. Please don't use capital letters because it is regarded as SHOUTING, so we tend not to listen. The word "profession" does not appear in the article (though "professional" does). Please tell us what information you think is missing. Dbfirs 07:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrow Abbey and Carrow Road pages[edit]

Please help me put a gap between the words "Martineau and Esq." in reference number 10 on the page Carrow Abbey page. Also the spelling of "surgeon" is incorrect in this ref. Also - can you please check why ref. number 15 is not good on the "Carrow Road" page Thanks Mikey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrow Abbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(edit conflict) This reference is defined within the "Later history" section of the article. If you edit the whole article and then search for "MartineauEsq" you will see where to edit. The source doesn't use the word "surgeon" at all: "...Abbey and grounds were purchased by Philip M. Martineau, Esq..." -- John of Reading (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carrow Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Wikipedia standards for formatting dates say that ordinal suffixes such as "th" shouldn't be used. I have changed "15th" to "15" and the error message has disappeared. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've replaced the Carrow Abbey cite with the exact text of the original. Dbfirs 07:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium's name and initial construction history

Problem with link[edit]

Thanks for your help. I cannot see what I have done wrong - this section (in the Carrow Road page) -Stadium's name and initial construction history - has a faulty link on "Carrow Abbey" (near ref. number 15). Please help me mikey (again) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a faulty wikilink to Carrow Abbey. It had two open-square-brackets but only one close-square-bracket. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

we need help as u can for childrens education and for their food .and their protection plzzzz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.121.241 (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking for a donation from the Foundation I am afraid that its charter does not permit it to do so.--ukexpat (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi!

I manage digital communications for the Cockrell School of Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. I need to replace the logo on the right-hand side of this page: Cockrell School of Engineering and I cannot figure out how to do it. Can I get easy step-by-step instructions for deleting and replacing it? I can't find any instructions that make any sense for a simple replacement like this...

Thanks! Adrienne (Wikipedia user: Aml8245) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aml8245 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Am18245: you will need to upload the new logo. In the left sidbar is a link that says "Upload file". If you click on it you will be taken to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard which will take you step by step through locating the new file on your computer and uploading it to Wikipedia. When you get to step 3 of the upload process, you will want to select, "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." I suggest that while you upload the file you keep File:Cockrell School of Engineering logo.png open in another tab so that you can copy and paste the fair use rationale from that into the new one. Once you have uploaded the new image, you'll want to replace |image = File:Cockrell School of Engineering logo.png with |image = File:NAME OF NEW IMAGE YOU UPLOADED. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Since my account is not yet confirmed, should I just upload to the Commons? Aml8245 (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aml8245: No, you should never upload copyrighted materials to the Commons, it will be immediately deleted. You should instead request for it to be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can e-mail it to photosubmission[@]wikimedia.org (removing the square brackets first).--ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wood 3rd Earl of Halifax[edit]

