Help desk
< September 26	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 28 >

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.

September 27[edit]

Help needed in creating a new external link template[edit]

I just wanted to create some important missing templates like CybrHome (a crunchbase for web apps) template for use in external links so that we can link. Person pages and website pages will be able to make use of this template to link to their respective cybrhome property. But I cannot figure it out how to do this. Can you please create the CybrHome template or tell me how can create one in a simple manner. The cybrhome website will have two types of links - users (cybrhome.com/john) and website (cybrhome.com/website/tumblr.com) can you please create this template like crunchbase. Few other external link templates of popular sites are also missing like medium, producthunt etc. Thanks in advance! DataManiac (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DataManiac. Please explain why we should want to link any pages to Cybrhome? It doesn't look to me as if such use would be appropriate under our policies on external links. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Hey, Just like play store is a huge collection of android apps, CybrHome is a huge collection of best web apps where people list, edit and review websites. Many app pages on wikipedia make use of the play store external link template, similarly once a CybrHome template is created, editors can use the cybrhome template to create a structured external link from app pages to their respective CybrHome property. There are 40,000+ websites on CybrHome today. Other than CybrHome, Medium.com and producthunt also dont have their templates. To be noted all these services have their wikipedia pages already but dont have templates for external links. I feel these 3 portals deserve an external link templates to help wikipedia editors and improve external linking in pages. So, I think creation and use is appropriate and is as per policies. Thank you! DataManiac (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @DataManiac: Before we get as far as creating the template, I think you need to address WP:ELNO, and whether the links are permitted in the first place. Do you have any community consensus to support adding these links? At the risk of exposing myself as getting old, I have absolutely no idea what a "crunchable for web apps" is (other than abuse of the English language), or why we would want to link to it. It sounds a bit like social networking, which we generally don't link to by established community consensus. Additionally, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL would likely exclude it from most "website pages". If I'm wrong, great, there's just no point in putting effort into link templates unless they can be used. Show me the clear consensus for it, and I'd be very happy to create a template which pulls it in from Wikidata, it would not take me long. Murph9000 (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Murph9000: Hey, thanks for your response. Ha ha, its not crunchable, I wrote crunchbase for websites. Crunchbase is a website that collects information about companies and startups. Its very popular among entrepreneurs and investors. CybrHome is similar to Crunchbase but it is targeted for webmasters, avid internet users, product and tech enthusiasts and not exclusively for entrepreneurs/investors. CybrHome is a listing and aggregation platform like CrunchBase.

Hey, Just like play store is a huge collection of android apps, CybrHome is a huge collection of best web apps where people list, edit and review websites. Many app pages on wikipedia make use of the play store external link template, similarly once a CybrHome template is created, editors can use the cybrhome template to create a structured external link from app pages to their respective CybrHome property. There are 40,000+ websites on CybrHome today. Other than CybrHome, Medium.com and producthunt also dont have their templates. To be noted all these services have their wikipedia pages already - CybrHome, Medium (website) and Product Hunt but dont have templates for external links. I feel these 3 portals deserve an external link templates to help wikipedia editors and improve external linking in pages. They are important external links because they provide fresh and crucial information at one place for users. It also allows people to learn more about app/product/site/service and try if they are interested after reading the wikipedia article. So, I think creation and use is appropriate and is as per policies. Also, these websites are not social networking (more like information portals) and can be even used without a registered user account. Hence I am requesting you to consider creating external link templates for these services. Suggestions accepted and discussions encouraged. Thank you! DataManiac (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see very little information at http://www.cybrhome.com/website/tumblr.com. I have to scroll through nine pages about CybrHome itself to find a couple of factoids about Tumbler. A search [1] doesn't find a single Wikipedia link to cybrhome.com except in the article about the site. Alexa [2] says the site is ranked 194,148 in the World by traffic, and 93% of the traffic is from India where the site is located. I see no signs this is a valuable resource we should add to many articles with a template. Are you associated with the site? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thanks your your response. Sorry, I didn't get your first point.

1. Like I said Cybrhome is just crunchbase for websites, means it aggregates top websites and basic information about them. Like crunchbase some profiles are complete and some are not full filled, however it has crowdsourcing like Crunchbase. example check zomato on cybrhome http://www.cybrhome.com/website/zomato.com and you can see all info of the site mentioned on single page.

2. I dont know why webmasters and wikipedia editors have not linked to Cybrhome yet. May be it will take some more time. Also having an external link template will help.

3. Yes the site is most popular in India and a few other countries, and is headquartered in India. Since most alexa users are in US, it have an average alexa rankings as of now. Also it is not available for iOS which is most popular in US. These are some technical reasons for average US alexa rankings.

No, I am not associated to the site but yes I admit I am a regular user of this product, one of the early adopter (using since early 2015) and I have listed 4 of my own sites there. I have mentioned all points and now hope wikipedia admins and editors will take the right decision.

Also, As I have been telling, its not only Cybrhome. medium, product hunt, periscope, askfm, quora etc. and several notable portals dont have their external links templates. Where as several, outdated useless sites have got their templates on wikipedia. see Category:External_link_templates and Category:Social media external link templates for details. If we want to to ensure fresh and latest standards on wikipedia articles, new prominent and growing internet products must be given importance. Infact, I think the entire external link library is pretty outdated. I am doing my bit in improving it. I am a new contributor and dont have wikipedia superpowers that admins have so cannot contribute much. Thank you! DataManiac (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CybrHome still looks unsuitable to me. And having to scroll, scroll, scroll and then scroll some more to get to any website info is apparently their standard layout. Ridiculous. I haven't examined the other sites. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Sorry, I don't know what browser or device you are using, but the scroll and everything is fine for me. Try the desktop site if you are trying mobile. Hey, ColinFine and Murph9000, what are your thoughts on this? And can someone please tag tech/internet/startup specialist administrators here to have their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataManiac (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it makes a difference to have an account there. Without one I have to hit Page Down eight times at http://www.cybrhome.com/website/zomato.com before the first mention of Zomato. Tried in three differnt desktop browsers with a normal screen size. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DataManiac: I looked at the Zomato example you gave above, and didn't have any scrolling issues. The site itself doesn't look obnoxiously spammy right now (massive ad spam would be likely to disqualify a site). I don't have any significant negative things to say about the site itself. Honestly, however, I don't believe such links would be allowed under current community consensus, and I think it would be a very tough job to create a new consensus for them. Personally, I do think our stance on external links is a bit too restrictive, but I also understand why it has ended up like that. On today's Internet, there's a vast number of different sites which have information related to our articles. We have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise we end up with too large a list at the end of most articles, and daily or weekly debates about whether the latest site can be included or not. Right now, the line is drawn very close to minimal. You can thank true scumbag spammers, at least partly, for where the line is currently drawn, but it's also everyone and their dog who are not actual spammers but think their site deserves links too.

So, in a way, the question that would need to be answered convincingly is, what is so special about CybrHome (or any of the other sites you mention), that we should positively permit it when we basically prohibit much more globally famous names (such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Plus, YouTube, Yahoo, Yelp, Amazon, etc)? Don't use WP:OTHERSTUFF in terms of templates that already exist, or sites that are already linked on a large number of articles, as the community won't buy that argument. Basically the WP community is strongly against external links, in general, or that's how I see it (I could be wrong, it's just the opinion I have formed from both the policies and guidelines, and observations of people applying them). I frequently apply WP:ELMINOFFICIAL myself, and take the occasional hatchet to the spammiest lists of Els; but I've see cases of some people really stretching the interpretation of the negative EL rules, while minimising the interpretation of the positive rules, apparently just so they can kill links. Particular classes of site get a free pass in particular areas, but getting a new commercial site accepted wiki-wide is a really tough case to make. The other thing is that it might actually already be prohibited by WP:ELNO #1: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. I.e. we would rather just add the useful information directly to our articles instead of linking to the site as an EL (minus the reviews, we don't like user-submitted reviews or linking to reviews as ELs, in general).

If you want to try to find a consensus to support a wider set of links, Wikipedia:Village pump (probably either policy or proposals) would be the place. You can't establish that consensus here, at the Help Desk. I really don't recommend trying it as a new account with a fairly short edit history, it could be a relatively traumatic experience. I certainly won't tell you absolutely not to do it, as it is certainly your right to make a proposal there. Just be careful, and try to avoid getting into a fight. I'd still be quite happy to create the templates, and setup the Wikidata properties for them, if the consensus was ever there for it.

Other community members may well disagree with me on some of the above, or have differing interpretations and opinions. That's all just one person's opinion in a large community.

Murph9000 (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murph9000 ha ha, well that escalated quickly! it was overwhelming, dont know what to say/do. :D DataManiac (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DataManiac: Hehe, well, I just started typing and the thoughts kept coming. I'm just trying to get you up to speed on the overall picture, background, and issues; at least as I see them. WikiPolitics can be a complex / risky area, with dragons lurking and ready to feast on the unwary (I believe the dragons find newbies particularly tasty).