A page about my father keeps having incorrect information entered and my details took out. My name is David Peter Wood and Charles Wood is my father. The Peerage website [1] incorrectly states my mother is called Wendy Agnes Wentworth Fitzwilliam which she isn't, she's Wendy Agnes Blackwood on my birth certificate. Yesterday I was totally taken off my fathers page which upset my. Do I need to attach my birth certificate to stop this again? Many thanks D P Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.90 (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this person is violating rules and policies of the Wikipedia as he submits information in his own interest and his own behalf attempting to tie himself to the Wood family lacking any subjectivity. This user vandalised article numerous times with his false submissions. This person is clearly submitting false/incorrect information about his relationship to The Rt Hon The Earl of Halifax, he submits information with has absolutely no reliable sources but one that refers itself to the Wikipedia article for Charles Wood, 3rd Earl of Halifax. See talk page for the article Talk:Charles Wood, 3rd Earl of Halifax, check article's history of falsification by various false contributors who submit incorrect information to the article and try to deceive members of Wikipedia and the members of public about their alleged relationship to the Earl and his noble family. There is no record in reliable sources such as Debrett's, Burke’s Peerage, etc or other public records about this person and his family ties to the Earl and his family.Peeragegb (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide a reference to a published source for the correct information. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what, for example? DPW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.90 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burke's Peerage perhaps, or Debrett's, or a newspaper or magazine article, or a published biography in which the people are refereed to and the proper relationships laid out. Actually, as this is presumably a non-contentious fact, even a personal web site from each of the people involved would so, see WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY. I see that the "Peerage website" is sourced to Wikipedia, so using that would be a case of citeogenesis. DES (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at This Link for more information and examples of what is considered a reliable source. Basically, scholarly and news sources are the best options. They need to have been published in publications with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. If a newspaper or magazine has done a profile of your family, for example, that is a source you can use. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion about unreliable/circular references in this article, see Talk:Charles Wood, 3rd Earl of Halifax. Basically, peerage.com isn't reliable, because it cites Wikipedia, which isn't a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is Charles Wood, 3rd Earl of Halifax. If there really is an error in the Peerage, then the OP should submit their birth certificate to the Peerage, or, better, if the OP really is the son of Lord Halifax, have his father submit the birth certificate to the Peerage. It appears that the information about the OP has been removed from the article as unsourced or inadequately documented. In any case, persons with a questionable claim of relationship to a notable person have no right to be listed due to questionable inherited notability. If the OP wishes to discuss further, he can go to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, being aware that, in uncertain cases, the usual action on biographies of living persons is to omit any questioned information, not to include it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for help. I'll have my father submit my birth certificate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.90 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have your father submit your birth certificate to Burke's Peerage or Debrett's, not to peerage.com. Peerage.com is an unreliable source. In the meantime, you can raise your issues at WP:BLPN, but the usual approach in doubtful cases is to exclude, not to include. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I've received confirmation from The Earl's representatives[2] that this person has no ties to the family. Here is the contact information for the Earl and his representatives [redacted] Peeragegb (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that sources need to be published to be used. Direct contact with the Earl is not an admissible source. (I mean, I'm guessing the Earl does not want his phone ringing every time somebody reads his article and wants to verify information.) Along the same lines, I've also redacted the contact information. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You can report sock-puppetry at the sockpuppetry investigation noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David Peter Wood 85.255.234.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) claims to be Viscount Halifax, he claims to be the son of Charles Wood, 3rd Earl of Halifax, who also clams to live in Hickleton Hall, however he is not connected to the family, and he is not styled as Viscount Halifax because his name is not on the Roll of the Peerage.[3] Peeragegb (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://thepeerage.com/p66008.htm#c660077.1
  2. ^ http://www.halifaxestates.co.uk/contact-us.html
  3. ^ http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Roll%20of%20the%20Peerage.pdf

Article Question[edit]

Ive never asked a question, but here goes. On an article I was reading on Wikipedia. The info kinda seems a little weird or irrelevant. It's under "Thigh". In the society and culture subject of it. This is what it says. >> "Society and culture[edit] Thanks to our sad, pathetic society, thighs "have" to be so skinny they look like hot dogs, so if thy thighs don't look like hot dogs, you are to be body shamed by our horrible society. Shut up. Being skinny is awesome." << Is this okay for a Wikipedia article or someone just being silly? I personally do not think being "skinny" is awesome. Some people in society see this and that in case makes anorexia or bulimia spiral out of control. Maybe omit this??

Thigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.214.222 (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism from yesterday, and I have reverted it. Thank you for pointing it out. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What will be the primary topic if an adaptation is more famous than the book itself?[edit]

Hello,

If an adaptation of a novel is known and used more widely than the book itself, shouldn't it be considered as the primary topic and possess the base name? In most of the cases, such as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Memoirs of a Geisha and A Clockwork Orange it is not the case and the base name belongs to the book, while for fewer cases, such as Forrest Gump, The Graduate, Fight Club and The Godfather it goes for the adaptation. Why does the original novel take the base name in most of the cases even though the adaptation is more known and more probable to be sought by readers? I didn't find any clue in WP:PTOPIC, WP:NCB or WP:NCF. Thanks in advance. Saeidpourbabak (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saeidpourbabak, that becomes a judgement call in each specific case. In many cases a film is more popular for a time, but a book has more enduring interest. Some editors favor the original work unless the adaptation is very much better known. Such questions should be worked out at the relevant article talk pages. One compromise is to decide that there is no clear primary topic, and put a disambiguation page there. As long as hatnotes and dab pages allow readers to find the exact topic they wish easily, i don't think it matters all that much. DES (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Rewrite of Article - Where and How to Maintain Draft[edit]

I have been leading moderated dispute resolution (informal mediation) of an article (Battle of the Alamo) which has been fully protected for six months due to edit-warring. Since six months is a long time for discussion on the talk page alone, so that I would like to propose that a draft article be developed based on any agreement on the talk page. The question is exactly where and how is the best way to maintain a draft that may eventually replace the article. Draft space as such doesn't seem right, because it is normally used for articles that have not yet been promoted to article space, not for revisions that will be moved into article place after consensus is reached. (I can think of other wrong answers also.) Is the user space of one of the contributors appropriate? Also, what should be done in order to preserve the history? The article can be copy-pasted into user space, and then edited. However, then, should it be copy-pasted onto the article, in which case the edit summary would be "replace article with draft as per discussions", or should an administrator be asked to merge the articles by copying the history of the draft into the history of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A common method is to create a subpage, such as Battle of the Alamo/Draft. Once there is consensus on whether this is to replace the existing article, the relevant parts of the draft can be copied to the article, and {{copied}} or a similar note used to preserve attribution, or if the draft is to fully or largely replace the article, a history merge can be done by an admin, as you suggest. DES (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mainspace doesn't have subpages. "Battle of the Alamo/Draft" would be an article so I have striken it above. Talk:Battle of the Alamo/Draft would be a possible place for a draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct, PrimeHunter, my error. I am sure I had remembered that form. But I see it is sorted now. DES (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Angels School fire‎[edit]

I sincerely hope this is the right place to ask about this; if it's not, please point me towards the right spot.

The Our Lady of the Angels School fire‎ page has been the grounds for a not-quite-edit-war for a long time now. The issue is that, while the fire's cause was never officially determined, there was a boy who confessed, then recanted, then told someone that the issue was between him and his priest. The boy was underage at the time, so newspapers and such from the timeframe didn't print his name. He was also never charged with anything. In the Investigation section, there's text that a boy confessed, and a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence. IP editors keep adding the boy's name and age at the time; myself and two other editors keep removing it on the grounds that there are no sources cited giving his name (which is true). Complicating the matter is that the guy died in 2004, so to my knowledge, BLP rules no longer apply.

Should the boy's name be included or redacted? He's dead, and as such no longer covered by BLP, but I haven't found any sources listing his name - just that "a boy confessed."

I'm pretty sure I've been doing this right so far, but I was hoping for advice and/or a second opinion about the whole mess. The talkpage has an attempt at discussion, but it didn't really get anywhere.

User:NeilN has placed the page under temporary semi-protection under BLP rules, and one of the IPs has taken exception to that, since the person in question is dead. Is there a better policy that would apply here? I've been defaulting to WP:NOR, since I haven't found any sources with the boy's name.

TL;DR: kid was underage when the fire happened and when he confessed; he was never charged with anything; he died over ten years ago. Name - in or out? Protection reason - BLP or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NekoKatsun (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NekoKatsun, I wasn't aware the accused had died but protection can still easily be justified - "repeated addition of unsourced material". --NeilN talk to me 20:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's kind of what I'd figured. I wanted to make sure I was doing everything by the numbers, as it were; I'd much rather err on the side of good faith! NekoKatsun (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input[edit]

< Would like to clean this page which has a no footnote on it in Personal Information. I have added more to the name of this person's child. The article David Shuster news person but can't put a footnote number at the bottom of my page. And cannot remove the old information that has deadend no link. The second question is also can not put a hyperlink to my page. Very complicated instruction to alter this information for some reason. I did go step by step but did not end up with my own hyperlink to my info added to his personal information block. > — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecreamboy6633 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 July 2015‎ UTC

Your edit seems to rely on information from a website named FishbowlDC. Can you demonstrate that this is a reliable source, as explained in this guideline? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is David Shuster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for refernce.
Also consider the implications of WP:BLPNAME and WP:DOB here, before reinstating any of this content. DES (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2015_July_15&oldid=1065764084"