Murph9000 (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murph9000 haha! yes, thanks your your reply anyways. I read it multiple times and now can understand most parts of it. This village pump was a new place for me, never knew something like this exists. I will try it sometime, not sure when. I don't know if I should make a proposal for new external link templates to get consensus there or I shouldn't for now. Your advice will be helpful.

Yes, this place if far too complicated. I expected it to as simple as google maps, crunchbase or other crowdsourcing platforms, but editing and making changes here take a lot of time due to discussions and debates. However, there are kind and polite admins like you who make this a better place. Yes, I got what you want to convey. I have recently seen some admins here who are very cut-throat or sometimes cruel to new users/editors. Thanks for your kindness! But looking at your profile page makes me wonder if contributing here is your full time job or whatever you have achieved is just from part-time volunteering!! How do you manage all this. DataManiac (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DataManiac: I'm not an admin, just an experienced editor who tries to help out quite often. I contribute when I have the time and putting energy into WP appeals to me. I'm a WP:VOLUNTEER, just like pretty much everyone here (including the admins). There are WMF staff, but they are relatively few in number in terms of activity on this wiki, and the site is essentially run by the community of volunteers. Murph9000 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and slanderous information on Batesburg-Leesville, South Carolina page[edit]

Batesburg-Leesville, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I visited the Wikipedia page on "Batesburg-Leesville, South Carolina" this morning and was very disturbed to find slanderous comments about the local school district listed in the first line of the article. The article says "Batesburg-Leesville is a town in Lexington and Saluda Counties, South Carolina. The population was 5,362 at the 2010 census And a district with horrible schools because of theft,fights,rude teachers I give it a 0 out of 10." This is certainly an individual's opinion and should not be allowed on a public, informational site.

Below is factual information about Lexington County School District 3

Lexington County School District 3 is nestled in the Midlands of South Carolina and is located in both Lexington and Saluda Counties. The District provides wonderful educational opportunities for its 2200 students and has four schools (listed below) and an Adult Education Center. The district is served by seven members of the Board of Trustees and has an estimated budget of $19,809,600.00 for 2016-17. Under the leadership of its superintendent, Dr. Randall Gary, Lexington 3 has implemented a number of new and innovative programs in its schools over the past two years. Some of the new,innovative programs include: Montessori K4 and K5 classes at Batesburg-Leesville Primary; Project based learning and the launching of a 1:1 Chromebook initiative at Batesburg-Leesville Elementary; implementation of AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination)Program for 7th and 8th graders; and e21 Early College Program at Batesburg-Leesville High. All middle and high school students now have individual Chromebooks to use. Over 300 adults take both day and evening classes at the Lifelong Learning Center, the Adult Education program of the district. Adult Education courses include: GED, ESL, and Certified Nursing Assistant programs.

There is also an omission in the "Public Education" section of the page. Lexington County School District Three has four schools. They include: Batesburg-Leesville Primary (K4 - grade 2) Batesburg-Leesville Elementary (3-5) Batesburg-Leesville Middle (6-8) Batesburg-Leesville High (9-12)

The District also has an Adult Education Center serving adults, not only from Lexington 3 but surrounding areas as well.

I respectfully request that the remarks of an individual be removed from the site and the additions made to the "Public Education" portion of the page.

The page was last undated on September 20, 2016.

Batesburg-Leesville, South Carolina

I hope that you will remove the slanderous, personal opinion information located in the first sentence of the page and will add the correct information about the schools of Lexington County School District 3.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

(Redacted) Judy Fox (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Judy Fox, it's been removed. It was added by User:Tayshawn360 here. Thanks for your vigience. Not all that extraneous information is required to that level of detail. No need to post all your personal contact details either. Did you not see the big red text above that says do not provide your email address or any other contact details here? But thanks again. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, vandalism like this is fairly common on school and town articles. Best thing to do: click "edit" and fix it. TimothyJosephWood 12:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To expand on what Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Timothyjosephwood said, Judy Fox: thank you for pointing out the obvious vandalism, which anybody may remove. You are welcome to suggest improvements to the article, and the proper place to do so is on its talk page, Talk:Batesburg-Leesville, South Carolina. Any suggestions you make a more likely to be noticed if you add {{request edit}} (with the double curly brackets) to your suggestion; and are more likely to be picked up and acted on by a volunteer if you provide published references, preferably references independent of the city and its organisations. But the decision of what is appropriate in the article should be made by an uninvolved editor, not by you. --ColinFine (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted[edit]

Reason Core Security Anti-Malware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:GaidakM/sandbox/Reason Core Security - Anti-Malware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, a page about antimalware sotware was deleted, however, i made sure there is no advertisement content only facts about the software what can i improve to get it up? i explored tons of similar articles and tried to follow guidelines, but it still was taken down :( thanks in advance!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GaidakM (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Why was my page deleted? The most common reasons are:

To find the specific reason a particular page was deleted:

Go to the Deletion Log
Type the page title in the case-sensitive search field
The date, time and reason for deletion will be displayed

Murph9000 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GaidakM: I can't see the deleted content, but if it is approximately the same as User:GaidakM and User:GaidakM/sandbox/Reason Core Security - Anti-Malware, it looks to me like it also fails to credibly establish notability or make a credible claim of significance (CSD A7). Without notability, it does look promotional to me, so CSD G11 applies. I've tagged your user page for deletion, as it also appears promotional. The sandbox copy of it can remain for now, with the visible sandbox draft header on it. Murph9000 (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GaidakM: I've replied in detail on your talk page and deleted the posted article. I accept, like Murph9000, that the sandbox can stay for now, but notability is an obvious issue Jimfbleak (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting a photograph into an infobox[edit]

On the wikipedia page William Seifriz, I would like to put this photograph https://hpsrepository.asu.edu/handle/10776/3315?show=full from this page: https://hpsrepository.asu.edu/handle/10776/3315?show=full without violating any copyrights. Can you tell me how? thanksBinaryPhoton (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you can use that image depends on its copyright status. This is not clear (to me, anyway) from reading that web site. The closest I have found is on this page, where it says "Insofar as possible, and recognizing the challenges and constraints, the Consortium is committed to open source and open access products." Maproom (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website in the opening post says Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 (which of course is unacceptable). The usual latitudes with fair-use apply because it's a biography of a deceased person. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maproom and Finnusertop. I just emailed the Consortium to see if I can use that picture on the Wikipedia page for William Seifriz. BinaryPhoton (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just got permission from the Consortium:

Yes, you may absolutely use that image for a wikipedia page. It's CC licensing makes it openly available for use, provided that use is non-commercial. Please provide a citation for the image when you upload it so that people know that it came from.

cheers and ciao

-Kate BinaryPhoton (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This note is not sufficient for two reasons. One is that the procedures described at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission were not followed. The second is that Wikipedia allows commercial reuse, so permission to use it for non-commercial purposes is not adequate. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to link directly from the Consortium website and put attribution on the wikipedia papge without putting th eimage on wikimedia commons? BinaryPhoton (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, BinaryPhoton, I'm afraid it isn't. Images in Wikipedia must have been uploaded either to Commons (if they're genuinely public domain, or licensed with a licence which allows commercial reuse) or to Wikipedia (meeting all the conditions in the WP:Non-free content criteria. It is unfortunate that this means that many articles have not got good photos (or any at all); but Wikipedia's commitment to free reuse trumps that concern. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David Biddulph and ColinFine. Thanks. I understand now.BinaryPhoton (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Why does following the letters "RFC" with a number automatically create an external link? Example: RFC 1 Deli nk (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see that you didn't create a link to an Internet RFC, but it appears that the wiki code creates a link to an Internet RFC. Interesting. Maybe one of the developers can explain what this buried feature is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across a similar feature for PMID (Example: PMID 1234) and ISBN (Example: ISBN 978-3-16-148410-0) which automatically create external and internal links, respectively, for these common document identifiers, but these can be useful for referencing Wikipedia articles. What purpose does the RFC feature serve? Deli nk (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used to easily link to standards such as RFC 1459. – nyuszika7h (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any article which touches on the Internet in a technical way, the IETF RFCs are the definitive references for the vast majority of it. They are more than just standards, sometimes used to publish research and analysis as well. E.g. when we write about the use of avian carriers, we cite RFC 1149. Murph9000 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making my day little more bizarre :D --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Magic links, mw:Markup spec/BNF/Magic links, mw:Manual:RFC. RFC, ISBN and PMID are the only magic links. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That answers that. Go ahead and send an explanation by carrier pigeon. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Company has changed names[edit]

Gordon Brothers Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

We recently updated the name of our company and wanted to bring the Wikipedia page into alignment too. We now go by "Gordon Brothers" instead of "Gordon Brothers GROUP." I wasn't able to edit this to update it myself.

Thank you!

Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonBrothers (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fuortu (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]